Recently a private (secret) meeting was held in the Sacramento area. The Sunday morning elders for the 11 meetings were invited (no wives, no union elders or Wednesday night elders) by Rob Newman and Richard Denherder to discuss a known and personally admitted CSA perpetrators readmission into fellowship meeting.
They were told that while this man has admitted to (some) of his abuse, that a 4 hour phone assessment was done, and he had passed (assessed as no longer a risk).
So he is now able (according to the CA/AZ policy) to be readmitted to attend meetings (including those with children).
Rob and Richard took a vote of the 11 elders as to who would be willing to have this known and confessed perpetrator in their Sunday meeting.
- 4 elders voted NO.
- 2 elders said that they wanted to asked their meetings.
- 5 elders voted Yes.
It was determined based on this minority vote of 5/11 that this known and confessed (of some of his abuses) perpetrator, is now allowed to attend meeting in the Sacramento area.
Friends have raised many concerns about this process:
- What information did ministry share with the risk assessor regarding GS?
- Were victims or victim impact statements part of the process?
- How many victims of GS did the risk assessor know about?
- Did the risk assessor know about the AFTT investigation or did they reach out to AFTT to get more facts than ministry has?
- Did anyone other than ministry and the predator talk to the risk assessor in the GS case?
- Declaring GS “low risk” (just like they recently did for others) does NOT mean he should be back in meetings and does NOT fit with a zero-tolerance policy.
- Wives should have been involved.
- The wider meeting community should have been involved.
This process is contrary to the expert advice posted at Urgent Professional Request to the overseer and workers in the States of CA AZ NV HI
- No one can accurately predict or identify offenders by observing them.
- Risk assessments should not be used to determine whether an offender can attend fellowship meetings. Alternate arrangements should be made to meet with offenders outside of fellowship meetings.
Previous information was posted at Gilbert Smith, California elder, removed from meetings
WINGS Note: Gilbert Smith is a former worker and current elder in California. During his time in the work, Gilbert labored in California, Arizona, Idaho, Alaska, and Chile. Known allegations stem from his time in Alaska and Chile.
In the late 90s, Mark Huddle (who was removed from the work in April 2023 due to several allegations of child sexual abuse) was approached with some of these allegations. His response was that the family was overreacting, and nothing further was done.
Discover more from WINGS for Truth
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
WINGS for Truth 
Appalling! It is hard to believe that wives were not part of the decision making meeting! Men & women bring different insight to the table. Females are usually the ones who are abused, & are more realistic about how abuse affects the body, the mind, & health for life! To have men only at a meeting like this, goes against what God said, about husband & wife becoming one!
“An estimated 91% of victims of rape & sexual assault are female and 9% male. Nearly 99% of perpetrators are male. 1 This US Dept.”
Just the math alone makes this a terrible process. There is a good probability that one of those 11 men is an abuser and would vote to allow an abuser into the meetings. Most would be clueless about this subject and lack understanding of the effect of CSA on victims. That would not happen if the 11 were mothers. 11-0 against.
If the elders and their wives are “one,” the wives would have had an influence on the vote. Assuming the elders knew what the meeting was about, I think they would have discussed it with their wives before hand.
Most meetings around the world have more women than men. And not all women are “wives.”
It’s inappropriate and strange that a group of men would presume to make any decisions, much less decisions about sexual predators’ permissions, on behalf of any group that includes women and children, including our meetings.
This is the first I have heard of this. It seems there is an. information blackout in SoCal.
Well, there’s 4 Elders who are protectors and have testicle fortitude. I think ALL Elders and wives should have been asked. JMO.
LOW RISK! WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN!!!!
Maybe GS, hasn’t seen a easy mark yet…..
Any risk is a risk, is a risk, is a risk, is a risk…have you got the message yet! A risk is a risk….
What needs to happen? for you people to open your eyes, or smell the coffee, how many ways does it need to be said. A risk is a risk, and hopefully your children or your grandchildren are not at risk!
Can this account possibly be true? The proceedings just sound insane from every angle, completely beyond the pale.
If this meeting actually happened as described, for the first time I really start to lose hope that our fellowship community can be salvaged. The “leaders” handling things this way MUST go.
It should be crystal clear by now that the group’s leadership is going nowhere.
