Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14 (page 8)

Nitty-Gritty

@Ruby 456

As far as I am aware, and from personal experience, elders have not stopped anyone from seeking "professional" help. And yes, I know of elders who have advised others to get professional help. The elders are of course first and foremost spiritual guides. Although the Bible's guidance and principals are very practical in all areas of life, some things only a professional in the field can help with, for example a doctor or a psychiatrist. The brothers recognize this. As for marriage councilors, well, from personal experience, our marriage councilor didn't do our marriage any good and we ended up getting a divorce. We were both spiritually low at the time. That seems to say a lot. At least in my experience.

As regards children, the elders generally do not interfere with what is the parents responsibility. They may offer advice but ultimately the parents are responsible for their children. Actually, the elders do not generally interfere with the private life of others period, unless others come to them, or a problem becomes apparent which can affect others. I have already stated on here somewhere in a post that I agree that the elders of Fremont should have warned parents about Kendrick. I can say that because if the parents of Candace had been warned, then most likely Candace would not have been molested. The only reason I can think of why they didn't was because they believed the case was closed. They believed that Kendrick would not re-offend. I can say that because logically (and if we are honest and fair and not haters) they would not feel comfortable about a predator running around in their midst either. The elders have kids. And only two elders knew about Kendrick. The other elders with kids did not. Kendrick could have molested any of the kids.

Are you familiar with the entire Candace Conti case? I have read all of the over 3000 pages of court transcripts covering the 10 day trial. Very insightful.

Ruby456

nitty-gritty, I agree and now Candace Conti has taken them to court over this. She expected that in her aim to be the best unbaptized publisher ever she would not have to meet someone like Kendrick who was known to the elders (potentially all the elders) to have molested one child, was known as a liar and a bully by at least some members of the congregation and was known to actively participate in the ministry alongside children. The ministry involving children being paired in two's with adults.

As regards children, the elders generally do not interfere with what is the parents responsibility. They may offer advice but ultimately the parents are responsible for their children. Actually, the elders do not generally interfere with the private life of others period, unless others come to them, or a problem becomes apparent which can affect others. I have already stated on here somewhere in a post that I agree that the elders of Fremont should have warned parents about Kendrick. I can say that because if the parents of Candace had been warned, then most likely Candace would not have been molested. The only reason I can think of why they didn't was because they believed the case was closed. They believed that Kendrick would not re-offend. I can say that because logically (and if we are honest and fair and not haters) they would not feel comfortable about a predator running around in their midst either. The elders have kids. And only two elders knew about Kendrick. The other elders with kids did not. Kendrick could have molested any of the kids.

Ruby456

nitty-gritty

As far as I am aware, and from personal experience, elders have not stopped anyone from seeking "professional" help. And yes, I know of elders who have advised others to get professional help. The elders are of course first and foremost spiritual guides. Although the Bible's guidance and principals are very practical in all areas of life, some things only a professional in the field can help with, for example a doctor or a psychiatrist. The brothers recognize this. As for marriage councilors, well, from personal experience, our marriage councilor didn't do our marriage any good and we ended up getting a divorce. We were both spiritually low at the time. That seems to say a lot. At least in my experience.

sorry your marriage ended.

back to my question though: does the society recommend in written form anywhere that couples who are having marriage difficulties seek outside professional help? (in time to save the marriage if they do?)

Splash

Nitty-Gritty: The elders are not and never have been marriage councilors nor psychologists nor doctors and have not claimed to be such

I cannot disagree with this, but it's not the whole story.

There was a recent video put out by the GB for the instruction of elders and MS's.
Essentially it was about a sister who had lost her husband a year ago and was still grieving - to the point of contemplating suicide.

If you were approached by this lady, knowing you were completely untrained, ill equipped and inexperienced with this sort of problem, what would you do - refer her to her doctor for proper medical advice, or play at being a psychologist and come up with a few ideas?

Don't forget, if you get this wrong, she may kill herself.

Well the advice the elders gave her in this instructional video was for her to repeat out loud every day "I am an integrity keeper", as if her suicidal thoughts were because she lacked integrity to God - a suggested accusation that would no doubt make her feel worse, not better.

