Child Sex Offenders at Church

[Guest DeborahC]

This is at least the third time this sentiment has been expressed.

It boils down to once again trying to limit the discussion to those who agree with you. The rest of us should just sit down, shut up, and do as our betters tell us.

Can you cite a place where I tell people to sit down, shut up, and do as your betters tell you, in those words???

To put it somewhat bluntly: Get over yourselves.

This sounds to me like you are telling me to sit down, shut up, and do as you tell me?

I have nothing but sympathy for your pain and your fears. I have been there myself.

The words don't match the tone of your posting, to me.

But my sympathy ends when you redefine "compassion" to mean "shut and agree with me."

That having been said, your position is not privileged.

I disagree. When it comes to people expressing they "know how I feel" when it comes to protecting my children, my position as a sexual and physical abuse survivor and as a parent is privileged, as far as I am concerned.

Your opinions are not sancrosanct.

I agree. My opinions are mine. Yours are yours.

You are not above correction.

That is correct. Nor are you.

I- and others- have suffered just as you have and still do not agree with you.

I disagree. NOBODY has suffered exactly as I have. And NONE of us have suffered in the exact same way. Some have had horrifically worse situations. Some, maybe not. I do agree all have most likely been traumatic, to one degree or another.

This is at least the third time in which someone has tried to dismiss or delegitimize someone who disagrees with them in the name of "compassion".

I was not dismissing or delegitimizing someone who disagreed with me. I made it clear from the beginning that my opinion that a sexual abuser should be executed was my own opinion. I was disagreeing with the TONE of their posting and their lack of compassion, when they asked me "Do you have a cat?!" The person apologized, admitting their fault. Several others commented on it.

Having been there, I have plenty of compassion, empathy, and understanding of their fears.

But "empathy" is not defined as "I can't say anything to challenge their prejudices and fears".

Empathy is defined by Webster's Dictionary as "the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner;" How is your post sensitive to our feelings? How is asking, "Do you have a cat?" sensitive to the feelings of a frightened parent?

And that's the bottom line: the OP and her various defenders are hung-up on what-if's and boogey men.

In my opinion, the bottom line is the lack of empathy and sympathy in some of the posts. Nobody, except for me, has asked that the abuser be executed. What they are asking for is WHAT the Church Leadership can be asked to do that might help them feel more safe when they attend Church where there is a convicted sexual abuser in attendance. At least that's what I've read.

And they are demanding that the rest of us placate them in their near-hysteria.

I haven't read anyone being hysterical. Worried? Yes. Concerned? Yes. Afraid, based on their own experience? Of course.

I, too, am a survivor of abuse.

Additionally, I married a victim of abuse and watched helplessly as her abuser did everything in his power to destroy my marriage and continue to dominate every aspect of his daughter's life.

I'm so sorry this happened to you and your wife. It must have been a very frightening and difficult situation.

I watched like a hawk every time he was around my daughters, and I made it amply clear that if he so much as looked at my daughter's funny that prison would not be his worst fate.

I, too, have spent long hours standing watch in the dark spaces of the night, worrying about how best to protect my children.

I, too, have felt that worm of fear in my stomach whenever they have been out of my sight.

It sounds to me like you have experienced exactly what some of us are experiencing now? Would you consider your behavior hysterical? If you have felt these things, then how is it you can tell us we are wrong in feeling these feelings? Your statements confuse me.

And I still disagree with you.

Ok. It's your right to disagree.

As a survivor of abuse myself, I'm gonna throw just a bit more gasoline on this grease fire.

Before you make any more demands about what the Church MUST do "to protect the children", ask yourself the following question and consider:

I haven't seen anyone make demands. I've seen a lot of people expressing concern, and ASKING what the best course of action might be and I've heard a lot of people brainstorming possible solutions. I'm not sure why this makes you angry.

Just who are YOU to condemn this man?

I am a person who has EMPATHY and SYMPATHY for his victims. I understand how dangerous he is and what he is capable of. And I did not condemn him, the court system you work for condemned and convicted him!

He has not harmed YOU.

Yes, he has harmed me, because every time I hear the facts about how he molested his daughters and his granddaughter, it makes a knot in my own stomach as all the memories of my own abuse comes to the surface. He also has made me afraid to go to Church, a place that should be a haven for my children and myself, by his repeated actions. The place where I once felt was a sacred place I could safely visit with my Heavenly Father and friends has become a haven for a predator, and his rights seem to be more important than mine. That does upset me, yes, and that upsettedness could be translated as "harm" to me.

He has not harmed YOUR family.

Yes, he has. Same answer as above.

Atonement for his crimes is between himself and the Lord, between himself and his victims.

I agree.

He owes YOU nothing.

