Mahone Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 Yet they knowingly have. And this is within the last 3-4 years.All I can tell you is the churches official stance. And I've proven it with official sources. What happened to someone you know can't be explained or proven unfortunately. Quote
Bini Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 Being a mother now, if my child was in primary and was going to be taught by a convicted sex offender, I would want to know this. After all, being a sex offender is public information. Now, to be perfectly honest, no I would not risk my child's welfare with someone who has had a past history of molesting or raping children. If I'm at fault for this mindset, then I'm at fault but I will not risk my child's safety. Quote
KirtlandSaintinZion Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 All I can tell you is the churches official stance. And I've proven it with official sources. What happened to someone you know can't be explained or proven unfortunately.It is easily explained... individual circumstances DO matter. And you are right, my story can't be proven, but the implication that I may be lying would be offensive, if I chose to be offended, which I don't. Quote
Mahone Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 It is easily explained... individual circumstances DO matter. And you are right, my story can't be proven, but the implication that I may be lying would be offensive, if I chose to be offended, which I don't. I wasn't trying to say or imply that you were lying, merely that because it's not coming from a notable source, it'd be impossible to prove that it happened, or explain why it happened.And morally I agree with you, but officially the church won't take personal circumstances into account in this instance. What they do unofficially as of yet is unexplained and unproven. Quote
KirtlandSaintinZion Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 I wasn't trying to say or imply that you were lying, merely that because it's not coming from a notable source, it'd be impossible to prove that it happened, or explain why it happened.And morally I agree with you, but officially the church won't take personal circumstances into account in this instance. What they do unofficially as of yet is unexplained and unproven.You keep talking about what the church "won't do", when I know as a matter of personally observed fact that have done the exact thing you say they "won't do". Your dogmatic statements don't change what I know to be the case.But this whole exchange is now pointless... you don't believe me and I know your wrong. I will leave it at that. Quote
Mahone Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 You keep talking about what the church "won't do", when I know as a matter of personally observed fact that have done the exact thing you say they "won't do". Your dogmatic statements don't change what I know to be the case.But this whole exchange is now pointless... you don't believe me and I know your wrong. I will leave it at that.Actually you're wrong. I'm saying what the church officially won't do. There is a difference. My statements are also backed up by official church sources.I also clarified my belief of your statements in my previous post. It's nothing to do with that. I'm simply providing you with an official church statement. You appear to disagree with official church sources, and that's fine. What happens officially is not always the same as what happens unofficially, but as it's unproven, it cannot be explained and we can't really go any further than that. Quote
KirtlandSaintinZion Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 Actually you're wrong. I'm saying what the church officially won't do. There is a difference. My statements are also backed up by official church sources.I also clarified my belief of your statements in my previous post. It's nothing to do with that. I'm simply providing you with an official church statement. You appear to disagree with official church sources, and that's fine. What happens officially is not always the same as what happens unofficially, but as it's unproven, it cannot be explained and we can't really go any further than that.I believe you may putting the church in a situation that it would not want to be put in. What you seem to be saying is that they have an official policy to appease the boogey-man hunters (an absolute zero-tolerance policy), but in practice they don't actually follow the policy. I don't know that they would concur or want such a thing implied. I think they understand that people understand that pedophilia based sex offenses are far different then a young man lacking a sufficient frontal lobe to anticipate the consequences of sleeping with a girl a few years younger then him. Quote
Mahone Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) I believe you may putting the church in a situation that it would not want to be put in. What you seem to be saying is that they have an official policy to appease the boogey-man hunters (an absolute zero-tolerance policy), but in practice they don't actually follow the policy. I don't know that they would concur or want such a thing implied. I think they understand that people understand that pedophilia based sex offenses are far different then a young man lacking a sufficient frontal lobe to anticipate the consequences of sleeping with a girl a few years younger then him.Then why does their statement say the opposite? I'm not actually saying anything other than what they have said. It seems to be you that's going against what they have said.It's not up to the church to decide what is a child sex offence and what isn't. The catholic church decided to do this a few years back, and they've regretted it ever since. I believe the LDS church does not want to follow in their footsteps. Edited June 16, 2012 by Mahone Quote
