rkhutchinson

Members
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by rkhutchinson

  1. After reading all these pages I have two thoughts I would like to share:

    1. Like it was stated, this is an emotionally charged topic specially for those who unfortunately went through this horrible type of abuse that leaves scars for life. I think all of us (specially those who did not experience it) should probably be sensitive enough to understand, empathize and show a little compassion.

    For them (people who experienced this sort of abuse), this topic is NOT about US agreeing or disagreeing with them, it is NOT about who is right or who is wrong. For them, this is about their feelings being validated, it is about understanding why their fears may seem exaggerated, it is about understanding they are literally terrified that a little innocent child somewhere might have to go through the same pain and suffering they went and continue going through every day. And yes, unless you are a parent you don't know what the heck you are talking about.

    This isn't about forgiveness, this isn't about the Atonement, this isn't about whether the person can change or not, this is about SAFETY which leads me to my second and last point:

    2. Personally, if as a parent I feel my child (for whatever circumstance) is not safe at Church, I won't be there with him/her. If as a parent, I must choose between going to Church and the safety of my child, I choose the safety of my child (that's a no brainer). You can share all the scriptures you want in the BOM, the Bible, your testimony, what have you...IF I FEEL MY CHILD IS NOT SAFE IN A CERTAIN PLACE (and that includes Church) HE/SHE IS NOT GOING TO BE THERE.

    My two cents.

    What you say rings true to me even if it is not the company reply.

  2. While I'm against too much hovering...

    Consider visiting Primary with your kids for the next few weeks? It's probably not necessary, but it might be good for your own peace of mind.

    Thank you for your thoughtful input. I agree with much of what you said.

    Here's the thing about hovering- I can do it for the next few weeks, months, even year. I think most of the women in the branch will be clucking around like crazy mother hens- for awhile. Then, as some time passes w/o incident people will relax and not be as vigilant. This is a charming man, who I am sure will win back trust of the people around him - just like he did after he molested his daughters. He even convinced one of his daughters that he had truly repented and changed. She believed him until he molested her daughter.

  3. Okay- so now it is time to think about preparing for the Sabbath. To tidy up the house, think about tomorrow's meal, lay out church clothes and shoes... and I don't feel good about going to church. I am filled with dread and anxiety. Arguments about every sinner's right for atonement aside- what should I do? How do I make this situation right in my heart and safe for my children?

    I sincerely appreciate everyone's, even Dravin's :) , discussion of this issue. I am the only member on my side of the family. Most of their advice was to find another church, preferably baptist. It is nice that there is a larger family of brothers and sisters in Christ to turn to.

  4. And I disagree that being a member in the Church is being in a position of trust as you are expressing it. We can disagree, that's fine, but I didn't misunderstand you.

    Yep, thus the comment about potential error.

    The concern of the unattended child on the way to the bathroom has been mentioned more than once now, as it was already introduced I ran with it. Just as you didn't bother to run down every possible issue but used something as an example so did I.

    How is that relevant? Where have I made an attempt to deny that you feel what you have stated? As I have not done so, nor made any statements that are predicated upon any particular awareness of how a mother might feel I don't see how it is pertinent. Now I suspect you are aiming at the idea that because I'm not a mother, or otherwise understand how a mother might feel, somehow that makes my statements weaker or invalid. I've made one assumption in this thread that has bitten me, so I'm going to double check. Is that what you were aiming for?

    And maybe it doesn't, maybe it doesn't take being a parent to disagree with the comparability of the position of trust of being a member of the Church and being a teacher or camp counselor. I admit this also reads like, "You aren't a parent, you aren't qualified to opine." Is that correct? Or am I mistaken?

    I guess what I meant to say, is that you come across somewhat adversarial- like this is a debate that you are trying to win. It seems you would rather argue than acknowledge someone's concerns or feelings. My guess is that you are a nice person who probably doesn't mean to offend people and I'm sorry I offended you. Of coarse, you are entitled to your opinion- but, based on your comments, I don't think you understand the level of fear and anxiety this is causing the parents in my branch.

  5. With all due respect, rkhutchinson, we all come at this from a variety of backgrounds; none of them invalid. Some may find statements like the above, just as patronizing as anything Dravin has said.

    Yeah, I knew that wouldn't take long- and of coarse you are right:) However, no matter what background you come from it can't hurt to put yourself in someone else's shoes and show a little empathy.

  6. Those are not comparable to being a member of the congregation, or even having a calling such as Gospel Doctrine teacher (which, BTW would solve the issue of worrying if he's hiding in the bathroom during Sunday School). They are comparable to serving with the children or the youth which is barred them by policy. And no, just because someone is a member doesn't mean they can be trusted without reservation. Honestly the best suggestion I've heard so far is the idea of people willing to be escorts (in addition to the policy limiting callings), the difficulty would be in finding people who could be around him without seething with or glaring at him with hatred or disgust for the 3 hours. Ideally they'd be fellowshippers there to help him not reoffend rather than wardens.