Yes, he does. He owes me what every other human being on earth owes each other, and that is the right to live their lives in peace and without fear of attack. He has not shown that he can do that. Having been given a chance to correct his behavior, his response was to attack his own granddaughter. Many penal systems work on the 3 strike system. I believe their may even be something similar in the Church, where you can no longer sin and be brought back in. Is that not true? The Lord may be able to forgive over and over, but I'm not perfect, God is.

And neither do the rest of us.

By all means, exercise every bit of prudence and precaution available to you. Take every rationale step you feel is necessary to protect your children.

But remember that it is not your place to bar the Chapel door, nor to gather the tar and feathers all in the name of "preventing" another crime.

That is why we are asking whose place it is to do their best to prevent another crime.

It seems to me that a person who has been convicted TWICE of sexual abuse of children should legally be barred from any venue where children are present. Is this not the case? You are a police man. Do you know what the law states?

You have already told us what you did when you were placed in a similar situation.

You watched like a hawk every time he was around your daughters, and made it amply clear that if he so much as looked at your daughter's funny that prison would not be his worst fate.

You spent long hours standing watch in the dark spaces of the night, worrying about how best to protect my children.

You felt that worm of fear in my stomach whenever they have been out of my sight.

So I'm confused as to how you can expect us to do less?

Again, I'm sorry you were abused, although you didn't specifically say it was sexual abuse.

I'm sorry your wife was abused. I understand how sexual abuse adversely affects relationships and I'm sorry you have had to deal with that backlash.

May God calm our fears and give us the peace we need.

PS: Sorry about the bold, underline, italics. I don't know of any other way to post response to your comments.

Edited January 20, 2013 by DeborahC

[beefche]

I guess I'm just not aware of, even in Utah, of wards that cater to adults only 30+.

The only adult only wards of which I am aware are the YSA (ages 18-30) and a few Midsingle wards (approximately ages 31-49). However, the Midsingles wards that I am aware of exist in Virginia, Utah, and California (one ward each in each of those states). Further, these wards meet with a family ward. So, although it is a separate ward (with it's own RS, EQ), they meet in Sacrament meeting with the family ward of that building. The children of any Midsingle go to the Primary and YM/YW of the family ward (while the parent attends, in the same building, SS and RS/EQ of the Midsingle ward).

So, unless we expect a ward such as Eowyn suggested earlier, there are no wards that someone can attend and remain away from children.

[Bini]

I haven't read any of the recent posts since my own but here's a question.

If a husband is convicted of beating his wife and children senseless, and there is a legal restraint order, does the church allow him to attend the same ward as his family? Obviously, they would not be living together at this point but separated, so church might be the only venue where they might meet? That could be very intimidating to the children.

[beefche]

I haven't read any of the recent posts since my own but here's a question.

If a husband is convicted of beating his wife and children senseless, and there is a legal restraint order, does the church allow him to attend the same ward as his family? Obviously, they would not be living together at this point but separated, so church might be the only venue where they might meet? That could be very intimidating to the children.

It's not up to the church to honor a restraining order. The wife has the restraining order and she should be the one to notify the police. That doesn't mean that the bishop won't try to protect her while waiting for the police, but the church can't do anything about barring someone with a restraining order (unless the restraining order is given to the "church".).

[Bini]

It's not up to the church to honor a restraining order. The wife has the restraining order and she should be the one to notify the police. That doesn't mean that the bishop won't try to protect her while waiting for the police, but the church can't do anything about barring someone with a restraining order (unless the restraining order is given to the "church".).

I have no doubt that the Church would do their best to protect the children.

[Dravin]

I was not dismissing or delegitimizing someone who disagreed with me. I made it clear from the beginning that my opinion that a sexual abuser should be executed was my own opinion. I was disagreeing with the TONE of their posting and their lack of compassion, when they asked me "Do you have a cat?!" The person apologized, admitting their fault. Several others commented on it.

Deborah, I apologized for misreading the intent of your question. I did not apologize for a supposed lack of compassion because I can empathize that you've gone through horrific experiences and still respond with what I feel to be one irrelevant question with another. It was a flippant question , it was not an uncompassionate question. That one has compassion does not mean that one won't unabashedly disagree or disapprove of what one might feel to be irrelevant wind ups or attempts to use your experiences as a battering ram against disagreement or disapproval.

Empathy is defined by Webster's Dictionary as "the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner;" How is your post sensitive to our feelings? How is asking, "Do you have a cat?" sensitive to the feelings of a frightened parent?

