The Asterisk

[Glenn101]

It does not matter what the church does, it is going to get flak from someone. It has been criticized for not being proactive enough with child sex abuse cases. The asterisk (or annotation) is used to alert leaders to possible problems and guidance has been given to church leadership at all levels how to handle such cases. The salvation of a fully penitent person with a sexual misconduct infraction will not be impeded by that asterisk. Only where, not how, they may serve may have some restrictions. A fully penitent person will recognize the difference and proceed to serve to the very best of his ability in the areas where he is allowed to serve.

Glenn

[Libs]

I still would like to have the exact policy and reasoning verified, somehow. Is there any way to do that?

[TAO]

I still would like to have the exact policy and reasoning verified, somehow. Is there any way to do that?

You could mail and ask them. They might answer, or they might not. But, in the least case, you could try.

I think, however, it would be best to trust them on this.

Also, remember there are many other callings they can serve in. Some of those callings are really wonderful, too =).

[Stargazer]

In reality, despite the fact that homosexuals represent only 1 to 5% of the population, more than a third of molestations against children are homosexual assaults.

While correlation is not necessarily causation, if five percent of a population (with a particular behavior or affinity) is commiting more than a third of a certain category of crimes, prudence demands that behavior or affinity is deserving of a little more scrutiny, wouldn't you say?

Assuming that the asterisk thing is a fact... then I see it as preventative maintenance. It's possibly much like the security theater put on by Homeland Security at our airports. It looks like they're doing something when they probably aren't.

But, selek1, that third of homosexual molestations against children are committed largely by ostensibly heterosexual individuals.

I am reminded of the story of the serial sex criminal in the Soviet Union that was eventually solved after a number of years (one of the few such crimes to be publicized in the West). The police made a particular point of rousting homosexuals after each occurrence, even though the crimes were committed against both sexes. Eventually the culprit was found. He was a heterosexual Communist Party member.

[why me]

Is that the reasoning behind the permanent asterisk? Boy Scout leadership?

As for the reasoning, why would a gay man be anymore suspect than any other man (without a record of child abuse)? My brother was in a troop whose leader molested several boys, and he was a married man with children of his own. Pedophilia is a category unto itself.

Here is what I think: if the lds church allowed a sexually active gay man to lead the boy scouts and it came out that this man abused a boy in his troop or if this gay man was not sexually active and abused a boy, I think that the lawsuit would be huge. Now this is not to say that all gay men are abusers, but it is a way to protect an organization from lawsuits. I think that the problem is in the inclination of being attracted to the same sex. .

[Libs]

But, selek1, that third of homosexual molestations against children are committed largely by ostensibly heterosexual individuals.

Yes, there is a LOT of misinformation out there about people who are same-sex attracted. I wasn't going to get into that, as this just doesn't seem like the right place for that discussion, but I do worry that, perhaps, this and other "policies" aimed at homosexuals are coming from some of that misinformation.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Libs

[why me]

Assuming that the asterisk thing is a fact... then I see it as preventative maintenance. It's possibly much like the security theater put on by Homeland Security at our airports. It looks like they're doing something when they probably aren't.

But, selek1, that third of homosexual molestations against children are committed largely by ostensibly heterosexual individuals.

I am reminded of the story of the serial sex criminal in the Soviet Union that was eventually solved after a number of years (one of the few such crimes to be publicized in the West). The police made a particular point of rousting homosexuals after each occurrence, even though the crimes were committed against both sexes. Eventually the culprit was found. He was a heterosexual Communist Party member.

I think that we need to have a definition of heterosexuality. It would seem that if a man abuses a boy of 15 sexually and this man claims to be hetero, he just may have latent homosexual tendencies.

[why me]

Yes, there is a LOT of misinformation out there about people who are same-sex attracted. I wasn't going to get into that, as this just doesn't seem like the right place for that discussion, but I do worry that, perhaps, this and other "policies" aimed at homosexuals are coming from some of that misinformation.

