Ann O'Maly

You are correct. I was mistaken. My apologies. She could have settled out of court at the very beginning but she made it crystal clear that she wasn't going to do that. She wanted them publicly accountable which she hoped would put pressure on them to change their policies. She saw it through. Straight after the appeal, Candace stated in interview with Lloyd Evans, "that she is prepared to take this matter all the way to the Supreme Court if she must in order to see children protected and justice fully served. "Referring to the ruling on Monday [4/13/2015], Candace told me: 'This is just another step. It will not change the amount of money but it might help change the laws. And you know me, I’m all about the laws. We have the chance to make positive changes in the Supreme Court for how children are protected. We may have another year and a half to go.' "When I pressed her on whether she is definitely taking her case to the Supreme Court, Candace replied: 'It’s questionable now but we are trying to make the best case, and we might only take it to the Supreme Court if Watchtower takes it there. Other than that we are waiting. The ball is still unfortunately in their court.'” - Source According to the docket, Watchtower petitioned to have the case reviewed at Supreme Court but withdrew it after a settlement was reached. Candace was also willing to carry on fighting. Why did Watchtower give up the fight to exonerate themselves of all liability? I'm guessing that pursuing it further would have benefited neither party in the end. So. The Appeal Court's final decision that Watchtower and Fremont Congegation were negligent stands. This was addressed in p. 22 of the Appeal Decision: And I say again: If the elders did not assign Candace and Kendrick to perform FS together, yet they ended up in FS together, then they were not properly monitoring him. Grossly negligent. The Appeal Court affirmed that Watchtower and Fremont Congregation were indeed negligent here. OK. I'm sure we've picked over the remains of this dead horse more than enough now. Time to move on.

"For there will be hurricanes and volcanoes in one place after another, earth-wide pollution and a constant state of global war," said Jesus, never.

"The Money's Always Right!"

Oh boy, oh boy! James Thomas Rook Jr. is back!

Or even with religious significance ... as the Organization has religious significance to the JW, does it not? Give it time. Anyway, I was suggesting, in response to 'Is veneration of the cross a scriptural practice?', that veneration (or great respect, reverence) for an object of religious significance can occur in many forms. So I posed the question of whether it was a matter of degree to which one venerates a religious artifact and where the line might be drawn before scriptural principles are seen to be violated. Yes, maybe another thread. It's OK. I'm not cross (geddit?).

You are wrong. The entire case ended up being settled out of court, ... ... ... ... I'm not really a fan this new era of 'alternative facts' so I'll just say this: The case was tried in court; the case was appealed in court; both Watchtower and Conti decided not to appeal the Appeal Court's decision. There has been no 'out of court settlement' because the entire case was settled in court. This would have be thrown out of court immediately as it was established that the elders had no duty to watch Kendrick. And it makes logical sense as the elders could not be expected to constantly monitor Kendrick. Very silly to even suggest that this would have been gross negligence. Have you forgotten the Appeal Court's judgment? Here it is again: "We therefore conclude that defendants had a duty to use reasonable care to restrict and supervise Kendrick's field service to prevent him from harming children in the community and in the Congregation." - p. 23

Wow! I saw this only once - a long, long time ago. Of course, this was in the days when it was all or nothing, black and white - no compromises, no blood fractions, zip, and I heard this movie caused quite a stink at the time. Thanks for posting this, Jay.

The evidence suggests that an upright stake is the least likely option. But as was said, we cannot be certain what shape stauros Jesus died on. The problem is how the Org. has made it look as if the upright stake was the most likely (or only) option and ignored the rest of scholarship on the matter that demonstrates the opposite likelihood. Various depictions of cross shapes exist in all sorts of cultures, past and present, Christian and non-Christian. So? The Bible doesn't describe it directly, but there are hints. Unfortunately, the rest of the Society's article stumbles into the same pitfalls as the Reasoning book does. I thought I explained. What is it you are unclear on?

