The ‘informational’ meeting I attended occurred on April 8, 2015. The elders claimed they had done an internal investigation. Yet their March 17, 2015, certified letter to Professor Lay and Titus stated they “had not taken the role of an investigator.” What a difference three weeks made in their story. If an investigation had begun during those three weeks, why were the results and conclusions listed vaguely and not reported in detail at the April 8 meeting? Why did the elders make opposite statements on the two occasions? If one speaks truth consistently, don’t the statements align with consistency? I’m just asking.
“The tension in the room heightened because some of the attendees had also witnessed the first meeting, and they sensed a change in what they had been told the week before. Elder #5 continued to list the church’s progress in reviewing policies and protective measures to update them and bolster their effectiveness. He moved the timeline forward to the previous month when the open letter hit Facebook and to when the case study made its rounds. In a third 180-degree turnaround, Elder #5 haltingly told us they did conduct an internal investigation.” (Taylor, Joy S., A View from the Pews — The Inside Story of a Broken Church, 2022 Lily of the Valley Publishing, Santa Claus IN, p. 80.)
Order your copy of A View from the Pews on Amazon and read the entire story.