Our daughter was abused by a man in our ward. She was snatched by the abuser between Primary and Sacrament and molested in the nursery. Our current bishop knew this young man had committed previous crimes but didn’t call the hotline or report the abuse and our previous ecclesiastical leader didn’t report the previous situation or call the hotline. After this was reported to the church, he was accompanied for a while. the previous stake president stopped having him accompanied, and the offender came into the nursery during a recent stake conference. I think the monitoring of this man is now done correctly. My advice: If your bishop and stake president cannot explain to you who the person is and what is the monitoring program, raise hell. It is entirely possible that the bishop chose not to have him accompanied, but instead to put the burden on all parents to accompany their children at all times. Bishops can be really stupid and their choices are not completely dictated by the church hotline people. It would be stupid to trust your bishop before having a very frank discussion with him. You should not be in a position were you are spending your time at church worrying about the safety of your children.

Further advice: It is your role to look after your children’s safety. If you trust your bishop to look after your children’s safety or to competently evaluate risk without having had a very frank discussion with him, you could be making a huge mistake. So you need to talk with him. He has already handled this matter very poorly and you should be questioning his judgment. If this man poses a risk and the primary pickup change is the only one that has occured and most people don’t know why, then what has been done is not enough, since the change only keeps him away from children for those 10 minutes and only for those times that the program runs correctly, not the other 2 hours and 50 minutes, plus or minus the before church and after church time. If steps need to be taken, then those steps need to cover all of church time. The easiest is to assign the man a friend who can be with him all of the time that he is at church. This could have been done inobtrusively. Don’t be afraid to communicate very clearly and very assertively—-you have the right to know in what way your children are protected and in what way they are not. You don’t have the right to suggest discipline or punishment or to even ask the details, but you do have the right to know what the monitoring program is and to convince the bishop to change it if it is inadequate. Don’t be afraid to talk to others about what they think the monitoring program should be if you are not satisfied with the bishop’s answers. None of this has to do with punishment or revenge, only with you making sure your kids are safe and that you can spend your time in church not having to worry about your children’s safety.

Anon I think the monitoring of this man is now done correctly – I’m glad that they made that change, though the young man needs to be on the sex offender registration lists.

I’ve wondered what happened since he snuck into the nursery last time, good to see the update.

For the past few years I have been silently responsible for accompanying a particular man if he happened to show up at church. There is one other member of the wars that has this assignment. I have never told anyone other than my wife this, so the wardembers are not aware that this step has been taken. Luckily the individual hasn’t shown up at meetings.

My point is that it is possible that steps have been taken that haven’t been announced. In our particular case most long time members of the ward have some idea of what the situation is and some sort of announcement isn’t needed since he isn’t coming.

That said individuals should feel free to ask a bishop if an individual is chaperoned.

In my ward, a man attends that was very recently released from prison and is on parole. There was a joint RS/PH meeting held to explain the situation, and the man was asked to stand to identify himself in that meeting. He has two men with grown children assigned to sit with him constantly. As SM-SS-PH are all held in the chapel, he is not allowed to leave the chapel during church.

I like how my ward is handling it. If this man is truly repentant, I admire his courage and faith to come back to church.

I haven’t read all the comments yet, but I don’t think it should be made public information. I DO think that the person should be monitored at all times while in the building. The bishopric should assign him a “friend” and let the “friend” know what the situation is and that aforementioned offender is to never be out of his sight… if the two don’t get a long, assign a different “friend” this can all be done on the down low. Everyone does not need to know about it if the proper precautions are being taken…

That being said, a good reminder that letting your children run the halls unattended (as in, without a specific adult accompanying them) is not a good idea for safety reasons would be wise.

And it doesn’t even have to be a pervert in the ward. It just has to be a pervert with a tie, a missionary haircut, and a rudimentary knowledge of LDS meeting times.

It sounds like this chaperoning business is standard practice, and I had not heard of it. That certainly sounds like a good idea, and I do not know if it was used in this instance.

I also feel that an announcement, even a surreptitious e-mail, that reminds parents to ensure their children are always accompanied, would have been wise. I am not talking about outing a specific person, just a heightened awareness. Would that really have been problematic?

I know that the Primary teachers were not given any better information than the parents. That doesn’t seem quite right. We ALL thought it was just a matter of convenience (some classes have been combined or moved so parents couldn’t find their kids, and some parents are just really slow to get their kids, leaving teachers tied to those classrooms).

