I know of a case where a man who had molested his daughter was called to be a bishop. He had owned up to what he’d done and they’d handled things quietly, but it wasn’t a well-kept secret.

We wondered, but decided the prophet knew what he was doing (this man wasn’t our bishop), but after four months as bishop, he was released by, I think, Elder Scott. It could be wrong about the general authority, but whoever it was came to our community and released him.

The way they put it was that he wasn’t necessarily released as bishop, but called to a “mission” to the temple, where he and his wife go down there a couple of times a week. I don’t recall the specifics.

Somebody must have objected, but I wonder what they were thinking in the first place. How could they not know?

I find the attitude of your bishop to be the prevalent one despite the church’s efforts to the contrary.

Although, here in Utah, it’s easy to access the sex offender registry. I was even called by the police to let me know a predator lived down the road. I find the women among us pretty much yell loud and proud in these cases.

Guy, there are many ways to inform people of the presence of this man. The solution that you propose is a humorous one, but probably not the best way to handle it. Even so, that would be preferable to keeping members in the dark.

There should be no emphasis at all on confidentiality. Strangling communication enables abusers. Members mustn’t feel like discussing this man’s background is somehow going behind the bishopric’s back or against their wishes. Protecting the innocent is more important than protecting this man’s feelings.

There are several ways to disseminate the information. The bishop might hold a meeting with all auxiliaries, quorums, and groups to discuss it.

Or the members of the bishopric could each talk to the auxiliaries, quorums, or groups that fall under their purview.

Auxiliary presidencies might be tasked with telling parents.

Or Home teachers might be instructed to read a fixed message from the bishopric.

It’s really not that hard. After all, most of the information disseminated in a ward is not disseminated over the pulpit.

It doesn’t sound like members are being kept in the dark. It sounds as though several members already know–you being one, another sister who has taken it upon herself to inform the ward, and some selected leaders. It sounds to me as though this information is already being disseminated through the ward grapevine as you wish. The problem with forcing the Bishop to go as public as you want places him in an unenviable position if he has to work one on one with this individual. Is he a member of the Church? Or, having been excommunicated is he trying to work his way back into full fellowship?

If the bishop is forced to publicly disseminate the information in the way you want, how might that affect the relationship between the bishop and this individual–particularly if the is trying to effect change in his life? To whom could this individual turn for his own religious counseling if he sees the bishop as an adversary?

This is a delicate situation, that I’m not certain has any easy answers.

As I’ve said in prior discussions. We have to distinguish between sins which can be cured and mental illness which is a physical disease. Folks tend to buy into a view of the mind where everything is really under our control. (i.e. the brain really isn’t physical and neither is our mind) Which is rubbish. Most mental illness can’t be cured with our current knowledge and only a few can be controlled.

The way folks respond to people like this makes me ill. You’re not denying the atonement to tell someone who lost their legs that they’ll have to wait for the resurrection for a cure. Ditto for those will mental illness. But too many people think embracing the atonement entails treating the mind and body as different.

Ola Senor, none of the counter-factual situations that you propose remotely resemble this real-life situation. You can’t dismiss the need for decisive action based on the mere fact that there are an indefinite number of borderline, grey-area conditions. From the way you talk about it, the church should abolish its policy that bars embezzlers from handling church funds.

Perhaps I haven’t been clear about this. This is not the kind of sex-offender who got away with probation or community service. This not the kind of guy who makes a kid feel weird or uncomfortable or asks bad questions. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison for very severe, serial molestation — the kind where one run-in with the guy on a bad day will change a child’s life.

Ola Senor and Guy Murray, I think that you both are looking at this from the point of view of the child-molester. You need to look at it from the point of view of the potential victims and their parents.

You state that “The problem with forcing the Bishop to go as public as you want places him in an unenviable position if he has to work one on one with this individual.” Being a Bishop is an unenviable position. That’s life. The bishop will need to explain to the child molester the course of action that he will be taking to inform people, so that the molester knows that he will not be empowered by silence. If the molester can’t handle that, then he shouldn’t be welcome at church.

You should be very careful who you defend here. Think of it this way: If Romney had been a bishop, and there had been such a severe child molester in his ward, and he had purposefully advised people to keep it under wraps, and that got out in the press, then his presidential campaign would be over. And rightly so. Score one for the morality of the world.

Anonymous,

The case I described happened many, many years ago. I doubt there were any hotlines at the time.

I sent my parents an email asking if I got the details right. If they reply with anything that would add to the discussion I’ll post it.

