Phoenix_person Posted September 11 Report Share Posted September 11 45 minutes ago, Carborendum said: I had to think about that for a bit. You're right. I read something into it that wasn't really there. I often chide others for doing that, so bad on me. I believe that Traveler was indicating that because of the natural mode of parenting is a cisgendered couple, then that SHOULD be favored. And he pointed out that LGBT+ want to do away with that. Your response, then, was that you've never heard that from the LGBT crowd. I had thought you meant that you never heard them say they should get rid of that idea. Your position is that what is supposedly happening, the LGBT crowd want "equal" access to adoption. Slightly different. Is that what was being said? Yes, equal access. Carborendum 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carborendum Posted September 11 Report Share Posted September 11 49 minutes ago, Phoenix_person said: Yes, equal access. Ok. Communication is good. That said, not surprisingly, I disagree. Studies show again and again that children need input from both a male and female adult role model. And that is best done when those role models are the parents. Simply being a strong lesbian does not equate to the male role model. And conversely, an effeminate gay man does not equate to the female role model. In generations past, people instinctively understood that men and women were wired differently regardless of individual personalities. With only small percentages of outliers, men and women will react differently to different stimuli. We communicate differently. Today, this sexual dichotomy over the ostensibly non-physical is being ignored. Just this morning, my daughter asked me a math question. I answered it and even drew up a graphic to illustrate it. If I gave that same graphic to any other man (even a man pretending to be a woman) he would have understood it. But both my daughter and my wife interjected that I wasn't answering the question. We went around and around until my daughter figured out the algebraic equation that she was asking. Only then did I understand what she was asking. Then the answer was obvious. And, of course, I messed up the algebra in solving it. (I eventually fixed it). This would have happened with 999/1000 people. I can't really accept that we'll make "rules" for such exceptions. We make rules because that's the rule, not the exception. We can consider exceptions. But they must be scrutinized more than the rule. This is basic decision-making. There is so much more to parenting than simply "loving them." There are all sorts of nuances that children pick up on that we never even realize. And they pick up different things from mothers than from fathers. Once you interject LGBTQ stuff, then that just confuses children a whole lot more. So, it may seem cruel to the gay couple who wants to adopt or whatever. It is infinitely more merciful to the children. Still_Small_Voice 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted September 11 Report Share Posted September 11 21 hours ago, LDSGator said: None. 90% of the LGTBQ community doesn’t care how you raise your kids. Sure, you’ll find 10% that fuss about it, but it’s only the radicals that have no sway over mainstream society. I have heard this before but there is a problem. That is that the LBGTQ+ community seems to have difficulty reporting sexual abuse. They will say they are against grooming, but the question lies with what preventive actions do they take. Mostly there is silence. I do agree with your post in general. Though I am not deeply involved with the LGBTQ+ community those with whom I converse are not interested in children. Some say there is a stigma of hidden abuse when same sex individuals show interest in children. In the scientific community examples are classified as higher than lowest levels of learning but even at the lowest levels of learning it can be argued that examples play a critical role. I realize that we walk a fine line with children and the examples they are given. We do not want to instill bitter resentments towards the LGBTQ+ community and at the same time we should not (intentionally or unintentionally) portray LGBTQ+ as equal or desirable. It is my opinion that this conundrum of sexual preference has an ebb and flow about it and that we are currently at a point where, as a society, we have crossed the Rubicon and that the dangers the prophets (both ancient and modern) have warned are crossing barriers much to rapidly. Gender dysphoria is not so much an adult problem as it has become a major problem with children in school. I see no effort in the LGBTQ+ community to curb introducing vulnerable children to things they are not mentally equipped to handle -including and especially pornography and masturbation. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted September 11 Report Share Posted September 11 3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: Yes, equal access. Why should LGBTQ+ have equal access to children? You do understand that sexual preference are learned? We also know that preferences are completely reliant on exposure – especially exposure to trusted individuals. Parents (gardens) are the most likely example that a child will learn to prefer. This is why under the law that a parent abusing their child has the added charge of aggravated. The Traveler JohnsonJones 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted September 11 Report Share Posted September 11 16 hours ago, Phoenix_person said: ....... My point was that, contrary to what @Traveler claimed, there isn't a widespread opinion within the LGBTQ community that they are better adoption candidates than het couples. My point is that there is the idea within the LGBTQ+ that think (and argue) the LGBTQ+ community are better with children than the worst (or undesirable) of het couples. I am