Not reporting child abuse

Since: Jan 09

The lost city of Shangri La

#41 Sep 3, 2012
Sophie wrote:
<quoted text>
As adults will all know this. I doubt anybody is trying to make it seem like black or white. You on the other hand are. If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that because there is no hard evidence of the crime then it would be wrong to put him through any uncomfortable situation. Let him just live his life unchanged, to a point...you are also implying that because the evidence isn't strong, that the victim is lying... You are say that it either happened or it didn't.
With all due respect you are not understanding me correctly. I have not said that the victim is necessarily lying just because the evidence isn't there. I am saying that certain courses of action REQUIRE more evidence than others. You cannot JUSTIFY making a public declaration of intention to kill others against a man unless your evidence is VERY strong and the threat REAL (direct, verifiable statements, not second hand). Other action might be justifiable in its stead, such as notifying authorities privately and keeping an eye on the man until further evidence or cause for action surfaces.

You also cannot make logical leaps of seriousness without sufficient evidence. Just because a boy got in a fist fight in high school doesn't mean he will go on a violent, murdering rampage later in life and that you must warn everyone he knows. Just because a man steals gum from a store doesn't necessarily mean that he will steal the wallets from people in a crowd, and that you must warn everyone he approaches. Just because a married man with otherwise normal sexual habits touches a teenager over her clothes while she sleeps next to him, while certainly not excusable in any way and being deserving of punishment, does NOT necessarily entail that the man will later kidnap young children and brutally assault them (whether it did or did not happen in the Kendrick case --and I am not convinced that it did--is irrelevant to the principle).

Based on what they actually knew, and based on the fact that the police and CPS WERE in fact notified, the actions of the elders were **justifiable**(not necessarily right or wrong in an absolute sense) in this case, in light of the circumstances. The alternative -- to go around handing out warning notes to everybody, or to publicly announce his sins from the platform, or to post them on the information board -- could have very well been illegal, as others have brought out, and would only be justified in the case of an immediate, critical threat.

In another set of circumstances, the elders might have been justified in taking more serious action, but then logically so to would have been the police, and CPS, and the parent of the Kendrick's stepdaughter or the stepdaughter herself.
Hoodwinked

Murrieta, CA

#42 Sep 3, 2012
Sophie wrote:
<quoted text>
As adults will all know this. I doubt anybody is trying to make it seem like black or white. You on the other hand are. If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that because there is no hard evidence of the crime then it would be wrong to put him through any uncomfortable situation. Let him just live his life unchanged, to a point...you are also implying that because the evidence isn't strong, that the victim is lying... You are say that it either happened or it didn't.
What I'm saying is that whether there was hard evidence of a crime or not, I have the right to know if my child could be exposed to somebody who could possibly cause some harm to him/her in the future. It is up to me to decided whether I can protect them withing that environment or not. And if I had that information, I wish the other parents like me had the same rights as me. I don't believe it's the right of others to take away my right to protect my child or any other child for that matter...the protection of children and to prevent any future abuse should always come first...
Your problem is......you make to much sense:)

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#43 Sep 4, 2012
Tears of Oberon wrote:
You also cannot make logical leaps of seriousness without sufficient evidence.[\QUOTE]

Let the qualified experts (authorities) decide what is or isn't sufficient evidence.

[QUOTE who="Tears of Oberon"]Just because a boy got in a fist fight in high school doesn't mean he will go on a violent, murdering rampage later in life and that you must warn everyone he knows.[\QUOTE]

When a man molests a child in his congregation EVERY parent should have the right to know there is a pedophile in their midst, even if they don't name him. And the CRIME should be reported to the police without delay.

[QUOTE who="Tears of Oberon"]Just because a man steals gum from a store doesn't necessarily mean that he will steal the wallets from people in a crowd, and that you must warn everyone he approaches.[\QUOTE]

But the initial crime should be REPORTED to the police.

[QUOTE who="Tears of Oberon"]Just because a married man with otherwise normal sexual habits touches a teenager over her clothes while she sleeps next to him, while certainly not excusable in any way and being deserving of punishment, does NOT necessarily entail that the man will later kidnap young children and brutally assault them (whether it did or did not happen in the Kendrick case --and I am not convinced that it did--is irrelevant to the principle).[\QUOTE]

Any man who touches a child MUST ALWAYS be reported. There is NO EXCUSE for any adult who knows about it not to report him. NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER.

[QUOTE who="Tears of Oberon"]Based on what they actually knew, and based on the fact that the police and CPS WERE in fact notified, the actions of the elders were **justifiable**(not necessarily right or wrong in an absolute sense) in this case, in light of the circumstances.[\QUOTE]

The elders should have notified the parents in Kendricks congregation that a pervert was in the same KM as they and their children.