I have been told that the offender has been encouraged to attend the Singles Branch, instead. What do you think of that “solution”?

ESO, if the offender is under 30, then attending the Singles Branch seems appropriate. But the friend/chaperone mechanism still needs to be put in place, because Singles Branches still share the chapel with other units, often overlapping Sunday and weeknight events. Small children are likely going to be running the halls while parents in the other unit are there for auxiliary stuff, or before/after Sunday meetings.

Our ward has recently been putting emphasis on parents picking up their primary children _immediately_ after the meetings too, and _only_ parents may pick up primary children.

In one ward of our stake, there is a mentally-deficiant 50-ish man who’s been an investigator/attendee for a few years. His mental maturity state is probably such that he does not need baptism, but if he gave up coffee and requested baptism, they would likely baptize him.

He has given me a very creepy feeling when we shook hands and when he touched me on the shoulder. Outwardly, physically/mechanically, there was nothing improper, but the emotional/spiritual feeling of his touch conveyed to me that he was severely sexually abused, and may have been an abuser himself.

Have you ever shaken hands with someone like that? It feels like you need to wash some invisible slime off your hand?

Is there a better way of describing that “oogieness” that some people give when they shake hands or casually touch you?

This may not be a popular comment but here goes :)

I am not interested in sharing a ward building with convicted child sex offenders. Period. There are to many kids and no way to guarantee that the perp is properly chaperoned. Church should be a safe place for kids and families. I will use any means at my disposal to ensure that this happens. I have actually been involved in forcing local leadership to take out restraining orders agains perps who want to attend wards I have attended in the past.

I can see where bbell is coming from, but where do you draw the line in stopping sinners from coming to church? Should a repentant woman who cheated on her husband not be allowed because she may try to tempt the men in the ward? How about recovering alcoholics that may spike the punch at a ward function, or pass your child alcohol in a class? Ridiculous examples maybe, but it makes me nervous to deny anyone the right to attend.

If the perp has chaperons, is there really anything that could go wrong? I’m more concerned about the people in the ward that you have no idea who or what they are. Because to be honest, I can’t remember a ward I’ve attended that hasn’t had at least one man or woman that gave me the feeling Bookslinger describes. There’s a woman in the ward we attend right now that we’ve warned our kids not to be around her.

JJohnson,

I pretty much draw the line at registered sex offenders and other violent perps with serious issues. I started feeling this way after a sex offender weaseled his way into a nursury in a old ward of mine and started abusing

I have access to lots of background check services and I check out people probably a couple of times a year at the request of local leadership.

If the CSO is a child he or she is out as well. CSO would normally be an older teenager. Old enough for an adult criminal conviction old enough for a restraining order and a lawsuit against the parents if they refuse to keep him away from a chapel and a !%!# whipping if they show up around the building with him.

bbell, now you’re seriously advocating violence against someone who shows up to church with a registered sex offender? Even if he or she is a child?

Get a grip man.

I can understand wanting to protect the kids in the ward, but not all sex offenders are the devil. You need to get some perspective and at least act like you believe in the atonement. There are ways to ensure the safety of children without barring these people from church forever and making ugly threats.

Hello anon, You have asked a very good question. There is no magic in calling the 800 number, since there are many legal different legal jurisdictions and many different situations. As a result, there is no “actual policy” other than the very general “protect the innocent” and “obey the law”. The people on the other side of the phone are good at understanding the church’s legal responsibilities and also the fact that some decisions have pros and cons, but they are not on the ground and don’t have the same feel for the situation that the bishop would. Since they will only talk to the bishop and stake president, if the bishop’s judgment or communication skills are off, then they could be giving bad advice or not even aware of things that the bishop didn’t tell them. This means parents need to be actively communicating with the bishop so they understand as much as possible what the situation is.

After reading all the comments, I do have to chime in and say that regardless of the tactics taken by any ward/unit, there is no fail-safe way to protect your children even at church. The best you can do is keep your eyes open, ask for the Spirit to guide you in protecting your children, and teach your children how to keep themselves safe as soon as they’re old enough.

We started talking with our almost four-year-old son when he was just over the age of three about “good touch” and “bad touch.” Now that he’s potty trained, we continue to ask him questions like “Who’s allowed to touch your penis?” to which he answers “Me!” (yes, this will lead to other discussions later). We follow up with discussions about the doctor or Mommy or Daddy helping him in the bathtub or after going potty but remind him he can decide based on how he feels and what the Holy Ghost is telling him.

