CAM Molestation Issue

[Bootstrap]

I just popped in here for a few minutes, bouncing from one thread to the next... where did I read that Trudy is getting death threats? Where are we getting this from? Its not immediately obvious on her blog.

Anyone?

I don't know.

But these days, many people prominent in social media get death threats. Nothing about that is OK. It's messed up and seriously wrong.

[steve-in-kville]

Hey Steve, just a little bit of paranoia plus reading too fast can produce wrong results. (it may even result in new gossip)

That's why I asked. I couldn't find where that was written.

So its the victims being threatened, not Trudy?? Not sure why you would threaten the victim if this is already exposed??

[Bootstrap]

CAM Board has just produced a statement stating that two executives know about Jeriah's abuse of minors since 2013. These two (Eli Weaver & Paul Weaver) have admitted their error in judgement. They have been placed on administrative leave pending the investigation.

Good start. I am sure their lawyers are boiling mad over this. No lawyer would ever let a statement like this see the light of day.

Yes, this is a much better statement and fixes a lot of the problems with the first statement. As you say, it's a first step.

I'm sure their lawyers reviewed and approved it. And that's important too. I can show you many statements from organizations in crisis that admitted this kind of thing in statements reviewed by their lawyers. But this time, they were writing for their true audience.

It is obvious that the next step will be to look at their procedures, candidate selection and management training. These areas are likely where the failures really occurred. Assuming CAM survives this, it may well be a better organization than we see today.

Indeed.

[Ken]

Hey Steve, just a little bit of paranoia plus reading too fast can produce wrong results. (it may even result in new gossip)

That's why I asked. I couldn't find where that was written.

So its the victims being threatened, not Trudy?? Not sure why you would threaten the victim if this is already exposed??

It is the homophobia in the Haitian culture. These were boys (some now men) who were raped by JM. Now that they have been outed as victims, there are apparently some in Haiti who perceive that these boys have also been outed as gay due to the perception that they were "willing" victims. My understanding of what Trudy wrote is that these victims are now being threatened for possibly being gay, not because they were victims.

That is how I understood what she wrote. However I don't know what kind of evidence she is citing. I don't know Haiti, but I do know, for example, that homophobic violence is a real problem in nearby Jamaica. So the claim is at least plausible.

[Judas Maccabeus]

One thing I like in this statement is that it does not scapegoat the two executives, but rather makes it clear they were good men, but they made an extremely serious error.

This gives me hope our culture and community can eventually change how it thinks about this stuff.

I would suggest much of this could be laid at the feet of lack of clear policy guidelines and a defective process for vetting candidates.

I have hope that this will change moving forward.

J.M.

[Aurien]

What I am curious about is: In Plain churches if "moral failings" happen is it common that all that is said to the congregation is that the person had a moral failure? with the excuse to keep details out? Or is the congregation actually told this person sexually abused children?

Typically there would be some sort of discreet language such as that used publicly over the pulpit. But it would not be a secret to be kept. Seems like some people want all the gory details that would make penthouse proud. Others would only need to be informed of what happened and the extent of it, and assurance that it is being correctly handled. Others do not want to know details and whatever is publicly announced is sufficient for them.
I'd say it is extremely rare that only the leaders would know, and if it was sexually abusing children, I can't imagine everyone in the whole community and in every church for miles around not knowing. I know of two Anabaptist men (not from the same church or same fellowship group) sitting in prison right now here in Oregon for sexually abusing their daughters. There was no attempt at all to protect or hide what they did from the community. I personally discussed it frankly with non-believers. But neither did we see any need to take out a billboard advertisement along the I-5 corridor to ensure everyone knew. Nor did we invite the local media to do interviews.