    The same way they know who they can and can't trust outside of Church with all the teaching and potential error that entails.

    I could see an argument for making it known in the ward that someone has a sexual predation conviction or at the very least when it is something like home teachers (privately, announcing it over the pulpit would just be needlessly humiliating and ostracizing), considering convictions of such a nature are not private. It is probably avoided because people don't want someone who has repented to be ostracized by the ward. The need for fellowship doesn't go away, it just becomes tempered by safety.

    First, I was comparing membership in the Church to other positions of trust, using teachers as an example of a position of trust. I suppose I could have used other examples like police officer, doctor, emt... The point was seeing a man in Church every Sunday, passing the sacrament, praying... induces an innocent child to trust them.

    Second, young children don't know who they can and can't trust. They trust everyone. A parent can warn and warn, their innocence makes them vulnerable.

    Finally, an assault occuring in the bathroom isn't a parents only concern- it is merely an apparent example of one of many places a child might be out of the sight of responsible adults.

    I'm sure you don't mean to but you come across as patronizing and slightly antagonistic. Also, somewhat clueless to how a mother might feel. Maybe it takes being a parent in my present situation to completely understand the complexity of this problem. Please consider this constructive criticism.

  7. Yes, because rape is not an unpardonable sin. I know there are those who feel that pedophiles are beyond the power of the atonement to change their behavior but since pedophiles are not excommunicated without the possibility of recommunion and are not barred from attending Church suggests that those in charge of policy do not share that position.

    I am not suggesting that pedophiles are beyond the power of the atonement. I am sure that some even change their behavior and don't hurt anymore children. However, doesn't being a member of the church put pedophiles in a position of trust? Would you argue that a reformed pedophile should be a teacher, a camp counselor? How does an 8-year-old discern who they can and can't trust at church? Or, a child who sees Brother--- every Sunday is approached by him at the park, library, pool... That child is going to assume that Brother---- is trustworthy.

    In this particular case, Church leadership believed this man when he repented of abusing his daughters. He was called to EQP. Then he assualted his 7-year-old grandaughter. For a time he was our home teacher, he was invited into our home- my children trusted him.

  8. I hope I may offer a sincere answer without seeming flippant or dismissive in my words.

    Maybe such a ward should be thankful for the one pedophile that they know about. For then they can be on their guard and know with whom their children should not be left without supervision.

    As was mentioned earlier, it could be worse...there could be a pedophile that nobody in the ward knows about.

    I hope that didn't sound dismissive, for it was not intended that way. I am merely trying to find a positive in a situation for which there does not seem to be a positive.

    I appreciate your calm perspective- something I don't seem to have concerning this issue. I think I would say the same thing to a sister facing this issue in a different ward. However, when you preceive a threat to your own children reason is quickly overwhelmed with fear.

  9. I would expect a convicted child predator to be disfellowshipped or excommunicated. Two things to understand though:

    1) Being disfellowshipped or excommunicated does not bar one from attending services.

    2) Being disfellowshipped or excommunicated are not, generally speaking, permanent. One can repent and return to fellowship or communion.

    I know this is the way it is but is this the way it SHOULD be? Isn't the church supposed to be a sanctuary?

    As it stands in my branch, when I'm there 100% of my attention will be focused on making sure my children aren't in a position to be sexually assaulted. I can never relax or feel peace. How could I sit and enjoy a RS meeting or Sunday School w/o the thought- did one of my children go to the bathroom unattended... are they being assualted while I'm sitting here?

  10. So- why aren't child rapist disfellowshipped? Or at least banned from the building- they could have home teachers and sacrament at home. Why is it more acceptable for an entire ward to have to constantly be on guard and children to be endangered than to have the offender forced to make accommodations? This is a sincere question and I am not making judgment. I am just looking for a little more insight to help me resolve the issue for myself.

  11. I am going to ask a sincere question:

    Isn't the abuse of your own children DIFFERENT than abusing the children of others?

    It is my opinion that while the act and crime is the same, the situation where it can happen is not.

    Family are those people whom you see anytime and anywhere. Others, are not so 'accessible'.

    I'm thinking that the thinking behind it is different.

    That is not to say that there aren't precautions or other actions that can and should be taken.

    But to put it in context, the above post talked about playing basketball and riding bicycles at the Church. This doesn't happen on Sundays. Would there be any reason why this person would need to be at the Church building during the week? The only thing I can think of, is to help clean the Church building. And yes, I know that there are some that bring their children to the building to help clean up.

