In the Name of “Mission Work” book about CAM/Mast

[just_thinking]

The person who abused these victims is JM. CAM was also a victim of JM. Somehow that perspective gets lost here.

The now-fired former executives at CAM also were derelict in their duty and their negligence allowed JM to steal $100,000s of dollars from CAM.

...

Josh,
Did you do your homework before posting? Could you please provide proof that those executives are now fired? Sure, they no longer work there, but I've researched it, and the only info I could find is that they retired with honors. This was info was published in the "CAMunicator".
That retirement was immediately after approximately a 1.5 year fully paid (of $85,000 - 97,000/year) leave of absence pending an investigation. Which is interesting... I wonder what that investigation actually uncovered? who performed it? What are the chances of that info being made public? Why did they both retire at the same time? If the investigation found that they were innocent, why not bring them back on? If they were culpable, why did the CAMunicator indicate they retired rather than being fired? Why if they were guilty, why did CAM not fire them?

I question much of what you post. For example, you mentioned that CAM is a victim of Jeriah. That in itself is an abuse of the term "victim". Was Joe Paterno a victim of Jerry Sandusky? No, he was an enabler. There is a big difference between the two, just saying. It is both functionally and factually inaccurate to label CAM as a victim in this situation. Google Def - a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. If CAM would have had the character and culture that would have enabled them to handle the situation well, a person like Jeriah would not have damaged their reputation.

[Josh]

The person who abused these victims is JM. CAM was also a victim of JM. Somehow that perspective gets lost here.

The now-fired former executives at CAM also were derelict in their duty and their negligence allowed JM to steal $100,000s of dollars from CAM.

...

Josh,
Did you do your homework before posting?

Yes.

Could you please provide proof that those executives are now fired? Sure, they no longer work there, but I've researched it, and the only info I could find is that they retired with honors. This was info was published in the "CAMunicator".
That retirement was immediately after approximately a 1.5 year fully paid (of $85,000 - 97,000/year) leave of absence pending an investigation. Which is interesting... I wonder what that investigation actually uncovered? who performed it? What are the chances of that info being made public? Why did they both retire at the same time? If the investigation found that they were innocent, why not bring them back on? If they were culpable, why did the CAMunicator indicate they retired rather than being fired? Why if they were guilty, why did CAM not fire them?

When a board of directors has to get rid of an executive, nobody is found “guilty”. CAM is not a courtroom. The board had significant difficulty getting the execs to even take a leave of absence, they repeatedly kept working when they weren’t supposed to. It took a while for the board to get control of the organisation.

I question much of what you post. For example, you mentioned that CAM is a victim of Jeriah. That in itself is an abuse of the term "victim".

JM stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from CAM. What else do you call that?

Was Joe Paterno a victim of Jerry Sandusky? No, he was an enabler. There is a big difference between the two, just saying. It is both functionally and factually inaccurate to label CAM as a victim in this situation. Google Def - a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. If CAM would have had the character and culture that would have enabled them to handle the situation well, a person like Jeriah would not have damaged their reputation.

CAM is full of people with excellent character including the board. CAM itself is not a “person” (although it does have “legal personality”) which we can judge specifically for what character it has.

I have been quite critical of CAM including here on MN. I heard of JM’s misbehaviour and told it to someone in CAM, who also heard the same thing, and passed it up the chain of command. The simple fact is JM was a skilled sociopath and manipulator with a home church and family members who helped enable him. The real question is why his home church, its leaders, and his family members have displayed zero accountability.

And by the way, I would fully support his marriage being annulled and his wife remarrying. So there you have it.

[ABC 123]

I do not know specifically about how JM and his wife conducted their courtship, but courtships at the church they are from are to be strictly hands off and much is made of the girl's virginity at the wedding. From the pulpit. During the service. I was not at their wedding, but I have direct knowledge of other weddings of their contemporaries.

Knowing he did all that he did, and knowing how they generally do their courtship and weddings makes the vow renewal even more appalling.

I lean toward agreeing with Josh about annulment and I don't normally support that sort of thing.

[Josh]

I do not know specifically about how JM and his wife conducted their courtship, but courtships at the church they are from are to be strictly hands off and much is made of the girl's virginity at the wedding. From the pulpit. During the service. I was not at their wedding, but I have direct knowledge of other weddings of their contemporaries.

What are you getting at here? Generally speaking, conservative Anabaptists expect people not to engage in fornication.