[QUOTE who="Tears of Oberon"]The alternative -- to go around handing out warning notes to everybody, or to publicly announce his sins from the platform, or to post them on the information board -- could have very well been illegal, as others have brought out, and would only be justified in the case of an immediate, critical threat.[\QOUTE]

Turns out Kendrick was a threat. So yes, parents should have been made aware that there was a possible danger amongst them.

[QUOTE who="Tears of Oberon"]In another set of circumstances, the elders might have been justified in taking more serious action, but then logically so to would have been the police, and CPS, and the parent of the Kendrick's stepdaughter or the stepdaughter herself.
Kendricks stepdaughter was a CHILD. And probably a very frightened CHILD at that. IMHO, the child's mother must have been sick in the head to want to save her marriage to Kendrick after she became aware he had touched her child.

The authorities did NOTHING to protect children from Kendrick and the WTS did NOTHING to protect children from Kendrick. The WTS simply deleted his MS status because people OUTSIDE of the family KNEW what he did.

Jeez, he wasn't even DF'd for touching the breasts of a child, but let a baptised teen be caught with a cigarette in his mouth and he''ll never hear the end of it. No doubt he'll be destroyed at armageddon while pedo Kendrick enjoys eternal bliss on paradise earth.
Hoodwinked

Murrieta, CA

#44 Sep 4, 2012
JesusMyKing wrote:
<quoted text>
Kendricks stepdaughter was a CHILD. And probably a very frightened CHILD at that. IMHO, the child's mother must have been sick in the head to want to save her marriage to Kendrick after she became aware he had touched her child.
The authorities did NOTHING to protect children from Kendrick and the WTS did NOTHING to protect children from Kendrick. The WTS simply deleted his MS status because people OUTSIDE of the family KNEW what he did.
Jeez, he wasn't even DF'd for touching the breasts of a child, but let a baptised teen be caught with a cigarette in his mouth and he''ll never hear the end of it. No doubt he'll be destroyed at armageddon while pedo Kendrick enjoys eternal bliss on paradise earth.
This is one thing I just can't wrap my head around...why do they not disfellowship men who touch young children?? What are they afraid of? What makes them protect child molesters, while leaving the victims and their families out on their own?

I asked that of one of the elders..I practically begged him to explain to me why my child's molester wasn't disfellowshipped after 3 little girls accused him of the same crimes (not just sins)I just wanted him to show me in the Scriptures, why?? He couldn't do it...and my child's molester went to prison still as a JW 2 years after the first victims came forward. He later was disfellowshipped...when he was no longer a danger to young children?
It just makes zero sense to me....

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#45 Sep 4, 2012
Hoodwinked wrote:
<quoted text>
This is one thing I just can't wrap my head around...why do they not disfellowship men who touch young children?? What are they afraid of? What makes them protect child molesters, while leaving the victims and their families out on their own?
I asked that of one of the elders..I practically begged him to explain to me why my child's molester wasn't disfellowshipped after 3 little girls accused him of the same crimes (not just sins)I just wanted him to show me in the Scriptures, why?? He couldn't do it...and my child's molester went to prison still as a JW 2 years after the first victims came forward. He later was disfellowshipped...when he was no longer a danger to young children?
It just makes zero sense to me....
hi HW hope you and yours are doing ok. He was DF after it became public, that is what they do, once its ouside the house then they get DF. Its all about image nothing more.
Hoodwinked

Murrieta, CA

#46 Sep 4, 2012
array wrote:
<quoted text>hi HW hope you and yours are doing ok. He was DF after it became public, that is what they do, once its ouside the house then they get DF. Its all about image nothing more.
It's sad because they lose so many good JW's all for protecting a image (and the molester)

