Background Checks?

[bluebell]

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

Churches are filled with children. If they don't belong in a grade school they don't belong in church either.

Grocery stores are filled with children.  Stadiums are filled with children.  Movie theaters are filled with children.  They are allowed to be in all of those places because their presence alone does not increase the risk to children.   Church is no difference.

Their presence in a chapel during sacrament meeting does not increase the risk to any child, while studies show that keeping them away actually does increase the risk to children.  Let's not cut off our nose just to spite our face.  Emotions are not always reasonable so sometimes we can't lead with them.  We have to be more rational than that.

Edited April 9, 2019 by bluebell

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Many here seem to feel that some sins are unforgivable and salvation should be denied to some perpetrators in the name of safety.

I am pretty sure that salvation is not off the table for those who never work with youth in the church.  Their sins are still forgivable. 

I can forgive a person for for stealing my money, but I am not going to give them the code to my safe. 

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

I'm perfectly fine denying people who have previous abuse convictions access to my children or anyone else's children in the name of safety. I don't think that is unreasonable

So am I which is what the annotation system is for. Background checks are still invasive and costly and are unlikely to help much....if at all. It also puts church leaders and church members in jeopardy. What happens when Bishop Jones forgets to run the check for someone? Is he legally liable? What happens when Sister Smith has a check run to be in nursery and some stupid Bishopric counselor or clerk blabs about something salacious in her history that has nothing to do with her ability to serve or protecting children? If she is upset enough is that a lawsuit? Or worse, a reason she leaves the faith. Why open this door?

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Opening up old wounds can be quite traumatic even if they are forgiven. Having a clean background check is like having a clean credit score. It is good when you have a good pass on them but we are creating a tiered social order. Gotta have -ites I guess.

Many here seem to feel that some sins are unforgivable and salvation should be denied to some perpetrators in the name of safety.

I don't see that at all.  It's just that this is a crime that is so serious and so often repeated by the predator (even when they have repented, expressed sorrow and promised never to do it again....and with good intentions to keep that promise).   So when "the name of safety" is protecting a child, there is nothing wrong with wanting to take extra steps to prevent abuse if at all possible.   I'm not sure why you say that's denying anyone  their "salvation".

I would think that a child abuser who has gone through repentance and received forgiveness, would not want to be put in the position of being alone with children.  It protects them as well, IMO.

Edited April 9, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So am I which is what the annotation system is for. 

And that system has failed in the past.  Thus the need to possibly take additional steps.

[sjdawg]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 What happens when Bishop Jones forgets to run the check for someone? Is he legally liable? 

What happens when a multi-billion dollar religion makes a deliberate decision not to run background checks for youth workers even when it is a common best practice in youth groups around the world?  Does that increase liability?  I think it does.

Doing nothing can't be the answer.  Turning a blind eye can't be an answer.  I'm not sure there is a perfect solution but the status quo is problematic.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am pretty sure that salvation is not off the table for those who never work with youth in the church.  Their sins are still forgivable. 

I can forgive a person for for stealing my money, but I am not going to give them the code to my safe. 

We have people here saying they should not be allowed to set foot in the chapel.

Bluebell is sharing some good points. We have decided in this age that pedophiles and sex offenders are the worst of human scum and no indignity or punishment is too severe for their crime. In other times and cultures there have been other worst crimes. It is not a healthy mindset. I know of one sex offender that literally is not allowed to live anywhere after release due to the zoning and cannot move away under the terms of his release. We have made them pariahs. This is understandable but also counterproductive but even speaking out about the issue makes people wonder how anyone could speak out on them. Some people may even be wondering idly if I am on the sex offender registry (I’m not).

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

And that system has failed in the past.  Thus the need to possibly take additional steps.

The background checks also routinely fail.

I have a solution. Wire people up to monitor their genitalia and blood pressure and make them watch child pornography. Anyone who gets turned on is unable to serve in the Primary or Youth programs. Sound good to everyone here?

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

"All are welcome, except people who commit really bad sins. Christ has no use for you"

 

You don't invite a snake to live with your pet mice. The end result is predictable and inevitable.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Gray

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Grocery stores are filled with children.  Stadiums are filled with children.  Movie theaters are filled with children.  They are allowed to be in all of those places because their presence alone does not increase the risk to children.   Church is no difference.

Their presence in a chapel during sacrament meeting does not increase the risk to any child, while studies show that keeping them away actually does increase the risk to children.  Let's not cut off our nose just to spite our face.  Emotions are not always reasonable so sometimes we can't lead with them.  We have to be more rational than that. 

CFR when you have time. Edit: never mind, saw your link. Will review.

Unlike a grocery store or a stadium, our church actually provides classes for children. Much like a grade school.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Gray

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We mean well, but often our human desire for vengeance and wanting to make the sinner suffer, plus our penchant for thinking it's more emotionally superior to only care about the victim and ignore the assailant, cause more problems than they solve.  

Most here are not saying that we should care nothing about the predator.  We should.

But we should care more about protecting the children.

