Abuse Hotline Article

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, that exactly what I said. Impressive knock down of that strawman.

Is it possible...that there are more options than the two you think exist: a 2 minute internet search or hiring a PI?

Is...It...Possible? (asked in my best William Shatner voice)

Don't you know that anything North of $0 is TOO MUCH to pay to protect other people's kids?!  I mean, really!  The Church is running SHORT of temples these days!!!

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They don’t do that though unless you are talking about unaffordable background checks. They run a conviction search. They might also get bankruptcies and previous addresses and phone numbers. Companies you owned, possibly licenses you have gotten. They are not going to send someone out to go talk to people about you.

You have experience with previous sex offenders whose offense or offenses had no paper trail refusing a background check for fear of getting caught? Unless they were trying to join the FBI or CIA or seeking high political office I doubt it.

Not cool to call someone a liar (seems you are doing this?).  Maybe some have had different experiences than you have had.  You shouldn’t doubt their word or them sharing what they have personally seen with their work.  People can have different views and experiences on the same topic.

Many have pointed out there are different types of background checks too.  So that may explain you having a different experience?

Just my opinion.

Edited May 7, 2019 by JulieM

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I’ve heard some horror stories about background checks (bad results).  So, I would think that if someone is at all worried about past actions or associations, they’d avoid them if they had things to hide.  That just makes sense.  

Maybe we just have everyone do an Ancestry.c0m DNA test. The church can do a DNA background check against law enforcement data bases and the person finds out their country of origin. Win/Win.

IIRC a few serial killers have been caught that way  

[JulieM]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe we just have everyone do an Ancestry.c0m DNA test. The church can do a DNA background check against law enforcement data bases and the person finds out their country of origin. Win/Win.

IIRC a few serial killers have been caught that way  

Ha!  True 🤣

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Don't you know that anything North of $0 is TOO MUCH to pay to protect other people's kids?!  I mean, really!  The Church is running SHORT of temples these days!!!

How many temple chandeliers could the church no longer afford to purchase, or how many marble baptistery oxen would need to be replaced with limestone to pay for youth protection?   

Every dollar spent is a choice. I suspect the church could figure out how to pay for any improved child protection policies it may devise.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I’ve heard some horror stories about background checks (bad results).  So, I would think that if someone is at all worried about past actions or associations, they’d avoid them if they had things to hide.  That just makes sense.  

If someone has never been convicted of a crime, and that's what the background check looks into, why would they avoid it?  The majority of sex abusers are people like someone's uncle tom or aunt mary or nice neighbor bill.  Sometimes they are pillars of the community, who don't have a problem being in the public eye.  They aren't typically shady characters living a secret life of intrigue.  Their disgustingness is all on the inside and doesn't show up in records, until they are caught and turned in.  

Take school bus drivers for example.  They have to pass a background check to get that job.  Now go google "school bus driver convicted of sexually abusing child..." and see how often it happens.  You can click on links for pages and pages.  The background check isn't keeping any of those sickos from signing up.

I've heard of some bad stories with background checks too, but they were all either from a mistake in identity or a case of the person not knowing that their past financial mistakes (like bankruptcies, repossessions, and foreclosures) would also be looked at.  But neither of those situations are relevant to what we are discussing.  

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If someone has never been convicted of a crime, and that's what the background check looks into, why would they avoid it?  The majority of sex abusers are people like someone's uncle tom or aunt mary or nice neighbor bill.  Sometimes they are pillars of the community, who don't have a problem being in the public eye.  They aren't typically shady characters living a secret life of intrigue.  Their disgustingness is all on the inside and doesn't show up in records, until they are caught and turned in.  

Take school bus drivers for example.  They have to pass a background check to get that job.  Now go google "school bus driver convicted of sexually abusing child..." and see how often it happens.  You can click on links for pages and pages.  The background check isn't keeping any of those sickos from signing up.

