Incomes relative to Religions in USA.

Originally posted by FMF
You are certainly defending the Jehovah's Witness organisation - the perpetrator in the case we are discussing - against its victim, Candice Conti. But Kendrick, for his actions? No.

The congregation was not the perpetrator, Kendricks was the perpetrator, the
allegations were that the congregation was negligent and thus complicit.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The congregation was not the perpetrator, Kendricks was the perpetrator, the
allegations were that the congregation was negligent and thus complicit.

You are mistaken. The defendant and perpetrator in the case we are discussing is the Jehovah's Witness organisation. Kendrick was not on trial for his "regrettable action" in the case we have been discussing.

Originally posted by FMF
You are mistaken. The defendant and perpetrator in the case we are discussing is the Jehovah's Witness organisation. Kendrick was not on trial for his "regrettable action" in the case we have been discussing.

No you are mistaken, the presiding judge, stated, before the trial took place, in the
minutes of the court documents, day one, that the jury was to consider separate
actions, one against Kendricks for the abuse (he failed to show and defend himself in
court) and one against the congregation for negligence.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No you are mistaken, the presiding judge, stated, before the trial took place, in the
minutes of the court documents, day one, that the jury was to consider separate
actions, one against Kendricks for the abuse (he failed to show and defend himself in
court) and one against the congregation for negligence.

And we have been discussing the case against the JW congregation for negligence and complicity. These offences were perpetrated against Candice Conti. And you have been defending the perpetrators.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This is not a personal matter, its a court case, you really should read the text you base
your statements on, prior to posting them which brings me to a point that you failed to
answer before. If I go to a Catholic priest for absolution on a serious matter of sexual
misconduct, in confidentiality, will I expect that priest to reveal the detail ...[text shortened]... ation? and why are the ministers of Jehovah's witnesses expected to be
different in this way?

Is every member of JW a minister? I.e. the congregation too?

Innocent question, honestly!

-m. 😉

Originally posted by FMF
And we have been discussing the case against the JW congregation for negligence and complicity. These offences were perpetrated against Candice Conti. And you have been defending the perpetrators.

the congregation did not abuse anyone, it was not a perpetrator of abuse against
Candace Conti, yes I am contesting that it was negligent in any way and if that is
defending the perpetrator against the victim then so be it, i can find no evidence of
neglect, not a shred.

Originally posted by mikelom
Is every member of JW a minister? I.e. the congregation too?

Innocent question, honestly!

-m. 😉

It depends in what capacity you are asking, there are different ministries, only the
elders shepherd and look after the brothers and sisters which requires the strictest
confidentiality for it is based upon trust, reveal a delicate matter about a brother or a
sister even to your own wife and your feet wont touch the ground before you are
removed from your position of responsibility.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the congregation did not abuse anyone, it was not a perpetrator of abuse against Candace Conti...

It was complicit in the abuse. That is what it has been found guilty of, as the transcripts show.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It depends in what capacity you are asking, there are different ministries, only the
elders shepherd and look after the brothers and sisters which requires the strictest
confidentiality for it is based upon trust, reveal a delicate matter about a brother or a
sister even to your own wife and your feet wont touch the ground before you are
removed from your position of responsibility.

One's feet wont touch the ground before you are removed, eh? For revealing "a delicate matter" because of the issue of "trust". Well, well. On the other hand, Jonathan Kendrick was allowed to continue living his life as a Jehovah’s Witness and going out on his ministry and having contact with children. When he admitted to "elders" that he had committed sexual abuse, they wrote a report which was not sent to the police, but was kept secret by the JW's organisation. One might have thought his feet wouldn't have touched the ground before he was removed, but it didn't happen. Indeed, he was able to sexually abuse another child. Yep. Such is life with "delicate matters". Two years of sexual abuse for a child at the hands of brother Kendrick. It's all about "trust", is it?

There is "a time to keep quiet," when "your words should prove to be few." (Ecclesiastes 3:7; 5:2) - JW letter 1989 to elders about how to handle sex abuse cases

Originally posted by FMF
One's feet wont touch the ground before you are removed, eh? For revealing "a delicate matter" because of the issue of "trust". Well, well. On the other hand, Jonathan Kendrick was allowed to continue living his life as a Jehovah’s Witness and going out on his ministry and having contact with children. When he admitted to "elders" that he had committed sexual a 3:7; 5:2) - JW letter 1989 to elders about how to handle sex abuse cases[/i]

Another epic fail from someone who has apparently not read the court transcripts although he claims to have done so casting doubt over the entire integrity of any of your claims, now delegated to the realm of vile and slimy insinuation once more. Kendricks was not allowed to have any contact with any children, he was monitored constantly both on the house to house ministry and at the congregation, Mrs Kendricks was counselled as she was the first line of defence as a parent, her daughter Andrea given counsel and support. After Kendricks initially confessed and as the court transcripts make clear, Mrs Kendricks was advised that she could go to the police if she wanted, and while initially hesitant, she went a few months later of her accord, the police conducted an investigation, as did child protection services and social work services, making your accusation that it was kept secret a verifiable lie. Tell the forum what contact Kendrick had with witness children after he confessed and was removed from his position?

