Background Checks?

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

My condemnation is reserved only for those who have abused children, sexually or otherwise, not those who have successfully avoided doing so.

Then you shouldn't use the term "pedophile" which includes the latter.

[bsjkki]

They updated the story with a quote from the Stake President. 

"Randal Thomas, the president who oversees all of the congregations in the area, provided the following statement to ABC 6 News Friday night:

"Abuse of any kind is not tolerated in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Anyone who abuses a child is rightfully subject to both criminal prosecution and would also be subject to formal discipline from the Church, including loss of their membership. When the leader of our local congregation learned of this alleged abuse, he assisted the family to ensure a report was made to the authorities. This individual was not serving (and has not served) in any position in the congregation associated with youth or children. We extend our love to this family and are providing support to them, including offering to provide for professional counseling." -Randal Thomas, President, Rochester MN Stake, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." https://www.kaaltv.com/news/rochester-minnesota-dodge-county-man-church-leader-arrested-for-sexual-assault-of-minor/5306126/?fbclid=IwAR1ebZp4J1knMxxP4xX-mrrnlFCjtJzh3wUX80KDlqXj1bqrZIWDsgPDXFw

This is why I struggle with known offenders serving in "positions of trust." I want to know if the his record was already annotated and they called him as an EQP. If you don't warn the ward he is registered and then call him to a high position in a ward, it is easier for him to get close to families and victims. I would be quite upset if a registered sex offender was knowingly called as a EQP but we will probably never know. 

[bsjkki]

It still upsets me that the church made an exception to its youth two deep policy for ministering companions. If they want to call them as companions, it should be clear they should still never be one on one. It is not clear or required and they need to fix it.

[MiserereNobis]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

Life in prison is neither draconian nor unjust. The punishment fits the crime. Child molestors sentence their victims to a fate much worse.

22 year old has sex with 16 year old girlfriend. She is legally a child. In my state this is considered rape. Life in prison? You paint with an incredibly broad brush when you talk about sex offenders and child abusers. Thank God the law is more nuanced than you.

An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind, says Gandhi. Jesus also had some things to say about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Are you this Old Testament about all sins and crimes?

Now, I want to be clear because you have accused me of having more sympathy for the abuser than the victim. All I am arguing against is your desire for unjust punishment. One can argue for justice and sympathy at the same time. Having sympathy for the victim doesn't mean I have to be in favor of the worst punishments for the perpetrator. I'm not feeling sympathy for the abuser. I'm saying we need to be for justice.

[MiserereNobis]

duplicate

Edited April 10, 2019 by MiserereNobis

[bsjkki]

I researched the ministering assignments and they  did clarify in an update to Frequently Asked Questions but it’s not strong enough. The two deep policy should be clear across the board. So many of these stories of abuse involve car rides.

April 2018

22. How can youth be included in ministering assignments?

Leaders may choose to assign Laurels and Mia Maids as companions to Relief Society sisters, as priests and teachers are now assigned as companions to Melchizedek Priesthood holders. Youth share their unique gifts and grow spiritually as they serve alongside adults in the work of salvation and as they counsel about that service in ministering interviews. In addition, involving youth in ministering assignments increases the reach of caring for others by increasing the number of members who participate. It may also simplify and strengthen these efforts within families as mothers and daughters—and fathers and sons—serve together.

May 2018

13. Can young men and young women be assigned to minister with adult companions?

Yes. The guidelines in the recent document “Preventing and Responding to Abuse” allow for ministering companionships with youth assigned as companions to adults. “Ministering” is not considered an “activity” or “class,” as referred to in those guidelines.

Leaders should use inspired judgment when assigning youth as ministering companions. Adult companions should avoid situations that might be misunderstood. They should exercise care regarding isolated one-on-one situations so that youth have a safe and rewarding experience with ministering. Additionally, wisdom should be exercised in not assigning youth to difficult home or family situations.”

The semantics of it’s not an “activity” or “class” is absurd.

 

 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Alternatively, your sympathy is clouding your eyes to the danger.

I don’t have much sympathy for them, neither have I expressed such.  That’s a straw man you’ve created. 

I’m advocating being proactive in ways that actually help reduce recidivism rather than doing things that make us feel better while putting more kids at risk.