I can empathize with someone's experience and still call a spade a spade if I think someone is trying to pull something. Now I was, as you've explained, mistaken in your use of a spade, but that doesn't make the response unempathetic.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Dravin

[Guest DeborahC]

Dravin, here is the post:

------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeborahC

That is why I asked Dravine if he HAD children. I was interested in knowing where he was coming from. Instead, I got, "Do you have a cat?" which didn't feel like a compassionate or sympathetic response.

First an apology:

Deborah, I am sorry that I responded to what was an earnest question with a flippant question in response.

Now the explanation:

I took your asking me if I had children not as an earnestly asked question to understand where I might be coming from but as a lead up to either or both:

A) Discounting my position as invalid because I do not have children.

B) Implying that my position will change as soon as I have children, which is just a variation of A.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said, my issue was the TONE of your post.

I say in the post, "I was interested in where he was coming from" when I asked if you had children, not because it would discount your position as invalid, but it would explain why you didn't understand completely where I was coming from. I actually do agree that your position could change as soon as you have children. I know a lot of my opinions changed once I had children. But that's my opinion and doesn't invalidate your position. It simply means your position is different than mine, and I agree you have the right to your opinion.

The point was your flippant answer.

You apologized.

I accepted.

Does more need to be said about it?

Edited January 20, 2013 by DeborahC

[Dravin]

Dravin,

Here is your apology, cut and pasted from your post:

"First an apology:

Deborah, I am sorry that I responded to what was an earnest question with a flippant question in response."

Yes, which is perfectly in line with my last post. I apologized for giving a spade appropriate response when it wasn't a spade, I apologized for misreading you. Not for a supposed lack of empathy or compassion.

I accepted.

You also said this:

It's forgotten.

Which clearly isn't the case since you can't seem to help going back to it as your exemplar of lacking empathy and compassion. If you are going to keep dragging it up then I'm going to clarify that no, it was not lacking in empathy or compassion.

[Guest DeborahC]

Whatever makes you happy, Dravin.

Apology rescinded.

I still forgive you for your lack of compassion.

I didn't drag it up, Selek did.

I responded.

If your comment is not what he was talking about, I don't know what he was referring to.

I give up.

You win.

I'm emotionally exhausted.

Edited January 20, 2013 by DeborahC

[Dravin]

Apology rescinded.

Where did you apologize to me? Honest question as I must have missed it. I did make an apology to you but you can't be talking about that as you are not in a position to rescind apologies I've given.

I still forgive you for your lack of compassion.

How kind of you. I forgive you for having blue skin encrusted with diamonds. BTW, it is comments like that which are the reason you are being understood as to considering compassion and empathy to be synonymous with people not disagreeing with you or otherwise saying things you don't want to hear.

I didn't bring it up, Selek did.

The bolded and underlined sections of that post are yours, no?

Edited January 20, 2013 by Dravin

[Guest DeborahC]

Whatever, Dravin

[Guest DeborahC]

I give up, Dravin.

You win.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Has anyone taken the time to see what the Church Handbook of Instructions says about this?

Suppose there are no strict move-by-move rules for this situation, what then?

Unfortunately I think there's a chance this is yet another example of how the Lord expects us to find our own way, rather than be led by the hand.

Most of the time the official church policies have, at the very least, a common sentiment with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, if not a direct scriptural basis.

Maybe our question shouldn't be "How should we handle a situation where a known child molester is attending the ward?".

Maybe instead we should add "....and be in harmony with the Gospel of Jesus Christ?" to the question.

After all, we can rationalize all we like, (and admit it, we all rationalize a lot when responding with our emotions.) but Christ himself is the door we all want to go through. Maybe personal prayer and personal revelation needs to be part of the answer.

Edited January 20, 2013 by RipplecutBuddha

[Backroads]

, it is comments like that which are the reason you are being understood as to considering compassion and empathy to be synonymous with people not disagreeing with you or otherwise saying things you don't want to hear.

I consider myself lucky and blessed not to have the same experience DeborahC and others have on the subject, but I still have been bothered by the theme of "anyone who disagrees with us is a horrible person" that I've noticed from several people on this thread and I am still smarting from the comment suggesting the thread should be restricted to only those who with personal experience on the matter.

Fact: OP was asking how EVERYONE felt about child predators at church. Not just how those with experience felt about the matter.

We may not have gone through the same experiences as others, but we have still had our own experiences. We will still be affected by a brother or sister in the gospel attending/not attending church. We certainly should be sensitive to the needs and desires of those with tragic experiences, but in a question that involves an entire ward and community, all factors ought to be examined.

Using "I've been through a bad experience so don't you dare share your opinion" even with the caveat "Oh, of course you're allowed to have an opinion, you're just not allowed to express it" is unfair to everyone involved in the situation and allows emotion, however serious, to cloud judgement on what is truly the best solution.

[skippy740]

This thread has run its course.

Thread closed.