I started a new thread on this here:

The following post quotes originally came from this thread: Rather than take the thread totally off topic, I thought I would make some comments in a new one. I'm commenting on this post, likewise not to create a firestorm, but to flag up how we ought to check sources of information rather than automatically taking on trust that what is written is sound. Regarding information on the internet, the August 15, 2011 Watchtower put forward some criteria by which we can critically assess its factuality: "Before trusting it, ask: (1) Who published this material? What are the author’s credentials? (2) Why was this published? What motivated the writer? Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" - p. 4 It's good practice to apply these basic principles to anything we read - even material produced by the Organization. It's also worth remembering Christians do not claim Jesus was executed on a crux ansata or ankh-shaped cross (think of the practical problems for a start). But let's look at how the Reasoning book approaches the wider question of whether Jesus was executed on a cross at all. "(2) ... Is there any bias?" Absolutely. The Reasoning book's quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary is chopped up, and omits key information that would allow the reader to understand that, while stauros originally had one meaning, by the time of Jesus the word had evolved and was understood differently. The omitted parts from the quote are in red. "The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros′], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and this always remained the more prominent part." The quote continues to cite Seneca's (4 BC-65 AD) eye-witness testimony about 3 different kinds of crucifixion regularly employed, the last of which was where the victim's arms were extended on a patibulum. The dictionary then adds: "There can be no doubt, however, that the latter sort was was the more common, and that about the period of the gospel age crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood." - p. 376 You can read the Imperial Bible Dictionary article for yourself here: https://archive.org/stream/imperialbibledi00fairgoog#page/n402/mode/2up So why do Watch Tower publications show Jesus on a stake with hands over his head instead of on the traditional cross? Reading an extended quote from the Imperial Bible Dictionary makes the reason for Watchtower's divergence on this matter unclear. There's no problem with this section as crosses were made of wood from trees. Not only that, but trees had branches upon which arms could be outstretched either side of the body, above it, upside-down or however the executioner wanted to position the poor victim. Of course, the Org. no longer translates Jesus' mode of execution as 'impaling' because, well, he wasn't impaled; he was suspended from a stauros by being nailed to it. Impaling is an entirely different kind of torturous end. This reference, then, doesn't help explain why Watch Tower publications depict Jesus on an upright stake either. "(1) ... What are the author’s credentials? ... (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" Not only is this another outdated source, but psychical research enthusiast J.D. Parsons does not provide references for his comments here (publication viewable online). Historical, linguistic and gospel evidence contradicts him. It's a pity he didn't consult works like the Imperial Bible Dictionary before he wrote his book. "(3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" This is another old work, this time one edited by E.W. Bullinger. Appendix No. 162 does supply some sources, but it also repeats some of Alexander Hislop's and others' mistaken ideas, e.g. the Babylonian sun-god cross. Not only that, but Bullinger (or whoever the author of Appendix No. 162 was) was evidently unaware of the Oxyrhyncus discoveries which showed that the understanding of stauros as being a two-pieced cross shape occurred in 2nd (and possibly 1st) century Christian writings. See the Companion Bible entry here: https://archive.org/stream/CompanionBible.Bullinger.1901-Haywood.2005/CompBib.Bull.Hay.NT.Append.24.#page/n797/mode/2up In fact, many of these old publications the Org. uses as support, and that are contemporaneous with one another, seem to feed off each other's sources, regurgitating them in their own works. The Two Babylons was published in book form in 1858. It's always good to keep this in mind when reading older references after that time because it often influenced other theologians' work - especially if their theology was less mainstream. Vine's Expository Dictionary's entry on 'Cross' is another notable example (see below). That's assuming that all the available evidence has been presented to the Reasoning book reader. As we've seen, it hasn't but has been cherry-picked from flawed, out-of-date works, which often recycle the same sources, in order to force a predetermined conclusion. When we dig into those sources a little deeper, we find that Watchtower's rejection of the cross and adoption of an upright stake to depict Jesus' execution is based on insubstantial grounds. If we research the subject more thoroughly, although we will never be certain what shape stauros Jesus died on, we will find that the weight of evidence indicates the opposite view to that of the Organization. What does this have to do with how Christians regard the cross? Cross shapes occur in different cultures, times and contexts. Whatever significance non-Christians placed on cross shapes (4 cardinal points, 4 year markers, 4 key stages in the Sun's apparent seasonal or daily paths around the Earth, circle of life, etc.) has nothing to do with any symbolism Christians attach to the cross Jesus was