 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I believe your position is so sympathetic to child molesters that it would put children at risk. My priority is the safety of children over the comfort of predators. Child molestors should have no place in grade schools and no place in church.

Thank goodness most religious people disagree with you. 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure what you think Christ's mercy has to do with giving child molestors access to children. Jesus can forgive them but that doesn't mean we have to be foolish and irresponsible in our charge to protect children.

Being supervised in a room where children are also present doesn’t give that person “access” to children. That way of thinking doesn’t even seem rational to me.

Edited April 10, 2019 by bluebell

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

They updated the story with a quote from the Stake President. 

"Randal Thomas, the president who oversees all of the congregations in the area, provided the following statement to ABC 6 News Friday night:

"Abuse of any kind is not tolerated in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Anyone who abuses a child is rightfully subject to both criminal prosecution and would also be subject to formal discipline from the Church, including loss of their membership. When the leader of our local congregation learned of this alleged abuse, he assisted the family to ensure a report was made to the authorities. This individual was not serving (and has not served) in any position in the congregation associated with youth or children. We extend our love to this family and are providing support to them, including offering to provide for professional counseling." -Randal Thomas, President, Rochester MN Stake, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." https://www.kaaltv.com/news/rochester-minnesota-dodge-county-man-church-leader-arrested-for-sexual-assault-of-minor/5306126/?fbclid=IwAR1ebZp4J1knMxxP4xX-mrrnlFCjtJzh3wUX80KDlqXj1bqrZIWDsgPDXFw

This is why I struggle with known offenders serving in "positions of trust." I want to know if the his record was already annotated and they called him as an EQP. If you don't warn the ward he is registered and then call him to a high position in a ward, it is easier for him to get close to families and victims. I would be quite upset if a registered sex offender was knowingly called as a EQP but we will probably never know. 

They may not be working only or primarily with youth and children, but they work to minister to families that often include children, so if he was EQP, he was most definitely serving in a position associated with youth and children imo...if he was doing it right (which means how my husband did it because he has the 'touch'  ;)  )

Edited April 10, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/2005/04/the-effective-elders-quorum?lang=eng

Quote

Visit. Visit. Visit. Elders quorum presidencies around the world say their personal visits have lasting impact in bringing all members into the brotherhood of the quorum. These visits are best received when they are seen as acts of true friendship and genuine interest. Often an invitation is extended to participate actively in the quorum and a blessing is left in the home through kneeling in prayer....

Fulfill Service Assignments Involving the Entire Quorum

Service Assignments involving families with children perhaps?

I don't think there are too many callings in the ward that really isolate someone so that they won't come in direct contact at sometime with kids.  Even ministering to just elderly...you visit in the home and grandkids are there and grandparents invite kids to join them.  Ward librarian...I got kids coming to ask me for paper and crayons on their own on occasion when the hallway was otherwise empty.  Bulletin person probably was my one calling because that was all by email.  Building scheduler...I gave keys to missionaries, so past youth.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

The semantics of it’s not an “activity” or “class” is absurd.

It comes across to me as wanting to have their cake and eating it too...1) we abide by the two deep rules in Church activity, so since too much hassle to assign youth to two adults, 2) we just won't call ministering a church activity, after all it is now more friendship than teaching even if a church calling.

Quote

As members, we may determine through communication and inspiration the frequency and type of contact we will have with those to whom we minister. This customized contact will help us minister effectively and counsel quarterly with leaders regarding the needs of the individuals and families in our care...

Ministering today no longer requires a formal visit. Interaction can take place at home, at church, or in any setting that is safe and convenient.

Sister Jean B. Bingham said, “Sometimes we think we have to do something grand and heroic to ‘count’ as serving our neighbors. Yet simple acts of service can have profound effects on others—as well as on ourselves.”1

In our ministering efforts, we can take advantage of the many tools at our disposal. As Elder D. Todd Christofferson said, “We have many means of contacting people to look after their welfare and help them on this path of returning to their Father in Heaven. … What works? What’s needed?”2

 

If anything, ministering needs to be even more reinforced imo as in classes at church and at activities others will be around, while at home or a setting that feels safe, but is actually isolated (like cars)...problems.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

I miss the idea of having an adult mentor for youth besides a parent (what happened to Big Brothers and Big Sisters?).  I feel like we are much better off recognizing the problems of abuse, but am really looking forward to moving beyond recognition to removal (solutions that fully prevent the desire to abuse, not just reactive after the fact so that kids can be close friends with adults again because we actually can prove the relationships are safe somehow...whatever that ends upbeing).