I know for nursery-aged children there isn’t a reasonable expectation of children protecting themselves so there should be additional oversight for those children by leaders and teachers. But when you have those icky feelings Bookslinger mentioned PAY ATTENTION TO THEM! Anytime you hear about abuse taking place–whether it’s a woman raped in a parking lot or a parent finding out the neighbor was taking pictures of kids in his (or her) basement–you almost always hear, “I felt like something was wrong but I didn’t want to be rude/suspicious/unfriendly/insert-your-own-nicety-here.”

Someone else said it, and I echo the statement, LDS church buildings are target-rich environments for anyone–member or potential investigator alike–so just targeting known threats won’t do it. Don’t leave it all up to the leaders, either. Just like teaching our children the gospel, we have to take the responsibility on ourselves and teach them in our homes. Personal safety is the same thing.

Not that I have any business interest in it but if you’re looking for a GREAT way to teach your kids about personal safety, check out the Safety Kids series by Janeen Brady. My almost-four-year-old knows almost every word from the Personal Safety CD and asks to hear it over and over. My parents bought it for my sisters and me when we were young and I can say from experience, it’s the best protection you can ask for. Check out http://www.britemusic.com/safety-kids-set if you’re interested.

In other words, bbell, even sex offenders are God’s children and have legal rights. Your approach assumes the opposite and will fail in the end.

Wow, bbell’s ward is like something out of the old west.

Its not my current ward it was a upper crust ward about 10 years ago in the midwest and I was not the instigator.

“I am not sure what legal rights in criminal cases have to do with accessing privately owned church buildings.”

There’s where you are confused. I’m not talking in any way about “rights in criminal cases.” I’m talking about constitutional rights. You apparently believe anyone who has even been accused of a crime doesn’t have any. you are wrong.

“A bishop can prohibit anybody he wants from a building.”

Again, you are wrong. To test this, have your bishop try to prohibit all black people from the building and see how that goes.

“Got arrested and before his trial wanted to come to church.”

So, this is a person who has not been convicted of anything and is innocent until proven guilty and you successfully prohibited him from attending church. Nice job.

I’m amazed that people who supposedly believe that the constitution is an inspired document have absolutely no concept of what it says and no inclination whatsoever to stand up for its precepts. I’m appalled. AGAIN.

I think I got confused. The OP was about a convicted sex offender that had done their jail time, and wanted to re-enter society along with their ward, correct? Now bbell is talking about some type of Mormon vigilante ward expulsion against someone that hadn’t been convicted of a crime. Wow. It’s scary and fascinating at the same time. In a way I’m glad the person they threatened was guilty, I doubt God would be happy about expelling an innocent person from a ward using the threat of physical violence

If I knew that was an option I’d have organized against the current Primary president in our ward. That lady has a problem with gossip and backbiting that is more than I’ve seen in any human.

The buck stops with mom and dad. Assuming that the leadership has somehow safely isolated a SO is the same as assuming that they have pre-screened everyone (investigators, member from other units, bum off the street, who knows…) in the building.

Kudos to the leaders in the Church who implement good sense policies with respect to Primary classrooms and, for lack of a better term, parental chain of custody.

That said, someone who has a history of finding victims at Church and is awaiting trail on charges? Or worse yet the perpetrator and victim(s) are in the same unit? At this point the whole health of the unit is at stake. Would you ask a primary child to attend Church on Sunday and sit across the aisle on from the individual that they may testifying against on Monday? A room full of chaperons doesn’t come close to resolving that issue.

I don’t know anything more about bbell situation that what is stated, but the reaction of those involved can’t be dismissed as out of hand as un-Christlike. I am inclined to say that unless the charges are patently false, there aren’t going to be any winners in the situation and the goal should be to minimize the damage.

“unless the charges are patently false”

How are you going to determine that, MAC? I agree that an accuser should not be required to be in the same room with the accused at church, but that’s a pretty rare occurrence, and not what we are talking about here.

“If a person is a proven risk to children, then that person should be asked to stay away from church meetings and the church building.”