I’m actually looking at it from the Bishop’s point of view. If your solution is to effectively bar this or all child molesters from ever returning to Church, then perhaps there needs to be a Church wide policy specifically stating that once convicted of this crime, then there is no ability for such an individual to return to Church–physically come to meetings and participate.

You also haven’t made clear just what this individual’s Church status is, i.e., whether a member or not. If not, then I’m not sure he can be called to serve in any position. Furthermore, there may be some terms in his legal status, i.e., that prohibit him from interaction with youth, in which case that should be utilized to the fullest.

I guess it seems to me that you would like this individual completely barred from the ward building. If so, then what do you suggest the Church’s role be, if any, in this person’s life? What about any other church? Should these individuals just be barred from religious observance across the board? Is there no need for the light of Christ in these lives?

There has to be a no-strike policy on this one. Tolerance has it’s place, but a known molester should not be given any opportunity to damage the life of another child.

The LDS Church’s official policy on this matter is extremely clear, and spelled out in the handbook explicitly, and has been made a matter of public record:

But can they ever again, in their lifetime, serve in any capacity that would put them in direct contact with children? Absolutely not. Forgiveness does not remove the consequences of sin. Protection of the family is a first principle of the Church.

Since 1995 the Church has placed a confidential annotation on the membership record of members who previously abused children. These records follow them to any congregation where they move, thereby alerting bishops not to place them in situations with children. As far as we know, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the first religious institution to create such a tracking mechanism. We hold the family sacred and protect its children. This explains why the Church is one of the few denominations that imposes formal ecclesiastical discipline on mere members (as opposed to official clergy) for sexually abusive conduct.

Our Church applies this tracking system because of our core beliefs. No court in the United States has held a religious institution responsible for failing to protect its members from abuse by other members. To do so would turn religious institutions into police instruments, its leadership into law enforcement officers. The Church voluntarily tracks its membership, not because of the law or fear of lawsuits, but out of its own concern for families and children.

See here.

Whether your local ward leadership apply these rules is something that is up to them. Talk to your Bishop privately if you have concerns about the safety and welfare of your children. Ward gossiping never resolved anything constructively.

AP,

There are several ways to disseminate the information. The bishop might hold a meeting with all auxiliaries, quorums, and groups to discuss it.

Are you in any leadership position? Do you know if this has already occurred or not occurred?

At this point, there’s way too much emotion in your piece to discuss with you logically. How can anyone look at this situation objectively with the way you come across? You’ve got to tone down the emotional rhetoric, Anonymous Permablogger.

Phouchg,

There are cases when civil and criminal law trump “priesthood authority”. this is one of them.

Just what laws has this individual broken by attending church? Tone down the emotional rhetoric. We have no idea of the whole picture, because our Anonymous Permablogger does not wish to tell us the whole picture. Instead, Anonymous Permablogger wishes to permanently sear into our heads the guilt and culpability of this individual, because in his eyes all men who abused children are permanently guilty. We might as well just take this fellow to the gallows and end his miserable life!

In wards like ours that cover huge geographical/population areas and are very transient (there are many, many people at church on a given Sunday that I don’t ‘know,’ and I’m in a leadership calling and have been in the ward for 6+ years), it is not practical to assume that I’m familiar enough with the entire sex offender database of a large urban area that I be able to ‘protect my children.’ If a someone who could be a threat to my children was regularly in the building when my children were there, I would expect to be informed. As it is, I try to maintain a constant state of vigilance.

The best way to protect the children is to warn them. Child molesters can’t be allowed to be alone with them but even the most vigilant, helpful ward fails sometime. If the children themselves know not to be alone with him, then they know to leave the room if they are and they know to make a fuss if he tries to get them alone.

When I was young, my mom pulled me aside one day at church and told me to steer clear of “Mr.X.” She told me why but I don’t remember the words she used. From that point I knew not to be alone with him and honestly, that was fine with me because he gave me the creeps anyway.

The ward needs to know. Not just the parents and the teachers but the children themselves. They don’t need to know all the details but they need to know enough to protect themselves. Innocence born of ignorance is simply ignorance. How can you teach them to make the right decision when you withhold important information?

Devyn S.,

About two years ago our ward in Boston was alerted to a molester attending. Due to age and distinguishing handicaps this person was very easy to describe, so no aspersion were cast on random men showing up at the ward. However he did go to several different wards.

At the time I thought that this information could have been better shared with the membership and even the leadership.

In my current ward in Utah we had a member that was arrested for molesting two boys a few months ago. He is out now but going through the legal process. The bishop addressed the situation briefly but appropriately in the next 5th Sunday joint adult meeting, which happened while this member was still in jail. I thought this was a very good way to handle the situation.

