Musing on sex offenders...

[Backroads]

(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?

[Vort]

Shame?

[Backroads]

Yet doesn't that happen when he gets caught for trying to slip through the cracks?

[KirtlandSaintinZion]

Shame?

OR understanding that being in such a position puts him/her in a greater position to re-offend, and he/she would rather reveal his/her past on some level then possible hurt another child.

Eventually, through repentance the shame and stain of sin is taken away and one is made free through the blood of Jesus... even sex offenders.

Edited June 15, 2012 by KirtlandSaintinZion

[Backroads]

OR understanding that being in such a position puts him/her in a greater position to re-offend, and he would rather reveal his past on some level then possible hurt another child.

Except that's the opposite of situation. This is a sex offender willfully accepting the calling. Even with forgiveness and repentance, is it right for him to take it when he knows he legally can't?

[Bini]

OR understanding that being in such a position puts him/her in a greater position to re-offend, and he would rather reveal his past on some level then possible hurt another child.

Eventually, through repentance the shame and stain of sin is taken away and one is made free through the blood of Jesus... even sex offenders.

I agree. Yet, the urges and desires may always be present, even if not acted upon. I would hope an individual in such a position would have the strength and courage to confide in the bishop why he or she cannot accept the calling.

[Bini]

Except that's the opposite of situation. This is a sex offender willfully accepting the calling. Even with forgiveness and repentance, is it right for him to take it when he knows he legally can't?

No. If he has a record and he is legally not allowed to work with children - he would be doing wrong by snowballing the bishop and accepting the calling.

[Backroads]

I agree. Yet, the urges and desires may always be present, even if not acted upon. I would hope an individual in such a position would have the strength and courage to confide in the bishop why he or she cannot accept the calling.

Indeed. While part of me thinks that the past is the past and one is not required to tell anyone*, the bishop could be a great support system/recommender of a great support system.

*legal requirements not included.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Backroads

[Backroads]

There's also the question of going through so much trouble of hiding the past. I suppose Vort's right and that would be shame, but it looks bad even if it were a truly repentant person.

[KirtlandSaintinZion]

Except that's the opposite of situation. This is a sex offender willfully accepting the calling. Even with forgiveness and repentance, is it right for him to take it when he knows he legally can't?

Not knowing the specifics of his case, I can't comment on the appropriateness of his fulfilling the calling. But he definitely needs to advise the Bishop, and the Bishop, in concert with Salt Lake, can determine whether the call should go forward.

[Mahone]

Not knowing the specifics of his case, I can't comment on the appropriateness of his fulfilling the calling. But he definitely needs to advise the Bishop, and the Bishop, in concert with Salt Lake, can determine whether the call should go forward.

I was under the impression that anyone convicted of crimes relating to children is automatically blanket barred by the church from ever having a calling involving children, regardless of the legality of them working with children in the local area?

Edited June 16, 2012 by Mahone

[Backroads]

Not knowing the specifics of his case, I can't comment on the appropriateness of his fulfilling the calling. But he definitely needs to advise the Bishop, and the Bishop, in concert with Salt Lake, can determine whether the call should go forward.

Very true. In case you're interested, the calling ain't happening.

[Vort]

Yet doesn't that happen when he gets caught for trying to slip through the cracks?

Probably. But you asked why someone would do such a thing, and the shame of his previous actions seemed to me a likely cause.

[KirtlandSaintinZion]

I was under the impression that anyone convicted of crimes relating to children is automatically blanket barred by the church from ever having a calling involving children, regardless of the legality of doing so in the local area?

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.)

[annewandering]

Mental problems arent going to disappear even with repentance for acting on the desire. Alcoholics are stupid to be around alcohol. Pedophiles are stupid to be around children. Remember repentance means not doing it again. They know what their weakness is. We do not do that which will tempt us.

If that person is hiding it from the bishop he is not being repentant. In fact I would be very suspicious that they are setting up a plan to fail.

[HEthePrimate]

(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?

If the Church knows about his criminal record, they'll put a notation on his Church membership record saying he should not be called to work with children or youth. Even if he's fully repented and in good standing with the Church, they don't want to run any unnecessary risks. But that's assuming they know about his past, and I know they don't normally check people's criminal backgrounds unless it's brought to their attention.

