I think this is a lawsuit protection rule and an effort perhaps to protect children, but I also think it does some real damage in its unspoken inferences. It is offensive. It reinforces as degrading stereotype of men whether that is the intent or not. It tells men they cannot be trusted. It tells men there is something wrong with them perhaps if they enjoy teaching or associating with children. It tells men that they are to be feared, that humanity needs to be protected from them not by them. However, the maelstrom that enveloped the Catholic church and the PR tactics of todays lawyers certainly do make the policy understandable. I agree that the idea of someone exploiting their calling for child molestation is repulsive in the extreme, that any found doing so should be excommunicated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but I think we go a step to far when we refuse trust in order to preemptively prevent any possible betrayal of trust.

You raise a good point about having two teachers regardless of gender. I can see why this would be a big headache for church leaders, because the Primary would be a resource-hog, but it makes sense.

Apparently, men are more likely to be predators than women. I wonder if the Church looked at the statistics and determined that the odds of a male being a predator were sufficient to warrant the policy (1 in 10,000, perhaps?) but the odds of a women predator were negligible. More likely, it’s a gut reaction to a few bad experiences with men.

I don’t object to the policy at all-better safe than sorry- but I would be interested if a woman has ever been a child predator in the Church, and if so, why women do not also have to team-teach primary.

I was interested to note when I looked at the policy on LDS.org that this only pertains to English-speaking units. That is so odd to me.

During his ministry, Jesus had 12 escorts.

Our ward apparently goes above and beyond this policy. All primary classes, whether taught by men or women, require two teachers.

Keri – I had a Bishop who would not put a woman and man together (who were not married) into the nursery or primary for fear they will “hook up”. I was shocked that we don’t trust our adults with each other. I can understand two teachers with kids, but not to allow an adult male and adult female (who are not married) to serve together in a calling…

Keri–that is at least common practice, if not a rule. I agree it is silly.

Danithew–this policy was first released in 2003.

Tagore–that’s got to be a nibblet-worthy comment for 2008!

Every time I am reminded of this policy I think of the following true story: Not long after I moved into my ward a young Black convert in his twenties began attending. He had a gentle demeanor and mannerisms that bordered on feminine and some people wondered if he was gay. In any case, he said he had been out of touch with the church for a couple of years but that after the beating he had taken he had come to recognize the church as a place of refuge.

After a couple of months our long-serving bishop called him into the primary where he seemed to thrive.

When the letter regarding men teaching in the primary was sent out the bishop kept it to himself and filed it away. The primary president eventually heard of the letter from someone outside the ward and asked the bishop about it but the young man was not released.

The bishop himself was eventually released and I was called as his replacement. Being a regular reader of the bloggernacle I knew, but had forgotten, about the letter. As I reviewed the previous bishop’s files, however, I saw it and the only male teacher in our Primary came to mind.

The man had been very happy in the Primary. The children liked him and he obviously enjoyed being with them. Every week he came in a white shirt and tie, scriptures in tow and a lesson prepared. Still, I had read the letter and the primary president and I had even discussed it. As it happened, we needed some help in the EQ so I made the decision to release the man as a teacher in the Primary and asked him to serve in the EQ.

After a month had passed the young man came to me and asked to be released. He told me he was struggling in his new calling, a positon of unwelcome responsibility, and no longer felt happy at church. As a new bishop I knew exactly what he was talking about. Perhaps in sympathy or perhaps because I felt inspired to do so I agreed to release him.

In the weeks that followed he seemed to drift. I think he felt he had somehow failed. The members of the Elders Quorum were always kind and polite, but he didn’t seem to identify with any of them. Other than the gospel he didn’t have a lot in common with them. His attendance became sporadic and eventually he stopped coming altogether.

I would call him occassionally. He said he was doing well, but he was busy. He was looking for a new job. He was thinking of moving. Then one Sunday he showed up. He brought a friend along with him, his roommate in fact. He said he missed taking the sacrament. I told him we missed having him worship with us. After the first hour he and his friend slipped out the back. That was the last time I saw him. I called his number several months ago; it had been disconnected.

Long after I released the man from his calling in the Primary I reread the letter. The language was not as strong as I remembered it. Later still when discussing with the primary president the need for a new teacher the letter came up. She had still never seen a copy. I told the letter made allowances for a small ward such as ours and an unaccompanied man could teach in the Primary but the primary president should make frequent visits to the classroom. She then brought up the man and wondered if would still be active if he had continued in the primary. I wonder that too.

All in all I view this episode as one of the saddest of my tenure as bishop. It is easy to say the church, or I, or the primary president or the previous bishop is to blame for the loss of a kind, caring teacher. But I don’t doubt the church has good reasons for sending the letter out. I don’t doubt the previous bishop had good reasons for filing the letter away. I don’t doubt the primary president had good reasons for wanting to follow the letter. I even think I had good reasons for releasing the brother from the Primary. At the end of the day the thing I take away from all of this is that policies and decisions–good ones and one’s made with good intentions–have consequences. Some of those consequences hurt innocent people. I take it God will sort out the blame. In the mean time I’m repenting for my failings. I’m fairly certain the brethren are doing the same.

#18,

Wow. That’s a shame. It’s especially a shame that we so often can miss the true intentions and meaning of such things. How nice it would be to have more emphasis on the exceptions to the rule so such things could be avoided.

I taught in primary for a while and had a companion teacher who was often away. The Primary Presidency simply asked that I keep the door open and allow them to pop in now and then. I understood that as a “spirit of the law” enforcement. Often times, the whole hall of classrooms had doors open and one brother teaching.

