Background Checks?

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

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. 

That's the interpretation of whoever is writing the story.  Either way, he was serving as this young man's leader.

That's what is important and what should be prevented.

Edited April 9, 2019 by ALarson

[Danzo]

Just now, sjdawg said:

Where did I say that?  I thought the topic was about background checks and church callings not banishment

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. 

 

[sjdawg]

Just now, Danzo said:

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. 

I don't believe background checks will prevent every instance of abuse however don't we need to start somewhere?  It really seems like a no-brainer to me even if the only outcome is mitigating the church's liability when abuse does happen.  The expense is minimal in the grand scheme of things and the risk of doing nothing is huge.

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, rpn said:

It costs a lot of money (to do the fingerprinting and follow the information to the full extent necessary not to malign innocents and make sure you have all the info on each person).  (And across country boundaries or in most countries where records are not so very digitalized or kept, even if bad guys are caught and fingerprinted, perhaps even impossible.)

It takes weeks to do it right. 

It makes people feel good, but it doesn't really protect anyone from anything.   (I call this creating security theater.)

What I would do if I were in charge of the church is enforce the two deep leadership, ask the children of the person being considered for leadership whether their parent is fit to serve, and have anyone being considered for a calling in the church where they dealt directly with youth or children complete a questionnaire (below) before speaking with the bishop about the calling or at least before being called in ward or stake leadership (including RSP and EQP), with EQP/RSP asking the same when talking with ministering prospective ministering people),

Do you get angry (if they said "no" that would raise a red flag of credibility). 

When was the last time you yelled at anyone when you became angry?  Circumstances

When was the last time you thought of pushing someone intentionally?

When was the last time you used force or coercion to get something you wanted?  Circumstances?  What would you do the next time in the same circumstances?

When was the last time you were not fully honest in a relationship?

When was the last time you were not financially honest?

Have you ever violated the 2 deep leadership requirement at church?  Why?  And in what circumstances, and when?  (The point here is to make sure they know to cancel the activity if they cannot find a parent or someone to preserve 2 deep leadership, because this is the ONE thing that does have capacity to protect young people)

What does emotional abuse look like to you?  (The point here is to talk about this.  And teach what we know about God expects of mortals.)

Have you ever emotionally abused your wife, a minor, someone you supervised, someone you thought weaker than you, an employee, or anyone?

What does physical abuse look like to you?   (The point here is to have a discussion that includes God doesn't use force or threats or coercion to effect His goals and neither should mortals.)

Have you ever physically abused your wife, a minor, or anyone?

What does sexual abuse look like to you?

Have you ever inappropriately looked at or or thought about sexually, or touched a minor, someone who was incapacitated, an employee or anyone? 

When was the last time you intentionally viewed porn?  

Have you ever intentionally or for more than the time it took you to identify something that was as such, viewed porn involving minor?

Have you ever done anything to anyone that others might interpret as inappropriate or morally wrong?

And for the relevant callings?  (those handling money, or auditing)

When was the last time you were not fully honest?

Have you ever kept money or property that didn't belong to you, or cheat on your taxes?

Do you have trouble keeping your bills paid on time?

Is your job stable?

When was the last time you told your spouse about something you heard from those you minister to?   Circumstances.  (Because trying to figure something out, or getting spouse to help address it might be appropriate.)  those being called to bishoprics/presidencies, including secretaries

Have you every had reason to suspect that something you shared with a spouse confidentially was then shared or acted upon by your spouse?   (If so, how would you plan to protect confidentiality of the things you will know in the course of your accepting this calling? )

What is your understanding about the need to preserve what members tell you in this role as confidential?   (You want them to know that it is no small thing to share the things members say in confidence with others, and that advising the member of how you might need to share and asking permission would be critical to preserving their agency.)

If the members in our ward knew everything about you that you and your Heavenly Father know about you, would they sustain a decision to call you into a position that directly interacts with youth or children or finances or requires confidentiality?   If, no,  would   you agree with their assessment, why or why not?