saying– that argument is flawed. Justifying something (or anything) as better than something worse is not logical for what ought to be or what is okay or just. Selldom or never is the last resort what is good for anyone. The Traveler Carborendum 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted September 11 Report Share Posted September 11 29 minutes ago, Traveler said: have heard this before but there is a problem. That is that the LBGTQ+ community seems to have difficulty reporting sexual abuse I actually agree with you there, but since all churches are also notorious for sweeping sexual abuse under the rug, it’s not a door you want to open. JohnsonJones and Phoenix_person 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted September 12 Report Share Posted September 12 On 9/11/2024 at 1:59 PM, LDSGator said: I actually agree with you there, but since all churches are also notorious for sweeping sexual abuse under the rug, it’s not a door you want to open. It is a door that must be opened. Not for revenge (that some think is justice) but to learn and change behaviors. The scientific definition of intelligence is the ability to learn and power to alter outcomes. It is time to be intelligent about these things. The Traveler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted September 12 Report Share Posted September 12 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Traveler said: It is a door that must be opened. Not for revenge (that some think is justice) but to learn and change behaviors. The scientific definition of intelligence is the ability to learn and power to alter outcomes. It is time to be intelligent about these things. The Traveler Okay, then open it. Worked wonders for the Boy Scouts (who went bankrupt), the Catholic church (dioceses went bankrupt) and the US Olympic team (who didn’t go bankrupt, but have a world class PR problem), Penn State football (google “Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky)… A lot of other churches are facing widespread legal, moral, and PR problems with it too. People are afraid to take their kids to church, let them play little league, or join other various youth groups. I’m all for exposing SA wherever you can. Go public, tell the media. Be careful though- because the stench of SA can affect everyone involved, even those who did nothing. It’s heartbreaking to me to see how it was so prevalent in churches. They were the only place for safety and peace for centuries. Edited September 12 by LDSGator Phoenix_person 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted September 12 Report Share Posted September 12 36 minutes ago, LDSGator said: Okay, then open it. Worked wonders for the Boy Scouts (who went bankrupt), the Catholic church (dioceses went bankrupt) and the US Olympic team (who didn’t go bankrupt, but have a world class PR problem), Penn State football (google “Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky)… A lot of other churches are facing widespread legal, moral, and PR problems with it too. People are afraid to take their kids to church, let them play little league, or join other various youth groups. I’m all for exposing SA wherever you can. Go public, tell the media. Be careful though- because the stench of SA can affect everyone involved, even those who did nothing. It’s heartbreaking to me to see how it was so prevalent in churches. They were the only place for safety and peace for centuries. It is almost always the case that hiding a sin turns out to be a greater sin than the initial sin. The problem is that we tend to forgive our friends and family and pretend that it was not so bad. Then turn on those we do not like so much – in hopes they will never recover. The same holds for churches. Seldom is a church at fault but rather someone or several someone’s that cannot admit they are wrong. Churches make mistakes – hiding the truth and sweeping anything under the rug is worse than taking care of the dirt. I agree that revenge only makes matters worse. But it seems to me that trying to get around laws is worse than suffering the consequences of the law in the first place. As far as religion goes – is this not where we learn to admit our sins and seek mercy as always being better than hiding our sins? If a law is not broken, then what-ever spiritual discipline is required is up to those that officiate for that religion. I believe that Jesus often criticized officials shepherding the Jews for not doing their job. The Traveler LDSGator 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted September 12 Report Share Posted September 12 4 minutes ago, Traveler said: It is almost always the case that hiding a sin turns out to be a greater sin than the initial sin. On that, my friend, we agree 10,000%. Traveler 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonJones Posted September 16 Report Share Posted September 16 On 9/12/2024 at 2:22 PM, LDSGator said: Okay, then open it. Worked wonders for the Boy Scouts (who went bankrupt), the Catholic church (dioceses went bankrupt) and the US Olympic team (who didn’t go bankrupt, but have a world class PR problem), Penn State football (google “Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky)… A lot of other churches are facing widespread legal, moral, and PR problems with it too. People are afraid to take their kids to church, let them play little league, or join other various youth groups. I’m all for exposing SA wherever you can. Go public, tell the media. Be careful though- because the stench of SA can affect everyone involved, even those who did nothing. It’s heartbreaking to me to see how it was so prevalent in churches. They were the only place for safety and peace for centuries. Isn't it better that the doors where opened then? Instead of hiding it, isn't it better to be revealed and hopefully better measures put into place that help to stop