I think of all the kids I tutored because moms asked me due to me volunteering at school, , had some great relationships.  Not really workable now.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think that background checks are better at making adults feel like they their kids are protected than they are at actually protecting kids.  But they are something I guess.

But don't adults already feel like their kids are protected when leaders call an individual to a position of authority? Some bishops/SP really emphasize that the individual has bee "called of God through revelation". If a member hears that, wouldn't they logically feel/believe that the person is worthy and safe?

I agree that we don't want parents to be complacent, but they already are. Why else would they allow their children to attend unsupervised interviews that can include LoC questions, sometimes probing questions? I think it would be worthwhile now AND when background checks are implemented, to remind parents that no system is fool proof and that they should remain vigilant in protecting their children.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

18 hours ago, Danzo said:

Does that prevent them from being with children?

Serious question. 

The registered Sex offender that attends our ward has children that are members of our wards, so the church really can't prevent him from being around some of the children in our ward.  These children happen to have friends in our ward.

Of course the church can't protect everyone from everything. Nor should they try. BUT they shouldn't give the "seal of approval" to a person by calling them to work with children/youth/ or a position of authority. It seems as if the church is most comfortable with remaining ignorant so they can claim it wasn't their fault if something bad happens. IMO that is a crazy mindset because by doing nothing to check a person's criminal history, they ARE doing something and are therefore liable.

Like I said before, BG checks aren't a panacea but rather the minimal level of effort at doing due diligence. It is the starting point, the most basic thing any organization can do to protect children. I can't imagine anyone EVER accepting that a school district doesn't do background checks with the logic of "but background checks aren't perfect." I'm not aware of any sporting organization that doesn't require coaches to do a background check. Every other church I've encountered over the last 10 years requires background checks. IMO the LDS church's refusal to employ background checks is neglectful. Like HFThings said earlier, I think the church relies on the power of discernment of its leaders, but we can clearly see that that system isn't perfect either. Far from it.

[HappyJackWagon]

18 hours 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. 

In small branches people often wear different hats. At one time I was EQP and 1st counselor in YM. Everyone had multiple callings.

Besides, doesn't the EQP still oversee the ministering efforts in the ward? Aren't YM and Adults still paired together to be ministers? I've had youth as companions many times before. The ministers that come to my family is one adult and one youth. So claiming that an EQP in a small branch wouldn't/shouldn't have access to youth is a bit silly.

But more than that, when a man is called to a position of significant trust/authority, there is an implied stamp of approval from God. If people don't acknowledge that I don't know that they are being honest with themselves. A leader in the ward is going to be fairly well trusted by many members. The relationships built in church and through callings extend outside of the church but it impacts them. IMO parents are more likely to trust the EQP or bishop or SP or YM Pres because...why wouldn't they?

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, ALarson said:

Yikes.  What have you done???

I'd say "have at it, I'm an open book with nothing to hide".....

I agree. I've had so many background checks done and it's never been an issue. Don't know why it would be.

However, IF the church were to start doing background checks I think they should get the individual's approval first. IOW- don't run background checks and then call the person. They would need to talk to the person first to let them know they were being considered. The person would then give approval for a check or they wouldn't. IF they refused the background check they wouldn't be allowed to hold any calling of authority or any calling with youth/children. But I think it would be an infringement to run checks on people without their knowledge or approval.

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I agree, it won’t catch everything but it would help. It is really sick to think a registered sex offender would be placed in a position of trust. We don’t even ask? We could at least have a series a questions people need to attest to to hold certain callings plus a background check. 

Background checks are standard procedure now for most people who are going to rent from you, or for boyfriend - girlfriend, business associate, etc.  You can do your own check online for a very small fee.  It's called being wise as serpents, and gentle as doves.

