Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
closetcagebaby

John Ortberg’s Estranged Son Accuses Him of Protecting Pedophile

Recommended Posts

Howl

I just re-read the twitter unroll and all of the text in the tweet that was posted by Daniel's wife; there is no reference to the Kentler Project. The link I posted above was on the internet;  came across it randomly.  If I can find another reference relative to the Ortbergs and Kentler Project, I'll post it. 

The whole thing is heartbreaking and crazy.  There a lot of focus on the possibility of physical abuse, but the fact that part of the attraction is romantic/emptional means he was having inappropriate emotional relationships with his target group (8 to 13 year-old boys)  at the very least.  

I cannot imagine what was his father was thinking -- the guy has a doctorate in clinical psychology.  There is simply no excuse for what he did -- which is to encourage his pedophile son to continue having unsupervised contact with young boys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NachosFlandersStyle
On 6/28/2020 at 11:08 PM, NachosFlandersStyle said:

Phew. Daniel says his sister was part of the coverup-- that would be Laura Turner, herself a published writer who often pops up in progressive Christian convos on twitter but has been silent on this matter. 

Laura has deleted her twitter account after claiming that Danny's allegations are "exaggerated." I would love to know what more mild version of this situation would be acceptable. Johnny's only kind of attracted to kids? The family only encouraged him to spend a little bit of time with prepubescent boys?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Giraffe

I commend Daniel for putting other people's safety above his family. If more people would act how he has done a tremendous amount of pain could be avoided. John Ortberg (Sr) needs to step down as a pastor. He's a disgrace to pastors and psychologists! His behavior is unacceptable. His protection of John Jr is unconscionable. 

  • Upvote 2
  • I Agree 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howl

And what led John III to confess these attractions to Daniel recently?   John III is 30 years old. He's been in positions of trust with minor boys as an adult and had this obsession for most of his life. Why come out about it now -- was there a triggering event? 

The Wartburg Watch discussed at length pedophiles who are aware of their attractions but do not physically act on them:  NOMAP = Non Offending Minor Attracted Person

Is the Volunteer at John Ortberg’s Menlo Church a NOMAP (Non-Offending Minor Attracted Person) and What Does This Mean in the Long Run?

Yes, it's possible that John III is a NOMAP, but without doing due diligence, alerting the church body, and interviewing parents and children with whom John III had close contact (including overnight trips away), there's no way to know. 

Also, there was something in the tweet thread or elsewhere that the parents feared  John III might commit suicide if he were outed by Daniel, but the phrasing was ambiguous if the suicide might occur as a result of the humiliation of being outed or the prospect of the loss of companionship of minor boys. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seraaa
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Howl said:

And what led John III to confess these attractions to Daniel recently?   John III is 30 years old. He's been in positions of trust with minor boys as an adult and had this obsession for most of his life. Why come out about it now -- was there a triggering event? 

 

His wife Grace answered how this came about on twitter. The whole situation is heart-breaking. 

 

Edited by seraaa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howl
Posted (edited)

Thanks for that tweet, @seraaa.  I'm following Grace's twitter account now. From Grace Lavery's tweets:

Quote

And one of the things that makes me angriest, on a personal level, is that Johnny’s [John III] rampant transphobia was excused again and again, and John, Nancy, and Laura ALL took me aside at some point to explain that Johnny just needed time to understand the transition, that he loved D[aniel]...When all the time they all knew that Johnny was keeping a FAR more consequential secret, that was being applauded and sanctimoniously mourned by all of them, which evidently warranted none of the panicked “family meetings” occasioned by D’s queerness and transness over the years.

So Daniel was the black sheep, but John III was the fair-haired child because...why exactly? 

Edited by Howl
  • Upvote 1
  • Sad 1
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howl
On 6/29/2020 at 3:19 PM, Howl said:

just re-read the twitter unroll and all of the text in the tweet that was posted by Daniel's wife; there is no reference to the Kentler Project. The link I posted above was on the internet;  came across it randomly.  If I can find another reference relative to the Ortbergs and Kentler Project, I'll post it. 