In fact, when he initially confessed, the brothers did not believe that it was 'inadvertent touching' his words, why, because he stated that his conscience bothered him and if you touch someone inadvertently, your conscience is not bothered and they rightly stated in a letter to New York that it was child molestation, not inadvertent touching and they immediately sought for his removal, placing him upon restrictions. He was never allowed any contact with the children of the congregation, not supervised or unsupervised and told that he would be constantly monitored. He was never assigned to work with children in the congregation or out with. The only reason that he was allowed to remain, was that his repentance was deemed to have been sincere, for he had contacted the congregation first with a confession. Had they found out prior to his confession, it would have been deemed an unrepentant attitude and he would have been disfellowshipped faster than your slime falls from a thread.

The entire time the police conducted their own investigation covertly, as did child protection services and not once did they contact the congregation with any concerns making your slimy assertions of secrecy and that he was permitted contact with children, just that, pure slime. What is more as ministers they had to respect both privacy laws which prevented them revealing the details of his iniquity and in addition were under no duress to report the matter to authorities anyway, although Mrs Kendrick did that on her own. You know nothing about this case and as is per usual, you form a superficial and biased point of view because yours is a position of ignorance, not having read the court transcripts, as you claim to have done, for if you had, you would have been aware of these details.

Before you waste any more of our time with slime, you had better read those transcripts or you will be found out time and again casting doubt on anything you have to say in this regard or any other for that matter.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Before you waste any more of our time with slime, you had better read those transcripts or you will be found out time and again casting doubt on anything you have to say in this regard or any other for that matter.

So was Kendrick's repentance "secret" too? How would he have expressed his repentance and to whom? Why wasn't he counselled to confess to the congregation and to ask for their forgiveness [or offer to leave]? It could have saved Candice Conti from being molested for two years when she was just 9 and 10 years old, although it might have been a bit embarrassing for the JW organisation. Talking of which, what was the corporate policy at that time? Oh yeah, that was submitted as a document of the court, so the judge and jury were privvy to it. We've seen bits of it. Here's some more...

"Do not reveal the confidential talk of another." (Proverbs 25:9) Often the peace, unity, and spiritual well-being of the congregation are at stake. Improper use of the tongue by an elder can result in serious legal problems for the individual, the congregation, and even the Society." [...]

"Some who oppose the Kingdom preaching work readily take advantage of any legal provisions to interfere with it or impede its progress. Thus, elders must especially guard the use of the tongue. Jesus faced opposers who tried to "catch him in speech, so as to turn him over to the government." (Luke 20:20) He instructed us to be "cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves" in such situations. (Matthew 10:16) Where such a threat exists, our position as elders should be in line with David's words: "I will set a muzzle as a guard to my own mouth, as long as anyone wicked is in front of me."-Psalm 39:1." JW letter 1989 to elders about how to handle sex abuse cases.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
In fact, when he initially confessed, the brothers did not believe that it was 'inadvertent touching' his words, why, because he stated that his conscience bothered him and if you touch someone inadvertently, your conscience is not bothered and they rightly stated in a letter to New York that it was child molestation, not inadvertent touching and the ...[text shortened]... attitude and he would have been disfellowshipped faster than your slime falls from a thread.

Thanks for your encapsulation of the defendant's claims and arguments. Anyone looking at the transcripts can find out what the JW organisation's lawyers said in court. Of course, the salient point here is that this defence failed. The JW organisation was found guilty.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I was aware of nothing until i read the transcripts other than the verdict and a
statement which I produced from the watchtower site on the case. I had not heard of
Kendrick, i had not heard of Candace Conti and i had no idea that the lawsuit had even
taken place until PK posted something about our assets being frozen, anyone who
replies to ...[text shortened]... tion of ignorance and
prejudice, let it serve as a lesson to the likes of you and divejeester.

I do find it rather curious that you didn't know anything about this case until i brought it up. The WBTS has just lost a multi-million dollar law suit, which no doubt will be settled with money donated by it's members (if you don't win the appeal), you would have thought something of this magnitude would have been at least mentioned in one of the WBTS's publications at some point?!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
After Kendricks initially confessed and as the court transcripts make clear, Mrs Kendricks was advised that she could go to the police if she wanted, and while initially hesitant, she went a few months later of her accord, the police conducted an investigation, as did child protection services and social work services, making your accusation that it was kept secret a verifiable lie.

When Gary Abrahamson, elder at the North Fremont Congregation, found out that Kendrick was a child molester, he wrote a report on him. Did he tell the police? No. What did he do? He sent the report to WTBTS HQ in New York. Did they report it to the police immediately, as they should have done? No. You concede that they sat on it - kept it secret - "for months".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Another epic fail [...] delegated to the realm of vile and slimy insinuation once more[...] your slime falls from a thread [...] your slimy assertions [...] pure slime [...] Before you waste any more of our time with slime.

Do you think Jonathan Kendrick was "slimy"?