I've heard of some bad stories with background checks too, but they were all either from a mistake in identity or a case of the person not knowing that their past financial mistakes (like bankruptcies, repossessions, and foreclosures) would also be looked at.  But neither of those situations are relevant to what we are discussing.  

As some have said, there’s different levels and types of background checks.  It makes a great deal of sense to me that anyone with anything to hide would avoid them if possible (record or no record) and stay under the radar with no unnecessary attention.   I agree there would be some who wouldn’t care, but let’s divert the ones who do away from any potential victims.  At least that’s how I feel.

[Amulek]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Take school bus drivers for example.

Or band directors. Or athletic coaches. Or law enforcement officers. Or presidents. 

 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

As some have said, there’s different levels and types of background checks.  It makes a great deal of sense to me that anyone with anything to hide would avoid them if possible (record or no record) and stay under the radar with no unnecessary attention.   I agree there would be some who wouldn’t care, but let’s divert the ones who do away from any potential victims.  At least that’s how I feel.

With the number of people who have passed a background check that are convicted of sexually abusing a child each year, I'm not convinced they divert anyone but those who have already been convicted (which statistics show is a very low number), but I don't have anything against them.  Hopefully they are better than nothing.

[lostindc]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Many of those examples you cite (garments, worthiness interviews, WoW practice, temple ceremony etc) are cultural issues that have developed over time. I don't see anything wrong with stripping the church of cultural requirements masquerading as doctrine and commandment.

I agree with the idea that there's nothing wrong with stripping the church of these cultural requirements.  This would be more in line with the Community of Christ.  If we end up with the same rules as the Community of Christ then I guess the Community of Christ can form a strong claim to being the correct Church and the Brigham Young sect was incorrect.

But if something like a historical BOM is no longer required, then we're seeing the Church leave behind the phenomenon that make it different than other faiths.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

This is the real value - it's a preventative control.  That there are wails of "It's too expensive!" being shouted makes me very nervous for my daughter.

Sure beats having to pay out on those that sue. Prevention is the best medicine. Why is the church so lax?!?

[Danzo]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sure beats having to pay out on those that sue. Prevention is the best medicine. Why is the church so lax?!?

I am not sure  you really understand the US legal system.

The best way to prevent lawsuits in america is to not have any money.

When something bad happens in the US, the most important consideration on who sue  is "Who has money?", Not "Who is at fault"

People and organizations that don't have money generally don't get sued, no matter what they do.   People and Organizations that have money will get sued for even the slightest connection. 

This is something I have to go over with my clients all of the time.  The target of the lawsuit has to have money. The best way to avoid lawsuits is to not have money readily accessible. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, lostindc said:

What would it take for you to believe the Church is becoming watered down?

Disavowing the Book of Mormon, suggesting the atonement is optional, redefining the Priesthood as powerless, declaring that all faiths are different paths to God and many or all of the other are equally valid, denying the saving power of ordinances for the dead, denying the literal Second Coming set for September 21st, 2022 at 5:36 AM EST, or making me a Single Adult Representative again.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, that exactly what I said. Impressive knock down of that strawman.

Is it possible...that there are more options than the two you think exist: a 2 minute internet search or hiring a PI?

Is...It...Possible? (asked in my best William Shatner voice)

Probably not. You either get an internet search of databases or you have to put boots on the ground and the latter is prohibitively expensive. Plus unless there is a conviction most background checks will not find anything that would identify a child predator unless said predator is an idiot.

I remember one pedophile who posted pics of his trip to Thailand for horrific reasons and swirled his face using Photoshop. He thought he was so clever. He was banned, his face was unswirled with ease, and everything forwarded to the FBI. Never found out what happened. Even in a case with someone that stupid a background search is not likely to find it.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

I’ve heard some horror stories about background checks (bad results).  So, I would think that if someone is at all worried about past actions or associations, they’d avoid them if they had things to hide.  That just makes sense.  

