Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,777 Excellent

About Danzo

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,059 profile views
  1. I am interested to know how much the rates of abuse went down due to the Blue Card system.
  2. Maybe, but it is human nature to relax their guard around people we know (or think we know). Everyone knows about stranger danger, but after spending time with someone they are no longer a stranger. We need more education on seeing the danger in people we know; family, friends, teachers and coworker, and yes, even fellow church members.
  3. We wouldn't let our children spend the night at his house (but we don't let them spend the night at anyone else's house either). There is a history in our family of abuse happening so we have always been cautious. Our ward has a designated hall monitor and a designated children's bathroom where adults aren't allowed during church hours (we had this in place before the person on the sex offender list moved in). Real life is messy and we always have to balance between between to cautious and too trusting. It can be difficult. Both extremes can cause problems.
  4. In our ward, he has to be chaperoned by his wife or someone else, but he gets to stay for Sunday school and priesthood. The real trick part is that this person is a father to several youth in the ward. and these youth interact with other youth. We don't want to treat his children as infected by the parent, but this results that youth may end up interacting with him outside of the church events. As a family, we aren't too worried about it (his offense wasn't randomly attacking youth) but we can't in a practical sense wash the guy completely out of our lives. We deal with him and try and teach our children how do deal with him and people like him who may not have been convicted of anything yet.
  5. Some places it is easy, some places it isn't In my area the information is not readily available.
  6. One of the differences between a school and the church is that the school can, and should restrict access to the institution. The church has been commanded not to restrict access to it. We can somewhat control who has direct access to youth and children in the church meetings themselves but not who they meet in the halls or who the meet through family connections at church. Even though the schools in my area perform background checks on all of the teachers, I don't think a month goes by with seeing a mugshot of a teacher in my metro area in the paper accused of child abuse.
  7. I think you have identified a big part of problem here. Bishop, YM pres, SP or EQP are not, and should not be considered more trustworthy (whether they have passed a background check or not). I have shared occasions with my children (my wife as well) where we had to tell people with callings of authority no. None of these incidences had to do with abuse but children should be taught that a position of authority in the church doesn't grant the leader the right to do anything unrighteous (see D&C 121) That is not to say we can't hang out with leaders or anyone else, but we should be aware of warning signs and teach our children to recognize warning signals, and what to do when boundaries are crossed (or even when boundaries are close to being crossed). I don' think the solution is to try and sanitize our children to keep them safe, but teach them how to interact with people so they will be safe. Show them warning signs, monitor them until they are ready to interact on their own. I think teaching these skills to our children (and even our adults) will do more to prevent abuse than meager attempts to sanitizing their environment. Teaching our children to interact with adults (which they will have to do most of their lives) is extremely important. Most adults they meet won't have a background check and often they will have to interact with people who they know would have failed a background check. When our children are young we have to protect them and watch them closely when they interact with adults and other children (even if they have passed background checks). As they mature and get older we need to gradually teach them and trust them to be on their own with other people. This is a process that takes time and shouldn't be left until they are 17 years and 364 days old. The real reason for background checks and two deep leadership is to protect the organization and the adults. A background check my help keep known predators away from the organization itself, but won't protect the vulnerable people (adults and children) that the predictors seem to find anyway. I think any marginal gains in safety are often compromised by a false sense of security as well as restrict the ability of youth to learn how to engage in productive relationships with adults.
  8. In my ideal world, there wouldn't be any abuse. As long as we are describing fantasy worlds, I think my fantasy is better than your fantasy.
  9. I don't think he lives in the same world we do.
  10. In the real world the children are sent back to their abusers homes.
  11. what if they have children in the grade school? not allowed to meet with teacher? Not allowed to pick up children? Sometimes I feel that people on this board don't live in the real world.
  12. I think we should focus on the source of the evil, and not get distracted by things to make us feel better without helping the problem.
  13. If you do a background check, then you are going to have to do something with the results, or the background check is worthless. My question is, what would the local leaders actually do with the background check that would prevent further abuse? I think keeping the person out of a calling that has direct contact with youth is wise, but I don't think that would prevent the person from abusing again if he or she were so inclined.
  14. Not quite clear what his calling was, if he was an Elder's quorum president, he wouldn't be in direct contact with the young men.
  • Create New...