An open letter to ozarkbreeze

[Josh]

The problem here is that certain folks pop up saying "there are two sides to this story". A few weeks ago, quite a few people popped up here on MennoNet saying there are "two sides to the story" with Jeriah Mast, and that we needed to be quiet.

Maybe you could point to the places where you have asked "certain folks" what their side of the story is?

Have you listened as carefully to what they have to say as you have in sharing "your side"?

Maybe you have, but maybe we should ask them what they think, since their reality is their truth.

Also, I appreciate your responsiveness to answer for Szdfan, but I am also interested in hearing his answer to my questions.

P.S. since truth telling seems to be the topic of the day, why not share evidence?

Mrs.Nisly, the victims involved have not given me permission to use their names or share the details of their stories in public. Likewise, I do not have permission from one of the abusers involved to share his recorded confessions with the general public. All I feel at liberty to share is that I have personally been witness to the above.

A few weeks ago, a number of commentators, such as Grace, urged silence in the thread about CAM, and also said it was “jumping to conclusions”. Some of us had seen evidence a long time ago we can’t share publicly. I think it’s obvious by now that Jeriah Mast and CAM definitely engaged in a long pattern of wrongdoing, and the only reason CAM did anything is because of persistence in going public.

As I said earlier, Mrs.Nisly, if you really want to know some of this evidence, I can find a way to ethically share it with you.

MennoNet isn’t a court of law, and I’m also not on trial here. You can listen to what I say, or you can ignore it, or choose to believe I’m crazy or some kind of compulsive liar. I believe I’ve shown restraint in limiting what I say on MennoNet to (a) things already in the public eye, and (b) things I personally witnessed first-hand.

[ragpicker]

Josh, are you still trying to prove that this person from your former church violated people? If so, why?

[Josh]

Josh, are you still trying to prove that this person from your former church violated people? If so, why?

I don’t have to “prove” anything. The abuser consented to be recorded giving a confession. The victim pressed charges. The police and prosecutor prosecuted. The end.

For my involvement in the case, I was subject to a lot of harassment, ranging from threatening my job to attempting to interfere with my church membership and baptism to slinging wild accusations at me as an adulterer, fornicator, homosexual, and abuser.

What was directed at the victim was even worse.

Don’t you think these things are a problem? Are you on the side of speaking up about abuse, or do you prefer to sweep things under the rug?

[Grace]

A few weeks ago, a number of commentators, such as Grace, urged silence in the thread about CAM, and also said it was “jumping to conclusions”. Some of us had seen evidence a long time ago we can’t share publicly. I think it’s obvious by now that Jeriah Mast and CAM definitely engaged in a long pattern of wrongdoing, and the only reason CAM did anything is because of persistence in going public.
.

Urged silence ?!?! Pertaining to CAM, I DIDN'T urge silence, but said there are two sides to the story. They eventually gave their side.

As for Jeriah Mast, I NEVER said his side of the story needs to be heard.

[Josh]

A few weeks ago, a number of commentators, such as Grace, urged silence in the thread about CAM, and also said it was “jumping to conclusions”. Some of us had seen evidence a long time ago we can’t share publicly. I think it’s obvious by now that Jeriah Mast and CAM definitely engaged in a long pattern of wrongdoing, and the only reason CAM did anything is because of persistence in going public.
.

Urged silence ?!?! Pertaining to CAM, I DIDN'T urge silence, but said there are two sides to the story. They eventually gave their side.

As for Jeriah Mast, I NEVER said his side of the story needs to be heard.

There aren’t “two sides to the story”. There’s exactly one version of the truth that’s actually true.

CAM did not have a “side”. At first they were silent. Then they issued a misleading press releases.

After significant pressure applied directly to their board, CAM started issuing statements much closer to the truth.

This “two sides to every story” thing needs to stop.

[Grace]

There aren’t “two sides to the story”. There’s exactly one version of the truth that’s actually true.

CAM did not have a “side”. At first they were silent. Then they issued a misleading press releases.

After significant pressure applied directly to their board, CAM started issuing statements much closer to the truth.