Would you want a convicted child abuser to be in a position where they may be alone with one of your children even if they'd gone through the repentance process?   

If not, does that mean you don't care about the abuser?

(And thanks for the link....I'll check it out 👍.)

Edited April 9, 2019 by ALarson

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The background checks also routinely fail.

I have a solution. Wire people up to monitor their genitalia and blood pressure and make them watch child pornography. Anyone who gets turned on is unable to serve in the Primary or Youth programs. Sound good to everyone here?

Only if their eyes are forcible held open

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

What happens when a multi-billion dollar religion makes a deliberate decision not to run background checks for youth workers even when it is a common best practice in youth groups around the world?  Does that increase liability?  I think it does.

Doing nothing can't be the answer.  Turning a blind eye can't be an answer.  I'm not sure there is a perfect solution but the status quo is problematic.

Most churches have volunteers run their organizations. Our faith asks people to serve directly. We also cycle through leadership much more quickly. Apples and oranges.

The argument that something has to be done and background checks are something is the old “appeal to desperation” fallacy.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The background checks also routinely fail.

Not if they have been convicted of child abuse (at least not in my experience).  But even if some fail, the ones that don't, make it well worth it, IMO.

Edited April 9, 2019 by ALarson

[The Nehor]

I have a more practical solution. Make pornography illegal. Almost all predators worked their way up through porn into the illegal stuff.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Most here are not saying that we should care nothing about the predator.  We should.

But we should care more about protecting the children.

Would you want a convicted child abuser to be in a position where they may be alone with one of your children even if they'd gone through the repentance process?   

If not, does that mean you don't care about the abuser?

(And thanks for the link....I'll check it out 👍.)

I'm not talking to those people.  I'm talking to those who feel that sex offenders should not be allowed in church period.  I'm sorry if I was confusing about that.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Most churches have volunteers run their organizations. Our faith asks people to serve directly. We also cycle through leadership much more quickly. Apples and oranges.

The argument that something has to be done and background checks are something is the old “appeal to desperation” fallacy.

 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

 

My_life.txt

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

CFR when you have time. Edit: never mind, saw your link. Will review.

Unlike a grocery store or a stadium, our church actually provides classes for children. Much like a grade school.

Yes, but that still doesn't mean a sex offender should not be allowed in the building.  We have a registered sex offender in our ward and his presence in the building is conditional, but he is still very much allowed in.  He is chaperoned at all times.  He has to leave after sacrament meeting.  The adults in the ward know about his conviction and the conditions of his attendance.   

His presence in the chapel on Sunday does not put any child at risk.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but that still doesn't mean a sex offender should not be allowed in the building.  We have a registered sex offender in our ward and his presence in the building is conditional, but he is still very much allowed in.  He is chaperoned at all times.  He has to leave after sacrament meeting.  The adults in the ward know about his conviction and the conditions of his attendance.   

His presence in the chapel on Sunday does not put any child at risk.

Should registered sex offenders be allowed to enter a grade school?

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Should registered sex offenders be allowed to enter a grade school?

The purpose of a grade school and the purpose of Sunday worship are different, so the analogy fails. There is no purpose for the offender to be in the grade school. The adults there are serving the children. The offender should not be serving children so he/she shouldn't be there.

In Sunday worship, the purpose is to worship God. The offender can and should do that. He/she should be kept away from the children (no working in youth programs, etc), but should not be denied merely being present at church.

Bluebell's situation seems about right to me. Have someone keep an eye on the offender to make sure he/she doesn't try interacting with children, make the rules very clear to the offender, but welcome the offender to worship God.

Now, of course, there can be specific situations that call for a different approach, but I don't think the general rule should be no offenders allowed during Sunday worship.

Edited April 9, 2019 by MiserereNobis

[SouthernMo]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

You don't invite a snake to live with your pet mice. The end result is predictable and inevitable.

It’s a good thing we’re talking about people, then!

[Gray]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

The purpose of a grade school and the purpose of Sunday worship are different, so the analogy fails. There is no purpose for the offender to be in the grade school. The adults there are serving the children. The offender should not be serving children so he/she shouldn't be there.

In Sunday worship, the purpose is to worship God. The offender can and should do that. He/she should be kept away from the children (no working in youth programs, etc), but should not be denied merely being present at church.

Bluebell's situation seems about right to me. Have someone keep an eye on the offender to make sure he/she doesn't try interacting with children, make the rules very clear to the offender, but welcome the offender to worship God.

Now, of course, there can be specific situations that call for a different approach, but I don't think the general rule should be no offenders allowed during Sunday worship.

LDS churches also have a religious education component, and a large number of the students range from age 3-17

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

It’s a good thing we’re talking about people, then!

Sexual predators prey on children. They're people but they're people who cannot be trusted with children. Ideally they should never see the outside of a prison, but barring that they should not see the inside of a church building.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Gray

[MiserereNobis]

Just now, Gray said:

LDS churches also have a religious education component, and a large number of the students range from age 3-17

So the offender stays just for sacrament meeting (I remember the 3 parts from the few times I've attended... congratulations on getting it down to only 2!  )