Asked? Now you are talking about asking, where before, bbell was saying it’s perfectly appropriate to ban them and attack them if they show up. I think if they are willing to voluntarily attend an adult ward, then fine, but there are still children in the building. What if you ask them to stay away and they say no. Are you going to ban all sex offenders from the building forever just because they are a risk? How much of a risk is too much? If a person was a sex offender as a teenager and has served his/her time and been problem free for 50 years, are they still a risk? How about 20 years? How about 10?

How about first time offenders? Aren’t you worried about them? If someone looks like a sex offender, you better ask them to leave. Better yet, just ban them. There won’t be many people at church, but at least the kids are safe, right?

Except sometimes the sex offender is a kid, or a scoutmaster, or a bishop or a parent. How are you going to ban them?

Honestly, I am more concerned about 1st time offenders than those we know about.

The guy in the story jjohnson (327) linked to was a first time offender. Banning CSO won’t do a thing for this. Having windows in the doors, and having parent’s pick up kids, or other preventative measures will go a lot further.

I live near bbell, albeit in a different stake. Having been exposed to some of the attitudes amongst our stake leaders, I can say with some degree of confidence that CSOs would be allowed to worship in our stake as long as they weren’t barred from doing so by a probation officer.

It should be noted that if a CSO were to be *baptized* after the offense, he would be treated as any other member who is not a CSO, unless he is under any current legal mandate.

If the courts haven’t barred the CSO from the building, then families don’t have a right to go beyond that. A family with a problem with that might be forced to find another ward to attend, but then might run into the issue of not getting a recommend signed.

How are you going to determine that, MAC? I agree that an accuser should not be required to be in the same room with the accused at church, but that’s a pretty rare occurrence, and not what we are talking about here.

Read my whole sentence. Are you suggesting that there is a winner when sexual abuse happens?

I think bbell situation, as I understand it, can be easily extrapolated to the accuser and accused (or their respective family members) being in the same room. Anngb has discussed some of the strife that an analogous situation has caused in a a ward that she attended.

It cannot be condensed into a simple question of whether or not a chaperon is available and the ability of other people to forgive and forget. What I am getting at, is that once the accusation is out of the bag and leadership fails to address it in some way it will most likely impact the ability of everyone involved to worship freely.

As with any sin, the repentance process is rarely immediate, forgiveness often takes time and there needs to be a mechanism to deal with the tension that occurs in the interim. I would hazard a guess that in most cases there are a number of peripheral issues with the families of the SO an potential the families of a victim(s)

Except sometimes the sex offender is a kid, or a scoutmaster, or a bishop or a parent. How are you going to ban them?

I assume you are talking about 1st time offenders? In which case, the comment is a non sequitur, no one has suggested any sort of action directed at individuals who haven’t been accused of anything.

I have been in several different units where it has played out in different ways. It is never clean and pretty. I have seen a member removed from services in handcuffs, I know of a young man who was restricted from attending any Church activities other than the Sunday block, I have been in meetings where a SO as been required to be introduced as such to the adult membership as a prerequisite to attendance, along with several instances of chaperoning, restriction to Sacrament meeting only, and in a case where the offense did not involve a large age difference there was no ‘public’ action taken at all.

queuno,

By *baptized* did you also intend to mean *rebaptized* as well? Because I can tell you that you don’t even have to be a CSO to get a mark in your records that will prevent you from serving in certain callings for the rest of your life if you’ve been through a church discipline process. I have no idea if this applies to those that have committed acts prior to any membership in the church.

“Are you suggesting that there is a winner when sexual abuse happens?”

MAC, I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Can’t imagine what you’re even thinking.

“I assume you are talking about 1st time offenders? In which case, the comment is a non sequitur, no one has suggested any sort of action directed at individuals who haven’t been accused of anything.”

Again, no idea what you mean. I’m respondoing to bbell who is saying the only way to ensure safety for children is to ban all sex offenders outright. My point is this: (and I can’t believe I have to spell this out) banning sex offenders is not only unworkable, it does not in any way ensure the safety of children because, of course, abuse can come from anywhere, even parents and other children, so banning sex offenders does not actually accomplish bbell’s stated goal.

“I have been in several different units where it has played out in different ways. It is never clean and pretty. I have seen a member removed from services in handcuffs, I know of a young man who was restricted from attending any Church activities other than the Sunday block, I have been in meetings where a SO as been required to be introduced as such to the adult membership as a prerequisite to attendance, along with several instances of chaperoning, restriction to Sacrament meeting only, and in a case where the offense did not involve a large age difference there was no ‘public’ action taken at all.”

