Background Checks?

[Amulek]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have decided the reason his "you could not be more wrong" sounded like a clear cut explanation to me is because no way would I have offered to go ahead and pay for others in the ward if I hadn't already tested out the process, whatever it was.  He did offer, as well as said yes to using the sex offender service so the totality of his posts read to me as "I paid for background checks myself".

That's not how I parse his response. The "you could not be more wrong" comment was a direct response to a comment about free online searches - not paid, professional background investigations.

And I don't think one needs to assume that one must have paid for a good or service previously in order to express genuine interest in being willing to pay for a particular good or service in the future. 

 

Quote

There is nothing in his comments I can see to suggest he was dodging the question, even if he wasn't explicit at times. That seems to me an inappropriate assumption.

You can disagree with my interpretation, but it isn't unfounded. 

Simply swap out what we were actually talking about with something else and see how it sounds:

     Me: This is going to sound cold, but if you don't trust the [weight of bananas you are being charged for at the grocery store], then why don't you pay [for a food scale and weight them] yourself?

     Him: Yeah....that would work. Great solution 🙄

To me, that doesn't sound like merely not being explicit - it sounds like a dodge. 

Even if he went on later to say that he would be willing to pitch in with other people to buy food scales in the future. That doesn't really change the meaning as I see it. YMMV.

 

Quote

He knew what he meant and sometimes that makes us assume we are being explicit about stuff that isn't actually explicit.

I grant that that's a possibility. But you know what's better than assuming you are being explicit? Actually being explicit. 

And you know what's even better than that?

Recognizing that one simply thought they were being explicit all along - rather than actually being explicit - and then admitting they were wrong to call someone out as being dishonest for taking them at their written word. 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Oh, I don't actually think it's a good idea. Somebody taking it upon themselves to be the ward witch hunter would invariably end up fomenting ill-will, regardless of how noble their intentions may be. 

 

Having leadership approval could very well make the idea of being subjected to a background investigation more palatable. I'm not certain that's the biggest hurdle though - it seems as though there would be a myriad of logistical / legal / practical problems that would all come flooding in once you started getting all the information. 

 

What would be the difference to a school district for example in your view?

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And I don't think one needs to assume that one must have paid for a good or service previously in order to express genuine interest in being willing to pay for a particular good or service in the future. 

I don't disagree, though I specifically said paying for others/the ward, I believe (I am not sure you are saying for others or in any case)..  In my case, I would try out something before paying for someone else if possible because I would not want to encourage someone to do something I was not educated on, one of the best ways is to experience it myself.  That was the position I come from for myself so that is the context I interpreted his comment in...just an assumption I made that I wasn't aware of until I thought about it.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

I don't think he was right to call you dishonest, I don't think you were right to suggest he was dodging...which implies imo intentional deception, though perhaps you think of it differently.

I don't think more needs to be said or would be productive, so I am going to try very hard not to respond to anything that is personal...though no guarantees given I am probably a bit OCD about finishing conversations.

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

Oh, I don't actually think it's a good idea. Somebody taking it upon themselves to be the ward witch hunter would invariably end up fomenting ill-will, regardless of how noble their intentions may be.

Weird then, because you sure kept pushing for someone to do just that.

As far as the question and answer (where he said you were dishonest), I think that’s just a misunderstanding.  You did post the wrong question but probably didn’t mean to (or just remembered wrong).  I saw that too (wrong question posted - you weren’t asking him if he had actually ever paid for a background check but seemed to be suggesting he start doing that in his ward by what you asked).  There’s a difference and it’s already been explained that he really does not think that would “work”.  And it seems you agree with him on that.  But I do see the confusion!  Easy to happen in a discussion!

But I’m with Calm on let’s just get back to the actual discussion now  

Edited April 11, 2019 by JulieM

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

What would be the difference to a school district for example in your view?

Well, a school district doesn't have to worry about inviting sex offenders to become part of their community for one.

Aside from that, I suppose much would depend on the actual policies which end up being put in place. Who should be given access to the information? Should being labeled a 'sex offender' prevent one from ever working with children? Wouldn't the church have to develop it's own definition of what it means to be a sex offender? How does that mesh with the law in countries with more liberal / draconian laws regarding sex that what we have in America? Does it matter whether or not their crime involved children? Which callings would be off-limits? What if you didn't commit a crime but your spouse did - should you not be allowed to serve in a calling which may bring children into contact with the offender? 

Honestly, if the church decides it wants to go down that path, they had best be prepared for the floodgates to be opened.

 

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't think he was right to call you dishonest, I don't think you were right to suggest he was dodging...which implies imo intentional deception, though perhaps you think of it differently.

I don't think more needs to be said or would be productive, so I am going to try very hard not to respond to anything that is personal...though no guarantees given I am probably a bit OCD about finishing conversations.

After having a bit of sleep, I've gone back and I can see where there may have been some miscommunication / misunderstandings. 

So, rather than digging in and trying to defend the way I was looking at things, I'm just going to own my part in contributing more heat than light.

@ALarson I apologize for making assumptions about you. I understand this is a subject of great personal importance to you, and I'll do my best to focus more on dialogue and discussion whenever we interact on this subject in the future.

 

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

After having a bit of sleep, I've gone back and I can see where there may have been some miscommunication / misunderstandings. 

So, rather than digging in and trying to defend the way I was looking at things, I'm just going to own my part in contributing more heat than light.

@ALarson I apologize for making assumptions about you. I understand this is a subject of great personal importance to you, and I'll do my best to focus more on dialogue and discussion whenever we interact on this subject in the future.

 

Everything here should be framed and distributed. ❤️

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

After having a bit of sleep, I've gone back and I can see where there may have been some miscommunication / misunderstandings. 