"Discreet language" is not enough when it comes to sexual abuse. There's no need to provide "gory" details but there's a difference between naming the abuse for what it is and saying things "that would make Penthouse proud." The Jeriah Mast case for example. Saying "he sexually molested young boys" is not a gory detail. Saying he sodomized them is not a gory detail. Saying something like, [REDACTED BY MODERATOR - Inappropriately Graphic Description] is not even a "gory" detail but also probably isn't something that needs to be said like that to the public. Saying, "sexually molested, sodomized or raped should be sufficient for most people to know.
Yes I know I probably shocked some people with my use of the words penis and anus but how do you expect to remove the secrecy around sexual abuse if you can't even say anatomically correct words without blushing? If a child is taught that everything regarding sex and anatomy is a shameful things then they're not going to speak up when they've been sexually abused. Neither will an adult who is taught that such things are shameful.

I was going to edit this post but I'm unable to do that so I'm replying to my own post here.
Jeriah Mast to my knowledge has not admitted to raping the boys so I shouldn't have said, "Saying he sodomized them is not a gory detail." He did admit to sexually molesting them in some way but I don't know if that includes rape. I also didn't make it clear that my statement of he "put (redacted) in (redacted)" was not aimed at specifically at Jeriah Mast but was intended as a general statement of what is not a "gory detail" but is also not something that would have to be said publicly.

[temporal1]

One thing I like in this statement is that it does not scapegoat the two executives, but rather makes it clear they were good men, but they made an extremely serious error.

This gives me hope our culture and community can eventually change how it thinks about this stuff.

I would suggest much of this could be laid at the feet of lack of clear policy guidelines and a defective process for vetting candidates.

I have hope that this will change moving forward.
J.M.

Policy and guidelines are the easy part.
In the fine print of Dan’s statement, regarding CAM’s June 17 statement, is the hard part.
Page 41
http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... 968#p55968

.. And perhaps there was something in the culture that elevated these fellows too high for their own good. ..

i have been reading and learning with folks here for about 8 years. i started from zero.
it was not long before i began reading about cultural problems (as in this case) to the point they are no longer surprising. this case has been the noisiest of all, but the contributing circumstances are not isolated. Hans Mast just posted something he wrote on it in 2017. (i intend to study it soon.)
it goes ‘way back from before this case. i’m thinking, “Garden?”

people form their hierarchies, eventually, damage is done. that’s human nature.
all have a role in this. it’s not the sole responsibility of “those evil ones” at the top.

every system has weaknesses. the existing system may be perfectly adequate.

the challenge is how to prevent exploitation of the system, ‘cause, there will ALWAYS be those looking for weaknesses and loopholes, exceptions.

[Ken]

Typically there would be some sort of discreet language such as that used publicly over the pulpit. But it would not be a secret to be kept. Seems like some people want all the gory details that would make penthouse proud. Others would only need to be informed of what happened and the extent of it, and assurance that it is being correctly handled. Others do not want to know details and whatever is publicly announced is sufficient for them.
I'd say it is extremely rare that only the leaders would know, and if it was sexually abusing children, I can't imagine everyone in the whole community and in every church for miles around not knowing. I know of two Anabaptist men (not from the same church or same fellowship group) sitting in prison right now here in Oregon for sexually abusing their daughters. There was no attempt at all to protect or hide what they did from the community. I personally discussed it frankly with non-believers. But neither did we see any need to take out a billboard advertisement along the I-5 corridor to ensure everyone knew. Nor did we invite the local media to do interviews.

"Discreet language" is not enough when it comes to sexual abuse. There's no need to provide "gory" details but there's a difference between naming the abuse for what it is and saying things "that would make Penthouse proud." The Jeriah Mast case for example. Saying "he sexually molested young boys" is not a gory detail. Saying he sodomized them is not a gory detail. Saying something like, [REDACTED BY MODERATOR - Inappropriately Graphic Description] is not even a "gory" detail but also probably isn't something that needs to be said like that to the public. Saying, "sexually molested, sodomized or raped should be sufficient for most people to know.
Yes I know I probably shocked some people with my use of the words penis and anus but how do you expect to remove the secrecy around sexual abuse if you can't even say anatomically correct words without blushing? If a child is taught that everything regarding sex and anatomy is a shameful things then they're not going to speak up when they've been sexually abused. Neither will an adult who is taught that such things are shameful.