This could be. But I initially asked you just how a parent might feel if the lds church knowingly allowed a gay male to lead the boy scout troop and then it was discovered that their son was abused by this man, just what would you do or feel about the lds church's responsibility?

It would be interesting if lawyers would respond to this question.

Edited June 1, 2012 by why me

[Libs]

You could mail and ask them. They might answer, or they might not. But, in the least case, you could try.

I think, however, it would be best to trust them on this.

Also, remember there are many other callings they can serve in. Some of those callings are really wonderful, too =).

Hi TAO.

I was just wanting to get accurate information about the policy that's in place, that's all. Is there some way that policy can be verified? I just don't want to misunderstand and make assumptions. It would really be nice to know what it is, exactly, and maybe a little about why.

[Calm]

The current handbook states:

If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.

http://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.4#214

[Libs]

This could be. But I initially asked you just how a parent might feel if the lds church knowingly allowed a gay male to lead the boy scout troop and then it was discovered that their son was abused by this man, just what would you do or feel about the lds church's responsibility?

It would be interesting if lawyers would respond to this question.

I think the parents would be upset, no matter the sexual orientation of the perpetrator. I'm not saying the church doesn't have the responsibility to try and screen people for that kind of position, but using sexual orientation as a part of the screening process, seems, not only discriminatory, but is not going to make their children any safer, IMHO. A lot of pedophiles are heterosexual, seemingly, happily married males. They are usually very good at creating a cover. The last guy you might ever suspect..

Edited June 1, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

The current handbook states:

http://www.lds.org/h...licies/21.4#214

Thanks, Calmoriah. I wonder if this information is up to date? The policy being discussed was, supposedly, not put into place until early last year.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I think the parents would be upset, no matter the sexual orientation of the perpetrator. I'm not saying the church doesn't have the responsibility to try and screen people for that kind of position, but using sexual orientation as a part of the screening process, seems, not only discriminatory, but is not going to make their children any safer, IMHO. A lot of pedophiles are heterosexual, seemingly, happily married males. They are usually very good at creating a cover. The last guy you might ever suspect..

Libs, again, it is not discriminatory any worse than how we do not call men to teach young women classes and we don't call women to teach young men classes. Additionally, if a male is called to teach in Primary, he is always supposed to have a teaching companion, regardless of sexual orientation. That is discriminatory against all men, but it is a sound policy based on past experience. Men are more like to be accused of sexual crimes than women, so they can't teach primary classes alone. It is absolutely discriminatory of us to not call men to the women's organization and vice versa, but we know that it is not wise to call a leader to youth who is attracted to that gender. Normally, it's a non-issue, because mothers aren't going to complain that some young returned missionary isn't teaching Laurels. In this case though, that your returned missionary is gay, so would not be attracted to the female gender, but is to the male gender. Would that gay person hit on the young men? Probably not, but the same reason that keeps him from teaching the young women keeps him from teaching the young men. It is common sense.

[Craig Paxton]

I don't know how many poster here are "Sinners" But I'm going to guess that it would include everyone. Can you imagine how you would feel if your Church membership records were marked with a "Lifetime" asterisk...which followed you throughout your life so that long after you had repented of your so-called sin every future church authority would know the essence of your sin?

This is a hurtful, harmful unChrist-like and humiliating policy and is unbecoming of a church that claims to represent Jesus Christ. It is equivalent to branding a scarlet letter on the sinner…but not just any sinner…ONLY those who struggle with homosexual tendencies.

What ever happened to....the "and I will remember it no more" bargin built into the repentance process?

This is again a perfect example of the institutional church placing its needs above the needs of the individual.

Were it not exclusive to gay’s, I seriously doubt that the general membership would be so accepting of this blatant discrimination.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Craig Paxton]

Libs, again, it is not discriminatory any worse than how we do not call men to teach young women classes and we don't call women to teach young men classes. Additionally, if a male is called to teach in Primary, he is always supposed to have a teaching companion, regardless of sexual orientation. That is discriminatory against all men, but it is a sound policy based on past experience. Men are more like to be accused of sexual crimes than women, so they can't teach primary classes alone. It is absolutely discriminatory of us to not call men to the women's organization and vice versa, but we know that it is not wise to call a leader to youth who is attracted to that gender. Normally, it's a non-issue, because mothers aren't going to complain that some young returned missionary isn't teaching Laurels. In this case though, that your returned missionary is gay, so would not be attracted to the female gender, but is to the male gender. Would that gay person hit on the young men? Probably not, but the same reason that keeps him from teaching the young women keeps him from teaching the young men. It is common sense.

