Young Men's President arrested for sex crimes

[Duncan]

I don't know Bro. Raborn or anything but I am just going to throw this out there that this isn't his first time he has done or thought about these things. I don't know what he did specifically but you don't go from minding your own business to sex junk in one day, maybe this the way that God wanted him to get caught so he and the girls can get help? People can overcome stuff like this and lead productive lives

[cinepro]

6 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The inevitable consequence of G-d making "all things known," including the criminal acts of a Cain, is that either G-d Himself or those in authority to whom He communicates "all things" must take action to prevent the criminal act:  in this case, Cain's murderous rage.

But let's be honest, shall we?  The whole point of bringing this up in the first place is to infer that no special discernment is granted or grantable, since (a) the Church is false and/or (b) there is no G-d Who can grant discernment.

I'm just pointing out two facts:

1. The LDS Church teaches about the "gift of discernment", especially as applied to Bishops, that is unique and noteworthy (above and beyond what would be expected from the normal faculties of leaders.)

2. The original post cites a situation in which someone was called to a position that they probably shouldn't have been (and it's not the only case).

I think it's possible to discuss the validity of point #1 in light of point #2 without it bringing into question the truthfulness of the entire Church or the existence of God.  I'm not sure why you would think otherwise, but if you can't separate the two PLEASE STOP THINKING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW!

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by cinepro

[USU78]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

I think it's possible to discuss the validity of point #1 in light of point #2 without it bringing into question the truthfulness of the entire Church or the existence of God.  I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.

Because of my powers of discernment. 

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This scenario would seem to prejudge Cain for an act that he had not committed yet.  Would he then be held accountable at the judgement bar for acts which he would have committed if God had not prevented them for happening?

Of course not.  You correctly diagnose the silliness of the implications, and, accordingly, the assertion.  Free will and personal responsibility are a big deal in Mormon thought.  Without them, our entire world view collapses.

Edited February 18, 2016 by USU78

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Here is the problem statement.

You assume an absence of care on the part of the Church, as if the actions of this individual are the result of the Church ignoring information.

What care do you think they neglected?

Does the church do background checks on people they put in positions over children or youth?   Let me answer.

No.

there is care they neglect always and often.

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The power of discernment is not a crystal ball, nor does it override the freedom of the individual to make choices. 

I.e., it doesn't exist.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I.e., it doesn't exist.

But I have faith that it does.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This isn't the fault of the church.  The abuser is 100% responsible for his own actions...its unfortunate that the media uses the churches good reputation to sell papers...but I guess due to so many LDS members having great reputations this outlier does make this news worthy

Kind of you to say this.

[Johnnie Cake]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Kind of you to say this.

Well it's the truth...I always try to say things I firmly believe to be true

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Well it's the truth...I always try to say things I firmly believe to be true

Me too.  Makes conversation much more satisfying.

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Does the church do background checks on people they put in positions over children or youth?   Let me answer.

No.

there is care they neglect always and often.

He doesn't have a sex crimes criminal record.  What more of a background check do you recommend? 

I represent private schools who are sued over sex crimes.  Every teacher found guilty had no remarkable criminal record.  Every aide or other worker (for whom background checks were not done) had no sex crimes background.

The Boy Scouts do background checks.   Since I work in the area, I don't think the level of their problems has decreased much since they started.

Pervs are in every walk of life; bankers, teachers, priests, homeless, drunks, grandfathers and their own grandchildren, people you personally know and trust, people who post on this website, and their crimes are spontaneous or often undetected for decades.  They prey on the weak.  Adults willing to volunteer for the Boy Scouts or youth sports teams and teachers looking for jobs often do so because it puts them in contact with children.  It is often unconscious.  They don't realize they are being attracted to professions and avocations involving children so they can find victims.  It's like a womanizer and adulterer who tends only to hire pretty women for interns and employees.  He doesn't really realize what he is doing.   They can't help themselves, or so the argument goes.

It is pretty easy for the uninformed to demand that churches do background checks on its members, but I think that is a violation of the First Amendment to require it, and I think that it is a assault on religion to even think about doing it..  

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[sjdawg]

I don't see anything to indicate it would have helped in this instance but I think it is time the LDS church started doing police clearance checks for those working with Youth.   After all, they do have the gold standard program for dealing with assault

[Bob Crockett]

What is a police clearance check?

 

Ever state has a Megans Law database the public can view.  The police won't disclose mere arrests or suspicion nor do they give reports to citizens.  But I await your answer.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Bob Crockett

[Thinking]

Was this his first offense? If it was, how can the Church be held liable?

[emeliza]

My main thought when reading this was....crud, this is in my home state.     

My second was, this is why my husband won't allow the Bishop (or counselors) to have meetings with our daughters without a woman (YW leader) present.  

My third was about how when I was Presbyterian, we had an insurance company that required anyone who worked with youth to have a background check and take a course in reporting abuse and what to look for and many other similar topics.  The LDS church is self insured and they have no such requirements.  I don't think a background check will stop things like this from happening, but at least having it on record helps the church from getting sued.  Also, since they don't do those things, it takes me back to my second thought.  

 

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

It seems in my callings, the RS Pres and Bishop would say "The Lord has called you" to this position. 