believed to have been executed on. "(2) ... Is there any bias? (3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" Vine's comment about the two-beamed cross's Chaldean origin actually came from Hislop (Two Babylons, p. 197-8). It is false. Hislop was rabidly anti-Catholic and grasping at anything to discredit it, no matter how outlandish. However, in doing so, he was undermining aspects of biblical Christianity too. So, yes, one could say he was biased - so much so that he imagined ancient pagan-Catholic connections everywhere. He provides no historical evidence that the Babylonian god Tammuz was represented by a Tau and besides, the Babylonians didn't write in Greek! Their writing was logographic and the signs for Tammuz (Dumuzi) don't look anything like crosses. On the other hand, the Paleo-Hebrew script has a letter tav. Guess what it looks like: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Pictograms/pictograms.html# Shocking, hey? "(3) Where did the author get the information? Does he supply sources that can be checked? (4) Is the information current?" Again, a 19th/early 20th century work. Tyack doesn't provide any sources for his statements. However the concepts seem to be from the Two Babylons book. These connections between the cross and Tammuz plus other ancient near eastern deities don't go back beyond the 1850s and Hislop's book - not that I've been able to trace, anyway. Around and around we go. This information is straight out of Two Babylons! Look: https://archive.org/stream/worshipdeadoror00garngoog#page/n268/mode/2up Please pay particular notice to the references in the footnotes on that page. I'll post separately about all those cross symbols and the conclusions Hislop jumps to. Again, what does this have to do with how Christians view the cross Jesus is believed to have died on? This is a quote from the same Bullinger work discussed above. Now, this is a whole different issue. And is it a matter of degree? Remember how obsessed many JWs are nowadays with the JW.org logo, maybe because of its associations in the JW's mind with true worship, brotherhood, divine blessings, etc. They put it on anything from tiepins to cake. Likewise, many Christians associate the cross with Jesus' love for humankind, victory over death/Satan, hope, etc., and so they like to have a symbolic reminder of that or use it as a visible expression of their faith. I guess it depends on whether one considers a line has been stepped over between expression of faith and worshipful veneration, and there is a certain level of subjectivity in that assessment. Here we go again. An allusion to Hislopian baloney. And an upright stake is NOT phallic? 'Some commentators' - who? The Reasoning book doesn't enlighten us. While I agree that idolatry is against biblical principles, the Org's reluctance to entertain at least the possibility that Jesus historically died on a cross is based on deeply flawed, outdated, and circular reasoning. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding Hislop's discussion of various cross shapes on p. 197 of the Two Babylons book: Fig. 43 shows 5 different cross shapes. No. 1 is the familiar crucifix shape and comes from Kitto's Biblical Cyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 495 (viewable online - as with all of these references, just Google). This reference is just a discussion of 'Cross' and Lipsius' various pictures/descriptions of this means of execution. No. 2 is similar to No. 1 but slanted. The pic comes from Sir W. Betham's Etruria, Vol. 1, p. 54 (viewable online). This references the Etruscan alphabet. Hislop's picture is just one of the letters he's picked out. No. 3 is like No. 1 except with a slightly curved crosspiece. This is from Bunsen's Egypt's Place in Universal History, Vol. 1, p. 450 (viewable online). Hislop's picture is one of the Coptic letters of the alphabet - a tei. He doesn't bother with the other cross-shaped letters in the Coptic alphabet on pp. 448-450 - not even the tau on p. 449! No. 4 is similar to an ankh. Hislop thinks it's a cross (the sign of Tammuz) attached to the circle of the sun (p. 198). He provides no reference for this one. No. 5 is a cross within a circle. This is used as another example of Tammuz being associated with the sun and the picture comes from Stephen's Incidents of Travel in Central America, Vol. 2, p. 344, Plate 2 (viewable online) where an indigenous person's belt is decorated with the symbol. Hislop uses these sources and cobbles together isolated cross symbols - an instrument of execution, letters of the Etruscan and Coptic alphabets, an ankh and the belt decoration of a Central American Indian. These all form the basis of his argument that, a) The Christian cross is not a Christian emblem. (He only establishes that cross shapes occur in all sorts of places and contexts.) b) The cross originates from the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians. (An unsupported assertion pulled out of the air - none of his examples are linked to Chaldea.) c) The letter T is "the initial letter of Tammuz - which, in Hebrew, [is] radically the same as ancient Chaldee" (p. 197). (It's already been discussed on this thread that, while Paleo-Hebrew indeed has a cross-shaped Tav, the Babylonians wrote in cuneiform and their logographic signs making up the word Dumuzi/Tammuz do not resemble a cross.) d) Tammuz was identified with the sun. (Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Babylonian deities knows that Shamash was the god identified with the sun and Marduk may also have had solar connections - not Tammuz. Tammuz was a shepherd-god of agriculture, fertile lands, food and vegetation.) Hislop's conclusions about how the Christian cross originates in Babylonian worship are therefore founded on ... nothing.

