The CAM scandal links and assorted other topics thread

[Josh]

It still baffles me how people like Stanley Fox had no idea Jeriah Mast was excommunicated for, and “repented”, of abusing boys 10-15 years ago. Particularly when you consider this was fairly common knowledge in Ohio - I became aware of it in 2015.

[MaxPC]

I understand she wants to be the passionate blog writer writing for her cause, but like it or not, she’s also put on a journalist hat.

One major difference, of course, is that journalists have editors; bloggers (and forum posters) generally don't. That second set of eyes can be valuable in clarifying facts, sources, and opinions from a less emotionally involved point of view. The scope of this case and the number of people interested in it and impacted by it would seem to justify that approach, in my opinion.

I agree. The more passionate the writer is about a subject, the more vulnerable to emotional mistakes. Editors who are more objective can prevent errors that can damage the reputations of those who are subjects of the articles.

Of course, few editors in commercial mass media do a good job of it either. Agendas abound.

[mike]

http://mennoworld.org/2019/06/22/news/m ... -in-haiti/

[Neto]

I understand she wants to be the passionate blog writer writing for her cause, but like it or not, she’s also put on a journalist hat.

One major difference, of course, is that journalists have editors; bloggers (and forum posters) generally don't. That second set of eyes can be valuable in clarifying facts, sources, and opinions from a less emotionally involved point of view. The scope of this case and the number of people interested in it and impacted by it would seem to justify that approach, in my opinion.

I agree. The more passionate the writer is about a subject, the more vulnerable to emotional mistakes. Editors who are more objective can prevent errors that can damage the reputations of those who are subjects of the articles.

Of course, few editors in commercial mass media do a good job of it either. Agendas abound.

I wonder if the electronic presentation isn't the cause of a lot of the carelessness in news articles now-a-days. Sure, even in the era when print media was dominant, there was the rush to get a late-breaking story into the newspaper before it went to print, but now the deadline is constant - the desire to get OUR news article out at least seconds or minutes before the other news agencies. So in this case, I wonder if those posting blogs, etc. had/have a policy of wait & review before posting their take on events. Again, I'm not here to defend CAM, but their measured response was criticized for the delay in getting it out there. Perhaps they did a more careful consideration of their statement(s) than has been the case with some others, who were quicker on the trigger. I think that in the Christian world, if one has something so potentially heart-breaking and damaging to present, it would be the kind thing to send it first to the entity who would be most affected by it, and give them some reasonable set time to respond first (such as 24 hours). Maybe that was done with some of the postings, I do not know. (Again, I want to emphasize that I am not here to defend CAM. To be honest, if I wanted to express it, I would have a "bone to pick" with them in regards to some completely unrelated matters.)

The part personal agendas play in this is a different matter, and perhaps less excusable.

[Dan Z]

http://mennoworld.org/2019/06/22/news/m ... -in-haiti/

It's interesting how dispassionate this MennoWorld article is - boiled down to just the facts as they are know - as Ken said earlier - it reads like a rather run-of-the-mill case of pedophilia in a church organization. Tragic, but all too common-place.

Unfortunately, for those of us closer to it, this drama is quite personal, emotional and captivating, with so much depth and pain and controversy attached to it.

[MaxPC]

One major difference, of course, is that journalists have editors; bloggers (and forum posters) generally don't. That second set of eyes can be valuable in clarifying facts, sources, and opinions from a less emotionally involved point of view. The scope of this case and the number of people interested in it and impacted by it would seem to justify that approach, in my opinion.

I agree. The more passionate the writer is about a subject, the more vulnerable to emotional mistakes. Editors who are more objective can prevent errors that can damage the reputations of those who are subjects of the articles.

Of course, few editors in commercial mass media do a good job of it either. Agendas abound.

I wonder if the electronic presentation isn't the cause of a lot of the carelessness in news articles now-a-days. Sure, even in the era when print media was dominant, there was the rush to get a late-breaking story into the newspaper before it went to print, but now the deadline is constant - the desire to get OUR news article out at least seconds or minutes before the other news agencies. So in this case, I wonder if those posting blogs, etc. had/have a policy of wait & review before posting their take on events. Again, I'm not here to defend CAM, but their measured response was criticized for the delay in getting it out there. Perhaps they did a more careful consideration of their statement(s) than has been the case with some others, who were quicker on the trigger. I think that in the Christian world, if one has something so potentially heart-breaking and damaging to present, it would be the kind thing to send it first to the entity who would be most affected by it, and give them some reasonable set time to respond first (such as 24 hours). Maybe that was done with some of the postings, I do not know. (Again, I want to emphasize that I am not here to defend CAM. To be honest, if I wanted to express it, I would have a "bone to pick" with them in regards to some completely unrelated matters.)

The part personal agendas play in this is a different matter, and perhaps less excusable.

Neto, I certainly think that your hypothesis is plausible. In the "old days" of newsprint, there was also a result-oriented rush job but nothing like the lightning speeds we see hitting the internet today.

The spin that is put into news to promote various agendas should remind us that all public statements should be carefully considered in the words and phrases chosen. The legal brigades make their living off of communication gaffs. Our current Pope has a problem with his tendency to extemporaneously expound and the news vultures flock all over every utterance.

[Aurien]

https://splash4ripples.com/2019/06/22/h ... -response/

[Judas Maccabeus]

It still baffles me how people like Stanley Fox had no idea Jeriah Mast was excommunicated for, and “repented”, of abusing boys 10-15 years ago. Particularly when you consider this was fairly common knowledge in Ohio - I became aware of it in 2015.

He lives in PA. There seems to be very little contact between our circles and Charity.

J.M.

[Judas Maccabeus]

http://mennoworld.org/2019/06/22/news/m ... -in-haiti/

It's interesting how dispassionate this MennoWorld article is - boiled down to just the facts as they are know - as Ken said earlier - it reads like a rather run-of-the-mill case of pedophilia in a church organization. Tragic, but all too common-place.

Unfortunately, for those of us closer to it, this drama is quite personal, emotional and captivating, with so much depth and pain and controversy attached to it.

It does not actually surprise me at all. Only thing that perhaps I find surprising is it had not happened sooner. Every other christian group of any size has had at least one of these occurrences. Remember, unless you have one, you are not looking for one. The first is a wake up call.

J.M.

[Grace]

From Trudy's blog

It does not change the fact that he (Stanley Fox) knew. Why would a troubled young man approach a pastor about Jeriah, if it was consensual relationship? Why would that not alert a pastor to find out what is going on?

I wonder what Stanley Fox’s side of the story would be? There are always two sides to a story, (sometimes three sides). Were there other circumstances, incidents, claims made, that possibly would have made Stanley not take the accusations more seriously? I can imagine missionaries have to be very discerning when accusations are made as people can say anything or make any accusations. Was there not enough evidence to back up the accusations?

Granted, Stanley made a big mistake, which he acknowledges and is deeply regretful and sorry about. Are we seeing a Godly Servant being pronounced "guilty", based on a weak “he said, she said” premise? If so, that is extremely sad.