these things in the future? I think it is a SHAME that the LDS church left the Boy Scouts. Their new program (PISS/SIPS...Physical, Intellectual, Spiritual, Social) does not seem to me to be a great success (and in fact, looking at my grandkids, it seems to actually be failing them in the worst ways possible). It allows the bullies to be bullies and the introverts to be ignored. The Boy Scout Program (and despite being a convert, I actually WAS a Boy Scout once upon a time and still have respect for the program) still teaches better morals that are integrated into it's actual program than what I see in the Church program (the Scout Oath, and Scout Law, regardless of whether one follows them are pretty decent things...the Church COULD require something like the 13 articles of faith to be memorized, or the ten commandments, but their program is more "free form" than actually having any requirements of moral codes that it's participants must adhere to in the program itself. Yes, they have temple interviews...but the program as written doesn't actually REQUIRE temple attendance or even temple worthiness). If the Church had tried to stay in Scouting and/or utilized it's concepts, I think it may have been better. Scouting has changed it's programs DUE to that door opening. It is not perfect, but there are MORE protections today put upon youth leaders than there are in the Church currently. Scouts require background checks, youth protection training, and safety regulations (two deep leadership for example and other regulations) in regards to the youth that the Church does not use. I would imagine (no stats on this) that the problems in the Church today are probably far more serious than what is occurring in the scouts, and that with the church leaving the scouts and the little protections that Scouting required, the problems with abuse may actually be rising in the church in regards to the levels it had in scouting. I am concerned in HOW the church has been doing it's youth programs these past few years. There are very little protocols over how youth protection is to be had (a 30 minute video annually is not all that effective IN MY OPINION). I really only have anecdotal experience with the Church's Youth Program (as I have no youth directly anymore, and I'm not in the Church's Leadership that deals with Youth today) through HOW I've seen it affect my grandchildren. With many grandchildren with several that are not the standard extroverted types, I've seen a deleterious situation with some of them in their church groups over the past two years and the results with the relationships between my grandchildren and the Church are starting to have me very concerned a some instances). I love the gospel, but I see more and more of my grandchildren struggling due to how things are going in their own personal interactions in trying to gain testimonies of that gospel. (I won't go into great detail, but some of the early struggles I've had have been voiced here in years prior...and unfortunately it's gotten worse with more of my grandchildren over time. If my experience is anything to go off of, and it may not be, I'd say right now, today, there is a crisis in the church in regards to the youth. Sorry, I went off tangent (drastically there). However, to get back on topic, I think it is good to "Open" those doors. We should be willing to call out these types of things whether it is with other groups or our own groups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirkwood Posted September 16 Report Share Posted September 16 25 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said: It allows the bullies to be bullies and the introverts to be ignored. So did the church run BSA program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted September 16 Report Share Posted September 16 31 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said: Isn't it better that the doors where opened then? Instead of hiding it, isn't it better to be revealed and hopefully better measures put into place that help to stop these things in the future? Yes. JohnsonJones 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonJones Posted September 16 Report Share Posted September 16 1 minute ago, mirkwood said: So did the church run BSA program. I was a Boy Scout outside of the Church. I can't say HOW it was run in the LDS Church when I was young or as a boy. When run CORRECTLY there should not really have been the ability for bullies to operate, or at least cut off other scouts from advancement. The Scout program has it in the Law that you are to be Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, and Kind. Inherent in advancement is that you actually LIVE the Scout Law. This is one key point where a committee and scout master would talk to the parents and tell them the problem with advancement as this was a KEY part of being a boy scout. Without that, it's not really a Boy Scout, and more just a bunch of checkmarks to check off. You need to adhere to the actual CONCEPTS (which would be the oath and Law today, as well as the motto and slogan) of Boy Scouts to advance. Did they ignore that part in the LDS Boy Scout program? I know they didn't when I was participating in it with my boys when they were younger, but I don't know how the Church ran it as a whole. However, if a group IGNORED that part of the program, that's more part of a problem with the local group (much like some LDS wards would ignore that their Scout leaders needed background checks and other precautions which led to problems with abuse in some LDS scout units...which is more a problem with that WARD then with the Church or Scouts in that situation) than Scouts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirkwood Posted September 16 Report Share Posted September 16 I boy scouted both in and out of the church and with a mix of nonmembers into the church troop. What