“If Christ has really changed this man’s heart, then he will recognize the danger more readily than anyone.”
And, the people I’m close to who have had major sins with true, wholehearted repentance, aren’t ashamed to admit it. They glory in their recovery and redemption and have nothing to hide.

Guy, I respect that you feel people should be given a chance to repent. If we can’t change and be given a chance, there is certainly no hope for me.

However, in my experience, the church errs on the side of the offender and that is wrong. I can cite four personal experiences, no, five, where I know all the principals very well and in each circumstance, the leaders erred on the side of the offender. Every time. That’s wrong, it goes against what the church teaches, yet it happens.

I tried to call that hot line when I was concerned about what was going to happen with this kid in our ward who’d molested all the girls (he went to jail for it) and they refused to talk to me. They referred me back to the bishop, who said as far as he knew the incident had happened only once and had been consensual and that was what he was basing his decisions on. He disregarded the jail sentence and the fact that this man is now a registered sex offender.

The church still hasn’t gotten it right. They consistently over and over make the victim feel like the bad guy. I wonder, now that I type this, if it has anything to do with mens collective guilt complex or something. No offense.

#12, “the Bishop is called of God” What would you say about my experience where the bishop was called and released after four months? Somebody screwed up. “Called of God” is not the same as infallible.

Michael, you do know that most states have laws that you have to report situations like this. If you don’t and you know of it you too can be charged criminally.

The whole “don’t get in their business” bit is simply astounding for me to hear. I can’t believe someone would say that when child abuse may be going on.

I want to say something. I am not anonymous. I just feel very strongly about this issue.

Anne, I think you misunderstood what I was getting. I wasn’t disparaging being emotional. Far from it. Were that to have happened to one of my kids I’d hate to think what I’d do.

However what I’m saying is that this is an issue that can be reasoned about rationally and those arguing against being emotional are typically just as guilty. When we bring in reason the defense of children seems the most defensible in my view.

Consider this scenario. Jeffrey Dahlmer was released from prison early and started attending your ward. Would it be rational to treat him as just a typical member even if he made an appeal to being changed by the atonement?

Regarding pandering to offenders. I think it goes both ways. There’s a wide variety of Bishops out there, each with differing biases. Keeping track on what they are doing is difficult at the best of times. Without justifying in the least those cases where Bishops and Stake Presidents have made horrible decisions, I can just say that it isn’t obvious how to handle these issues structurally. Even if you have call lines and interviews with Bishops you’re never quite sure what they are doing. It’s easy for a sociopath to cover their tracks. While I think the Church can and ought do more (even today) ultimately we have to use our own good judgment as well. Which is why I think the visiting teachers in the example by Herodotus made the right choice.

But the fact is that there are leaders in the Church who shouldn’t be leaders. Two examples I’ve given before are the Stake President at BYU who didn’t believe in the Book of Mormon nor most of Joseph’s revelations who would council people coming to him with doubts not to believe. What a horrible situation and a person who clearly shouldn’t have been Stake President! The second one was the Bishop of the ward where I met my wife. He told her that she should stop dating me because I clearly was just a player looking to hook up and move along. (Which, judging by our two children, obviously wasn’t true) He also made very uncomfortable “analogies” about “tasting women” in deciding whom to marry – and this in sacrament. I also know of an other Bishop who had unusual doctrines about homosexuality and that I’m fairly certain was hooking up with certain members of his ward.

Now none of those are remotely akin to what you faced Anne. But clearly Bishops come in all sizes and varieties. (I pray constantly I never get called)

sorry, Clark, I didn’t understand.

You know, I have always felt sorry for Jeffrey Dahmer. Sorrier for the families of his victims, I believe he certainly deserved to die the way he did, but what drove that person to do that?

And I look at my kids and grandkids and worry, not that they will be harmed, as that they might harm someone else. How awful would that be to live with?

Dan, I understood that you were being sarcastic. Apparently your sarcasm is more readily detected than mine.

Anne,

Well, Dan, at least you didn’t blame it on George Bush.

The discussion is not over yet….he just might get an appearance. ;)

By the way, Dan, how much of the story do you need to know? Assume as given that he served 10 years for molesting several children, and that it’s not a case of a 19 year-old prosecuted for having sex with a 15 year-old girlfriend. What are the hypothetical mitigating facts that you think might justify letting your guard down for even a minute?

gst,

By the way, Dan, how much of the story do you need to know? Assume as given that he served 10 years for molesting several children, and that it’s not a case of a 19 year-old prosecuted for having sex with a 15 year-old girlfriend. What are the hypothetical mitigating facts that you think might justify letting your guard down for even a minute?