We are doing great!! Hope you're well :)
Sophie

Ocoee, FL

#47 Sep 4, 2012
Hoodwinked wrote:
<quoted text>
This is one thing I just can't wrap my head around...why do they not disfellowship men who touch young children?? What are they afraid of? What makes them protect child molesters, while leaving the victims and their families out on their own?
I asked that of one of the elders..I practically begged him to explain to me why my child's molester wasn't disfellowshipped after 3 little girls accused him of the same crimes (not just sins)I just wanted him to show me in the Scriptures, why?? He couldn't do it...and my child's molester went to prison still as a JW 2 years after the first victims came forward. He later was disfellowshipped...when he was no longer a danger to young children?
It just makes zero sense to me....
I have wondered that also... Why was he not disfellowshipped????...because he said he repented and would never do it again, and the elders aren't psychics to know what will happen in the future...this is what I've been told. That is why it's a perfect place for molesters to hide. They do something wrong, the say "I'm sorry, I repent", and that just makes everything just fine again. The rest of the congregation can't question anything, or raise concerns because we can't judge others. And we have to learn to forgive. If we don't show forgiveness then it means we are the one that aren't good Christians, we are not the ones that love God...our love for God has to supersede everything else...sorry for ranting and being sarcastic...it just seems sometimes that some JW live in a bubble...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#48 Sep 4, 2012
Hoodwinked wrote:
<quoted text>
This is one thing I just can't wrap my head around...why do they not disfellowship men who touch young children?? What are they afraid of? What makes them protect child molesters, while leaving the victims and their families out on their own?
I asked that of one of the elders..I practically begged him to explain to me why my child's molester wasn't disfellowshipped after 3 little girls accused him of the same crimes (not just sins)I just wanted him to show me in the Scriptures, why?? He couldn't do it...and my child's molester went to prison still as a JW 2 years after the first victims came forward. He later was disfellowshipped...when he was no longer a danger to young children?
It just makes zero sense to me....
Sweetheart, no normal human being will ever be able to answer that question because we'd probably have to be a sick as them to be able to fathom that out.

And the ones who protect those vile people know exactly why the perverts are not DF'D but refuse to tell. He couldn't answer you with scripture as no matter how good they are at bending scripture, there are none so easy to bend to answer this.

I hope parents now know about that pervert so they can keep IT away from their children. He should have been locked away for life.

I'v seen you mention this before about your baby and I am so very sorry you have had to live every parents nightmare. God bless you and your baby, honey (Hugs) xx
michelle 1966

Edgar, WI

#50 Oct 4, 2012
I have seen MUCH child abuse in the kingdumb halls for over 10 years, to the point I even turned a young couple in and they did lose thier children..At least the children stayed alive..

Jw's do NOT report child abuse as its a every day living for them, they beleive in physical punishments for thier children.
hMMMMM

Aurora, IL

#51 Oct 5, 2012
Notice it is always FHpervert who comes on first to defend those who are Jehovah's Witness sexual predators of children, and blame the innocent child who is assaulted.
Jehovah's witness parents have already proven they are parents who are unable put their child's interest first, when they agree to baptize themselves to the the governing demons.
That is why there are mandatory reporters, such as teachers, ministers, healthcare professionals, etc.
Parents do not have the right to turn a blind eye, when members of their cult sexually assault their child, like the governing demons of the Jehovah's Witness cult require.
Fhpervert knows the days of the kingdumb hall being a safety haven and paradise for pedophiles are numbered, and he is obviously very scared.
Bravo to parents like Hoodwinked and Lise who were so brave to stand up to the lies they were programmed to believe since they were children themselves, and did the hard, brave and moral thing to do, and put their child and their child's safety first.
You will notice not a single Jehovah's Witness supports their whistle blowing.
And that tells the story of the sick, perverted Jehovah's Witness cult.
hMMMMM

Aurora, IL

#52 Oct 5, 2012
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, your "frightened CHILD" [13/14 at the time]
So, you are posting your belief that a child, and yes a child is still 13 or 14, you sick twit, can willingly consent to sexual intercourse with an adult??/
And you go to the Kingdumb Hall.
As a parent, and any parent who is not in the sick JW cult will agree, we all would like a few minutes alone with you to demonstrate what you consent to have us to do you.
I can guarantee we will ALL agree you consented too.

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#53 Oct 5, 2012
hMMMMMWhorrorMom wrote:
So, you are posting your belief...
Nothing you said constitutes any belief of mine, nor did my comments you quoted come within a parsec of suggesting such.

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#54 Oct 5, 2012
hMMMMM wrote:
Notice it is always FHpervert who comes on first to defend those who are Jehovah's Witness sexual predators of children, and blame the innocent child who is assaulted.
No comment of mine ever "defended" Jonathan Kendrick, or any other sexual predator.

Since you're too stupid to have seen it, the suggestion was that "Andrea" was a "frightened child."

"Andrea" was not a "frightened child."

"Frightened children" [of 13 or 14 years of age] don't attempt to blackmail their parents with such allegations when the parents wont allow them to have sex in their homes with their 15 year old boyfriends. For reference, engaging in a sex act with a 13 or 14 year old, even if the person is only 15, is a crime higher up on the scale of California 288 offenses than what Jonathan Kendrick plead guilty to.