Yeah, and since they sometimes conflate names with other people you suddenly have an innocent brother or sister who is suspected of being a predator. Good times.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

Don't you know that anything North of $0 is TOO MUCH to pay to protect other people's kids?!  I mean, really!  The Church is running SHORT of temples these days!!!

Yeah, too cheap to use ineffective solutions. We are also too cheap to put padded sealings on the chapels. What if some child brings a trampoline in and jumps super high and bumps their head on the ceiling. Yeah, it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to fix but if it saves just ONE CHILD!!!!!!!!

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

As some have said, there’s different levels and types of background checks.  It makes a great deal of sense to me that anyone with anything to hide would avoid them if possible (record or no record) and stay under the radar with no unnecessary attention.   I agree there would be some who wouldn’t care, but let’s divert the ones who do away from any potential victims.  At least that’s how I feel.

But you can't avoid them unless you only work menial jobs or run your own business. Almost every job runs a background check now and many more are running credit checks and don't get me started on the latter because I could rant for days.

[strappinglad]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, and since they sometimes conflate names with other people you suddenly have an innocent brother or sister who is suspected of being a predator

There are stories about people trying to fly who have the same name as someone on the " no fly " list. Good times indeed!

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Or band directors. Or athletic coaches. Or law enforcement officers. Or presidents. 

 

Yeah, but who cares about the President being caught on video confessing to sexual voyeurism and assault? He is not teaching Sunbeams!

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Sure beats having to pay out on those that sue. Prevention is the best medicine. Why is the church so lax?!?

Running deep background checks would be more expensive then paying out a few settlements. I am not suggesting that I think checks would stop the assaults either so we would end up paying both.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

I am not sure  you really understand the US legal system.

The best way to prevent lawsuits in america is to not have any money.

When something bad happens in the US, the most important consideration on who sue  is "Who has money?", Not "Who is at fault"

People and organizations that don't have money generally don't get sued, no matter what they do.   People and Organizations that have money will get sued for even the slightest connection. 

This is something I have to go over with my clients all of the time.  The target of the lawsuit has to have money. The best way to avoid lawsuits is to not have money readily accessible. 

Quoted for Truth

[ttribe]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, too cheap to use ineffective solutions. We are also too cheap to put padded sealings on the chapels. What if some child brings a trampoline in and jumps super high and bumps their head on the ceiling. Yeah, it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to fix but if it saves just ONE CHILD!!!!!!!!

Except, of course, there are exactly zero documented examples of a child bringing a trampoline into the chapel and jumping super high and hitting his or her head on the ceiling.  There are, however, numerous documented examples of children being sexually abused by adults in the Church.  Moreover, I would hope you would not be so callous as to equate a "bump" on the head with sexual abuse.  You aren't, are you?

Edited May 8, 2019 by ttribe

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Except, of course, there are exactly zero documented examples of a child bringing a trampoline into the chapel and jumping super high and hitting his or her head on the ceiling.  There are, however, numerous documented examples of children being sexually abused by adults in the Church.  Moreover, I would hope you would not be so callous as to equate a "bump" on the head with sexual abuse.  You aren't, are you?

I would then want to know if there are numerous documented examples of children being sexually abused that would have been caught on background checks. If not, what is the point?

And no, I am not saying they are the same though the trampoline might (with enough velocity or a bad fall afterwards) result in death so it could be worse.

[The Nehor]

Okay, I still believe routine background checks are a placebo that are more likely to make people feel safe then actually be safe but I am probably seen as more mean then playfully disagreeable in my responses so apologies to anyone I offended and I will exit this thread with any dignity I have left, if any, and wish you all a good evening.

[lostindc]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Disavowing the Book of Mormon, suggesting the atonement is optional, redefining the Priesthood as powerless, declaring that all faiths are different paths to God and many or all of the other are equally valid, denying the saving power of ordinances for the dead, denying the literal Second Coming set for September 21st, 2022 at 5:36 AM EST, or making me a Single Adult Representative again.

I think by watering down I meant becoming the Community of Christ not becoming a non-Christian religion.