Rest assured, it is absolutely 100% true. Please do not doubt this account. One of the “no” voting elders is already being persecuted for his stance.
Hi Joann, can you elaborate on how they are being persecuted. It’s crazy to me that someone trying to protect others is then punished.
Totally agree with you Observer!
I feel so disappointed. Looks like business as usual in California. If the perpetrator wants fellowship then let the “yes” voters meet with him. This guy could be my perpetrator, but I don’t know if he still lives in Sacramento. When I was an adolescent, my mother’s cousin (30 years older than me) started grooming me wholeheartedly. I got away from him before he could rape me. I did tell my mother only that he had been kissing me. He admitted to that and the whole conversation was then dropped and never mentioned again. Thirty years later, while I was in therapy to heal not just from his abuse, but also from the abuse inflicted on me by my mother’s father when I was 5–7 years, the cousin shows up on my doorstep unannounced. He was traveling through and thought he would spend the night with us. My husband quickly ushered him out the door and down the road. I had a therapy session shortly there after. I was so scared that he would come back. My therapist helped me understand I had the power to protect myself. He asked me what I was going to do about it. I decided right then and there that I would write the perp a letter detailing all he had done to me. It was three pages single spaced. I naively expressed that I expected him to admit what he had done to me. It makes me laugh when I think about it now. He responded by admitting to one inappropriate kiss (that he had admitted to 30 years ago) and I was committing sin by not forgiving him. He went on to accuse me of being mentally sick among other things. When I read his letter, I recognized in his writings all the guilt, shame, and fear I had been carrying for thirty years. He was feeling those feeling and they dropped away from me like a cloak I had been wearing for 30 years. It was a glorious moment.
So glad for your healing, In power🌷
It makes my weary heart feel lighter.
Please turn him in to the FBI. Doesn’t matter that it was 30 years ago, your reporting will just add more weight to the more current cases. If you want to know who this meeting was about – email me: henoffour@gmail.com
“They were told that while this man has admitted to (some) of his abuse, that a 4 hour phone assessment was done, and he had passed (assessed as no longer a risk).” Has anyone other than the brother worker relaying this seen any written evidence that this was the actual result of said evaluation? Will the brother worker utter some nonsense about HIPA as to why you can’t see it in writing? How did he see it then with HIPA and all? Can a professional please clarify – is this even a valid outcome for admitted pedophiles with additional allegations? It sounds a lot like “law enforcement cleared them” simply because they didn’t press charges. This tips the scales towards fraud and doesn’t even sound plausible. RDH, how dumb do you think we are?
Do we know that it was law enforcement that assessed him?
I understand from some in California it was not law-enforcement.
So this is what “total transparency” and “zero tolerance” looks like in California. A “secret meeting” to allow a man who admits to CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE, to resume going to fellowship meetings. 2 Elders wanted to involve their meeting, hats off to them, that is absolutely the way it should be. They were considered as not voting. 4 Elders voted NO, it is their home and their right to ban pedophiles from their homes. 5 Elders voted YES, no one has the right to force you to meet with pedophiles. Sooo, the perpetrator “wins” by 5 out of 11 votes. Sounds like “Voting 101” by Donald Trump. Please do not allow this farce to continue, stand up and be counted, you are either against wrong or accepting wrong, there is no “gray” area.
Men who revel in their position as elder do not want to do anything to lose their position. There needs to be term limits. Elder for life leads to complacency in some instances. I’m not including all elders because I’ve had some outstanding elders in my life….they truly look out for their church. We all have seen meetings removed when the elder disagrees with the overseer. I recently had a conversation with an elders wife. They’ve had a meeting in their home for at least 30 years. She admitted to me that they are not taking the ministry safe course, they are not following anything on line about the crisis, and they find it all too upsetting. She admitted they are choosing “ignorance is bliss.” Their overseer loves them.
That’s exactly why this fellowship is in this deep mess! Will they ever truely get out of it? Not if this culture remains the same.
Exactly! I agree wholeheartedly James Grigg!
I heard that 14 families left the fellowship (11 with meetings in their home), because of this issue, in this field. If he was an honest and truly repentant predator… even if he was 100% cured… he would value peace in the kingdom to be far greater than the freedom to have fellowship again.