And a lot of people debunk things when they are unsubstantiated or based on false premises - like with many of Hislop's and Velikovsky's 'things.' It's a good exercise tracing their sources to see how much they've misused, misunderstood, or manipulated them to form an argument, or just simply made things up. He may have been 'smart,' but his 'study' was colored by his utter hatred of the Catholic church and his 'Babylonian connections' were specious or plain fictional. Yes, happily we are on the same page here.

Exactly! The ankh was simply an ideogram that meant 'life' in Egyptian writing. It's like a ❤️️ - a universal ideogram for 'love.' It doesn't mean Hezekiah attached any idolatrous significance to it. Of interest, an Israeli news site wrote: "The symbols on the seal impression from the Ophel suggest that they were made late in Hezekiah’s life, after he had recovered from the life-threatening illness of shehin (boils), when the life-symbol became especially significant for him (ca. 704 BCE)."Read more at https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/55293/jerusalem-excavation-reveals-2700-year-old-seal-israelite-king-jerusalem/#fOUaVM5mU1LcVpeM.99 But we don't know to what kind of letter the bulla was attached. Maybe it was thrown away like an envelope is. Maybe the letter, complete with seal, was thrown away after the recipient had finished with it or in a clear out. We can only speculate. What we do know is that it is from King Hezekiah's time and has his name on it. You're perhaps thinking of Josephus, Antiquities X. 20-21, where he quotes from Berossus. Unfortunately, this extract from Berossus' work is otherwise lost. Herodotus, Histories II.142 says it was a plague of mice that gnawed through their weapons to render them useless, but in this account the event took place at Pelusium. Carbon dating works well for the era under discussion here. The method works up to about 50,000 ya. Both of these authors books have been debunked. Pseudo-history. Pseudo-science. And not even the Organization quotes Hislop any more - not for decades now. I checked Hislop's claims about different kinds of cross signs and their origins in detail and found that he'd just cobbled together some similar-looking symbols from across several civilizations' artifacts and imagined a Babylonian connection. Complete nonsense. Regarding David Rohl, his departure from conventional dating is much further back in time than Hezekiah's and is often dealing with patchier timelines. Chronology from particularly 8th century BCE onwards is pretty well established.