None of which involves a total ban. That is precisely my point: there are ways of sdealing with these issues without banning all sex offenders from attending church. Thank you for helping make that point.

“I think some of the rhetoric here about the importance of the “right” to go to church is a bit overblown.”

Ok, you are banned from attending church. Now let’s see if you think it’s overblown.

“Many wards tell people not to come to chuch while they have bedbugs in their home, because of previous problems of having them spread through the church buildings. That can keep people out of church for years — for something that is not their fault at all.”

??? I hope you’re kidding.

“Reasonable limitations on CSO’s could very well include never attending any meeting but sacrament, only attending singles wards, or whatever. An inability to go to church does not interfere with someone’s likelihood of salvation.”

None of which involves banning all sex offenders, or beating them up. My only point here is that extreme solutions like that are not appropriate, and have no place in America or the Church. That’s just not what we’re supposed to be about.

As a person who has experienced abuse and also referring to the situation in my ward where a young man abused girls in our neighborhood, I recommend a reasoned and prayerful approach on a case by case basis. It’s better to err on the side of caution but in my ward nobody considered that the bishop’s teenage son, who was not a registered offender, was robbing little girls of their innocence. You can’t raise your kids in fear.

MCQ, I don’t think the idea is that we can prevent all risk or danger to children. There are unknown dangers. Of course. But if there is a known sex offender, that offender should be banned from church meetings. I don’t have a problem with that. I really don’t.

I am going to write a post on the incident above and why I think its a good policy to keep dangerous sex offenders out of LDS buildings. The key word is dangerous. There are obviously people in the sex offender database who are not dangerous. What comes to mind is that many people on the list were 18-20 and had sex with a 17 year old girlfriend. I was tongue in cheek about whipping ^&&*(%. But not kidding about the incident and how it played out.

Hi rk,

What happened to my daughter was that I was on a business trip and my wife was managing four small children in church, one a 9 month old who was nursing or fussing. The abuser was 17 years old, the youngest son in a prominent and very active family. He had developed trust with all of the children in the primary, so he just guided my 4 year old daughter from the primary room to the nursery room and shut the door. The other kids didn’t notice and came down the stairs to sacrament meeting. He got so involved with my daughter that he was late for Sacrament Meeting and his father needed to go find him. His abuse was not discovered until my daughter said something that evening. After his father found him, this young man then blessed the sacrament and gave a great talk about going on a mission. It is very easy for this kind of thing to happen, especially in relatively large families and a husband that travels.

Sometimes there is nothing that you can do, but this was not one of those cases. The current bishop and the previous branch president were both aware and one of them was witnesses to abuse on another child!!! but didn’t call the hotline or notify the stake president. The offender is being prosecuted for rape but it has not gone to trial yet. The most amazing thing is that the stake president eventually let him go to church unaccompanied because of his good behavior, and he came into the nursery at the next to last stake conference. He is currently assigned a chaperone. The church is treating him with kid gloves because the legal verdict is not in yet, even though we had the police tell us new unpleasant details that the police extracted from him in interrogation.

Many of the offenders on the sex offender registry are 21 year old kids who slept with their 17 year old girlfriends. This is one of the biggest problems with the registry—at least in Utah. The boy I referred to earlier was tested extensively and scored very low in the possibility he would re-offend. I don’t think he will. But I also think this is in part is because people are watching him and he knows it.

The things is people like Phil Garrido are relatively rare and not likely to show up at church. That being said, Arthur Bishop, who abducted and killed little boys in the 80′s was a returned missionary and, I believe, active until he got caught.

It’s completely impossible to predict and I suppose unfairness will result. That being said, the unfairness should go for the safety of children.

But think of that Sunday School teacher who killed that little girl. She wasn’t registered. Again, I say, you can’t raise your kids in fear. It is a sick world we live in, guys. The trick is not letting our protection overwhelm their childhood. I have no answers. I liked the idea of having designated people be with the offender at meetings. We put windows in classrooms. We pick them up at the primary room. The only way we can completely protect them is to live in isolation in barred houses.

So do we ruin their childhood protecting their childhood?

The really sad thing is that we didn’t have these worries when my kids were little. For me, Arthur Bishop changed all that. I became really fearful and ultra-careful. I don’t think it did my kids any good.

