Child Sex Offenders at Church

[estradling75]

In the case of the pedophile, I know of not one single instance where the abuser is "healed" or changed.

They never change.

If not executed, they should be locked up away from society forever.

An understandable position... But it denies the healing power of Christ atonement to change even the most vile of sinners back to God.

As for killing people... God can order it, but he is the only one that can.(the Government is technically allowed but that can be questionable in implementation) If God were to order the death of all pedophiles then sure it would be ok... But we can't reach that answer on our own. The closest we can come as individuals is defending ourselves in the moment. Which is something we should try to avoided needing to do as much as possible.

So while a pedophile should also face Church discipline (after or alongside the legal system)... The church discipline is not designed to be punitive (that the legal system) its designed to be restorative... to bring them back into full fellowship. Thus we have a conflict with no easy answers.

We as members of the church have a duty to try to save every soul we can. That includes horrible sinners. In this case we have to find a balance between helping the pedophile repent while protecting everyone else.

[skippy740]

Forgiveness and trust are two different things.

As we are all human beings, we are in a fallen state. It's very difficult to TRUST after trust has been violated. It's also usually not prudent to trust after trust has been violated.

In this instance, we need to protect the innocent MORE than we need to coddle those who have been forgiven.

Just my opinion.

[rkhutchinson]

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.

[Tough Grits]

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?

Would it help if you spoke to the primary teachers or youth Sunday School teachers and leaders that you do not want your children to go to the restroom without other youth or primary leaders escorting them?

Could you make sure your children went to the restroom before and after sacrament so that the need to use the restroom during the other meetings would be reduced or eliminated?

Obviously you can speak to your children and give them guidelines and safety tips, not just for this instance, but for all situations.

I am 38 and I still check my surroundings when entering an unfamiliar restroom.

[Tough Grits]

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.

I understand, and I agree.

[Dravin]

I know this is the way it is but is this the way it SHOULD be?

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 and that precautions taken by a ward cannot be sufficient, 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.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Dravin

[Tough Grits]

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 and that precautions taken by a ward cannot be sufficient, 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.

Very true words. Christ's atonement is for all. This cannot be dismissed or overlooked.

Which is why this is such a complicated issue, as has already been elaborated upon throughout this thread.

The hang up is this, Christ's atonement is so that we may repent and not suffer what he has already suffered for us on our behalf--but has a pedophile repented? Have they had a total change of heart? Have they, themselves, accepted that very atonement that Christ suffered for them so that they may be spotless and blameless before God at the judgement bar?

Questions we cannot answer. Questions we do not have the authority or the omniscience to answer.

And yet we still wonder, because we want to honor our stewardship of our children and to protect all the children in our lives from having their innocence stolen.

It is not a question of whether a pedophile CAN be forgiven by God, the questions that I think some are really asking is: has that pedophile asked for forgiveness? Does that pedophile really want to be forgiven? Does that pedophile really want to lay down their sins?

Again, questions that we cannot answer. And yet we still wonder.

[Traveler]

I guess that is the dilemma. I know that everyone needs the opportunity to repent of their sins. I also know that children should be safe at church. As a parent- how can I take my children to a place where I don't feel they are safe?

I have a relative that has been convicted of a sex offence with children. Whenever that relative shows up at a family gathering - I am his constant shadow. At first this offended the relative (and some other family members). My response was - should there ever arise any question I will be able to give detailed testimony as to what the relative did and where they actually were. (I even shadowed them in public restrooms.)

I also made comments that while I was so acting our children are safer around this relative than in normal settings where we may not know that a predator is present.

I submit that children can be made safer around a known predator that we know of than in other settings in which a predator is not known or for whatever reason - kept hidden as was the assistant coach at Pen State.

Take the proper percussions and make sure no one is ever in a compromising circumstance and Church will be the best place for your children and the repentant offender.

The Traveler

[rkhutchinson]

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.

[estradling75]

Questions we cannot answer. Questions we do not have the authority or the omniscience to answer.