As I understand it, JM’s wife’s father was not enthused about the marriage and delayed it and wanted additional time for her to think about it. She was informed of his predilections. I have no idea why she went forward with it anyway.

Knowing he did all that he did, and knowing how they generally do their courtship and weddings makes the vow renewal even more appalling.

I agree, although I’m not sure why wedding vows need to be “renewed” in a CA context. Marriages are supposed to be for life.

I lean toward agreeing with Josh about annulment and I don't normally support that sort of thing.

Some specific reasons I feel this way:

- Historic church practice is to not condone someone who lives as a sodomite, and he did so continuously. In Catholic practice, someone who is an active sodomite or whoremonger and enters a marriage enters it deceitfully. In my view, a valid marriage never happened, as he intended to continue to be a sodomite, pedophile, and rapist.

- It would be a stern warning to other would-be abusers that they cannot game the system of CA marriage to their own benefit.

- It would relieve her family of the obligation to feel like they need to honour a sham “marriage”.

On the flip side, his wife seemed to know what he was up to and merrily ignored it. There is a certain degree of culpability there which is deeply disturbing. I hope she was simply taken in by his sociopathic and manipulative nature, because the other possibility is to horrible to think about.

[ABC 123]

His family, which was also in church leadership at the time this was going on, ought to be revisiting how badly they missed the mark about condoning this marriage. Doubly so that they performed the very rare renewal ceremony. They have certainly been very firm with other people and situations they didn't consider to be worthy of their approval (matters of preference, not sin).

[Sliceitup]

On the flip side, his wife seemed to know what he was up to and merrily ignored it.

Could you elaborate on this?

[steve-in-kville]

His family, which was also in church leadership at the time this was going on, ought to be revisiting how badly they missed the mark about condoning this marriage. Doubly so that they performed the very rare renewal ceremony. They have certainly been very firm with other people and situations they didn't consider to be worthy of their approval (matters of preference, not sin).

I have to disagree a little. Sometime, red flags go up during courtship. Many times, things go south well after the couple says "I do." I personally know of couples where people raved how great it was for two young people to be dating, it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Only for later on to have the marriage fail.

I also know where people where against a courtship, maybe he or she "could do better" or they where dating "out of their league" so to speak. Only for the marriage to be solid as a rock and go on to thrive.

I'll be honest, I can wax clairvoyant at times and see red flags in a relationship that others may miss. And I've also seen marriages fail when on the outside everything appeared to be kittens and rainbows.

[KrisKramer]

So far two new people have popped up on this thread, having never posted anywhere else before, and both are unbelievably hostile to Ernie, making claims about his character just based on one post he made, that are in no way reflective of what I now of him.

Something seems very off about this.

I've noticed before that whenever a new CAM/Mast development occurs, we get new members.

Yes, but how often do they get listened to? I joined back when CAM was being discussed in 2020 back when we talked of Harold Herr who is also a pedophile and knew of the whole Mast thing before it broke wide open to but you know pedophiles try to protect other pedophiles.

I was willing to be open about what happened to me in regards to my grandfather Harold Herr but many just wanted to defend and I even sent two people "proof" so they could themselves investigate the situation.

Too many people seem to think that defending the conservative mennonite community means that they need to hide and protect pedophiles. There is a reason I haven't spoken on here for months in any topics at all.

Wishing everyone a blessed 2023

Kris

[KrisKramer]

In reference to an independent investigation, CAM isn't worried what they would find regarding the Mast situation. They're worried what else they would find besides that.

Exactly because they know what else they have swept under the rug.

I mean look at Harold Herr and CAM

[steve-in-kville]

Too many people seem to think that defending the conservative mennonite community means that they need to hide and protect pedophiles. There is a reason I haven't spoken on here for months in any topics at all.

Wishing everyone a blessed 2023

Kris

I'm gonna stick my neck out here a little. I have seen both sides of situations like this, where the victim reported the abuse to a school teacher, who was mandated to pass on the report. I also know of several people who were assaulted, spoke up, and were told to "hush up" and not make it worse than it really is

People came down hard on the victim/survivor. And its wasn't just conservative anabaptists.

Why did she wait until now? Because she didn't know any better back then.

Why did she have to tear the family apart? That was the last thing on her mind.

Was it really that bad? So I guess being assaulted multiple times by an older relative is okay?

Couldn't she forgive and forget? Being sexually assaulted doesn't work that way. Someone took from her.

For those that don't know my story, this survivor isn't just someone random, its three of my daughters.