I think the key is to be reasonable and teach lour kids street smart without scaring the crap out of them. Maybe everybody in church should carry pepper spray.

danithew, I’m sure you have no problem with banning all kinds of people from church. You will probably have no problem with it right up until you or someone you actually know or care about is the one being banned. What I’m trying to say is that you really should have a problem with it, because there is a very big problem with drawing lines in the sand like that.

““An inability to go to church does not interfere with someone’s likelihood of salvation.””

Why am I attending?

MCQ, I don’t know why you think I would be in favor of banning “all kinds of people” … perhaps I should be slightly more specific. I’m speaking in a general way about people who have been proven sexual predators with children. I think it makes more sense to err on the side of offending someone who has committed crimes like that than to endanger our little ones. To me that’s just a simple and easy equation.

I am aware that sex offenders as a group could include a much broader group of people and maybe some of them achieved that classification through a single act that was somehow explainable or easily fixed. So for the sake of them, I could be more specific, as I am above.

For a time my sister counseled sex offenders at the Utah State prison. We’ve had some interesting conversations. One of the problems is that people who are sex offenders are often not caught the first time around – but rather they are caught after they have committed many crimes against many people. Often these are people who do not look like monsters at all. In general, in watching over our children and families, we just have to be wise and careful.

I once asked her if she thought sex offenders were curable of their behaviors. She didn’t have a clear answer for that question.

MCQ,

What would you propose as an appropriate leadership response to a known, predatory, sex offender who targets children and wants to attend Church services and activities?

There are thousands of sex offenders in each major metropolitan area of the states. Many may not be the registry because their crimes or convictions were prior to the start of that state’s registry law.

I think there is something like 2,000 or more on the registry in Indianapolis alone. If you add in those who are not on the registry, it’s at least 5,000.

Geez, they could have their own church, or stake.

Hey, that’s the ticket. Missionaries need to convert enough sex-offenders to start a ward/branch. Any old or new LDS sex offenders would then be assigned to that ward/branch.

Hi MCQ,
You are right that every case needs to be handled on an individual basis. It is also true that bishops and stake presidents will sometimes make judgment calls that leave unintended risks and that the church system is no better than the weakest link at the local level and legal requirements may make the bishops or stake presidents reluctant to communicate with members about what is happening. One had better be active in working with your local leaders, or you could end up with a totally unsupervised pre-trial known rapist running around, like we did.

Thanks for the walk-thru MAC! You just proved you have no concept of the previous discussion, but it was an interesting recitation. Look, it’s much simpler than that. All I’ve been saying all along is that a blanket ban is wrong, unworkable and will never happen. How is that a straw man? It’s exactly what bbell and others have said they want. If you don’t want that, then why are you arguing with me?

I guess you didn’t like my answer to your previous question, and now you have a new one. I would bother answering it if I thought it would make any difference. And if it had anything to do with what we were talking about. Nice talking to you.

Paroled,

Legally a bishop can have anybody he wants removed from the premises under the threat of trespass arrest. Trust me I used to attend a inner city ward and we would have people removed from time to time. Police are more then happy to come and get people from churches that have been asked to leave.

I personally think that the idea of chaperoning sex offenders to be a lawsuit waiting to happen. If the offender slips the chaperones and abuses a kid we are open to all kinds of legal problems with the plaintiffs bar. Even the bishop could be sued personally for setting up the chaperone situation that goes bad. So if I was legally at risk by being a bishop and a known sex offender shows up no dice.

No, Paroled, I’m not from Texas, but I love me some pepper spray…I’ve never used it but I’m pretty sure I would if I had to.

The problem with the argument here is that most offenders aren’t easily identified. It’s a no-brainer if Phil Garrido or somebody like him wanted to attend a meeting people would be rightly alarmed and watchful. Nobody would have to accompany that guy to church because mothers would be ready to rip him to shreds with their bare hands.

It’s the ones you don’t know are offenders—or are offenders in the making who pose a real danger. So, we put windows in classrooms. We don’t let our kids run around unaccompanied in the halls; we pick them up at primary and so on and so on.

And the sad and terrible truth is that inevitably someone will slip through the cracks and a child will be hurt. Life is a terrible and unfair proposition. I don’t like it. I yell at God “what in the hell are you thinking?” and wonder how on earth it is that I agreed to the plan when I’d rather control everything and be safe.

But obviously I lost that argument and agreed to follow the majority of God’s children and here I am, along with you guys. Part of the deal is life with its sorrow. The only hope is surrender.

And your pepper spray.