And yet we still wonder, because we want to honor our stewardship of our children and to protect all the children in our lives from having their innocence stolen.

It is not a question of whether a pedophile CAN be forgiven by God, the questions that I think some are really asking is: has that pedophile asked for forgiveness? Does that pedophile really want to be forgiven? Does that pedophile really want to lay down their sins?

Again, questions that we cannot answer. And yet we still wonder.

Even if we could be sure of the pedophile's heart... we have to accept the fact that even the most well meaning can have relapses

[Tough Grits]

Even if we could be sure of the pedophile's heart... we have to accept the fact that even the most well meaning can have relapses

Yes, and that's what hits to the heart of the matter. Relapses for a pedophile lead to another child losing their innocence.

Relapses are what scare those who have children or who have stewardship over children. Their concern becomes, "Will the relapse happen with MY child?"

Relapses are what cause many to feel that pedophiles cannot be rehabilitated in the first place.

This is why it comes back to teaching, praying, being vigilant, and then letting God handle the rest.

I don't think anybody on this thread lacks compassion. The question instead, has become how to have compassion for the sinner when it comes in direct conflict with the charge to protect the children of whom they have stewardship.

[Dravin]

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?

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.

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.

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.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Dravin

[Guest DeborahC]

An understandable position... But it denies the healing power of Christ atonement to change even the most vile of sinners back to God.

As for killing people... God can order it, but he is the only one that can.(the Government is technically allowed but that can be questionable in implementation) If God were to order the death of all pedophiles then sure it would be ok... But we can't reach that answer on our own. The closest we can come as individuals is defending ourselves in the moment. Which is something we should try to avoided needing to do as much as possible.

So while a pedophile should also face Church discipline (after or alongside the legal system)... The church discipline is not designed to be punitive (that the legal system) its designed to be restorative... to bring them back into full fellowship. Thus we have a conflict with no easy answers.

We as members of the church have a duty to try to save every soul we can. That includes horrible sinners. In this case we have to find a balance between helping the pedophile repent while protecting everyone else.

I agree with almost everything you have said.

I don't feel it's my duty to save every soul I can.

God saves souls, not me.

In the meantime, I'm not going to pack on my 6 shooter and go hunting for pedophiles.

That also is someone else's job.

If someone can show me one single pedophile who has repented and changed, I'll consider changing my mind.

I'm honestly shocked that a person who has been convicted of such a crime is even allowed into the church building?

I think this should be something that is discussed with the person's parole officer or the country sheriff to clarify.

They may be breaking parole by even being there.

Such a person can be taught at home and taken the sacrament there, if they're serious, as someone else suggested.

That seems to be a good compromise in a family-oriented church where children are allowed to run free.

Edited January 19, 2013 by DeborahC

[Guest DeborahC]

People seem to be stuck on the idea of not letting your children into the bathroom, or that the pedophile lurks in the bathroom. This is not the case.

This person is SICK minded.

They get their thrill looking at or touching a child's body the same way you would get a thrill looking at or touching your husband or wife. This can be as casual as brushing a girl's breast over her dress or tossing a baby in the air so they can "catch" them between the legs. It can be as simple as putting their face into a baby's neck to smell their scent. This gives them a sexual thrill. They are SICK. They really just need to stay completely away, in my opinion.

Oh well, this is making me exhausted.

I'm going to try to take a break from this conversation, although it's difficult not to get embroiled.

I do think it's good people are discussing this.

It makes everyone, not just parents, aware of the dangers, and saves them from paranoia.

It's good to discuss options and not be shocked when this issue comes up in the Ward or Stake.

But it sure is wearying digging up all these old feelings.

I like them better buried.

[Guest DeborahC]

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.

I agree with this.

The entire Ward should be privately notified, not leaving out anyone, and maybe this should be done with the written permission of the offender to protect the church from a lawsuit.

[Bini]

I agree with this.

The entire Ward should be privately notified, not leaving out anyone, and maybe this should be done with the written permission of the offender to protect the church from a lawsuit.