So they let him lose knowing he would re-offend? That he would go on to molest other children? You don't have documentation, then. You do not know what the police concluded. No matter what they concluded, they could only act according to the law at the time. An extra precaution for a non-existent danger? Your conclusion doesn't make sense. We shall leave it there as we cannot agree on this point. Abrahamson acknowledged the possibility that Kendrick would molest Andrea again on page 114. Q. What did you do to protect Andrea from further abuse? A. We removed Jonathan as a ministerial servant. And at that meeting, we tried to comfort Andrea and let her know that she was simply a victim. She wasn't at fault. She wasn't the reason. But we are very sad that she had become a victim of child abuse. Q. Because this abuse occurred in the home of a congregation member and members, how would removing Mr. Kendrick as a ministerial servant have protected Andrea from further abuse? A. Well, we hoped that our meeting protected Andrea from further abuse. Q. Did you provide any advice to Evelyn Kendrick in how to keep Andrea safe in the future? A. I can't -- it is hard to remember everything way back there. But I would assume that I told her that it is important to set propriety in the house, rules of conduct, and that it would be inappropriate for Jonathan to be in a room alone with Andrea. But I can't remember saying that. But I hope I would have. Despite Abrahamson's further testimony on p. 117 that the elders didn't consider Kendrick to pose a threat to children, when questioned, the other elders indicated otherwise (references already cited). Here is Clarke's testimony on p.26 of the May 30, 2012 transcript: Q. Now, you mentioned that you and Mr. Abrahamson and the other elders were going to keep a close eye on Jonathan Kendrick, after you learned in 1993, of his abuse of his stepdaughter. Correct? A. Correct. Q. And you took it upon yourselves to protect other children in the congregation from further abuse by Mr. Kendrick? A. I don't think that is a fair statement. Q. Okay. You don't agree with that? A. No. We don't just take it upon ourselves. We educate the families. They have to be aware too. Note that Clarke does not contradict Simons' assessment that the elders considered there was a potential for further abuse. Clarke objected to Simon's assessment that the elders were taking it upon themselves to prevent it. Therefore, Clarke implicitly agreed that there was potential for Kendrick to further abuse the congregation's children. Your conclusion doesn't follow from what Lamerdin answered. He answered that the elders were keeping an eye on Kendrick (unnecessary if he posed no further danger). The reason for Lamerdin's belief that Kendrick posed no further danger to congregation children was expressed on p. 199: Q. Now, you mentioned that you did not consider Mr. Kendrick to be a danger before the molestation of his stepdaughter? A. Right. Q. And you did not consider him to be a danger to molest other children afterwards because you were keeping an eye on him? A. Yes. Q. Did you consider him to be a danger to molest children after 1993, after the stepdaughter report, at times when you, perhaps, didn't keep an eye on him? A. I really couldn't comment on that. Lamerdin confirms that the reason Kendrick posed no further danger, in his view, was due to the elders 'keeping an eye on him.' He refused to comment on whether he or the elders considered Kendrick to be a danger when they weren't looking. That refusal to answer is also an answer. I provided the extract of the appeal judgment that says the opposite. Right. The case was not settled out of court. It was settled in a trial by jury. Watchtower (as was their right) appealed, and a panel of appeal judges overturned a part of the trial judgment. An appeal focuses on trial procedures and points of law, that they were applied properly in the trial. They don't determine again the validity of the evidence and testimony by witnesses. The bare bones of the matter are these: Candace testified that, - her dad would sometimes drop her off at the KH to meet with the FS group (who officiated at the KH group?); - sometimes Kendrick volunteered to take her to meet with the FS group (so they arrived together - were they ever split up?); - the FS groups were predetermined by the elders (FS is, therefore, an elder-directed activity); - they would get their territories and go out (who assigned the territories?). Carolyn Martinez verified that, - Candace and Kendrick were together in FS on more than one occasion; - people knew where to go for FS because the elders made the assignments (therefore, it's an elder-directed activity). The elders testified that, - there was a written policy that prohibited molesters working with children in FS (although this claim could not be substantiated); - the congregation would never have allowed Kendrick to partner Candace in FS (indicating they had control over who Kendrick paired up with); - Kendrick was not allowed to go out in FS without an elder present (again, indicating they personally monitored Kendrick's FS activity). Conclusions: If the elders had the level of monitoring they claim they had over Kendrick's interaction with children during congregation-sponsored FS, yet Kendrick and Candace were seen together in FS, then logically, the elders must have assigned Candace and Kendrick to perform FS together. Grossly irresponsible. If the elders did not assign Candace and Kendrick to perform FS together, yet they ended up together, then they were not properly monitoring him. Grossly negligent.

A seal was to authenticate the identity of the sender. If it was a gift from Egypt to Hezekiah, it would have the Egyptian sender's name on it - not Hezekiah's. "The seal of the king was so important. It could have been a matter of life or death, so it's hard to believe that anyone else had the permission to use the seal," Eilat Mazar, who directs excavations at the City of David's summit, told CNN. "Therefore, it's very reasonable to assume we are talking about an impression made by the King himself, using his own ring." ... Other bullas bearing the name of King Hezekiah have been seen on the antiquities market. However, the others are not as important because they were not found by archaeologists and therefore may not be genuine, according to Mazar. - http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/03/middleeast/king-hezekiah-royal-seal/ So it looks like this seal's the real deal.

Why? "The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction." - Par. 12, https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-february-2017/who-is-leading-gods-people-today/ Different thread, I guess. These are merely assertions. On what scriptural or archaeological evidence were these assertions based? The writer(s) of Kings and Isaiah didn't refute it either - and he/they could have done. Perhaps the claims were true. And we have the seals that are suggestive of an alliance. Well, if Hezekiah was keeping pro-Assyrian king Padi locked up in a Jerusalem prison, then Hezekiah must have been "in coalition with other kingdoms in revolt"! Why was Assyria punishing Judah if Hezekiah had been meekly submitting to the Assyrian yoke all that time?

I can't believe nobody's said this yet: THAT'S NO MOON ...

When you do the math, the majority of Jewish exiles were stuck in Babylonia for about 60 years (or 80 years according to WT time). So what do you mean 'one-year period'?