I said stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonJones Posted September 17 Report Share Posted September 17 (edited) 13 hours ago, mirkwood said: I boy scouted both in and out of the church and with a mix of nonmembers into the church troop. What I said stands. I'm sorry that you were part of units that didn't adhere to the standards of advancement. At least they HAVE those requirements (which apparently none of the troops actually adhered to...a way to have their troop not be registered the next annual year if it was found they were not adhering to the advancement requirements). Even today, these are requirements, for example, straight out of the 2019 requirements for scouting you have this requirement to become different ranks... Edit: Need to put a source for the requirements below 2019 Scouts BSA requirements pdf Scout Quote 1b. Explain what Scout spirit is. Describe some ways you have shown Scout spirit by practicing the Scout Oath, Scout Law, Scout motto, and Scout slogan. Tenderfoot Quote 9. Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Tell how you have done your duty to God and how you have lived four different points of the Scout Law in your everyday life. Second Class Quote 10. Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Tell how you have done your duty to God and how you have lived four different points of the Scout Law (not to include those used for Tenderfoot requirement 9) in your everyday life. First Class Quote 11. Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Tell how you have done your duty to God and how you have lived four different points of the Scout Law (different from those points used for previous ranks) in your everyday life. Star Quote 2. As a First Class Scout, demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Tell how you have done your duty to God and how you have lived the Scout Oath and Scout Law in your everyday life Life Quote 2. As a Star Scout, demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Tell how you have done your duty to God and how you have lived the Scout Oath and Scout Law in your everyday life. Eagle Quote 2. As a Life Scout, demonstrate Scout Spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Tell how you have done your duty to God, how you have lived the Scout Oath and Scout Law in your everyday life, and how your understanding of the Scout Oath and Scout Law will guide your life in the future. List on your Eagle Scout Rank Application the names of individuals who know you personally and would be willing to provide a recom-mendation on your behalf, including parents/guardians, religious (if not affiliated with an organized religion, then the parent or guardian provides this reference), educational, employer (if employed), and two other references. I can ATTEST that these are REQUIREMENTS and have been ever since I was a scout. These are NOT new requirements. These are JUST as important as any other requirement (such as earning merit badges or hours of service or your Eagle Project). They were NOT to be waived. You are in Utah though...as far as I have seen on these forums. There HAS been a terrible reputation among some scouts about "Mormon Eagles" and "Mormon Scouts" where it was said they weren't truly scouts and were not truly earning their Eagle Requirements. Some said it was because parents did the work, but some said they simply did not hold scouts to actually do the requirements. As per what YOU are saying...it sounds like this may actually be TRUE? (Note, not in my experience, the requirements WERE fully held, even in LDS units, but perhaps units in Utah in general, not just LDS units, don't actually require the boys to do all the requirements to advance???). THAT would be a shame. I have a HARD time believing the Church would condone running the program which excluded the morality and personal growth of the boy, when such things were actually written and built into the very fabric of the program itself. If THAT is what you are saying I am rather floored. It's a shame. However, that does NOT change what the program is written as and HOW it is still written as. Whether or not you were PART of units that actually ADHERED to how the program should have been run and HOW it should have been done does not change what and HOW the program was and is written. Just like, as an officer, you have the state and local laws you enforce. Whether or not people choose to follow the law does not CHANGE the law. Just because someone chooses to drive with a High Alcohol content in their blood stream that is far above the legal limit does not change that the law states certain things. In Boy Scouts, the requirements to advance normally mean a Bully will have to change how they act and behave in order to conform to the Scout Law. Just like when someone chooses not to FOLLOW the written words and rules, does not CHANGE what those rules are. And that is one major difference between what the Church programs WERE and what they are now under the PISS/SIPS program. This is the current program Youth Guidebook The requirements are more to make goals under the Physical, Intellectual, Spiritual, and Social fields. It has suggestions of what you can make as a goal, but no other real requirements. There is no standard in this book that says...You MUST be kind, YOU MUST be friendly. Making goals is also done at a quorum and/or the class level (for young women). This is where i have seen it fall apart. Those who are introverts and are more reclusive are the ones who don't get heard, while those who are boisterous, and loud, are heard more than others. This does NOT empower the humble or meek. It empowers those who are liked and can push their way. As I said, this has had a BAD effect on some of my grandchildren. When you see your grandchildren being outcast or harmed by a program...it does NOT endear you to it. In scouts, even if