KirtlandSaintinZion Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 It's like we are having two separate conversations... I surrender. :) Quote
Mahone Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 It's like we are having two separate conversations... I surrender. :)In what way? As I said, I gave you the official church policy. You claimed that they don't always obey the official church policy (by saying someone you know was deal with by the church in a way that goes against their policy). I said that can't be proven and therefore can't be explained. Simples. Quote
slamjet Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 If I may take this thread off onto a tangent and speak to the OP... A person convicted of a sex offense is 99.999% (don't quote me on this one) going to have a disciplinary hearing. Certain sex offenses are automatic excommunication. After that, a tag is put on their records that precludes this person from working with the youth no matter what unit they move to. The only person who can take this off is the First Presidency. So no, they're not going to work with the youth and there is an active answer to the question "how would anyone know?" I answered this in another thread with the sources. I have a headache so I'm not going to dig it up right now. But one source was the handbook, and the other one was a general conference talk where this was explicitly explained. So I believe that answers about three pages of this thread Quote
Hala401 Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 (attempting to be as vague as possible)So let's say a pedophile slips up, is arrested, suffers all manners of lawful consequences, does his service and/or time, then later on joins the local ward. If this person were called into working with children, if he were truly repentant (is obviously going to church), what would possibly persuade from simply refusing the call, instead creating all manner of lies in order to slip through the cracks in order to hide his past?Well, there is voluntary castration. I can't think rationally about this. Quote
NeuroTypical Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) A 19 yo kid who is stupid and sleeps with his 15 yo girlfriend, is convicted as a sex offender. Is it really appropriate to bar him from EVER working with kids in the church? No. And either does the LDS Church. I know, I have a cousin who did that exact thing. He was later called, with permission from SLC to teach the CTR's, and is now an assistant Ward clerk or secretary (one of those.)First of all, I believe you. Second of all, I'm interested in details.What was the charge of which he was convicted? Was it a felony or midemeanor?Did he serve prison time? How much?I'm mostly interested because I've assisted the church in getting a molester excommunicated. He was charged with 7 counts of felony aggrivated sexual abuse of a minor and pled guilty to one. (The girl was 7.) He was sentenced to 5-life, and I submitted this information to the church, and was informed that he was excommunicated. The processes that Mahone describes are working quite well in this person's case. I'm guessing from your description that your cousin's past acts are nowhere near the same level of horribleness, and it makes sense that the charges and penalties and restrictions, in both church and legal settings, reflect that. Edited June 16, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon Quote
NeuroTypical Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 Well, there is voluntary castration.There is also a thing called chemical castration, which involves injections which remove all the drive while leaving all the parts. I don't know much about it, other than it's not a treatment we really can force on someone against their will. I'm told there are occasionally pedophiles who accept, and even seek out, this treatment. Quote
Hala401 Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 There is also a thing called chemical castration, which involves injections which remove all the drive while leaving all the parts. I don't know much about it, other than it's not a treatment we really can force on someone against their will. I'm told there are occasionally pedophiles who accept, and even seek out, this treatment.As far as I know, chemical castration simply uses Spironolactone and when the injections stop the drive returns, unless the doses are carried on for 2+ years. I think it is more humane to simply do the castration. One can save sperm, should the man ever get married and want children.I may sound hard and merciless and I am sorry. I will never forget ...The offender is forgiven but only the dumbest person on earth would ever give him a second chance at me. Quote
