The J.R. Brown interview included one comment that really stuck out to me. (I'm going to paraphrase what was said.) Asked whether congregation members would be aware when they were working door-to-door with a known molester, Brown said: "Well, congregations are very tight-knit, like families, and everyone would know what a particular person had been reproved or disfellowshipped for in the past, because you know their habits" and so on and so forth.
This was certainly a novel line of reasoning! Whatever happened to the strict sanctity and confidentiality of the judicial committee process?
If you follow Brown's reasoning to a logical conclusion, you might as well just announce right up front what people are disfellowshipped for. After all, everybody knows, right?
I can say that I was usually clueless as to why people were (rarely) reproved or DF'd in my congregation--unless there was a tell-tale sign, such as some young sister looking unexpectedly pregnant and a wedding hastily cooked up!
Anyway, this was just an asinine thing for him to say. Child molestation is conducted in secret! It's not something where everybody would "know the molester's habits." For him to say that represents the same kind of goofy logic as the "two witness" policy.
comment