I'd guess that most who are predators would decline to be called to anything after reading the questionnaire.  (Others would too, not necessarily because they are pedophiles or into underaged kids, or abusive, though, so leaders shouldn't ask thereafter more than, "Is there anything I can do to help you get to a better place?   I can help you find appropriate therapy for whatever your issues are  and help you pay for it if necessary, and I would like to do that because you deserve to be and feel square with God's expectations."   or maybe, "if you are survivor of any kind of abuse, I can help you find and pay for therapy if you want to let me do that"

No points, but like this.

[ALarson]

Just now, Danzo said:

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. 

Nothing will 100% guarantee that the predator doesn't ever sexually abuse a child again.  No one is claiming that.  But let's not openly give them access to children by calling them to serve in a calling working with children.

[sjdawg]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

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. 

 

so, am i reading that if we can't stop all abuse we shouldn't even start tackling the low hanging fruit?

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, rpn said:

The questions do no such thing.   They simply give the opportunity to teach the Lord's way, and to self-reflect, and help people eliminate behavior that does provide risk to minors.   The answers to most questions would simply inform, not necessarily exclude.

If I was handed that questionaire as part of an interview with a bishop or his counselors I would throw it in the trash and walk out.

[Calm]

Just now, sjdawg said:

I don't believe background checks will prevent every instance of abuse however don't we need to start somewhere?  It really seems like a no-brainer to me even if the only outcome is mitigating the church's liability when abuse does happen.  The expense is minimal in the grand scheme of things and the risk of doing nothing is huge.

Cost depends on level of background check.  And varies if people move a lot.

I think minimal background checks like checking local sex offenders' lists could be done.

Maybe some things that have been red flagged as potential signs (just guessing moving a lot, but not for a job or family needs such as caring for an elderly parent might want looking into).

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If I was handed that questionaire as part of an interview with a bishop or his counselors I would throw it in the trash and walk out.

I do think it might have to be modified at least to begin with.  Once people are used to them, more on point questions could be asked.

Women in general might feel more comfortable with such questionnaires because generally speaking we are less looked at as potential abusers (though as common in some ways, such as verbal domestic abuse and even more mild forms of physical abuse)

Edited April 9, 2019 by Calm

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But if he wasn't in a calling that worked with kids, would doing the background check have protected the boy who was abused?  

It sounds like from the article that he was in a calling that worked with kids.

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, Danzo said:

How would treating the person differently look in practice?

No Callings?

No Youth Callings?

A weekly announcement on Sunday, announcing who the sex offenders are in the ward?

Do we make them wear a sign?

perhaps a letter sewn into their clothing?

Its one thing to talk on a internet board saying the church should do this or that, its another to actually live with the situation. 

 

Ideally they wouldn't be allowed to step foot in any chapel.

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

so, am i reading that if we can't stop all abuse we shouldn't even start tackling the low hanging fruit?

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.

[Danzo]

Just now, Gray said:

Ideally they wouldn't be allowed to step foot in any chapel.

Guards at the door?

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

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.

Isn't that the predator or sex abuser?  Or do you not hold them accountable or think they are responsible for abusing a child?

Edited April 9, 2019 by ALarson

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

so, am i reading that if we can't stop all abuse we shouldn't even start tackling the low hanging fruit?

I think it is more tackling the rotting fruit. Background checks are almost never helpful. It would also be expensive. How often do we rerun them? Every new calling? Every time someone new comes into the ward?

A lot of people heavily recommend these checks. Often times these are the people also making money for running them. The church does have a procedure to annotate files of people who should not supervise children and it is used but it is only helpful with repeat offenders who were caught.

On a side note 99% of people who confess to being registered sex offenders but insist it was for public urination are truthful about the former and lying about the latter.

[sjdawg]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

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.

I really wish there was a downvote button. I couldn't disagree more.   The church seems do zero today to prevent the abuse and you seem to support keeping the status quo.

Edited April 9, 2019 by sjdawg

[SouthernMo]

45 minutes ago, rpn said:

But if all you do is check the sex offender registry, you don't have enough info to determine whether or not the person is unsuitable --- there are people on them who were homeless and peed in the park, and others who had consensual sex with a girlfriend who was still underage.   Futhermore, although I don't know a current statistic, in the past the research found that pedophiles offended as many or more than 50 times before getting caught.   So not being on the registry doesn't do much if anything to protect children.

Interesting.

I think we agree that just checking the registry will not provide all the protection kids deserve.

But it seems like you’re saying that checking it isn’t worthwhile at all?