Matthew...this policy keeps repentant gays from involvment with any youth program...YM, Sunday School and Primary....it is discriminatory...it is one sided...it is equivilent to calling the repentant homosexual a pedophile. The mere essence of the policy is discusting...

Edited June 1, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[mrmandias]

I find it shocking that SS attracted would be treated as potential child molesters.

The church treats the non-SS attracted as potential child molesters, just like our society in general does. This is why my Young Men's program has rules about two-deep leadership, why the handbook has rules about adults not sharing tents with unrelated youth unless there are more than one adult in the tent, and why the church has put/is putting doors with windows in classrooms in church buildings.

Now a complete ban on involvement with youth programs might be a bit much, but I have no reason to think that there is such a ban.

Edited June 1, 2012 by mrmandias

[ksfisher]

I don't know how many poster here are "Sinners" But I'm going to guess that it would include everyone. Can you imagine how you would feel if your Church membership records were marked with a "Lifetime" asterisk...which followed you throughout your life so that long after you had repented of your so-called sin every future church authority would know the essence of your sin?

This is a hurtful, harmful unChrist-like and humiliating policy and is unbecoming of a church that claims to represent Jesus Christ. It is equivalent to branding a scarlet letter on the sinner…but not just any sinner…ONLY those who struggle with homosexual tendencies.

What ever happened to....the "and I will remember it no more" bargin built into the repentance process?

This is again a perfect example of the institutional church placing its needs above the needs of the individual.

Were it not exclusive to gay’s, I seriously doubt that the general membership would be so accepting of this blatant discrimination.

Having a restriction placed on your church service can be a great protection to the individual who is repenting. Just like you wouldn't want a recovering alcoholic to take a job as a bartender, you wouldn't want a former pedophile to serve in the primary. Why would you want that person to have to constantly deal with that temptation?

And having a notation placed on a private membership record, that only the bishopric would see, is not at all like wearing a scarlet letter.

Edited June 1, 2012 by ksfisher

[ERayR]

Matthew...this policy keeps repentant gays from involvment with any youth program...YM, Sunday School and Primary....it is discriminatory...it is one sided...it is equivilent to calling the repentant homosexual a pedophile. The mere essence of the policy is discusting...

It is all about protecting the children. When one chooses to indulge in their sins they must realize (right or wrong) there are some sins whose repercussions are much longer lasting. When it comes to protecting the children no chances should be taken. The consequences of mistakes are too costly.

[David T]

I'm still convinced it has more to do with making sure there's no conflict with the Boy Scouts of America program than anything. The Church has an amazing relationship with them as it uses them as their male youth activity arm. If the BSA thought the Church would begin allowing Homosexual members to serve in BSA leadership positions - against BSA policy - there'd be a firestorm. I see such an annotation (as I understand, not for those only who have been subject to Church discipline, but simply as having self-identified as Gay) as being a way to make sure policies and relationships aren't unintentionally violated due to an oversight.

It seems to be an effective CYA policy, if it is in fact in place. I could understand it for those purposes.

Edited June 1, 2012 by David T

[Libs]

Libs, again, it is not discriminatory any worse than how we do not call men to teach young women classes and we don't call women to teach young men classes. Additionally, if a male is called to teach in Primary, he is always supposed to have a teaching companion, regardless of sexual orientation. That is discriminatory against all men, but it is a sound policy based on past experience. Men are more like to be accused of sexual crimes than women, so they can't teach primary classes alone. It is absolutely discriminatory of us to not call men to the women's organization and vice versa, but we know that it is not wise to call a leader to youth who is attracted to that gender. Normally, it's a non-issue, because mothers aren't going to complain that some young returned missionary isn't teaching Laurels. In this case though, that your returned missionary is gay, so would not be attracted to the female gender, but is to the male gender. Would that gay person hit on the young men? Probably not, but the same reason that keeps him from teaching the young women keeps him from teaching the young men. It is common sense.