Try and keep up, pig.
hMMMMMM

Aurora, IL

#55 Oct 5, 2012
Yes, we all know that Fhpervert hates grown women, that is why he cannot understand that a child, whether 13 or 14, is still a child, and they cannot consent to sexual relations.
For an adult to do so, makes them a pedophile and a sexual predator, and anyone who supports such a crime is just as guilty.
I am hopeful that the Conti verdict is a wake up to the evil WBTS that pedophiles are now a financial liability and will no longer protect them
FHpervert and the other jehovah's witness predators are obviously pretty worried.
Will be interesting, they will all find out what prisoners do to pedophiles, and it ain't no Kingdum Hall paradise!

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#56 Oct 5, 2012
hMMMMMMWhorrorMom wrote:
Yes, we all know that Fhpervert hates grown women, that is why he cannot understand that a child, whether 13 or 14, is still a child, and they cannot consent to sexual relations.
Which is why a 15 year old engaging in sexual relations with a 13 or 14 year old is a greater crime - on the scale of California ยง288 offenses - than what Jonathan Kendrick both actually did, and what he plead to.

And yet it was just that act of sexual relations that "Andrea" was blackmailing her parents to allow her to engage in - under their roof.

Libeling Pig: For an adult to do so, makes them a pedophile and a sexual predator, and anyone who supports such a crime is just as guilty.

Reply: Like your friend Christian Peper, NAMBLA defender, proponent of - among other things - abolishing age of consent laws, whom you stood up for and expressed solidarity with?
hMMMMMM

Aurora, IL

#57 Oct 5, 2012
The Jehovah's witness cult refuses to do the moral thing and protect children from sexual predators.
There barbaric and insane "two witness" rule, where two fellow male jehovah's witnesses must stand by and witness the sexual abuse, while doing nothing but observing, THEN give a report to the P.O. or other elder, before a child victim will even be believed, and not necessarily supported, is proof positive, how sick the jehovah's Witness cult is.
That is why State's now have mandatory reporting laws, because Jehovah's Witness parents actually agree to abide by this rule which greatly endangers the health of their own children.
This is becoming a financial liability to the WBTS, they don't care about the moral sickness of it, but only the $$
And that is what fhpervert and others are so up in arms about.
Their little slice of pedophile heaven is changing.
Thank God!!

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#58 Oct 5, 2012
hMMMMMMWhorrorMom wrote:
The Jehovah's witness cult refuses to do the moral thing and protect children from sexual predators.
Actually, it was the "proper authorities" of the State of California that failed to protect the "frightened child" Andrea, step-daughter of Jonathan Kendrick, by not taking action against her 15 year old boyfriend with whom she was sexually active, and who actively attempted to blackmail her parents into allowing her to engage in a CRIME in their house AND by allowing a confessed offender back into the home.

“NO, YOU MOVE.”

Since: Dec 06

Republic of Elbonia

#59 Oct 5, 2012
hMMMMMMWhorrorMom wrote:
And that is what fhpervert and others are so up in arms about.
Why don't you want to talk about your "solidarity" with Christian Peper, the pedophile propagandist, NAMBLA apologist and proponent of "healthy" sexual activity between adults and nine year olds?

Is it because you were too stupid to check into the background of the people you were using as a source in spreading propaganda?

Or did you just not care that you were speaking in support of a pervert because that pervert was speaking against the men of the JWGB who are your masters and betters?
hMMMMMM

Aurora, IL

#60 Oct 5, 2012
The court found that the WBTS along with the elders of the jehovah's witness cult aided in the habitual sexual abuse of the child Candace Conti.
The court was so disgusted they awarded an enormous amount of money, that was not asked for, to send a message.
The cult of jehovah'switnesses can no longer pass blame to the "State" or brainwashed parents, when they aid and abet in the sexual abuse of children of members.
Hopefully every child of the cult, dragged into dangerous kingdumb halls against their wills, are a little bit safer.
It is no longer financially viable for the WBTS to protect perverts who sexually attack children of members.
Pedophiles are now a liability, and you can tell by how the perverts post here, that they are scared.
They will have done to them in prison, what they have done to children, and a tiny bit of justice is served.
UNchained

Kingsport, TN

#61 Oct 6, 2012
October 1, 2012

Letter to Body of Elders from Jehovah's mouthpiece:

http://jwsurvey.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/1...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Trinity...why does it matter?! 4 min wow 1,034
What Makes a "Faithful and Discreet" Slave? 8 min Frindly 3
Let's try this again, 144,000 ONLY? No jw has b... 9 min dlmacoop 996
What Jesus Said About JW's 34 min Frindly 3
Echoes of Chinas 1965 cultural war 1 hr red blood relative 3
News 'A dark future for all religious freedom': In R... 2 hr red blood relative 16
yt 2 hr Spike 138
Trump apologizes then reverts back to course. 3 hr keep it simple 110
Why the NWT is the best ever! 15 hr ihveit 782
More from around the web