Hi Waiting:
I'm sorry I didn't take the time to be a little more specific and clear in my description. I was posting from my notes in a real hurry and didn't spend much time re-reading what I wrote to be sure I explained it all. Here's some more thoughts and details.
You said:
Mr. Mark then said "in that first meeting with the Palmers, with this pattern of the father MINIMIZING the events, and Brown describing the details as 'horrible', how could you not try to stop him from going away for 3 weeks holiday with Vicki's mother and younger siblings, one of which was an ll yr. old girl .... the same age Vicki was when he started to molest her?"
Brown said "he felt it was safe". ..........and...............
That's exactly where it was left - making Brown look totally like an incompetant idiot. And I'm sure the Judge noticed how bad Brown made himself look as well.
In the morning, he was Mr. Cool, Articulate, We-are-the-experts, Elder, when he was being questioned by his Defence Councel. But when Mr. Mark began to cross-examine, and would repeatedly refer back to the same facts about the father "minimizing" the details and asking how that can be a sign of repentance and how could he be trusted to not repeat the abuse with others, Brown began to show the other "not-so-cool" side.
Even Glen Howe was seen making a sign to "zip up his lip" because the more Brown talked, the deeper he dug himself in a hole.
He kept saying that "the primary concern of the Judicial Committee is the repentance of the wrongdoer--Vicki was there to provide details, not to get help as a victim." He kept mentioning that they were concerned for Vicki's spiritual well-being.
So, which is it? Are the elders judging the safety of children going on vaction with a known child molester (quote one)...or are the elders concerned only with spirituality (quote two)? Brown's words are in direct conflict.
Exactly. Brown's words continually conflicted. And Mr. Mark's determined prodding just kept exasperating Brown and making him make these conflicting statements. The whole bottom line is their arrogance in seeing themselves as spiritual shepherds but having to push their rules of procedure onto victims like Vicki in order to "see to the spiritual needs of the sinner"...to restore the sinner to a good spiritual condition. In doing so...they had to use the victim to provide details so they could determine how serious to classify his sin.
So how is this showing concern for the spiritual condition of the victim? How does this help her? It doesn't help her at all and the psychologist's testimony yesterday called it being re-raped. Pretty powerful stuff.
Brown just answered "I can't read minds. I can only look at the acts befitting repentance".
And, exactly, what were the child molester's "acts befitting repentance" at that time?
Eric answered correctly that Brown recited the fruitages of the spirit but what I think Brown hung himself on was that he also described the father as being known for having a "rollarcoaster-type" spirituality. He constantly had highs and lows and now when the elders had been called in to discuss the abuse, he had stopped the abuse a few years back and was now on one of his "highs". Brown seemed to judge this "high" as showing acts befitting repentance ie: vacation pioneering a few times, going into unassigned territory with other couples for a few weeks as part of a holiday, good service reports and meeting attendance.
But it left us, and I'm sure the Judge as well, wondering if he had a habit of highs and lows spiritually, what makes them think he wouldn't slip into another low, and start abusing someone again....or as Mr. Mark suggested..couldn't his high be just hiding the bad inside and looking good on the outside, just like the Pharisees.
That looked really bad on their judging skills in dealing with something as serious as child-abuse.
Had Enough