Edited April 10, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[bsjkki]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I miss the idea of having an adult mentor for youth besides a parent (what happened to Big Brothers and Big Sisters?).  I feel like we are much better off recognizing the problems of abuse, but am really looking forward to moving beyond recognition to removal (solutions that fully prevent the desire to abuse, not just reactive after the fact so that kids can be close friends with adults again because we actually can prove the relationships are safe somehow...whatever that ends upbeing).

I think of all the kids I tutored because moms asked me due to me volunteering at school, , had some great relationships.  Not really workable now.

I think this is sad too but it is the times we live in. In church, we don’t screen members who serve with kids so a ban on one on one interactions with youth is necessary. It’s sad.

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Background checks are standard procedure now for most people who are going to rent from you, or for boyfriend - girlfriend. business associate, etc.  You can do your own check online for a very small fee.  It's called being wise as serpents, and gentle as doves.

I agree. My son just got into dental school and a background check was required before he could attend.  It was not expensive and not difficult to do.

[Robert F. Smith]

55 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course the church can't protect everyone from everything. Nor should they try. BUT they shouldn't give the "seal of approval" to a person by calling them to work with children/youth/ or a position of authority. It seems as if the church is most comfortable with remaining ignorant so they can claim it wasn't their fault if something bad happens. IMO that is a crazy mindset because by doing nothing to check a person's criminal history, they ARE doing something and are therefore liable.

Like I said before, BG checks aren't a panacea but rather the minimal level of effort at doing due diligence. .................................

The LDS Church can easily be sued for not doing due diligence if no background check is done, if no continuing record of member violations is kept, and the like.  If mandated reporters inside the Church have failed to report violations to legal authorities, that is still another indicator of lack of due diligence, and is actionable in civil court.  The Church has been sued repeatedly, and often successfully for failure to do due diligence, and this applies to other churches and organizations as well.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The LDS Church can easily be sued for not doing due diligence if no background check is done, if no continuing record of member violations is kept, and the like.  If mandated reporters inside the Church have failed to report violations to legal authorities, that is still another indicator of lack of due diligence, and is actionable in civil court.  The Church has been sued repeatedly, and often successfully for failure to do due diligence, and this applies to other churches and organizations as well.

You're right. So why doesn't the church do it? I'm struggling to understand the lack of motivation to run background checks as it would seem to have a huge impact on a. the victim b. the church's reputation c. the church's finances

Why in the world would they not do background checks? It seems crazy/foolish to me.

[Robert F. Smith]

44 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

........................... But I think it would be an infringement to run checks on people without their knowledge or approval.

Any bishop or stake pres would be well advised to do a quick check on his geographical boundaries for any registered sex offenders.  No permission is needed for that.  It simply uses the information provided by the State for local consumption.  No infringement of anyone's rights has taken place.  Forewarned is forearmed.  That way, the leader knows ahead of time whom to exclude from certain callings.  The economy of God does not include doing your background checks for you.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're right. So why doesn't the church do it? I'm struggling to understand the lack of motivation to run background checks as it would seem to have a huge impact on a. the victim b. the church's reputation c. the church's finances

Why in the world would they not do background checks? It seems crazy/foolish to me.

It would be interesting to know what the Church legal dept does about this, what their discussions and recommendations are like, etc., and what the Brethren say about this among themselves.  On the one hand, they may worry about the sanctity of confession and the notion that, with repentance, God no longer remembers the sin.  The sage answer to that is, fine, but that concerns the final judgment.  Meantime, is that a wise policy for the protection of youth?

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Any bishop or stake pres would be well advised to do a quick check on his geographical boundaries for any registered sex offenders.  No permission is needed for that.  It simply uses the information provided by the State for local consumption.  No infringement of anyone's rights has taken place.  Forewarned is forearmed.  That way, the leader knows ahead of time whom to exclude from certain callings.  The economy of God does not include doing your background checks for you.

I agree with that. I was thinking about a more formal background check.

For example, my most recent background check was done because I was coaching a team. I don't know everything they checked but I assume it was much more than just the SO registry. IMO it would have been inappropriate for the league to run a full background check on me before I even agreed to coach.

Sure, there are lots of public records out there, some easier to access than others. Maybe there could be a background check calling