Hi Susan. I'll refer you to my reasoning here: http://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/28985-biblical-king-hezekiah-official-seal-found-in-ancient-trash-dump-2700-year-old-video/?do=findComment&comment=37449 We have the seals with Hezekiah's name and Egyptian symbols on which are suggestive. We have Rabshakeh in the Bible who used Judah's alliance with Egypt (as well as Judah's trust in YHWH) as part of his psychological manipulation to argue that both supports were useless. It would have been ineffective to use an argument intended to reduce the enemy to jelly-kneed submission based upon bad intel. And nobody contradicted him. There's nothing in the text to indicate Hezekiah had not formed an alliance. Thus, the evidence is weighted to the 'alliance' side. Or can you provide evidence that he did not?

Man's interpretations and understandings of Bible accounts are likewise imperfect. So, we have a Bible account about good king Hezekiah and the events in his life, and we have seals with his name and some Egyptian symbols on them. The puzzle about those symbols arises due an assumption that Hezekiah did not form an alliance with Egypt when both the Bible and the seals suggest otherwise.

"We estimate at about 100 billion the number of galaxies in the observable Universe, therefore there are about 100 billion stars being born and dying each year, which corresponds to about 275 million per day, in the whole observable Universe." - Source. Wow. That'll be a lot to keep up with!

It would've been nice to know the wording and context. Perhaps the writer was thinking that Sodom was the city (singular - not Gomorrah) that had the mob. But it doesn't say how extensive the mob was. We are also told that Sodom was a wicked city, but was homosexuality the only thing that made it wicked, or was it corrupt in other ways? That's what I'm wondering. If you come across the article again, please post a link as I'd like to read it. It could well be that more information comes to light about Hezekiah's bullae and the reason for symbol choices. But your comments prompt some musings: Is it a case of only believing archaeological finds that harmonize with our interpretations/ understandings of Bible accounts while rejecting those finds that don't? Are you thinking that the bullae might be fakes? Also, if our confidence in the Bible isn't backed up by historical evidences, then couldn't it be argued that we might as well have faith in Aesop's fables?

Could it be that Hezekiah did actually form an alliance with Egypt and those symbols were a declaration of this? Yes, Isaiah warned about making an alliance with Egypt, but apparently Hezekiah did anyway. And Rabshakeh wasn't contradicted when he talked about Judah's trust in Egypt ... just like he wasn't contradicted when he talked of Judah's trust in YHWH ... because both those statements were true. And before anyone says, 'Oh but Hezekiah was a good king who only relied on God so he wouldn't have formed political alliances,' it's worth considering that other good kings formed political alliances with their neighboring lands - good king Solomon with Egypt (by marrying Pharaoh's daughter; note 1 Ki. 3:3); good king Jehoshaphat with wicked Ahab and Ahaziah (2 Chron. 18:1-3; 20:34-37 but cp. v. 32). Also look at Josiah. He was a much-loved king who restored 'true worship.' He didn't make an alliance but he meddled in a political situation, i.e. he tried to prevent Pharaoh Necho and his army joining with the remaining Assyrians against the new Babylonian empire to get Harran back. Maybe he thought he was acting in line with God's purpose ('why is Egypt helping those evil Assyrians who have oppressed our people for so long?'). Whatever Josiah's motives, it was a big error of judgment that cost him his life. So, good Judahite kings who loved and worshipped YHWH, sometimes got politically involved. Actually, it's kinda naive to think you can be a king ruling a kingdom or country without being 'political' and cutting deals with the surrounding kingdoms or countries. If anyone is a little wary of the OP video, here is an article from the Biblical Archaeology site. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/king-hezekiah-in-the-bible-royal-seal-of-hezekiah-comes-to-light/ I'm sure the name Dr. Eilat Mazar will already be familiar to many of you.