I was going to edit this post but I'm unable to do that so I'm replying to my own post here.
Jeriah Mast to my knowledge has not admitted to raping the boys so I shouldn't have said, "Saying he sodomized them is not a gory detail." He did admit to sexually molesting them in some way but I don't know if that includes rape. I also didn't make it clear that my statement of he "put (redacted) in (redacted)" was not aimed at specifically at Jeriah Mast but was intended as a general statement of what is not a "gory detail" but is also not something that would have to be said publicly.

If the victims were below the age of consent then it was rape. The element of force is not required to make it rape, and somewhat irrelevant when we are talking about young victims. As for what actually happened? Christian New Network in their story about this case used the following headline: "US Aid Worker's Serial Rape of Dozens of Hatian Children Rocks Amish-Mennonite Run Charity" and their article provides supporting details and testimony from victims that you can read for yourself: https://christiannews.net/2019/06/14/us ... n-charity/

EDIT: I should add that what Jeria Mast has admitted to (or not admitted to) doing is frankly irrelevant. The Christian News Article and other coverage about this incident is drawing on victim testimony not some confession (or lack of one) from Jeriah.

[temporal1]

I was going to edit this post but I'm unable to do that so I'm replying to my own post here.
Jeriah Mast to my knowledge has not admitted to raping the boys so I shouldn't have said, "Saying he sodomized them is not a gory detail." He did admit to sexually molesting them in some way but I don't know if that includes rape. I also didn't make it clear that my statement of he "put (redacted) in (redacted)" was not aimed at specifically at Jeriah Mast but was intended as a general statement of what is not a "gory detail" but is also not something that would have to be said publicly.

about legal language,
i believe, the word, “rape” of children/minors does NOT require penetration.
i’m glad they do this, but it makes it difficult/impossible to know details of what happened.
others here probably know more about how this works in courtrooms.
i believe the point is to protect victims, and i appreciate it.

i see, Ken has responded. i agree.

[Aurien]

"Discreet language" is not enough when it comes to sexual abuse. There's no need to provide "gory" details but there's a difference between naming the abuse for what it is and saying things "that would make Penthouse proud." The Jeriah Mast case for example. Saying "he sexually molested young boys" is not a gory detail. Saying he sodomized them is not a gory detail. Saying something like, [REDACTED BY MODERATOR - Inappropriately Graphic Description] is not even a "gory" detail but also probably isn't something that needs to be said like that to the public. Saying, "sexually molested, sodomized or raped should be sufficient for most people to know.
Yes I know I probably shocked some people with my use of the words penis and anus but how do you expect to remove the secrecy around sexual abuse if you can't even say anatomically correct words without blushing? If a child is taught that everything regarding sex and anatomy is a shameful things then they're not going to speak up when they've been sexually abused. Neither will an adult who is taught that such things are shameful.

I was going to edit this post but I'm unable to do that so I'm replying to my own post here.
Jeriah Mast to my knowledge has not admitted to raping the boys so I shouldn't have said, "Saying he sodomized them is not a gory detail." He did admit to sexually molesting them in some way but I don't know if that includes rape. I also didn't make it clear that my statement of he "put (redacted) in (redacted)" was not aimed at specifically at Jeriah Mast but was intended as a general statement of what is not a "gory detail" but is also not something that would have to be said publicly.

If the victims were below the age of consent then it was rape. The element of force is not required to make it rape, and somewhat irrelevant when we are talking about young victims. As for what actually happened? Christian New Network in their story about this case used the following headline: "US Aid Worker's Serial Rape of Dozens of Hatian Children Rocks Amish-Mennonite Run Charity" and their article provides supporting details and testimony from victims that you can read for yourself: https://christiannews.net/2019/06/14/us ... n-charity/

EDIT: I should add that what Jeria Mast has admitted to (or not admitted to) doing is frankly irrelevant. The Christian News Article and other coverage about this incident is drawing on victim testimony not some confession (or lack of one) from Jeriah.

You're right. The news article did use that headline. I just wanted to clarify because I did not want to be accused of making false statements.