I don’t recommend, and never recommended, to let anyone’s guard down. I’m the executive secretary of our ward, and in bishopric meetings we’ve talked about two men in our ward that have come from other wards with bishops from those previous wards raising flags about their potential possibilities of abusing children. These are not men who have been charged with any crime, as nothing has come forward. Both men have children. Their children don’t act strangely around them (one of the classic signs of paternal abuse of children is children acting weird with their parents), but we’re cautious anyways with them. Their callings are elsewhere from the youth or children. We are warm and open to them and give them all the love they deserve. Were there to be a convicted sex offender moving into our ward, what would we do?

I think that the bishop would first of all consult the church handbook of instructions and the stake president. Then we’d gather all the facts on the individual. Has he served his time? Is he considered a threat to children? The bishop would interview the individual and spend all the time he needs in assessing this individual’s spiritual progression. I’m sure the individual would be given strict guidelines that not only follow the legal precepts, but also ensure the children of the ward are fine. As to the rest, it would depend on what counsel the bishop got from both the stake president and the Lord in prayer.

I would think that a big part of what else would happen is the bishop would, in Ward Council and PEC meetings reveal to the auxiliary leaders as much information as they need to know both for welcoming him into the ward as much as they can, but also being wary of his situation.

Now, what would I do in extra? Knowing my ward, if I were bishop, I know exactly who I would call into my office, the kind of individuals who would be alarmist about it. pre-empt their alarmism by talking to them first. Let them know the bishopric is well aware of the individual and is doing all they can, but because the individual has paid his price for his sins, is welcome back into the fold.

This is a situation where you need to tread carefully or you will divide the ward.

Dan (#49): “Then we’d gather all the facts on the individual. Has he served his time? Is he considered a threat to children?”

I’m baffled by the first question. The idea that the fact that you have not escaped from the cage in which society has locked you for a prescribed period of time has any redemptive value is a myth clung to mostly by leftists and country music singers.

Isn’t the second question where the inquiry should start and stop? And it’s an easy question: If he has abused children in the past, he is a threat to children.

gst,

The idea that the fact that you have not escaped from the cage in which society has locked you for a prescribed period of time has any redemptive value is a myth clung to mostly by leftists and country music singers.

Actually it is a very important, and fair question to ask. When you don’t know the facts, you start from the most basic questions and delve from there into the deeper and more complex questions. Where do you want me to start? From the emotional level of Anonymous Permablogger? Sorry, I start from scratch on EVERY issue, because otherwise, I’d let my emotions take control, and the situation would end up a failure.

Isn’t the second question where the inquiry should start and stop? And it’s an easy question: If he has abused children in the past, he is a threat to children.

It’s not a matter of a threat but the level of the threat. I’m starting to feel that your “sarcastic” comment earlier about ending their miserable lives isn’t really that sarcastic. If they cannot be allowed back into regular society, why should we have them live?

Michael,

I have seen many times where a mother uses the child molestation charge as a weapon to get even with a father or to get more money out of the father or to get an advantage in divorce proceedings. I am not talking a few times, I am talking many times.

I’ve seen it too, far too many times. On the other hand, my mother divorced my father who was abusive to her, to me and to my sister. I’ve seen both ends of the spectrum. This is why it is so VITAL that emotion be taken out of this kind of debate. We must see all the facts before making ANY judgment against ANY individual.

Permablogger,

The part of your story that bothers me the most is that, in spite of the attempts to keep the story quiet, it most certainly is not. I think the bishop has the responsibility to address this before it splits the ward even further than it already has. The suggestion of using the situation as the 5th Sunday topic seems to me to be a good one. Rumor will be far more damaging than the truth.

One thing that none of us knows is how sincerely the molester is in his repentance. There will be restrictions on his participation in the Church, some callings he just cannot receive. The ward in many ways can provide him the support in his path to repentance that he needs; they can accept him in his weakness and help keep him from his temptation. Unfortunately, that can also mean that, no matter how long he is in the ward, how sincere his repentance, neither he nor the ward members can fall into complacency.

All of us are welcome in the Church so long as we do not constitute a danger to the flock. It is difficult to tell who is and who is not a danger, and may or may not be our decision to make. We had a dear friend who, in a time of weakness, had a lesbian affair with another sister in the stake. Our friend went through the repentance process, and shortly after she was restored to full fellowship was called to serve in the Young Women’s program, where she met my wife. When she was called to serve in that position, the bishop was unaware of the probationary period between the time of restoration of her blessings and her eligibility to be called to serve with the youth when sexual misconduct was the basis for her church discipline. He refused to release her, and made the Stake President take the action instead. As soon as the probationary time was over, the bishop called her to the position again.