Let me rephrase it then. Neither the elders nor the police considered Kendrick to be a predator. Both, the police and the elders, as far as they were aware, believed this was a one time occurrence. IF they had believed otherwise, then the Police would have acted further, and so would the Elders. The fact that the elders took it upon themselves to “watch” Kendrick was as an extra precaution. Although the Elders did not believe Kendrick that it was an accident, they did not believe he would do this to anyone else, OBVIOUSLY! I don't know how you conclude that the police believed this was a one-time occurrence. Do you have documentation stating this? I also cannot find anywhere that says the elders themselves believed it would be a one-time occurrence. As I keep saying, if they really believed that, they would not have testified that they were keeping a close eye on him. There's no need to closely watch an individual's interactions with children if you don't think the individual poses any potential danger. See Abrahamson's and Clarke's testimonies on Day 1, May 29, 2012 transcript, pp. 114, 207-8. Day 2, May 30, 2012 transcript, p. 26. Their acknowledgement of Kendrick's potential to abuse again are implicit in their answers. Lamerdin said he didn't consider Kendrick to be a danger to children in the congregation (and here comes the important bit) because they were keeping an eye on him to make sure everything was fine (Day 2, May 30, 2012 transcript, pp. 179, 199). He doesn't suggest that he thought Kendrick would not try it again. So, your 'OBVIOUS' conclusion is a mistaken one. The police could only act in accordance with what was then law. It was a first-time misdemeanor conviction of 'sexual battery involving a restrained person.' So he was put on probation. Had it been a felony conviction, it would have been a different story. The elders were limited by Watchtower's policy to remove his privileges and keep a close eye on him (which they failed to do adequately). No they did not. Page 18/19 of the court doc: ... I think we are talking at cross-purposes. Your quote specifically addresses the issue of whether the elders had a legal duty to warn Conti's parents. Please note the portions in red, and my comments in [ ] to provide added context. “..counsel asked, “Did they really watch this guy like a hawk?” Conti and Congregation member Martinez testified that, at Kingdom Hall, Kendrick hugged Conti repeatedly, put his arm around her, held hands with her, had her sit on his lap, and “looked at her inappropriately”—the sort of behavior the elders said they were watching for, and if they had seen would have caused them to warn Conti’s parents about Kendrick. Thus, [the plaintiff argued] if the elders had a duty to watch over Kendrick that included warning the parents of any child his actions might appear to threaten, there was substantial evidence from which to find that they breached the duty in Conti’s case. However, we conclude that the elders had no such legal duty." No such legal duty to watch over Kendrick that included warning the parents. The extract continues: "The reasons for our conclusion are largely the same as those that led us to reject the alleged duty to warn the Congregation about Kendrick. There was no special relationship between the church and all of the children in the Congregation simply because they were members of the church. Nor did the church have a special relationship with Kendrick, for purposes of a duty to monitor his behavior toward children, by virtue of control over his conduct with them....... [Plaintiff's argument resumes:] "Nonetheless, the Congregation elders voluntarily undertook to watch Kendrick and, if necessary, warn individual parents about him, and the “negligent undertaking” doctrine, like the special relationship doctrine, is an exception to the “no duty to aid” rule. [However, the appeals court counters, the law says ...] Under the negligent undertaking doctrine, “a volunteer who, having no initial duty to do so, undertakes to provide protective services to another, will be found to have a duty to exercise due care in the performance of that undertaking if one of two conditions is met: either (a) the volunteer’s failure to exercise such care increases the risk of harm to the other person, or (b) the other person reasonably relies upon the volunteer’s undertaking and suffers injury as a result.” (Id.at p.249.) [On this point of law, the appeal court rejects the argument because ...] Neither of those conditions for liability is met here. Nine-year-old Conti was not relying on a church undertaking, and any lack of due care by the elders in monitoring Kendrick’s interactions with children did not increase the risk of harm to her, it only failed to reduce that risk. "Therefore, defendants cannot be held liable for negligent failure by the elders to notice Kendrick’s behavior with Conti and warn her parents that he posed a danger." ... which involved what? See p. 23: "We therefore conclude that defendants had a duty to use reasonable care to restrict and supervise Kendrick's field service to prevent him from harming children in the community and in the Congregation." Of course we don’t know how reliable Martinez’s testimony was either, since she had a very troubled marriage with Neil Coti, before divorcing him..... Martinez testified that she didn't get along with Candace either (Day 4, June 4, 2012, p. 35-6). ... and Candace's. Two witnesses. The court factored in multiple lines of evidence. There was a whole picture that developed of the dynamics in Kendrick's and Conti's families, in the congregation, among mutual friends, medical professionals who treated/ counselled Candace, what society and the Society knew about how child abusers worked, etc. Upon this framework hung testimony of what was observed and said in relation to Kendrick and Candace and his other 'interests.' Both trial and appeal courts judged that the standard of proof required (the preponderance of the evidence) for this civil case was met, and thus they could legally conclude that Kendrick did indeed molest Candace. I should hope so! It helps to know the law when you're a lawyer. What information has he kept from the general public so that he can maximize a sensationalist impact on them? Examples? How is he playing on people's ignorance of the law to slant arguments and whip up emotions? Examples? Good lawyers will take cases they have strong chances of winning. It's poor business-sense to do otherwise. As for Candace's award, we do not know the financial arrangement between her and her legal team. Simons strikes me as a very fair-minded person, so I'd rather assume the best outcome for Candace.