To #11 and #12,
Many of us who are single or divorced women are viewed as potential homebreakers. Once, when I complained to a bishop that my home teachers didn’t call or visit, he told me, “Well, I can understand that with a woman like you.” (I am/was a temple recommend holder with a very clean record, so he could only have meant that it was because I was divorced.)
I have a friend who told me that while she was divorced, her hometeachers would only stand on her front porch to talk to her.
So, it’s not uncommon at all to view an unmarried woman as a threat at church.

Paperback: “Well, I can understand that with a woman like you. (I am/was a temple recommend holder with a very clean record, so he could only have meant that it was because I was divorced.)”

Assuming those were his exact words, there are plenty of other things he could have been referring to.

For instance, if you’re above-average in looks, he could have been referring to your appearance as a temptation they didn’t want to face.

If you’re an outgoing but clingy type, that could also scare married or single guys off from wanting to home-teach you.

If you’re an excessive-toucher, someone who has a tendency to always touch people when you speak to them, that can offend men to the degree they don’t want to be around you.

Marital status isn’t the only thing.

Not only in Primary or Sunday School classes does there have to be two people, but also in small Family History Centers. Often, it is necessary to be in fairly close quarters in order to help patrons with computer programs. Even though there is no improper interaction, the appearance of such could be misconstrued by others looking into the room. It’s always best to have two staff workers.

Also, in dealing with children there can be many types of abuse other than molestation. Two examples are vocal as well and physical abuse if a teacher becomes frustrated. Children are just more protected with two adults present. Also, with small children there is always a chance that one can fall or be injured otherwise–or even just have a sick stomach. When there are two adults one can be free to go for help.

Being insulted about having two adults in charge is a silly concern.

Mariah

I personally think this policy is incomplete. If you are going to go so far as to identify the majority of abuse cases (let’s say it is 95%) Why not apply the policy to women as well just to eliminate the other 5% possibility.

People who do bad things to children come in all shapes and sizes. The two sexes have many differences and tendencies but there is a lot of overlap. If there wasn’t you wouldn’t see women playing basketball and you wouldn’t see men doing ballet.

My only thinking here is that there are typically more women in the primary and it would deplete the Relief Society numbers really fast. If this is the real reason then why not just apply policy #1 and #3 but make it applicable to all the classes. I want my kids to be safe no matter what, whether they are with a man or a woman teacher. I don’t want my kid to be the one damaged by the exception of the rule.

Is there any such policy when dealing with the young men or youth sunday school?

Being insulted about having two adults in charge is a silly concern.

It’s only insulting because the rule only applies to men. It makes the assumption that only men are abusive.

Unfortunately I understand the rule, even if I don’t totally agree with it. Our stake added a layer to the rule a couple of years ago. Following the rule, they put a couple in the primary. Then it was discovered that when the wife was sick, the man was sexually abusing the children. So now the new rule for couples like my wife and I is if my wife is sick, I can’t attend primary either. Even if my wife gets sick five minutes before church and I can’t call a sub, they’d actually prefer that I not teach and they’ll combine the class with another.

I’ve always wondered why they don’t just put windows on all the doors.

There should be windows in all primary classroom doors. It’s a church-wide policy. Some buildings are slower to obey than others. But ours now has windows.

We have been talking about sexual abuse, but a teacher could be mean to a child, also. You know, that’s been around since the beginnning of time. Think of the nuns and priests who beat the hell out of kids.

Hmmm – I thought the rule applied to having two in a classroom no matter which gender. At least that is what is happening in our ward. I still believe it is a good rule; the rule protects both the children and the instructors. You don’t have to be male to commit abuse. Over the years I’ve seen many instructors become frustrated – especially trying to deal with pre-teens.

Mariah

No problem Jes you have a gym, until they take down the cinderblock walls separating the classrooms to make several long multi-purpose rooms which is needed and not those out of date, dangerous, tiny, and very claustrophobic closets/cells they call classrooms. While they are at it get some windows to the outside please. Let the sunshine in!!

We did sharing time for the whole Primary for a year and yes it was a nightmare. Jes, you are right Jr/Sr Primary not much better when it is separated. I think that after 7 straight years in the Primary I have lots of suggestions and the biggest one is the entire structure of Primary needs to be revamped. What you say? Well… 4 mini primaries; 18months -3, 3-5, 5-7 and then 8-11. One hour with songs, snacks and toys for the youngest kids, art, a game, with a short lesson/ story. The activities would be more age appropriate. Instead of hating Sunday the kids would love it! Now we have the Primary program back to what it was intended to be in first place a FUN way to learn the Gospel.

I agree that making a 2-deep rule for all, including the youth program, would be ideal. That is the aspect of the policy that I don’t like–that it only applies to men.

In big wards, I can see this happening alot. It is very convenient to have 2 teachers. However, in many wards, it means that men are significantly less likely to be called to primary.

With my last name a lot of members assume I’m a polygamist, so why assign me two single/divorced ladies to home teach that think cleavage is just a fashion statement? I’m sorry but it’s hard to keep your mind on the “lesson” when you have to avert your gaze constantly. As far as the “two deep” rule, it’s easy, just keep all the primary kids and teachers in the big room for the group lesson where everyone can keep an eye on each other all the time, no windows, no whispers in the hallway, no chance of the adults getting mean. It would save on classroom space, noise in the halls and teachers who have a hard time with 10 year olds who “need to go see the Bishop”.

So it takes two men to do the job of one woman?

Just an analogy. I’m not offended when the state of Vermont says they don’t trust my driving enough to allow me to choose whether I make my children wear a seat belt, but then allow me to make my own choice. What message does that send? I just know it isn’t about me. The state is just balancing two interests: safety vs freedom. Most states draw the line further on the safety side.

We could make our churches completely safe by installing cameras in every class room and hiring security guards to check them every 5 minutes. But I think that goes a little too far. Maybe I shouldn’t have said anything. Someone might think it is a good idea.