Unfortunately for our friend, some members of the church weren’t so forgiving, and sent anonymous letters to the parents of the youth which accused our friend of worse misconduct than she had actually engaged in, accused her of being a predator of their children, and questioned the judgment of the church leaders (which would include the First Presidency who approved the restoration of her blessings). Their family moved less than a year later.

Dan, my point is that when determining the level of the threat, we should assume that the person will re-offend. Because they do more often than they don’t.

Dan, I can’t believe you are espousing the kind of russian roulette situation. We’re not talking about someone who screwed up with fornication. We’re talking about mental illness.

Something else to consider, Dan, is that the Church itself doesn’t adopt the position you espouse. Further if they did they would be massively liable when the Bishop screwed up and abuse took place. Hundreds of millions of dollars liable. Something to keep in mind.

Clark,

Well, in my defense, I did say at first that the bishop would consult the handbook of instructions and the stake president. Beyond that, I mentioned that I wasn’t sure what would happen, but only what I would do. Thankfully I’m not yet in that position.

Wow!! This topic pushed my buttons. I’ll do my best to control myself.

Having seen several situations similar to the ones described here this is what I advise:
Please discuss this situation with your Bishop. Rationally discussing with him may help him in formulating a plan of what to do in this situation. In addition to the obvious that the abuser not be given a calling with children or youth, home teach a family with children, or sit in the same row with children; a Priesthood holder should be assigned to this abuser to accompany him to the bathroom. The abuser should be told that no way shape or form is he to wander the halls during Church. If the abuser can’t handle it then he is free to leave.

I think that there is a big problem with supervision of children at Church. We all get comfortable with the building and treat the Church house as if it were a private residence. On Sunday and other days/nights of the week members let their children run and play in the building unattended. Any molester, whether he be a member of the ward/stake/Church or not, can enter the building and be guaranteed a whole slew of kids running amuck. My brother-the-Cop has pointed this out.

This is what we have done in our family. No boy/girl under 14 goes in a bathroom alone. In fact we tell them to go potty before we leave home. The kids are to stay in their class or Sacrament Mtg. Any night that my husband or I have to be at Church together, if we are otherwise occupied with callings, the little kids are at a babysitter. If this gets too expensive then one of us resigns his/her calling (we have done this). We gather family members up immediately after Church ends. If we choose to talk with someone in the hall/parking lot we know exactly where our primary kids are because they are with a teenage sibling or a parent.

Our teenagers are aware that there are predatory adults who try to take advantage of their inexperience and innocence. We have told them to beware of these people.

You also have to beware of child-on-child molestation. Be concerned if a much older child shows too much interest in a much younger child.

Protect yourself from wackos that may accuse you falsely of molestation. Make sure that you are not alone with someone else’s child/teen as well. BSA’s two deep leadership is very wise policy.

Good Luck to you Anonymous Permablogger

It sounds as if JA has proven the emotionality of this issue by her super extreme caution. This is why it is difficult to speak of it in a reasonable fashion.

JA – with all due respect, don’t you think you are overexaggerating the day to day risk to your children?

Michael, JA Benson can speak for herself, but as for me, I think she is acting completely reasonabley. She said

“I think that there is a big problem with supervision of children at Church. We all get comfortable with the building and treat the Church house as if it were a private residence.”

Amen! Some of you may live in isolated, insular communities, but our building is in an urban area next to a mass transit train stop. I’ve personally seen ALL KINDS in our building, including a guy running in off the street and hiding in a primary classroom (unoccupied, thank goodness!!!!) and being arrested right in the church hallway.

That said, I once called 911 to report what turned out to be a (new) member of our ward hiding in the bushes, who really was there to surprise his wife after Enrichment on their anniversary. So take what I say with a grain of salt, because I’m clearly an over-emotional, hyper-vigilant female.

I’d second Benson’s comments. I was called to be the Cubs leader but they wouldn’t give me an assistant. So I refused to teach the class by myself. I know that pissed off a few people. But I just wasn’t putting myself in a situation where there could be misunderstandings. Further it was the Bishop and Primary President’s responsibility to ensure there were two adults, not mine.

Everyone ought be careful. And while I think the Church has improved a lot the past few years, often due to legal pressure, it could still do better. I really think windows ought be in all doors, including retrofitting old Churches. I also think that far too many people are willing to let single people teach classes where they shouldn’t. (Single meaning one, not ones marital status)

It’s sad that so many people buried (and continue to bury) their heads in the sand about all this. I think if more members in wards were pro-active instead of so complacent that someone else is handling the problem that things would be much better.