Yes, but God does not preemptively restrict people from callings for sins they have not yet commited.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I.e., it doesn't exist.

Wrong.

[Russell C McGregor]

5 minutes ago, emeliza said:

My main thought when reading this was....crud, this is in my home state.     

My second was, this is why my husband won't allow the Bishop (or counselors) to have meetings with our daughters without a woman (YW leader) present.  

My third was about how when I was Presbyterian, we had an insurance company that required anyone who worked with youth to have a background check and take a course in reporting abuse and what to look for and many other similar topics.  The LDS church is self insured and they have no such requirements.  I don't think a background check will stop things like this from happening, but at least having it on record helps the church from getting sued.  Also, since they don't do those things, it takes me back to my second thought.  

 

The relevance of this to that is not clear to me. A bishop is not a YM president. This fellow wasn't molesting his victims in the course of Church-mandated ecclesiastical interviews.

Purely to satisfy my idle curiosity: does your husband take this "helicopter" approach with any adult men who might come in contact with your daughters, or only LDS Church leaders?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

This isn't the fault of the church.  The abuser is 100% responsible for his own actions...its unfortunate that the media uses the churches good reputation to sell papers...but I guess due to so many LDS members having great reputations this outlier does make this news worthy

Throughout my career in the news profession, I have heard people ask repeatedly, "Why is so much of the news bad?"

The short answer is that, blessedly, most good stuff is so commonplace that it is not newsworthy. News by nature is unusual, occasionally appalling, sometimes even threatening. I have said on occasion, heaven help us if we ever reach the point where the bad stuff becomes so common it is not newsworthy any longer.

 

[cinepro]

5 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

The relevance of this to that is not clear to me. A bishop is not a YM president. This fellow wasn't molesting his victims in the course of Church-mandated ecclesiastical interviews.

Purely to satisfy my idle curiosity: does your husband take this "helicopter" approach with any adult men who might come in contact with your daughters, or only LDS Church leaders?

 

In what other capacity would it be conceivable for an adult man (in a position of authority) to be placed in an isolated one-on-one environment with young girls?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but not even school teachers place themselves in such situations anymore. 

Granted, I've never heard of a child being abused because of an interview; it's always stories about sleepovers and campouts and whatnot, so I think the focus on Bishop's interviews by some people is a concern about something other than actual molestation.  But the idea that young girls are regularly isolated with adult men that aren't relatives seems like a stretch (and of course relatives are more likely to be the problem anyway).

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, cinepro said:

In what other capacity would it be conceivable for an adult man (in a position of authority) to be placed in an isolated one-on-one environment with young girls?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but not even school teachers place themselves in such situations anymore. 

Granted, I've never heard of a child being abused because of an interview; it's always stories about sleepovers and campouts and whatnot, so I think the focus on Bishop's interviews by some people is a concern about something other than actual molestation.  But the idea that young girls are regularly isolated with adult men that aren't relatives seems like a stretch (and of course relatives are more likely to be the problem anyway).

Even in interviews like that someone else must be nearby in the building. I am all for safety but I also think that interviews with priesthood leaders are a necessary exception. I would not want someone there for my safety while confessing my sins as a teenage boy and I cannot teenage girl would either.

[VideoGameJunkie]

A thought just occurred to me. Could the two 16 year old girls get in trouble with their Bishop and Stake President for having sex and sending inappropriate texts? 

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm just pointing out two facts:

1. The LDS Church teaches about the "gift of discernment", especially as applied to Bishops, that is unique and noteworthy (above and beyond what would be expected from the normal faculties of leaders.)

2. The original post cites a situation in which someone was called to a position that they probably shouldn't have been (and it's not the only case).

I think it's possible to discuss the validity of point #1 in light of point #2 without it bringing into question the truthfulness of the entire Church or the existence of God.  I'm not sure why you would think otherwise, but if you can't separate the two PLEASE STOP THINKING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW!

 

In order for the Church to claim the gift of discernment, every action made by every leader - top to bottom - must be correct, every calling perfectly crafted and executed, every promise fulfilled, every sin detected prior to the act,  every sinner and traitor revealed before the offense, every blessing effectual, every prayer answered, every talk inspired, every decision flawless, and every jot and tittle in their proper places. If not, the Church cannot be inspired of God and its leaders are irreparably flawed. Bishops, especially. How could it be otherwise?

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I.e., it doesn't exist.

I have experienced it from both sides of the desk.

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, emeliza said:

My main thought when reading this was....crud, this is in my home state.     

My second was, this is why my husband won't allow the Bishop (or counselors) to have meetings with our daughters without a woman (YW leader) present.  

My third was about how when I was Presbyterian, we had an insurance company that required anyone who worked with youth to have a background check and take a course in reporting abuse and what to look for and many other similar topics.  The LDS church is self insured and they have no such requirements.  I don't think a background check will stop things like this from happening, but at least having it on record helps the church from getting sued.  Also, since they don't do those things, it takes me back to my second thought.  

 

The Church explicitly and frequently propagates its moral standards to its leaders, members, and the general public. Probably more frequently and forcefully than any school or company. It would be a rare member who would not be aware of them. 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Bernard Gui