It would be wise for him to stay away, if only for the sake of keeping peace and not causing, or stirring up division. This requires true and honest love for the brethren. He could voluntarily become a shut-in (prisoner) for the gospel’s sake. Those that are able and willing could come visit him in his “prison”.
Assuming it’s the same situation 14 people left, and 11 of those people had meeting in their homes surrounding the case of one alleged groomer in AZ and the way that was mishandled for years. It wasn’t 14 families, and it was a different person w/ allegations if we’re talking about the same situation.
We can expect many more years of this, and occurrence after occurrence if the men of influence like Barry, Ray, Dale, Craig, Jim, Rob, etc. etc. are left to manage their hierarchy.
And then the long line of their “helpers”. Workers and elders. Controlling from the shadows or more visible.
And yes be very sure the ones that spoke out will be reprimanded.
One problem being, these elders all felt the need to respond and be present in a meeting at the orders of these workers.
Only when they are given no authority will the direction even begin to change.
If you are pleased the way it’s going, continue your support for them.
What a joke these people have become
Can anyone please tell me if the vote was public or private ballot? If private ballot, then I have respect for the overseer for including the elders in the decision and soliciting unbiased input. If a public ballot, then it was a flawed vote, a completely pointless meeting, and a disingenuous way for the overseer to appear to consult with elders while trusting on intimidation to confirm the decision he wanted.
@Mferguson. Respect for the overseers for what exactly? Do you think it’s ok for past victims and now potentially more children to be put in harms way? You do realize if more children are hurt it will be maybe 30 years or more before they have the courage to speak about it.
As a survivor it took me 31 years before I had the courage to speak up.
Or, they (without accurate information) convinced the elders that they HAD to forgive? Which isn’t truthful.
Showing mercy & truth with kindness to “sinners” is one thing. Criminal behavior falls into a different catagory. Dominance for your gratification, is not “just a sin, it’s criminal. If you aren’t educated enough to handle a situation, then you do NOT have the right to be making decisions about that situation…and even more so…no right to convince OTHERS to do the wrong thing either!
The thief on the cross with Jesus was a criminal. Jesus forgave him, and had the power to help that man get off the cross, just like He, a sinless man, had the power to take himself down off the cross. Jesus did neither. There are natural consequences for terrible decisions. Everyone goes into the ground from this life (not to heaven or hell as some have been snookered into thinking), where we will either start tormenting ourselves because of regret that we chose not to seek God’s help on a daily basis while there was time to do so, or to rest as “paradise” in Him, until the Judgement Day where God will be anxious to bless everyone in every way he can. For those who can’t be blessed, then they will be sent to Hell, and for those with blessing, they will be sent to Heaven. If you don’t believe this, I suggest you do an indepth study on the words Jesus spoke about what to expect at the end of our lives, and upon His return. I hope he the rest of his years in prison. It will give him time to either make things right with God, or at the very least, have no ability to harm another child.
If they had respected the elders who
to ask their ‘meetings’ first, the vote count may have been 6 to 5 and the abuser not allowed. It seems that the overseers got the vote count they wanted without considering the churches and ran with it.
Sadly so Jay, they have made a mockery out of Christianity ( yes there are honest one’s amongst them, they need to come out of Sodom and Gamora)
Rob Newman and Richard Denherder needed a vote, regarding a known and personally admitted CSA perpetrators readmission into fellowship meeting? Just further infect the swamp. No chance of any good changes.
Yet more sad reading. Despite all that is going on, clearly the friends still have moral and spiritual sense… this at least is comforting. Yes! a few digs and potshots but in the main, sincere sensible comments and suggestions.
Wouldn’t it be uplifting if the overseers concerned now recognised the ‘vote’ was improperly conducted and inappropriate. That they took to heart the crystal clear,excellent advice recently produced by the professing professionals, acknowledge their past mistakes and move forward in the only possible way …. zero tolerance.
The following message from an English Lord is, I suggest, still pertinent ……Lord Acton wrote to Bishop Creighton that the same moral standards should be applied to all men, political and religious leaders included, especially, since “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (1887).
Indeed the motive behind SA and CSA is a manifestation of supposed power.
@Horrified: “Respect for the overseer for including the elders in the decision and soliciting unbiased input.” That would be a HUGE step in the right direction for the overseer to give up power to a committee of elders. But I’m pretty sure that once we hear the whole story of how the vote was conducted, it will be disrespect, not respect that I have for the overseer. And no, I don’t think it’s okay for past victims and more children to be put in harm’s way.