    Any other reason would be to participate in planning meetings, depending any callings extended.

    Anyway, I believe that reasonable precautions should be made... but I do think that it is a different mentality between an abuser who abused their children/grandchildren and one who will try to abuse any child.

    Am I wrong?

    I would love to allow myself the peace of mind in agreeing with you- he only attacks, rapes, molests children in his own family- my kids are safe and life can go on as usual. However, this doesn't ring true in my heart and if it isn't true how can I expose my kids to this threat.

  12. Ok - hang on a minute. Exactly how do you know this? Are you one of the daughters? Was there ever a formal accusation or a trial? Was he ever arrested? There are times when people know things about someone, and there are times when there's gossip and heresay and false accusations. How do you know one way or the other?

    So wait - I'm still confused. When was he in seminary? Before his 18 month prison sentence or after? What charge was he convicted of?

    I want to make sure I'm understanding correctly. Is this the sequence of events?

    1. Guy allegedly molests daughters 20 years ago. Nobody did anything about it, but somehow everyone "knows" about it.

    2. Guy goes on to be active in church and hold callings, including seminary.

    3. Guy is convicted of molesting his 7 yr old granddaughter and serves 18 months in prison.

    4. Guy is coming back, and you are worried he'll be around kids again.

    Is that everything in the right order? If so, you should not have to worry about him having a calling in leadership or with the youth, because of his conviction.

    I am not worried about him having a calling, hopefully a conviction will prevent that. I am worried that church leadership will not take enough precaution (if it is even possible) to prevent him from abusing another child in our branch. That fear is largely predicated on the fact that a man who was known to have sexually abused his daughters was given a clean slate and callings. One of his daughters was a member of our branch and a friend of mine. We have a small, close knit branch. All the kids feel at home in the meetinghouse and spend alot of time there playing basketball, riding bikes in the parking lot... they aren't always in eyesight every minute.

  13. Legal question. Maybe I missed this along the way.

    If State law does not allow sex offenders to be around children, then they CANNOT attend church, correct? We, as LDS, believe in abiding by the laws of man, correct? The other question is, if the State has no such law, is the method of dealing with a sex offender a case-by-case basis?

    Bini- until recently my state had several laws prohibiting a child sex offender from being in places where children congregate. However, in 2009 a paroled CSO was arrested for attending a church with children's programs/nursery. The ACLU stepped in. His case was fought all the way to the state supreme court which ruled these laws were overbroad and unconstitutional. In my state it is the legal right of a CSO to attend church despite the presence of children and there are few restrictions on where a predator may go. Thank you ACLU.

  14. I am new to this forum so I don't know if mean spirited remarks are standard. It is a shame to be subjected to pointless bickering that ignores the bigger issue. - Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.

    - Ephesians 4:31,32

    To everyone who have offered thoughtful opinions- thank you. I can't tell you the level of stress this has caused me and my husband. As Sunday approaches, I fight not to cry. I know this is the true church, there is nowhere I would rather be. I know the atonement applies to eveyone for every sin. I know it is my duty to forgive everyone. I also, know that Heavenly Father charged me with protecting two sweet spirits when He entrusted me with my children.

  15. The law in my state was that a registered sex offenders (RSO) convicted of a crime against a minor could not be in a place where children congregate for education, recreational or social purposes. In 2009 a RSO was arrested for attending church in a building that also provided children's programs. The ACLU stepped in and took his cause all the way to the state supreme court, which in July of 2012struck down the law as unconstitutional because it is overbroad. Currently there are very few legal prohibitions keeping sexual predators separated from children in my state.

    I don't understand the mentality of the ACLU- it is wrong for a child to pray in school but a RSO convicted of assaulting a child needs to be able to pray in a building full of children? But I guess that is a topic for another day.

  16. No, he abused his own daughters twenty years ago- they are grown with children of their own now. He did not go to jail for those crimes. Two years ago he was caught molesting his granddaughter and went to jail. He is returning to our branch this Sunday. He served many callings, including Seminary and EQ after he molested his daughters but before he went to jail. It turns out that Church leadership was aware of his history with his daughters and still allowed he to hold positions of trust within the Church.

  17. The man in question molested his three daughters when they were young. Decades later, while serving as Elder Quorum President, he molested his 7-year-old granddaughter. He served 18 months in prison and now is returning to our branch. Personally, I am filled with anxiety and dread- that a predator is in the sanctuary. I question the judgment of our Branch President and his ability to protect the children in our branch. Apparently he knew of this man's history of assaulting his own daughters and still allowed him to serve in callings, including Seminary and EQP. I feel terrible anxiety- as hard as I may try, I can't watch my kids 100% of the time we are at church. There is no other situation where I would knowingly take my kids to a place where there is a sex offender.