Being a CSO is public knowledge. In many cases, you can pinpoint where CSOs live just by conducting a search online via one of those websites.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Being a CSO is public knowledge. In many cases, you can pinpoint where CSOs live just by conducting a search online via one of those websites.

Ahhh, but the loop hole in the system is that juvenile offenders records are private...and most offenders start when they are teenagers.

I know a teenage sex offender that attends church in the same building (not the same ward) as his victim. If it were my child that were offended I would take them to a different building...but...

The ward members don't know unless they are close to one of the two families.

[LilyBelle00]

I honestly feel like there is no good answer to this problem.

The calm, reasonable person in me knows that we can only do what we can do. If the law allows them to come to church and the church welcomes them, then I guess we would have to take extra steps to try to keep our children safe.

The mother in me (the strongest part) wants these people to be locked up inside their own homes forever. I don't even want them in the grocery store.

When we go to church, I feel a calm peace. I don't think I could ever feel that again if I knew that a predator of children was sharing those halls.

Honestly, I'm not sure I'm going to let my baby girl go to nursery tomorrow. This whole topic has put me completely on edge.

[Kaelee]

Wow, took forever to wade through all of these posts. I can't find anywhere the age of your children (to the OP). Are they old enough to explain that they are to stay away from this person? Older primary children would be capable of understanding.

As for leadership, I would ask the Bishop what the plan is to ensure children's safety and then tell him you are getting all of the children a whistle to blow if he approaches. Also, you might tell the guy if you ever see him near a child, you will call the police to the Church building immediately.

Just some thoughts.

[Just_A_Guy]

A few thoughts, from someone who a) has three daughters under 6 years old, b) is an attorney who has been co-counsel on some criminal cases involving molestation of teenaged girls as well as child-on-child offenses, and c) is a recovering porn addict who had to try to use the Atonement to manage urges that seemed uncontrollable and attended group meetings with people who were even worse off than I was. Also, d) my wife's best friend was repeatedly raped by her step-father beginning at the age of fourteen; and I've seen the fallout that continues even fifteen years later.

1) Even sex offenders are people. They are multi-dimensional. I've visited them in jail. I've spoken to, and cried with, their wives and mothers and felt the shame of their fathers. The ones I've worked with were absolutely horrified by what they had done. They hadn't spent their days scouring the earth for a willing victim. They go to school or work, they watch TV, they garden, they bowl, they golf, they pursue graduate degrees, they're gospel scholars--and an opportunity presents itself that they did not - perhaps could not - resist; and they do something horrendous. They are also - not to get too sanctimonious - horribly, tragically sick children of our Heavenly Father.

2) "Pedophile" - and indeed, sex offender registries - are catch-all terms that involve a lot of different offenses of varying severity. They include your standard rapist of a three-year-old, but also (depending on your state) include the kid who started sleeping with a fourteen-year-old when he was seventeen, and continued the relationship past his eighteenth birthday. They also include the guy who, while drunk, exposed himself to the undercover cop he thought was a prostitute (or just a very loose woman) soliciting him. Even among similar types of offenders, you're going to see different preferences, different things that arouse them, etc. I'm not sure all of these sub-groups merit the same level of ostracism.

3) The research about recidivism amongst convicted sex offenders is all over the place and often generalizes without making the kind of distinctions I outline in 2) above. I am extremely dubious about claims that "none of them change" or the claim, repeated earlier, that the average pedophile (whatever that means) has forty victims every ten years, or whatever it was.

4) As members of the Church we are under covenant to each other to bear each other's burdens. The scripture doesn't qualify that by saying we only have to bear the burdens that are pleasant or easy or convenient or non-disgusting. As Dravin pointed out earlier: once the Lord's divinely appointed authorities have decided that someone is truly penitent and worthy enter into that covenant, then - while we can and should take reasonable steps to make sure that covenant is not abused in such a way as to endanger our kids - we do not have, from a theological perspective, the option to simply walk away from or selectively apply that covenant of mutual support.

5) I'm not aware of any scripture that says that the healing power of the Atonement, as it applies to the victim, is contingent on the death - or even the punishment- of the perpetrator. I've seen some cases where the perp did die, and sometimes it has actually been counterproductive to the healing process.