[sjdawg]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think it is more tackling the rotting fruit. Background checks are almost never helpful. It would also be expensive. How often do we rerun them? Every new calling? Every time someone new comes into the ward?

A lot of people heavily recommend these checks. Often times these are the people also making money for running them. The church does have a procedure to annotate files of people who should not supervise children and it is used but it is only helpful with repeat offenders who were caught.

On a side note 99% of people who confess to being registered sex offenders but insist it was for public urination are truthful about the former and lying about the latter.

I'm open to alternative suggestions to help prevent abuse however I'm not ok with doing nothing.  How do you suggest the church proceeds?

Edited April 9, 2019 by sjdawg

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

It sounds like from the article that he was in a calling that worked with kids.

The article says "He was titled “President Davis-Elders Quorum President” so I think it sounds like the person who wrote it didn't do a great job, but I'll give you that maybe it was a unique situation where someone was the president of two different auxiliaries at once.  

Edited April 9, 2019 by bluebell

[Robert D. Crockett]

38 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The Church would contract with a background check agency.

And where will it stop?  Religions have no legal duty to protect a member from another felonious member.  It just isn't done.  If we start requiring it, well, then it is done and it is required.  

Religion isn't like a day care.  All sorts of folk come to church to seek redemption. What happens when they know we do background checks?  Then, not only the bishop, but everybody involved in the background check comes to know.  Jesus told the adulterous woman to go and sin no more; he didn't ask for a background check. If you don't want to be affiliated with the low life dregs of the world, and people who have done despicable things, then stay out of church meetings. 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I do think it might have to be modified at least to begin with.  Once people are used to them, more on point questions could be asked.

Women in general might feel more comfortable with such questionnaires because generally speaking we are less looked at as potential abusers (though as common in some ways, such as verbal domestic abuse and even more mild forms of physical abuse)

To get into the temple I answer a few verbal questions. To be a youth Sunday School teacher you have to fill out out an old college blue book?

Another problem with background checks is who reviews them? The bishop? People will refuse callings left and right because they have an embarrassing non-sex offender incident in their past such as a drunk and disorderly, a dui, even just a bankruptcy they do not want the bishop to know about. I see this causing more problems then it would solve.

[stemelbow]

It's been noted by many members that their leaders have info on them as per their membership record, somehow knowing things like whether they are gay or have been excommunicated.  If so, it's really sad if the Church doesn't use such a feature to keep track of something like registered sex offenders.  

[sjdawg]

2 minutes ago, Robert D. Crockett said:

And where will it stop?  Religions have no legal duty to protect a member from another felonious member.  It just isn't done.  If we start requiring it, well, then it is done and it is required.  

Religion isn't like a day care.  All sorts of folk come to church to seek redemption. What happens when they know we do background checks?  Then, not only the bishop, but everybody involved in the background check comes to know.  Jesus told the adulterous woman to go and sin no more; he didn't ask for a background check. If you don't want to be affiliated with the low life dregs of the world, and people who have done despicable things, then stay out of church meetings. 

I think some of the court cases churches have lost around the world suggest that religions do have a role to play in preventing abuse among their congregations and volunteers.  The role becomes even more exaggerated when the religion itself has put the victim in the abusers path. 

Edited April 9, 2019 by sjdawg

[sjdawg]

5 minutes ago, Robert D. Crockett said:

And where will it stop?  Religions have no legal duty to protect a member from another felonious member.  It just isn't done.  If we start requiring it, well, then it is done and it is required.  

Religion isn't like a day care.  All sorts of folk come to church to seek redemption. What happens when they know we do background checks?  Then, not only the bishop, but everybody involved in the background check comes to know.  Jesus told the adulterous woman to go and sin no more; he didn't ask for a background check. If you don't want to be affiliated with the low life dregs of the world, and people who have done despicable things, then stay out of church meetings. 

I've seen no suggestion that a background check is required for anyone to attend church but it doesn't seem unreasonable for people in certain roles to undergo a basic check (such as those asked to serve with vulnerable children). 

Edited April 9, 2019 by sjdawg

[sjdawg]

5 minutes ago, Robert D. Crockett said:

Religion isn't like a day care. 

except nursery right?  It feels a lot like a day care