As to the legality, a Church can “ban” someone for simply being disruptive

“Churches do not have to tolerate persons who disrupt religious services. Church leaders can ask a court to issue an order barring the disruptive person from the church’s premises. If the person violates the order, he or she may be removed from church premises by the police, and may be found to be in contempt of court.”

or a sex offender

“Sometimes, legal and religious experts say, crimes are so severe that convicted offenders must lose their right to worship”

“Experts say churches need to abide by state laws and be prepared to handle the possible presence of sex offenders, which could mean ministering to them outside the church building.”

bbell, you’re hilarious. The **minimum** obligation is to ban all sex offenders? That’s the maximum you can possibly do in any situation! When the minimum and the maximum are the same thing, there’s something wrong. There are other options, and most churches are using them.

MAC, you have taken a couple of lines out of context and created a deceptive impression of that Post article. The article says that attorneys for offenders have argued that the right to worship is a fundamental right and that most churches are finding solutions other than bans. I know of no church that his banning all sex offenders as bbell suggests. Of course you will have some instances where you will decide that a particular individual should not be allowed to attend, at least for the present, but there is no way that most churches, including ours, will ever use a blanket ban to keep all sex offenders away.

MCQ,

You are totally arguing against a strawman. I used the phrase “dangerous sex offender” and the bishop/ward council decides who is dangerous. Unless of course the bishop is sucked in by a charming sex offender which happens a lot. Then other options are on the table. Stay tuned on that idea

MCQ,

Of course you will have some instances where you will decide that a particular individual should not be allowed to attend, at least for the present

So there are situations where some form of ban may actually be appropriate? Am I reading this wrong or have you finally come around to my way of thinking.

Again, you need to read the whole comment before you respond. I qualified the quote with “as to the legality” and then excerpted the sentences of the article that address legality. This is in no way deceptive and if the intention was to take something out of context, why link back to the original context?  You suggest that I presented the article as a complete argument and then fashion a reply based on this suggestion.  Doing this is called arguing against a straw man.

Paroled,

I agree with your comment. My reply was specific to the legality of restricting someone from attending meetings.

MCQ,

I am arguing against a blanket ban of all sex offenders, not against keeping individuals away if and when that is warranted on a case by case basis

That is not an accurate statement. You suggested that any ban was outside the authority of the Bishop and a violation of constitutional rights (comment 38).

I never advocated a blanket ban, in fact I specifically said I did not think a blanket ban was correct (comment 82). So when you address me directly and argue against a blanket ban, whether the repeating the accusation is insipid or not, you are making a straw man argument (comment 85).

MAC, wrong again. In comment 38, I’m talking about a blanket ban. I only mentioned the individual case of a person being banned before trial in response to bbell in comment 37. Further I’ve never suggested that you were arguing for a blanket ban, I said repeatedlly that I was arguing against bbell’s call for a blanket ban. This the last time I’ll respond to you, MAC. Your comments don’t merit any further consideration. You’ve even bored Bookslinger, and that takes some doing.

Bookslinger, that would be right if bbell had any style. But I’m ok with it as long as I win on substance.

You have much more faith in people with power than I do, danithew. But the argument against a blanket ban doesn’t rest solely on the slippery slope problem. The biggest problem is one of identification. If you are going to have a blanket ban on all “convicted sex offenders,” then that is just too broad. But if you are going to let some convicted sex offenders in, then there’s no other good place to draw the line. That’s why you have to take it on a case by case basis. But there is never going to be a blanket ban anyway, for all the reasons I’ve stated, so it’s hardly worth talking about further.

You all have been very skeptical of my assertion that the constitution proibits blanket bans on sex offenders, but judges have affirmed the right to worship as a first amendment right in places where bans have been challenged. Hre’s an article discussing that:

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2010/01/sex-offenders-after-prison-can-registered-sex-offenders-attend-church.html

Jota: No, the article mentions only that courts have recognized that a right to worship is a fundamental right recognized by the First Amendment, and struck down a NC law prohibiting sex offenders from attending church where minors were customarily present:

“As previously discussed, James Nichols, a convicted sex offender challenged the NC law prohibiting registered sex offenders from coming within 300 ft. of any facility devoted to the use, care or supervision of minors. He claimed it was too broad and denied him from attending a church of his choice.

A judge ruled that a law limiting registered sex offenders’ ability to go to church infringed on constitutionally protected rights — specifically, the right to worship.”