In one of my old wards, the elders were asked to babysit while the women were having their enrichment meeting. Our rule wasn’t to have two men there. It was to have four men there. That may seem over-vigilant as well, but honestly it felt right at the time.

Interestingly, when you ask for that many people to volunteer, if one of them forgets to show up, you still have a respectable babysitting crew.

Thanks for being supportive Claire and Clark. You’ve both made my day. You are now both my current favorite people.

Michael on the other hand hmmmm… Anonymous Permablogger is asking for advice and so I gave it. DH commented, “It is the day to day that kids get molested. With your children you can’t be too careful.” Given the situation that we were in there is no way that we could have done otherwise as did several other families in the ward.

At the time, in our ward, there were three predatory males making the moves on female and male teenagers and young male missionaries. We also had another guy “investigating the Church” who was a flasher to young kids and teenagers. We implemented the family rules then and since have decided that we need to stick to them because you just never know.

I taught elementary school for many years and every single year I had a molestation case. The majority of the cases were an older teen/child on younger child.

Never assume that bad things can not happen at church. My-Brother-the-Cop in Provo has told us that there have been several cases of strangers walking into Church buildings on Youth night and have molested kids. The kids are taught to “obey Priesthood Authority”. These Creeps take advantage of our trust and obedience.

I am just so amazed at the naivety of our members. Case in point; we have an adult son who lives away at college. His calling is to float as a sub for Primary. He is good about sticking to the rules. If he is along with a group of kids he props the door open. Consistently a young mother who is in the Primary presidency gets after him for doing this. It boggles my mind first that they expect him to teach alone and then when he does the right thing he is scolded for it. Some people have no sense or brains.

Finally even the most vigilant of parents can have bad things happen to them. When I was twelve I was nearly kidnapped by a famous serial killer. My dear mother saved my life. My mother was/is the ultimate uber over-protective mother. She nearly experienced the worst nightmare a parent can go thru in losing a child to torture and murder. This horrible nightmare can happen to the best of us.

Sorry Annegb I was trying to not be so long and boring.

SK was Ted Bundy. Apparently he had a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde personality. We saw Mr. Hyde on steroids. He grabbed me while I was asleep, lifted me out of bed. My mother woke up and stopped him. My Dad woke up and chased him off with a ball bat. He was screaming that he was going to get me… We got a very good look at him and his car. Not a pleasant memory.

The point of my comment was that really bad stuff can happen to even good parents and at Church. Watch your kids. Know where they are and who they are with. Protect yourself from wackos.

Anon: You are correct in asserting that sex offenders use our reluctance to discuss issues like molestation, rape, etc. in an open fashion. We also are reluctant to make people feel uncomfortable by calling them out, especially with the feeling of “he served 10 years so he served his debt to society.” You are also correct to assert that if he is forgiven that is between him and the Lord. I think that parents and leaders need to err on the side of prudence. I think that anyone’s initial reaction is to think “Ah, he couldn’t possible molest someone in the parking lot or in a classroom, there are so many people here.” By analogy, I could say to myself, I don’t get in accidents driving down the road, therefore, I don’t need to wear my seatbelt. Well, I err on the side of prudence by wearing my seatbelt because I realize that it only takes one accident to change or take my life. I think that leaders should err in the same way. Also, in regards to some of the objections posted by others, such as the 15 year old having sex with an older man. I think we can all agree that this is entirely different. Consent is something that we say cannot be legally given by a minor, but we make the claim by law. IN other countries the age of consent is different. I am fine with the age of consent being 18, but I am also willing to recognize that a person having sex with a 15 year old, though wrong, is different than a man systematically raping his own children. By the way I wrote about sex offenders here http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=983.

#80 Danithew Somebody forgot to lock a door. It happens. I check our doors every night before I go to bed. The other night I checked a door that is supposed to be locked 24/7 and it was (of course) unlocked. My parents have always felt guilt about not subduing Bundy until the cops arrived. My dad laments the lives that could have been saved if he could have cracked Bundy’s head open with that bat. Bundy was just too fast for him. Also I think that he was in a state of shock.

#82 Annegb knowing Bundy in a normal way must have been very unnerving for your sister. It’s so sad that such a brilliant, personable, handsome man could be so twisted, evil and mentally ill. When they finally caught him for good and executed him when I was an adult I felt a twinge of sympathy for him, but much more sorrow for his victims and their families. I got up the nerve to read _The Lovely Bones_ by Alice Sebold a year or so ago. Lovely novel, however I read it with a dull ache in my heart for that could have been me and my family. Sorry for the thread jack.