there were those who didn't do the program correctly, there WERE written standards on advancement and written ways on HOW it should be done. I understand from you that there were units in Utah that did NOT adhere to the Scouting program and empowered bullies, which I am sad to hear about. At least, that program HAS safeguards in it to prevent this from happening written into it's rules and regulations on HOW these troops and packs are to be run. This is not something I've seen in the current LDS program...and I've seen it's affects on various families...specifically...some that are related to me. Edit: I am also adding a link below to the PDF version of the booklet children and youth receive for the current program of the church. THERE ARE good things about the program, the ideas and intentions are good for example, it has good suggestions...however, it's too loose in how it's is structured and too little structure is given in how it is to be done to actually be a great youth program...OBVIOUSLY in my opinion. It is far too open in trying to accept whatever the youth chooses, rather than having more rigid requirements to guide them into having goals which would have some absolute adherence to commandments or other areas of moral and spiritual growth. (once again, if I need say it, In my opinion). Children and youth pamphlet If this were a non-LDS or religious program and was for a general program of growth and goal setting, I'd say it has some very good ideas and things with it. As one that is supposed to be what guides our youth today to teach them morality and spiritual growth in their everyday lives...though they have goals in that arena and suggestions/recommendations...there is very little in regards to requirements for them to actually work towards that adherence to our specific and unique beliefs. Edited September 17 by JohnsonJones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirkwood Posted September 17 Report Share Posted September 17 7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: You are in Utah though I grew up primarily in Indiana and spent time scouting in Oregon. JohnsonJones 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted September 17 Report Share Posted September 17 23 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: Scouting has changed it's programs DUE to that door opening. It is not perfect, but there are MORE protections today put upon youth leaders than there are in the Church currently. Scouts require background checks, youth protection training, and safety regulations (two deep leadership for example and other regulations) in regards to the youth that the Church does not use. Huh Carborendum, Just_A_Guy and zil2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnsonJones Posted September 21 Report Share Posted September 21 (edited) On 9/17/2024 at 1:23 PM, mordorbund said: Huh AS per your link Quote 10.8.1 Safeguarding Youth When adults are interacting with youth in Church settings, at least two responsible adults should be present. It may be necessary for quorums to meet together to make this possible. All adults who work with youth must complete the children and youth protection training within one month of being sustained (ProtectingChildren.ChurchofJesusChrist.org). They repeat the training every three years thereafter. For scouts, currently, you need to take a Youth Protection class every two years as mandated by national, or every year as mandated by some councils (as opposed to the every 3 years from the church). In addition, it has a test at the end where you need to pass with at least an 80% (so no stating that you didn't know any better if anything DOES happen). In addition, there is NO one on one contact between leaders and youth. There always must be another trained leader (in youth protection. No one can be alone with a youth. (this is called two deep leadership). In addition, Any suspicion of abuse by a leader or adults must be reported and every leader is a mandatory reporter. In addition, ALL youth leaders must pass a background check prior to being allowed to even be around scouts or youth. If you cannot pass it, you cannot be a leader. No youth of opposite genders can camp together or be in the same tent (which is the same as the Church). No youth greater than two years age differences can share the same tent (it is estimated that over 25% of abuse comes from an older youth on younger youth...this tries to curb this though it also is not perfect). Is it perfect? No, it is not. However, the two deep leadership (meaning you ALWAYS should have another witness of what is happening, and hopefully at least one sane adult is there) and background checks, it does a LOT to curb situations where bad things could occur. This is what I mean by the scouts having more protocols now to protect the youth the the official protocols in the LDS church currently (meaning it could change tomorrow). Because of these, I expect less lawsuits in the future on these issues against the Scouts than arise against the Church in the long run. I would prefer NOTHING bad happens in any of the organizations, but unfortunately there are bad people out there that will try to exploit any organization for their own personal evils. Hopefully I can just avoid all of that these days at my age. I'm already over the age of retirement by a good bit, and I'm finally thinking of actually retiring for good. I'm too old to be dealing with the entire student and research balance issues and everything else with the university politics at this point. I don't know, maybe I'll retire to some place like Dixie Utah and be among all the other old people Saints that live there! Edited September 21 by JohnsonJones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted September 21 Report Share Posted September 21 4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: For scouts, currently, you need to take a Youth Protection class every two years as mandated by national, or every year as mandated by some councils (as opposed to the every 3 years from the church). In addition, it has a test at the end where you need to pass with at least an 80% (so no stating that you didn't know any better if anything DOES happen). From what I can tell, this is the primary difference in the two organizations preventative steps. I’m not sure how substantial it is. I certainly don’t think it’s significant enough to warrant the extensive praise you heap on the BSA (but that’s just a difference of opinion). 