You asked if he was truly repentant what would dissuade him from accepting a calling to work with children. Well, if he's truly repentant, that should theoretically do it. But it's understandable that people would want more safeguards in place than that!

[Guest]

I think it would be totally appropriate for the church to do background checks on anyone who will work with children or youth. That's pretty much expected in any other job or position where that would happen. I suppose a lot of people would get their feathers ruffled at the suggestion, though.

[Mahone]

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.)

Can child abusers who have paid the legal price for their crimes and gone through a rigorous repentance process with local Church leaders become members of the Church again? Yes. As Christians, we believe in forgiveness. But can they ever again, in their lifetime, serve in any capacity that would put them in direct contact with children? Absolutely not. Forgiveness does not remove the consequences of sin. Protection of the family is a first principle of the Church.

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

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

Child Abuse

It doesn't define "child abuse", but in answer to your question, yes, I believe it's appropriate. If the church is aware someone is a convicted child sex offender, and lets them work with children, and a child was once again abused? Can you imagine the media frenzy? Look what happened to the catholic church!

Edited June 16, 2012 by Mahone

[KirtlandSaintinZion]

Child Abuse

It doesn't define "child abuse", but in answer to your question, yes, I believe it's appropriate. If the church is aware someone is a convicted sex offender, and lets them work with children, can you imagine the media frenzy? Look what happened to the catholic church!

I don't know what to tell you, they let my cousin, and the church is fully aware of his past conviction. And this isn't a cousin I just heard about, he is one of my best friends, and I am like an Uncle to his kids. I know the situation.

[annewandering]

Pedophilia is not someone who has sex with their 15 year old gf. It might be statutory rape but that is not pedophilia. Even rapists in a prison will look down on pedophiles. Sex crime does not translate to sexually abusing children.

[Bini]

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.)

It's not uncommon for teens to be in sexual relationships where one is 17 and the other is 18. Should this scenario be in the same category as a sexual predator? I don't think so but technically you have an adult having intercourse with a minor, so in the eyes of the law, it's statutory rape. My husband has an acquaintance that made the mistake of sleeping with an underage girl, unknowingly of her true age. He currently is registered as a sex offender here in Salt Lake City. Anyway, it's tough to draw the line but I would say that the said situation is not the same as pedophilia. Someone that is unquestionably an adult and is engaging in sexual relations with young children (I'm referring to primary age), is pretty clear cut to me. That said, I am not excluding children in the age range between 13 and 17, they're still children too. Okay, see, it's already getting murky this stuff.. The line is a thin one.

[annewandering]

Bibi, having sex with someone in your own age group is not an illness that we need to be very careful about around children, after repentance. Sex with children, ever, is a big red flag.

[Mahone]

Pedophilia is not someone who has sex with their 15 year old gf. It might be statutory rape but that is not pedophilia. Even rapists in a prison will look down on pedophiles. Sex crime does not translate to sexually abusing children.

It's not about what's morally child abuse and what's not, or what your opinion on what child abuse is or isn't. It's what is legally defined as child abuse, and yes, sometimes it's unfair. But the church has to protect themselves too. If someone has any kind of conviction of child abuse, regardless of how fair it was, the church cannot put them in a position of working with children.

[KirtlandSaintinZion]

It's not about what's morally child abuse and what's not, or what your opinion on what child abuse is or isn't. It's what is legally defined as child abuse, and yes, sometimes it's unfair. But the church has to protect themselves too. If someone has any kind of conviction of child abuse, regardless of how fair it was, the church cannot put them in a position of working with children.

Yet they knowingly have. And this is within the last 3-4 years.

[Bini]

Bibi, having sex with someone in your own age group is not an illness that we need to be very careful about around children, after repentance. Sex with children, ever, is a big red flag.

Never said it was. And I agree.

I should clarify more clearly :] My comment to the line being thin was in reference to how the law classifies sexual predators - yes you are a sex offender if you are an adult and engaging in sexual relations with minors. That said, it does not equate to one being a pedophile. But the line is still murky.. You can be a 17 year old boy (or girl) and engaging in sex acts with a 5 year old - that makes the boy a pedophile even though they are both minors. But agreed, when people are close in age by a few years, it is not pedophilia.