Backroads Posted June 16, 2012 Author Report Posted June 16, 2012 Probably. But you asked why someone would do such a thing, and the shame of his previous actions seemed to me a likely cause.I can see that. I honestly have no idea what this person's motives were--a lot of trouble was gone to in order to not be known as a pedophile-one method of which was illegal.I have to wonder if a simple "No, thanks, bishop" would suffice. Quote
HEthePrimate Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 I can see that. I honestly have no idea what this person's motives were--a lot of trouble was gone to in order to not be known as a pedophile-one method of which was illegal.I have to wonder if a simple "No, thanks, bishop" would suffice.Yes. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible--and sometimes appropriate/desirable--to turn down a calling. Quote
Gwen Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 A note on the debate on how the church handles it (with Mahone and KirtlandSaintinZion). Mahone is correct on the church policy. The records are annotated and that person is not allowed to hold callings with kids. However, there is a secondary policy in place where if one feels that annotation is unfair (like in a situation like KirtlandSaintinZion described) then they can apply to the first presidency to have that annotation (and restriction) removed from their records. The first presidency reviews information like church callings and service since the time of the event, repentance, etc. They rely heavily on the stake presidency (the stake pres has to submit the application for annotation removal) and bishops opinion for that. They also have church lawyers review the case. All legal action that was taken, the details of the offense, and any other records (legally or otherwise; like psyc evals) that the person thinks is relevant to the request. The lawyers give the first presidency their recommendation based on the legal risks the church would be taking if it were removed. Then the first presidency makes a decision. Quote
HEthePrimate Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 A note on the debate on how the church handles it (with Mahone and KirtlandSaintinZion). Mahone is correct on the church policy. The records are annotated and that person is not allowed to hold callings with kids. However, there is a secondary policy in place where if one feels that annotation is unfair (like in a situation like KirtlandSaintinZion described) then they can apply to the first presidency to have that annotation (and restriction) removed from their records. The first presidency reviews information like church callings and service since the time of the event, repentance, etc. They rely heavily on the stake presidency (the stake pres has to submit the application for annotation removal) and bishops opinion for that. They also have church lawyers review the case. All legal action that was taken, the details of the offense, and any other records (legally or otherwise; like psyc evals) that the person thinks is relevant to the request. The lawyers give the first presidency their recommendation based on the legal risks the church would be taking if it were removed. Then the first presidency makes a decision.Wouldn't it be so much easier if they just prayed about it? They're prophets, right? Quote
KirtlandSaintinZion Posted June 16, 2012 Report Posted June 16, 2012 First of all, I believe you. Second of all, I'm interested in details.What was the charge of which he was convicted? Was it a felony or midemeanor?Did he serve prison time? How much?I'm mostly interested because I've assisted the church in getting a molester excommunicated. He was charged with 7 counts of felony aggrivated sexual abuse of a minor and pled guilty to one. (The girl was 7.) He was sentenced to 5-life, and I submitted this information to the church, and was informed that he was excommunicated. The processes that Mahone describes are working quite well in this person's case. I'm guessing from your description that your cousin's past acts are nowhere near the same level of horribleness, and it makes sense that the charges and penalties and restrictions, in both church and legal settings, reflect that.To be honest I don't know the name of the exact charge, it was akin to "statutory rape" and it was a misdemeanor. He did "time served" (the time between arrest and verdict) and 3 years(?) probation. He was 19 and slept with his 15 yo girlfriend. Quote
annewandering Posted June 17, 2012 Report Posted June 17, 2012 Wouldn't it be so much easier if they just prayed about it? They're prophets, right? I am sure they do but before a final decision you are expected to work it out as best you can then pray for confirmation. Quote
NeuroTypical Posted June 17, 2012 Report Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) To be honest I don't know the name of the exact charge, it was akin to "statutory rape" and it was a misdemeanor. He did "time served" (the time between arrest and verdict) and 3 years(?) probation. He was 19 and slept with his 15 yo girlfriend.Yep - that makes perfect sense. Permanent annotations on member records are for people convicted of very serious crimes and/or committers of very horrible acts. It makes sense to me that your cousin isn't a horrible person at all, and it doesn't surprise me to hear someone with something like that in their past couldn't sincerely repent and be a member in good standing, teach CTR, etc. Edited June 17, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.