Annegb, I agree. Most of perpetrators HAVE to twist things in their mind so that they aren’t hurting people. Their perceptions get all turned around so that the victims wanted it or they are doing them a favor. You’d be amazed how some of these crimes are rationalized. Many of them are victims themselves, and they have also rationalized away the damage done to them. Learning empathy is a central part of their rehabilitation.

That said, I want to wholeheartedly agree with whoever said that ‘paying your debt to society’ by fulfilling a prison sentence or probation or a treatment program or whatever DOES NOT mean that pedophiles should be allowed to be around ANY KIDS. Even after the legal ramifications are resolved, a truly rehabilitated pedophile will keep temptation away by not allowing himself around any children unsupervised.

JA, I’m pretty sure the counsel we were given recently (that men were only to teach children in pairs) wasn’t only local. I’m fairly certain it’s a Church-wide policy to prevent both abuse and allegations of abuse.

I apologize. I need to add to my comment # 86. Boys who do not have a father in the home really need wonderful, caring, honorable, and spiritual men in their lives. Please do not use my comments to neglect those wonderful young men in your ward. Please reach out to them and show them how a Priesthood holder should be. Most people are good and we have a duty to help one anther, just serve with your eyes wide opened.

If he was found guilty by the Church council, the other members of the ward should be informed. For their children’s safety. If he was found guilty in a court of law, but innocent by the Church council – I’m not so sure. I have personal experience with the latter. The Church council carries more weight with me than the courts.

JA Benson re: your comment on my #71, yeah it was pretty funny in retrospect. At the time, we just didn’t know what to make of a guy hiding in the bushes. He was acting very strangely and the man we had in the building (our Bouncer, I call him) was sufficiently wierded out that he didn’t want to go talk to him either so we decided to call the cops. We eventually figured it out (and the cops never came anyway).

Mami,
You are mistaken. The second scenario happened to my father. The lawyer convinced him that they would lose if they went to trial, so he plea bargained. However, went he went before the Church council, he was found innocent. I believe his recommend was never taken expect for the 3.5 months he was in jail. He was on probation for 15 years but was still able to attend the weddings of my siblings. He was not, nor has ever been a molester, but did not want to face the possibility of many, many years in jail. To this day, that lawyer has apologized to my father for that advice.

This has been a real eye opener for me: someone who hugs and kisses his two daughters as they leave the chapel for primary where I don’t see them for two hours until I track them down in the halls after the block of meetings so we/I can hurry home to watch football. After sacrament meeting our family quickly atomizes into its constituent parts as required by various callings/teaching assignments. Until now, I did not think of walking my kids to their primary classes; in fact, I’m not even sure where their individual classrooms are located, but I do know where the big primary room is. And, until now, I would not have hesitated to be a solo last minute i.e., getting asked after sacrament meeting, substitute teacher for a primary class, which I have regularly done over the years-complete with closed classroom doors-unless the weather is nice in which case we move outside. I guess I will have to consider asking for a chaperone when I teach a primary class, unless we get windows in our chapel classroom doors (an excellent idea/innovation that should be mandatory in all chapels.)

I think JA Benson hit on something that is in the line of my thoughts on all of this. I think the discussion should be less about what to do in specific cases when there is an accusedd or convicted offender in the midst, but more about how we can all take reasonable precautions, all of the time. There are those who may not have a criminal record but may have problems with sexual addiction. I doubt there are many units in the church without such people around. And, if they aren’t at church, they are at the store, or the school, or in the neighborhood. While the church and other institutions should be expected to take reasonable precautions, in the end, the need for caution should be on all of our shoulders, particularly those of us who have children. The buddy system is a huge deal in our family — anywhere, not just at church.

The church is taking a lot of precautions with these things. Whoever mentioned the floating sub who is male…I believe that is against church policy to have one male in a classroom with children alone, period. If we see that such precautions in general aren’t being made, we should talk to our leaders to see if all appropriate and required measures are being implemented.

As to this post, I’m still not sure whether it’s the bishop’s responsibility to “out” this man’s history. I think there are other solutions that could keep things on the very cautious side of things. And I really think it’s as much the responsibility of all members to be aware enough of general risks to personally take reasonable precautions and make sure auxiliaries follow such procedures.

I’m not sure what your point is, tesseract. Are you saying that we can’t talk about sex offenders because it might lead them to commit suicide?

What bugs me most about Mormons:

They demonize anyone who wants to write history that doesn’t assume the truth of Mormonism (e.g., Michael Quinn or Fawn Brodie), but they’re among the first to sympathize with child molesters.

Honestly, listening to Apostle Boyd K. Packer rail against religious skepticism, you could come away thinking that intellectuals pose a bigger threat to our children than level 3 sex offenders.

