Backroads Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 So, what if a background check showed that a leader caught a narc charge when he was 18 or 23? Does the church put the same weight on a charge as a conviction? Do they keep the person out of the youth program? Or how about a registered offender? Will they no longer be allowed to teach Gospel Doctrine or Essentials? So is the next step to nail young women leaders who may have had an abortion they repented of? Or how about telling them to not even bother coming to church? Or letting the Bishop know that his wisdom on a persons recovery or character judgement is no longer relevant? Because that would be the effect of the church doing background checks.Yes, I am about as against it as one can get.Y'know, I've heard of people in churches other than ours have similar feelings on any background check policies they get. This is hardly an LDS thing. I've seen the emotion "Why should I come to church if I'm being treated as a criminal?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slamjet Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 A child rapist/molester is not someone I would ever trust with my own child, as their "desires" potentially directly effect how they interact and respond to children.I believe you would be shocked if you knew how many and who are the people in your ward and stake whom have molested a child, raped, and a whole list of other sex-charges you alone talk to, let alone committed other felons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backroads Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 These are all great points. Perhaps we should add another dimension to the discussion: if the Church were to implement background checks for any calling with direct contact with children/youth under 18 (YM, YW, youth SS teachers, Primary, Nursery, Bishopric), to what end? Does a check that isn't completely clean automatically disqualify someone from the proposed calling? Or if they're 47 and have been completely clean since that 18-year-old narc charge, should they still be considered?Should a background check only add to the bishop's information, or should it eliminate possibilities?In Scouting, background decisions, which look for certain things (namely youth-related problems), are very cut-and-dried. You either pass or you don't because there is a standard of what "passes".I think, if the Church went this route, they would also set the standards of what they're looking for. This would be a way around the questions of "but what about this and this and this?" The Church would say "this is okay, this isn't" at its own discretion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bini Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 These are all great points. Perhaps we should add another dimension to the discussion: if the Church were to implement background checks for any calling with direct contact with children/youth under 18 (YM, YW, youth SS teachers, Primary, Nursery, Bishopric), to what end? Does a check that isn't completely clean automatically disqualify someone from the proposed calling? Or if they're 47 and have been completely clean since that 18-year-old narc charge, should they still be considered?Should a background check only add to the bishop's information, or should it eliminate possibilities?Is it possible to avoid pulling official background checks that require funding, and instead, the bishopric go online to see who IS a convicted and registered sex offender? This could become a Step 1 taken BEFORE granting anyone a calling.. And costs nothing.. Some more thoughts.. Our society seems quick to forget the real victims and sometimes is more concerned about stepping on the rights and hurting the feelings of those who have broken the law. I don't believe this is a matter of whether the individual has repented, but rather, if you have been convicted of raping or sodomising a child -- you should NEVER be in the position where you interact with them 1-1. There are consequences to our actions, whether they be eternal, temporal or both! And sometimes the consequences don't feel like they fit the crime, and that's the thing about consequences, we DON'T choose them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bini Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 I believe you would be shocked if you knew how many and who are the people in your ward and stake whom have molested a child, raped, and a whole list of other sex-charges you alone talk to, let alone committed other felons.Being "registered" as an offender is just stating a proven fact. This also is helpful in informing unsuspecting parents. For those NOT registered, you need to pray for guidance and listen to your gut instinct -- as I had stated earlier I thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 About 5 years ago, after a series of incidents involving various organisations including youth groups (both religious and non-religious) laws were implemented that meant that in theory ANYONE working in any capacity - either paid or voluntary - HAD to have a CRB (criminal records background check) carried. I was in primary at the time and remember being given the paperwork to fill out - but then I was released so didn't have to follow through with it I can only assume that the law has changed again when they realised just how much work it would be to make every youth worker for every church (every church not just ours) needed one, and in theory needed a new one if they changed age groups or locations they were working as the last time I was called to primary I wasn't asked to get! As far as I am concerned I have nothing to hide and if it meant that children were offered some degree of protection then I am all for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backroads Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 I agree with Bini, a simple "look 'em up beforehand" would be a great and cheaper alternative and probably do about as much as good as a more official background check. I don't know what legalities bishops have to look at, but I imagine "child sex offender" is never okay. For most other things, I'm sure the bishop can use his own judgment without being bound by laws that could come back to bite him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slamjet Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 Being "registered" as an offender is just stating a proven fact. This also is helpful in informing unsuspecting parents. For those NOT registered, you need to pray for guidance and listen to your gut instinct -- as I had stated earlier I thread.I was responding to your last many threads that had the sound of trying to make a controlled, pure environment for your child when it is impossible to do that. It also had the tone of making sure everyone's dirty laundry has been vetted before they are given callings. I don't believe this is the design of the church. If it was, personally, there would be no standard callings I would be able to hold. But my Stake Presidency and High Council trust me with administrative access to all the meeting houses and computers with all the sensitive member information in and on them. If someone were to run a background check on me, they most likely would be screaming bloody murder.In reality, your child has an much, much higher risk of being harmed from family and family friends than at church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bini Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 I was responding to your last many threads that had the sound of trying to make a controlled, pure environment for your child when it is impossible to do that. It also had the tone of making sure everyone's dirty laundry has been vetted before they are given callings. I don't believe this is the design of the church. If it was, personally, there would be no standard callings I would be able to hold. But my Stake Presidency and High Council trust me with administrative access to all the meeting houses and computers with all the sensitive member information in and on them. If someone were to run a background check on me, they most likely would be screaming bloody murder.In reality, your child has an much, much higher risk of being harmed from family and family friends than at church.Again, you misinterpret my posts..Absolutely, you CANNOT protect or shield your child from everything. They will be exposed to all kinds of things. And I don't argue that the majority of sexual offences are committed by people you know, family or family friends. When I worked in special units, many of those individuals were victimised BY family or family friends. So I am familiar with those statistics.What I was merely trying to get at is that NOT being granted permission to work 1-1 with a child after committing a heinous crime, such as rape, is a consequence of the offender's actions. That's THEIR problem, not everyone else's. I don't believe anyone with any old record or wrap sheet is a danger to a child but I do believe a sex offender potentially is. If the law and other organisations say that a child rapist or molester CANNOT work with children -- that's the CONSEQUENCE of their actions they have to live with. Again, while the "sex offender" stamp only notifies people of criminals that were caught and convicted -- it's still a very helpful piece of information for parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backroads Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 Just to shake things up further as far as the safety of your ward... You might think you can trust everyone in the YM program... but we in Scouting do not run background checks on the bishop*. Do you trust your bishop? Or is that something we should definitely do a background check on? (*unless he registers as something other than "IH") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bini Posted November 19, 2012 Report Share Posted November 19, 2012 Just to shake things up further as far as the safety of your ward...You might think you can trust everyone in the YM program... but we in Scouting do not run background checks on the bishop*.Do you trust your bishop? Or is that something we should definitely do a background check on?(*unless he registers as something other than "IH")I had ONE bishop I did not trust, nor did I feel comfortable with him in his office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 When a stake president sends his recommendation for bishop to the Church, one of the things they do is a background check. So, the practice is already in place for bishop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slamjet Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 When a stake president sends his recommendation for bishop to the Church, one of the things they do is a background check. So, the practice is already in place for bishop.I find this comforting for I now know for certain, I will never be a Bishop, Stake Preside, Etc :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted November 20, 2012 Report Share Posted November 20, 2012 When a stake president sends his recommendation for bishop to the Church, one of the things they do is a background check. So, the practice is already in place for bishop. Something I never knew nor had I heard of. Interesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.