Here's the tweet:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howl

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marmion
On 6/30/2020 at 7:52 AM, Howl said:

And what led John III to confess these attractions to Daniel recently?   John III is 30 years old. He's been in positions of trust with minor boys as an adult and had this obsession for most of his life. Why come out about it now -- was there a triggering event? 

The Wartburg Watch discussed at length pedophiles who are aware of their attractions but do not physically act on them:  NOMAP = Non Offending Minor Attracted Person

Is the Volunteer at John Ortberg’s Menlo Church a NOMAP (Non-Offending Minor Attracted Person) and What Does This Mean in the Long Run?

Yes, it's possible that John III is a NOMAP, but without doing due diligence, alerting the church body, and interviewing parents and children with whom John III had close contact (including overnight trips away), there's no way to know. 

Also, there was something in the tweet thread or elsewhere that the parents feared  John III might commit suicide if he were outed by Daniel, but the phrasing was ambiguous if the suicide might occur as a result of the humiliation of being outed or the prospect of the loss of companionship of minor boys. 

I have heard of " MAPs " , and "NoMAPs"  , mentioned on a couple YouTube channels .  So if you want to go down that rabbit hole , here is a list of videos decrying this trend . 

Spoiler

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howl

@Marmion, thanks for those links, but I've decided not to even peer over the edge into that rabbit hole; I'm going a little crazy thinking about this. 

There can be immense emotional damage to a child even if there is no physical abuse, because the MAP or NoMap is exploiting a child to satisfy an adult need/obsession; that's a form of abuse. 

As @NachosFlandersStyle pointed out upthread: 

On 6/30/2020 at 12:00 AM, NachosFlandersStyle said:

Laura has deleted her twitter account after claiming that Danny's allegations are "exaggerated." I would love to know what more mild version of this situation would be acceptable. Johnny's only kind of attracted to kids? The family only encouraged him to spend a little bit of time with prepubescent boys?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howl
13 hours ago, Giraffe said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1279958601516216324
Menlo Church has responded with a big “nothing to see here, folks!”

This is turning into quite the cover up fluster cluck. The "investigation" was a joke.  

In these situations, I always wonder about the size of salary of the pastor involved.  Is it in the six figures?  Is that the main motivator behind this type of cover up?  Is the whole church just an income generating machine and that is why no one really wants the answers because the truth might hurt income?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jasmar

Yes. That’s exactly what’s at stake. Back when I was an evangelical, we attended a local mini-mega (as in, a few thousand people rather than tens of thousands over several campuses). My husband was making decent money at that point, and we gave 10% every paycheck, so when it came time to court the biggish givers, we were targeted. 

We were invited to the home of the senior pastor with several other couples (well, with a lot of other couples, spread over a series of weeks) for dessert and a pitch for a multi-million dollar renovation to the church.

They lived in the most expensive area of our town, drove top of the line cars, etc. I was so shocked. Both husband and wife had written books, so I naively assumed their money came from The publishing world. (If anyone is in publishing please try not to laugh too hard at me, haha!)

Much later, I found out that no, the church really was paying them that much. I couldn’t freaking believe it, and honestly, still have time wrapping my head around it. And our church wasn’t as big as a lot of the ones making this kind of news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NachosFlandersStyle

It generates income, definitely, but it also generates prestige, influence, and a sense of superiority, which would be awfully difficult to let go of even if there were no money involved. Church leaders are terrified of being revealed to be actually not very good people, and by a trans person no less! 

Same thing I've always felt about the Catholic church-- if you want us to view you as a moral authority, surely you could lift even one finger to demonstrate that you have some shred of moral integrity. But that would force them to admit that our admiration is conditional upon their decent behavior, and that's not good enough. So instead they just double down and cast aspersions on any critic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howl

Because the parents, grandparents and sister are all on board with supporting J.O. III, I suspect J.O. III is very very good at manipulating people to see him as a sympathetic and upstanding figure with a quite unfortunate but really very small and not very worrisome quirk. 