This “two sides to every story” thing needs to stop.

Why does it have to stop? And yes there is only one version of the truth that is true, but how do you find that version without hearing all sides? Should we just take your version as truth and discount everyone else's? To expect that is both arrogant and presumptuous.

How can anyone find out the truth, when only one person’s perspective is purported? I had a teacher once who had us look at a Thomas Kincaid painting. We were to study it for five minutes, then he put the painting away, and asked us what we saw. Everyone had a different take on the painting, based what they saw through their own mindset and lens. What one person saw, the next person may not have seen at all. No one was wrong in what they saw, but their perspectives were all different. Even in our courts the plaintiff and the defendant have a right to give their side of the story, with the goal to find the truth.

From Proverbs 18

13 Spouting off before listening to the facts is both shameful and foolish.

17 The first to speak in court sounds right—until the cross-examination begins.

BTW, this is in NO WAY defending Jeriah Mast, even though he deserves his day in court.

[ragpicker]

Josh, are you still trying to prove that this person from your former church violated people? If so, why?

I don’t have to “prove” anything. The abuser consented to be recorded giving a confession. The victim pressed charges. The police and prosecutor prosecuted. The end.

For my involvement in the case, I was subject to a lot of harassment, ranging from threatening my job to attempting to interfere with my church membership and baptism to slinging wild accusations at me as an adulterer, fornicator, homosexual, and abuser.

What was directed at the victim was even worse.

Don’t you think these things are a problem? Are you on the side of speaking up about abuse, or do you prefer to sweep things under the rug?

I’m asking, if nothing needs to be proven, why are you still trying to prove you were right? I’m not challenging if things happened. Contrary to your assertion, I was in fact involved early on, so I have a number of first hand reports. (BTW, you should be curious why I walked away.)

I’ve got a track record of solidly standing on the side of exposing these kinds of sins, and reporting them if crimes were committed, even if at great cost and risk. I don’t plan to deviate from that track record.

[ragpicker]

There aren’t “two sides to the story”. There’s exactly one version of the truth that’s actually true.

CAM did not have a “side”. At first they were silent. Then they issued a misleading press releases.

After significant pressure applied directly to their board, CAM started issuing statements much closer to the truth.

This “two sides to every story” thing needs to stop.

Why does it have to stop? And yes there is only one version of the truth that is true, but how do you find that version without hearing all sides? Should we just take your version as truth and discount everyone else's? To expect that is both arrogant and presumptuous.

How can anyone find out the truth, when only one person’s perspective is purported? I had a teacher once who had us look at a Thomas Kincaid painting. We were to study it for five minutes, then he put the painting away, and asked us what we saw. Everyone had a different take on the painting, based what they saw through their own mindset and lens. What one person saw, the next person may not have seen at all. No one was wrong in what they saw, but their perspectives were all different. Even in our courts the plaintiff and the defendant have a right to give their side of the story, with the goal to find the truth.

From Proverbs 18

13 Spouting off before listening to the facts is both shameful and foolish.

17 The first to speak in court sounds right—until the cross-examination begins.

BTW, this is in NO WAY defending Jeriah Mast, even though he deserves his day in court.

Very good post.

Jeriah has in fact been telling his side of the story for at least some of the allegations. I believe some of the arrests might have been because of his admissions, but I could be mistaken.

A lot of people don’t understand the idea that if a serial predator like Jeriah doesn’t deserve his “day in court”, the alternative is a lawless society in which no one is safe from injustice.

[ragpicker]

This “two sides to every story” thing needs to stop.

Wisdom understands there can be more than one side to any story.

I happen to believe that an allegiance to truth doesn’t require silencing opposing sides.

Silencing opposing sides and insisting “our” version is the only correct one, and that others versions need to be silenced is very dark territory. You seem to come across that way, but I doubt you intend to.

[ragpicker]

I don’t have to “prove” anything. The abuser consented to be recorded giving a confession. The victim pressed charges. The police and prosecutor prosecuted. The end.

Do you have links to the court case or anything of that nature?