There’s a real forest-for-the-trees problem here.

I want to know, where “officially” can I find the statement that is being discussed.

I can’t find it anywhere. Most likely, I’m searching incorrectly on the lds site.

Help!

ok, so my son was molested by the bishops son, they were neighbors. the abuse happened when my son was ten and the bishops son was fifteen. when we approached the bishop and his wife were in disbelief. they did disclose that their son had also been molested. the church did nothing for us. absolutley nothing. we decided to go to another ward, couldn’t handle attending the ward we were going to only because the wife was throwing daggers and saying horrible things. went to the new ward for six months wanting to have our records transferred and was told we had to wait for dispinsation. what the hell is that all about. it takes six months. we finally stopped going. an earlier post suggest that people whom report such things are nothing but trouble makers. i will have to say that is how the church made us feel. the perps family hired an attorney and pled the fifth. he didn’t even rec’v a citation for the abuse. my son is suffering, he is in and out of the hospital and has major anxiety and trust issues, doesn’t sleep well and has stomach problems. all the perp doesn’t even rec’v a slap on the hand. lives his life as if he didn’t even do anything.

I had a similar problem a couple years back and I had to be released from a calling because of it. I was the Primary Secretary. The Primary Pres. Son (flaming gay) was teaching 7 year old class and holding boys on his lap. I addressed my concern to her. Nothing happened. I went to the bishop. He called me a trouble maker and called the son in and talked to him. Two weeks later son was called as a teacher to that class. I went to the stake pres. The whispering that went around the sisters in primary about me was merciless. I had to be released from that and then a future calling later. Me and the bishop never saw eye to eye even after the boy was arrested with lewd and lascivous(sp) with a boy under 14 by force. The bishop stood me up at my dad’s funeral.

http://www.sexoffender.com/sorecidivism_review.html suggests rates lower than indicated in the original post but lower than John implies.

Anecdotally, I and each of my three sisters were kissed, hugged inappropriately, or felt up by a priesthood holder whose children we babysat. This happened California and in Utah in 3 different wards. We were 13-14 when this happened. One sister is a year older than I am. One is 9 years younger, and one 14 years younger. We never told our parents, but did not babysit for these families again. The Bishop urged one sister to babysit for the family again, and offered extra “service hours”-remember those?-fortunately she was strong enough to refuse. Why did we not tell? We were ashamed. Girls got blamed more for things back then. For year I avoided being alone with any man older than me ever. I did not go on a baptismal temple trip because I was too afraid of the interview alone with the Bishop. The next Bishop was a high school counselor and figured out my fears. He invited me to interview with an open door or with my mother or sister near.
JA’s precautions are very similar to the ones I followed with my own children, with the additional one that I drove home every babysitter we ever had for our children and I had a hard and fast rule that my daughters could not babysit for any family who did not agree ahead of time that my girls would not be alone ever with any man- only the mother could drive them home. I have lived my adult life in the midwest but I have a sister in Utah who works for CDFS. Her precautions are more stringent than mine ever were. Sadly, most of the offenders she deals with are or were LDS. I could at least keep track of all the LDS people in my children’s orbit. No way to accomplish that in Utah. The prime directive with offenders must be to protect any and all children from them. Too many of them try to justify themselves; they forgive themselves and move on without any meaningful restitution. The normal, natural expected consequence of sexually abusing a child should be to be barred from contact with all children.

Another issue I became aware of recently is an offender who attends a singles branch that has no children. No one follows him around. There are 2 other wards in that building. Scary, huh?

Here is a good example of a cautious bishop. Years ago we had a missionary cottage meeting at our home. The very next day the bishop called me. He had just been informed that a certain man had attended. He asked several questions about the man’s behavior and cautiously advised me against future contact with the man. He also asked for the names of all those in attendance so he could contact them individually. The bishop informed me that the man had recently been released from prison for sexual crimes and was “trying” to return to church, but the bishop had gotten the impression that he was not sincere in his efforts. The elder missionaries were only allowed to teach him at the church building with other adult priesthood members present; the sisters were not allowed to meet with him at all. The guy was not allowed to go anywhere in the church without a shadow from day one. The man only attended meetings for about four weeks before he stopped attending altogether. I believe that the bishop handled the situation well, and was on top of things from day one. The elders, however, are not allowed to bring anyone to my home. The two at that time were very green and I don’t think they really thought past the apparent good fortune of finding a “repenting and returning to the fold” investigator.

In our ward, we have always followed the rule of open door teaching for male teachers. It has never been a problem.

PS, I think his being gay is irrelevant, though.