As I think I noted uptread, J.O. III has at a minimum been emotionally inappropriate with victims, a form of abuse. Hoping for the sake of all little boys he's had contact with that he has not transgressed into the realm of physical abuse. 

As someone (Grace?) noted on twitter, you can't know if there's been abuse until there's been a truly thorough investigation, and that has not yet happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GuineaPigCourtship

It's not really even about JO trying to protect his son.  I could understand that motivation, even if I don't agree with it at the cost of hurting others.  We don't know if John III offended or not, but putting him in frequent contact with minors had to be extremely difficult for him to avoid offending.  That's the opposite of protecting (both his son and the minors), whatever ass-backwards logic he used to decide on that course of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrazyCatLady

Apparently the family had a rule that Johnny was never to be left alone with his nephew because of his "little problem."

 

Allegedly, Johnny only told his parents of his attraction to children because he was worried that things he'd been looking at online could get him in legal trouble and needed the family's support.

 

The family (asside from Daniel and Grace) are clearly trying to minimize Johnny's sexual attraction to children.

 

I got this info from Bad Christian Podcast episode 516 where a friend of Danny's is interviewed. I also got some info from

 

https://ruthhutchins.com/post/menlo-church-john-ortberg-timeline/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howl
Posted (edited)

The crux piece of information  had to do with J.O. III's lost computer. 

Quote

Daniel’s June statement also revealed the “volunteer” was Daniel’s brother, John Ortberg III. According to Daniel, this disclosure was prompted by the volunteer losing his laptop and fearing the police would find it.

What inappropriate content would be a concern if police found it? Unless he's running drugs or laundering money, my bet would be child porn.   

And it's infuriating to know that while his parents approved of  J.O. III working with, coaching and traveling overnight unsupervised with young boys, including visits to Mexico, he was never allowed to be alone with his nephew. 

Edited by Howl
  • Upvote 6
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrazyCatLady




What inappropriate content would be a concern if police found it? My bet would be child porn.   


Exactly. And we know the family will deny and bury anything that could make them look bad. I have a feeling there's a lot they're hiding...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NachosFlandersStyle
1 hour ago, Howl said:

What inappropriate content would be a concern if police found it?

That, to me, is the giant flaming red flag in all of this. He decided to confess his pedophilia because of concerns about what was on his laptop? And the person he confesses to is still saying that there's been no wrongdoing?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrazyCatLady

It appears this family would rather support a pedophile because he attends church than their upstanding son because he is trans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howl
8 hours ago, CrazyCatLady said:

It appears this family would rather support a pedophile because he attends church than their upstanding son because he is trans.

You nailed it.  Up until Daniel exposed the charade, the Ortbergs, including J.O. III, looked pretty darn good. Now, their livelihood and reputation are severely™ (shout out to JR!) damaged. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FiveAcres

Looking at child porn is not a victimless crimes. There were victims in the making of it. 

I know I am preaching to the choir here.   

  • Upvote 8
  • I Agree 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howl
2 hours ago, FiveAcres said:

Looking at child porn is not a victimless crimes. There were victims in the making of it. 

Yes, And the exact reason that possessing/sharing it can put one in prison for quite some time. 

So: two things

  • There was fear that the contents of the laptop, if revealed to others, would bring J.O. III to the attention of the authorities
  • There was fear that if J.O. III were to receive counseling, the counselor might report J.O. III to the police

So many red flags. 

  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ladyamylynn
On 6/29/2020 at 12:00 AM, refugee said:

Help? I thought I understood what “trans” means (a woman I know, grew up in our former cult as male, left, changed—long story short, calls herself trans and was upset by someone calling her by her “dead name”, is the closest example I know, but maybe there’s more to the term?). I’m confused in this case. If it’s okay to ask?

What specifically are you confused about? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.