Seems things are returning back to “normal” … CSA perpetrators are becoming officially approved again — and the “true and faithful” are swallowing it again …. (just to retain the all important fellowship approval of a front row place in “Gods only true fellowship in the world”)-
Expulsion policy is reinstituted in Canada at least … and few bat an eye … and even convention owners are being expelled for the gall of not accepting workers as the ultimate authorities in moral value.
Reminds me of the Alberta mass-excomunications a few years ago .. a few cries of resistance and first .. but then just the central policy of ignoring its significance and a holy pretence that “it never really happened”
Why would we expect a greater willingness to stand for truth now?
Oh what a tangled web we Weave when first we practice to deceive
The elders who voted for or against including a pedophile at the secret elders meeting have been counted.
Yes “Men”: Don S., Joe S, Shann G., Ron W. Don S.
Yes, but will have to ask my meeting: Daryl G., Britton A.
NO!!: Jack P., Robert P., John M., Butch C.
Thank you to those elders voting No, who understand the difference between right and wrong as well as their bibles. For those voting yes to having an alleged pedophile in meetings, we’ll pray that you be converted.
“Were victims or victim impact statements part of the process?”
Most assuredly, no.
I am a victim, and I was barred from being present at a similar meeting. Although this one was otherwise less restrictive in who could attend, very few people knew about it. The only reason I knew was because someone I’m close with was there and informed me the day prior. They said it sounded like the workers needed clarification on some details of the abuse so that they could determine my abuser’s “eligibility” in the fellowship going forward. At the time, this person who informed me agreed that having me be present at the meeting made sense, as it directly involved things that happened to me, and the “details” were something that I was unfortunately all too familiar with.
So I planned to go. I decided I’d just be there long enough to give my statement and answer questions if there were any. (I had no desire to endure the whole meeting.)
On the day of the meeting, I was just getting dressed to go when one of the attendees reached out to me. They sounded almost panicked , and their attempt to come across casual and conversational failed as soon as they spoke. In an octave higher than necessary, and seemingly holding back a great deal, they asked me what exactly my plan was. After I said what my plan was, a voice in the background said something I couldn’t hear, but I heard the tone, and it made me feel horrible inside. Like my gut knew the truth before I did. I then hesitantly asked if we were on the same page, and this was the response: “We don’t actually know what the workers called the meeting for. It could be for a range of different reasons that don’t involve you at all, and if that’s the case, it would not be appropriate for you to be there for that.”
I had to step back and reassess the situation. Find the facts. I was already explicitly informed that the workers had called a meeting to discuss [components of csa] as they pertained to my abusers eligibility to partake in [components of fellowship.] I knew that the person who graciously informed me of the meeting initially thought I would be welcome to attend, at least for some of it. I was prepared to bring only what was needed and nothing more. These were the things I was sure of. In my mind, it made the most logical sense to obtain information about an event directly from those who were there when it happened, witnessed it happen, and those who are most affected by it. Either this meeting does not call for logic and facts, or someone was being untruthful with me. Possibly both. I remembered that angry and insistent tone in the background. I was not sure at the time, but I suspected that at least one attendee did not want me to be there for any reason or length of time. As this realization sunk in, I can’t say it didn’t hurt, deeply. I didn’t understand how this could be the cas because I felt that logic was on my side. If they wanted to verify or clarify anything about what happened to me as a child(11-13), adult me would be the one to ask, right? In a logical world, yes.
I’m not a vindictive or spiteful person. It’s just not in me. I don’t like conflict, and, unfortunately for me apparently, I will always lean into short-term peace between myself and others (even my abuser), at the expence of my own peace of mind in the long-term.
I didn’t go, but I should have. I was prepared to, and I felt relieved to finally be validated in being a part of the discourse. I knew that person was not being honest with me when they said they didn’t know what the workers called the meeting for. But it seemed to stress some people out quite a heck of a lot that I would make an appearance. So much so that they felt the need to head me off at the pass and urge me not to come.
“Were victims or victim impact statements part of the process?”
From my personal experience… NO.
Any current news on Gilbert Smith? Or Mark Huddle and Truit Oyler?