He was known as a child sexual abuser. We agree on that. Watchtower and Fremont congregation recognized it. The police recognized it. I don't know why you think quibbling over the term 'pedophile' somehow lessens the responsibility that Watchtower and Fremont congregation had toward their children. If the elders did not believe Kendrick was a danger to other children, why would there have been a need to watch him? And yes, upon learning about the sexual abuse of his step-daughter, they DID have a legal duty to watch him during congregation activities. It's called a 'duty of care.' This is why Watchtower and Fremont congregation were found, under law, to have been negligent in that duty of care. Conti did not claim he molested her 'during' field service. She claimed he molested her while they were supposed to be doing field service but really he had taken her to his home. We all know how it works: Car groups to the territory; people pair up and do a little door-to-door; then many in the group split off to do return visits. It's so easy to 'disappear' for a while without others knowing what you're doing. The preponderance of evidence was that Kendrick partnered up with Candace in service more than once, and circumstances were such that he had ample opportunity to abuse her. The elders had taken it upon themselves to monitor Kendrick, but they didn't monitor him. This was contradicted by Carolyn Martinez who said that Kendrick often had his arm around Candace on KH property and that she saw them in service together on more than one occasion. (Day 4, June 4, 2012 transcript.) Some of Neal Conti's testimony was shown to be inconsistent and at times odd. He gave the impression that he and Kendrick were just passing acquaintances and barely knew each other. Mr. Simons showed, through his questioning, that their relationship was more than that, that they were friends and hung out together on several occasions (as Candace's mother's testimony also confirms). As a serving Ministerial Servant, and having met up with Watchtower's defense team before testifying (he was actually witness for the plaintiff!), you can predict that Neal Conti would do what he could to, not only minimize his own embarrassment at being so friendly with his daughter's abuser, but also help take the heat off the organization's liability by saying he, as a parent, was with Candace all the time during congregation activities. It was quite common for JW children to partner non-relative adults in service. Remember that Candace's parents were unaware of Kendrick having abused a child in the past, so they would not have foreseen any potential danger with him being so friendly with their daughter. Despite the elders' claim that they were 'keeping an eye' on him, they denied having witnessed anything untoward. Yes, it is a pity the appeal court rejected the the 'duty to warn' argument and reversed the punitive damage judgment. Interestingly, the latest revision of Watchtower's UK Child Safeguarding Policy stipulates that there is a 'duty to warn' in some circumstances. "In some cases, the Service Department may specifically direct elders to inform parents of minors within the congregation of the need to monitor their children’s interaction with an individual who has engaged in child sexual abuse." - January 2017, Child Safeguarding Policy, p. 5, par. 17. I hope the U.S. branch has followed suit. It all comes too late for Candace, of course. Nevertheless, the appeal upheld the judgment against Watchtower for negligence. It was the organization's documented policy to supervise and restrict known child molesters' interactions with minors during congregation activities like field service, and it failed to do that, resulting in harm to a child. Let's complete the sentence: " ... in exchange for his agreement not to participate in the case, or harass Conti or her witnesses.” That was what the plaintiff's team were concerned about - him causing trouble with the trial. In return, Candace wouldn't pursue him for monetary compensation (money that he didn't have anyway). Besides, he'd been sloppy with filing his response to the complaint served upon him and so he had defaulted. He later tried to get that default overturned making all sorts of excuses about why he had been dilatory. He said he was eager to clear his name, blah, blah. But then ... So that's the backstory to that. ---------- Didn't make much difference to the outcome though did it? When victims and those who knew did not report it. 20, 30 years ago it was not talked about, and not taken to the authorities. (I mean by everyone, JW or non JW). That was my point. It was talked about and taken to the authorities 20 years ago. For instance, Megan's Law came into effect in 1994. Greater awareness and shifts in attitude toward child abuse began in the 1980s. So which outcome are you talking about? Kendrick's then wife and step-daughter reported to the police. The police convicted Kendrick of a misdemeanor. It was the organization and its agents who, after taking it upon themselves to monitor him, failed to monitor him which meant he went on to abuse another child. As I said, the appeal court set aside the amount for monetary sanctions against them for non-compliance. But it upheld the order that Watchtower produce their key documents relating to this case, or face other sanctions. Pity. Thank goodness victims have advocates like him and his team.