While that case is not applicable to churches that deny sex offenders the right to worship on the same grounds, it does recognize the fundamental right to worship that I was talking about. My point is not that courts are likely to order us to allow sex offenders to attend services, but that because we, as a church, consider the constitution to be an inspired document, we ought not to be the ones trampling on fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution, especially where narrower means exist, rather than a broad ban, to accomplish the goal of keeping our children safe.

It’s all well and fine what people *want* to do, but let’s be careful to assume that the Church is going to take your stance.

Even in Texas, the approach of that “we’re just going to ban them all” isn’t practiced. And if you find yourself more conservative and more extreme than Texas … maybe you should rethink?

MCQ,

Yes, the court struck down a LAW that prohibited sex offenders from accessing churches because the government can’t deny someone their First Amendment right to free exercise without satisfying a very high standard of judicial review. It did not, however, order the church to admit an offender against the church’s will. No court has EVER ordered a church to admit a member against its will. That would be an unconstitutional interference with the church’s and the church’s members’ rights of free exercise and association. There are major precedents on this issue.

I had a case once where a parishioner was trying to force his local congregation to take certain action with respect to his national denomination. All of the precedent that applied in that case that lead to our winning two demurrers against him and squashing him in the court of appeals is the same precedent that would allow a church to exclude a sex offender from its congregation. The courts have decided that those kinds of questions are ecclesiastical in nature and, therefore, outside the jurisdiction of the courts.

Jota, your #103 is impossibly misguided. Nothing I said has disagreed with that. In fact, I said virtually the same thing in #99. I don’t know what you think you’re quarreling with. “Squashing” him? Are you a lawyer, Jota? Or do you just play one on TV?

“I wanted to correct the implication that churches could somehow be forced to admit sex offenders against the church’s will or that the first amendment rights of sex offenders would trump the choice of a church to choose to exclude them or any other class of potential congregants.”

What implication? I stated that the court case we are discussing was inapplicable to such a conclusion in #99. what is there to correct?

Jota:

“Excluding someone or even a whole group of people from a worship service who, by a particular church’s standard, cannot be a member or is prohibited from participating in services is not “trampling on fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution” because an individual does not have the right to worship at a particular church if that church chooses to exclude him. Such a church is not “trampling” on a right but “exercising” one.”

If the right to worship is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution then, from the perspective of the individual, it doesn’t matter one bit who is excluding you.

I agree that the difference between an action of the state and an action of the church matters from a legal point of view, and I said that before. I’m just saying that we, as a church should not take a position that broadly excludes a whole category of people from worshipping, when a narrower policy can be implemented that accomplishes the purpose of protecting children.

And if you’re a lawyer, why did you say “squashing him?” Did you mean “quashing?”

(Ignoring the argument that probably caused people like me to scroll to the bottom)

Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with the 2 chaperones for 1 sex offender policy the church has in place. I also don’t see anything wrong with having children picked up by their parents. I also don’t see anything wrong having children chaperoned at all times by a trusted adult.

Thereby: I don’t see anything wrong with having someone attend a religious setting taken that all the previous steps have been taken.

But I would say that when it comes to Sex Offenders, its the same as adulterers–the first time they can repent (and be forgiven but still watched by the bishopric) but the second time they’re excommunicated. The End.

STOP SLEEP OVERS!MY NIECE WAS RAPED BY THE BISHOPS TEENAGE SON AT A YOUNG WOMENS SLEEP OVER. THE BISHOP HAD ANOTHER ONE THE NEXT WEEK! YOU CANNOT EXPECT THEM TO DO THE RIGHT THING. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT IS THEIR FAMILY THAT IS INVOLVED. MY SISTER FELT IT WAS HER DUTY TO WARN THE OTHER GIRLS PARENTS. THE BISHOP WOULD NOT. FOUND OUT LATER THE BISHOPS SON HAD RAPED 8 GIRLS. TWO OF THEM WERE HIS SISTERS. TO THIS DAY HE HAS NEVER BEEN TURNED IN. HE IS NOW ABOUT 30 YEARS OLD AND HAS CHILDREN OF HIS OWN. HE IS AN ACTIVE MEMBER. I HAVENT’T EVEN MENTIONED THE SCOUTING SITUATION YET!

Trish,

I’m saddened by your experience and sorry your niece and family has endured it. Words cannot express how difficult this must have been and must continue to be for you all.