That, I knew about, and I have no problem with it. That just seems to make the exclusion of SS attracted individuals even more puzzling, though, does it not?

Edited June 1, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

I'm still convinced it has more to do with making sure there's no conflict with the Boy Scouts of America program than anything. The Church has an amazing relationship with them as it uses them as their male youth activity arm. If the BSA thought the Church would begin allowing Homosexual members to serve in BSA leadership positions - against BSA policy - there'd be a firestorm. I see such an annotation (as I understand, not for those only who have been subject to Church discipline, but simply as having self-identified as Gay) as being a way to make sure policies and relationships aren't unintentionally violated due to an oversight.

It seems to be an effective CYA policy, if it is in fact in place. I could understand it for those purposes.

Yes, that's another whole issue, on the subject of discrimination, and I'm not going to go there on this thread.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Matthew...this policy keeps repentant gays from involvment with any youth program...YM, Sunday School and Primary....it is discriminatory...it is one sided...it is equivilent to calling the repentant homosexual a pedophile. The mere essence of the policy is discusting...

Craig, please reread my post. It is discriminatory, but not more than keeping a male of any attraction from serving as a Young Women's leader and vice versa. Is that policy wrong? Does it mean that the church views all men as potential problems if they taught Laurel classes? In a way, yes. Our policy is we don't combine them since the attraction is to that gender and they have acted sexually with that gender in the past.

That, I knew about, and I have no problem with it. That just seems to make the exclusion of SS attracted individuals even more puzzling, though, does it not?

I suppose the church could say "Ok, you can serve in Primary in a set, but you can't serve in Yourn Men. Or Primary 11 year olds (because that's a boy's class). But that would probably be more of an administrative headache. And unfrotunately, a lot of wards don't do the double-up teaching system like they should.

[Craig Paxton]

Having a restriction placed on your church service can be a great protection to the individual who is repenting. Just like you wouldn't want a recovering alcoholic to take a job as a bartender, you wouldn't want a former pedophile to serve in the primary. Why would you want that person to have to constantly deal with that temptation?

And having a notation placed on a private membership record, that only the bishopric would see, is not at all like wearing a scarlet letter.

#1 we are talking about a new church policy to place a LIFETIME Mark (asterisk*) on the membership records of all repentant gay men...not "repenting"...and

#2 NO ONE is suggesting that a known pedophile should be place any where near children. BUT to equate gay = pedophile, as this church policy does, is discusting and misguided.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Craig Paxton]

It is all about protecting the children. When one chooses to indulge in their sins they must realize (right or wrong) there are some sins whose repercussions are much longer lasting. When it comes to protecting the children no chances should be taken. The consequences of mistakes are too costly.

While I accept that there are consequences to so-called Mormon defined-sin ... there are also rewards due the repentant soul...a grand bargin with God that their sin wil be forgiven, made white were once it was crimson...in other words forgotten. This policy flies in the face of this grand bargin between the sinner and God.

This policy is also discriminatory...why doesn't the church also "Mark" the membership records of repentant-hetro-sexual sinners?

[Libs]

The church treats the non-SS attracted as potential child molesters, just like our society in general does. This is why my Young Men's program has rules about two-deep leadership, why the handbook has rules about adults not sharing tents with unrelated youth unless there are more than one adult in the tent, and why the church has put/is putting doors with windows in classrooms in church buildings.

Now a complete ban on involvement with youth programs might be a bit much, but I have no reason to think that there is such a ban.

I believe that there is good evidence that this new policy does exist, but I honestly don't know how to verify that.

I have no problem with built in safety measures, like the requirements above. I actually think that is a good thing. But, it would seem all the more reason to believe this new policy is completely unnecessary.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Libs