So while you say "elders are not doctors", neither are they trained to demonstrate humility, recognise their limitations, or take the most sensible course of action. They are told they have the ability to help persons, when really they cannot. They cannot set a broken leg, they cannot fix a broken mind, they are not equipped to deal with the complexities of marriage problems.

But they will recklessly and unashamedly try to.

Splash

Chaserious

Nitty-Gritty: Your point seems to be that the elders were well-intentioned rubes who didn't realize that their actions would put any children in danger. That may well be true, but it's enough to support the jury's findings against the congregation (at least assuming that a duty exists); the jury's award against the congregation was only for ordinary negligence. That doesn't require any kind of evil motives or intent to cause harm, any more than a negligence award for not driving a car carefully enough.

On the other hand, if you read the entire trial transcript, you know that the jury awarded punitive damages against the Watchtower, which required that the jury find that the Watchtower was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its actions, but deliberately and willfully failed to avoid those consequences. This has nothing to do with holding the Watchtower liable for what the local elders did, or even for what Kendrick did; it related to the way Watchtower set its national policy by requiring elders to contact Watchtower legal upon learning of cases of child abuse and to otherwise keep judicial proceedings secret. The jury didn't buy that they could just transfer all of the risk to parents by publishing articles on child abuse prevention.

OrphanCrow

Your point seems to be that the elders were well-intentioned rubes who didn't realize that their actions would put any children in danger.

In a court of law, ignorance does not equal innocence.

Chaserious

In a court of law, ignorance does not equal innocence.

That's not necessarily true, but this case was not about guilt or innocence; it was about negligence or lack of negligence, and unreasonable ignorance is certainly enough to support a negligence finding.

Nitty-Gritty

Ruby 456

Its ok, I am happily re- married again.But thanks.

To answer your question, as far as I am aware, the society will not recommend any specific treatments or in this case going to a marriage councilor in writing. It would be foolish to do so. What if the treatment or marriage counsel doesn't work? Then one could point fingers and say "they told me I should". All in the congregations are free to go and see anyone they want if they think it will help. (as long as it has nothing to do with spiritism). They do not have to consult with the elders first.

Nitty-Gritty

@Chaserious

From what I remember from reading the transcripts was that; because the elders didn’t believe Kendrick when he said “it was an accident” implied that they were aware this was child molestation. The elders agreed with that, and that was partially what incriminated them, as I understand. Had the elders believed Kendrick that it was “just an accident”, then perhaps the court would have found them less liable (I don’t know) The elders gave reasons why they didn’t believe Kendrick....but then they stopped there and merely told him to not go near any children and that they would be watching him. I believe they thought the matter had been handled right, and that Kendrick would not re- offend. I know you are a lawyer and thus you understand the case much better than me, a lay person. I am just looking at it from a point of view of common sense. Common sense tells me that; IF the elders believed in any way that Kendrick was going to re-offend, they would have put in place some other provisions where this would be minimized. Who in their right mind would WILLINGLY allow such a danger to exist? (same goes for the WTS) I know the haters on here believe so. But you and I and any reasonable person can surely see that this was not deliberate. Yes, the elders and WTS made a BIG mistake. Evidently. Because sadly a child got molested again. I am not trying to minimize things or to defend the elders and WTS. I am just saying that crying "hang them all"! by haters is unfair. (I am not talking about the jury) Yes, I agree with the verdict of negligence.. It seems that WTS has changed their policy and that Candace has succeeded. Of course no policy on earth will be perfect and foolproof against these disgusting persons. The only fool proof way would be to incarcerate them for life. But no justice system will do that. So they will unfortunately remain part of the fabric of society until they die....

Just one question: when you said that the jury found that “the Watchtower was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of its actions, but deliberately and willfully failed to avoid those consequences” can you explain what that means in practical terms? And what was the evidence of that if you can remember. Thank you.

Nitty-Gritty

@ splash

I don't know about the video. I have not seen it. Have you? Was there anything in it suggesting she was not allowed to go and see a doctor?

Conti Appeal Preview - Oral Argument Jan 14

Share this