So, rather than digging in and trying to defend the way I was looking at things, I'm just going to own my part in contributing more heat than light.

@ALarson I apologize for making assumptions about you. I understand this is a subject of great personal importance to you, and I'll do my best to focus more on dialogue and discussion whenever we interact on this subject in the future.

 

Thanks Amulek.  Actually, I went back and read through everything again too last night.  I can see where the misunderstanding came from and I also apologize for saying you were being dishonest.  I can see it was an honest mistake.  Sometimes we ask a question and know our intent, but when the person being asked the question reads it, they see an entirely different meaning.  I believe that's a big part of what happened here.

One thing is for sure, we all care about the welfare of the children and youth and no one wants to see any of them ever abused in any way.

I know that background checks would definitely not 100% prevent this from happening and I would never claim that.  However, I do believe that anything we can do that will even save one child from suffering abuse is worth the cost.  I know that problems and issues come along with implementing something like this though too.

Anyway....thanks again.  I'll work on trying to be better at communicating too.  This is an emotional topic for many and any discussion on it can be difficult.

Edited April 11, 2019 by ALarson

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

school district doesn't have to worry about inviting sex offenders to become part of their community for one

Very good point.

I think deciding what to do with the info is a very complicated issue in many cases, especially involving extended family ( I know of a case where the wife is a Primary teacher and others have expressed concerns she appears to ignore her husband's confirmed issues, inviting neighborhood kids to their home when he is there, etc).

Edited April 11, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

So, rather than digging in and trying to defend the way I was looking at things, I'm just going to own my part in contributing more heat than light.

You are a good guy, Amulek.  I have always thought so (think the same of ALarson), which is why I got invested in the personal stuff.  I like it when people I think of as friends are friends as well.  I probably should look on the board more like family, which better explains the occasional conflicts.  

[Vorondil]

Background checks aren't a good solution because they don't solve the problem. The man in the story had a position working with adults, not youth. 

Rather than implement a new policy so they can LOOK like they're protecting children, it's better to do something to actually protect children. For instance, other users have mentioned the two deep leadership policy. This is a good start. However, policies and measures for protecting children/youth are only taught to those dealing directly with youth. If everyone was made aware of the standards we are to follow, then it would be easier to see if there was any deviation from it. If the parents and youth are also made aware (not just the youth leaders), then they can more easily spot, and avoid, situations they shouldn't be in. 

Blind trust in our leaders is not a requirement in the church. Just because someone is in a "position of trust" doesn't mean you should allow your child to be having sleepovers with them (for an obvious example), unless you already trust that person outside of their church calling. Trusted youth leaders will actually discourage such things,  anyway, regardless of whether or not they had any temptation toward offending. 

There has been some other talk in here about making registered sex offenders into pariahs, or instituting "the scarlet letter" as policy (maybe not literally, but I wouldn't put it past them). This approach is also problematic. First, the recidivism (meaning, reoffending) rates for registered sex offenders is actually really low. Whereas, new sexual offenses are largely committed by those without a previous offense. 

This means two things: background checks are not going to prevent new offenders,  and the person you're giving the evil eye to (or chaperoning, or asking them to leave) is likely not the biggest threat to the congregation. This goes back to the false sense of security: you may be hyper vigilant against one perceived threat while completely overlooking another. 

Then there is the doctrinal/religious issue regarding repentance and redemption. If a person does something really stupid during their teenage years, but they completely change their life around and strive instead to be "anxiously engaged in a good cause", is it really "just" to police them for the rest of their life because you don't like what you see in their background check? What if they actually did two stupid things before changing their ways (thus potentially getting the label of lifetime sex offender)? It's easy to say that the person can seek salvation on their own but should be restricted from contact with others, but the Gospel isn't about saving oneself and ignoring everyone else. The priesthood, for instance, is for serving others. I cannot give myself a blessing, even if I'm fully worthy to hold the priesthood. Others would need to minister to me, and I would need to minister to others. 

Placing restrictions on sex offenders in church makes sense while they're on probation or parole (before they've had a chance to fully change their ways), but becomes more questionable twenty years down the road when they've never committed, or even come close to committing, another offense. The church records system will likely restrict them from callings dealing with children/youth regardless, but I'm talking about the "extra steps" that have been mentioned by some. 

Saying that they should never talk to, or even look at, any children or youth ever again may make you feel good, but does it actually help anyone? What if that past offender has unique knowledge or experiences that could help a youth who is struggling? Are you willing to make that young person suffer just because you want to punish the alleged offender for forever? Is this really justice?

There are other ways to handle the situation. Ideally, the offender should identify themselves to the parents so that the parents can make informed decisions. If they fail to do so, and the leadership becomes aware of the situation, then they should step in and talk to the separate parties. I would say talk to the alleged offender first and give them the opportunity to do the right thing and identify themselves to the necessary parties (this is also a good learning experience for them if they don't already know to do this), but don't leave vulnerable populations in compromising situations. If the offender fails to identify themselves, and chooses to interact with a minor, then the leadership should inform the parents so that they can take appropriate precautions depending on their situations. 

Basically, give people the tools they need to manage their own situations and don't rely on flawed systems of mortal men. There are plenty of people who can pass a background check that are not safe to be around children, and some people who can't pass the check but are perfectly harmless. Implementing a system which is only good for outside appearances and making some people "feel" good is counterproductive when there are better, and more effective, policies/changes that could take place. Rather than implementing your own background check system for your branch/ward, why not just make the youth protection information more readily available and teach the principles to those who don't already know?

A background check system for youth leaders likely would not have prevented the story in the OP, but a better implementation of the existing youth protection policies certainly would have.