6) State laws will vary; but I have a hard time envisioning how an ecclesiastical leader who publicly informs his congregation of the contents of a public sex offender registry with respect to one of the congregants, would be committing any civilly actionable offense (assuming that the contents of the registry are correct).

7) The fact that such offenses, and such people, exist, is a tragedy. Animus is a natural reaction, but I submit it is counter-productive in the long run.

8) ToughGrits has been asking some really awesome questions. I'm not sure they have answers, or what they are; but I appreciate that some are thoughtful enough to even ask them.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[rkhutchinson]

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.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I'm sorry LilyBelle, I didn't mean to scare you and I'm sure my post about teenage offenders didn't help. Your daughter will be fine in the nursery, they have women leaders who are with the kiddos all the time. You drop her off and you pick her up. I would worry more about "Uncle Fred" than the nursery.

Here's some suggestions that might help parents have more peace of mind...

Two books I highly recommend...

Protecting the Gift by Gavin DeBecker My favorite thing about DeBecker is his emphasis on trusting your intuition (the Holy Ghost). So often victims and parents of child victims say, "I didn't have a good feeling about that guy, but I thought I was being paranoid because he's such a nice guy." etc. If you have a bad feeling, trust it. No questions asked. And read the book!

Miss America by Day by Marilyn Van Derbur Don't be fooled by the odd name of the book, this is a fabulous parent guide for keeping your children safe from sexual predators. (It is also part memoir.) I thought I knew a lot about this topic, but I learned so much from Marilyn. Serioulsy, read this book...you will learn things you never thought of before.

Heavenly Father wants our children, HIS children to be safe....He will help you. The key is to trust your instincts. Read DeBecker's book, he's not a member, but he can teach you a lot about how to listen to the Holy Ghost to protect your kids.

And...appropo of nothing...going to church gives me a tension headache...not peace...but that is the flip side of this discussion i.e. the way we treat survivors. Being an "emotional leper" as I like to call it...because people know you are hurting and are afraid to say the wrong thing (so they say nothing...like that helps?) Anyway...that is another topic entirely...something to think about though.

[Bini]

Ahhh, but the loop hole in the system is that juvenile offenders records are private...and most offenders start when they are teenagers.

I know a teenage sex offender that attends church in the same building (not the same ward) as his victim. If it were my child that were offended I would take them to a different building...but...

The ward members don't know unless they are close to one of the two families.

We have been discussing an ADULT sex offender. My comment was directly along those lines. Someone 18 or older who is convicted of sex crimes, their information is public information, just got to search it.

And yes, I am very well aware that sex offenders, many of them, start young. I've worked with one, a 14-year old boy who was autistic. Although he wasn't out in society, he was institutionalised and did sexually assault a nurse that was over his care.

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

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.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1) Even sex offenders are people. . .--and an opportunity presents itself that they did not - perhaps could not - resist; and they do something horrendous.

You may be right in some cases, but many offenders carefully groom their victim. It is rarely a "oops" young teenagers might have for example, it is planned. . .

2) "Pedophile" - and indeed, sex offender registries - are catch-all terms that involve a lot of different offenses of varying severity.

I don't disagree with you on this. I just want to add...my issue with the registries is that they give people a false sense of security. A parent might rest at ease that their are no sex offenders in their neighborhood, and be totally unaware that "Uncle Fred" or "Coach Bob" are offenders that haven't been caught yet. Most offenders are someone the child already knows.

3) I am extremely dubious about claims that "none of them change" or the claim, repeated earlier, that the average pedophile (whatever that means) has forty victims every ten years, or whatever it was.

You are right to be skeptical, it is actually much higher than 40. One site says 117.

Sex Offender Statistics | Statistic Brain

4) As members of the Church we are under covenant to each other to bear each other's burdens.

Again I don't disagree with you...just want to add this means survivors too. Being silent because "you don't know what to say" or directing the person to therapy and thinking that you have done your job are not enough.