4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: In addition, there is NO one on one contact between leaders and youth. There always must be another trained leader (in youth protection. No one can be alone with a youth. (this is called two deep leadership). Do you know who else has two-deep leadership? As long as we’re misrepresenting requirements, the Church calls for two “responsible adults”. The BSA does not require responsible leaders. For what it’s worth, I specifically posted the link so you would see that the Church requires two-deep leadership. Please stop saying it doesn’t. 4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: In addition, Any suspicion of abuse by a leader or adults must be reported and every leader is a mandatory reporter. Do you know what it means to be a mandatory reporter? That is a legal term for people who may be charged with a misdemeanor if they keep their mouth shut. The State determines that, not the organization. Now, the organization can require someone to report abuse, but the worst they can do is kick out the person who failed to report. It’s good that the BSA tells its leaders to report abuse when they see it. Do you know who else does? “If you learn of abuse, you should immediately contact legal authorities” 4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: In addition, ALL youth leaders must pass a background check prior to being allowed to even be around scouts or youth. If you cannot pass it, you cannot be a leader @NeuroTypical may be able to shed some light on the annotations on Church records. NT, if someone is known to have an abusive past would that show up in the records? Also would other criminal charges (such as fraud) make it there? 4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: No youth of opposite genders can camp together or be in the same tent (which is the same as the Church). Yay!!! 4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: No youth greater than two years age differences can share the same tent (it is estimated that over 25% of abuse comes from an older youth on younger youth...this tries to curb this though it also is not perfect). I didn’t know about this BSA requirement. It looks like the differences between what the Church requires and what BSA requires is BSA has more frequent training and separate tenting for large age differences. As you note though, “the two deep leadership (meaning you ALWAYS should have another witness of what is happening, and hopefully at least one sane adult is there) and background checks, it does a LOT to curb situations where bad things could occur.” And the Church has this or something similar in place. So the Church does a LOT to curb bad situations where bad things can occur. As needed the two differences can be tweaked. 4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: Because of these, I expect less lawsuits in the future on these issues against the Scouts than arise against the Church in the long run. Funny you should say that. An analysis of the BSA’s P-Files shows that The Church of Jesus Christ has a rate of abuse far below average when compared to other religions in Scouting. 5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: I would prefer NOTHING bad happens in any of the organizations So would I, but because there are evil people in this world it’s good to know the Church has instituted safeguards to protect children and youth. Just_A_Guy and Carborendum 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted September 21 Report Share Posted September 21 5 hours ago, mordorbund said: 11 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: In addition, ALL youth leaders must pass a background check prior to being allowed to even be around scouts or youth. If you cannot pass it, you cannot be a leader @NeuroTypical may be able to shed some light on the annotations on Church records. NT, if someone is known to have an abusive past would that show up in the records? Also would other criminal charges (such as fraud) make it there? I don't know much about secular backgrounds checks, other than what I find when googling: What Shows up on a Criminal Background Check The church, as far as I know, doesn't do those. Instead, a church membership record is created and updated by clerks in your home ward, and follows you wherever they go. They're pretty boring and standard unless it contains an annotation, a comment about a sealing or ordinance restriction, or a formal membership restriction. Here's the section on annotations: Quote 32.14.5 - Membership Records with Annotations As authorized by the First Presidency, Church headquarters annotates a person’s membership record in any of the situations listed below. The bishop or stake president submits a Report of Church Membership Council form indicating that the person’s membership was formally restricted or withdrawn for any of the following conduct: - Incest - Sexual abuse of a child or youth, sexual exploitation of a child or youth, or serious physical or emotional abuse of a child or youth - Involvement with child pornography as outlined in 38.6.6 - Plural marriage - Adult sexual predatory behavior - Embezzling Church funds or stealing Church property (see 32.6.3.3) - Church welfare abuse - Threatening behavior (such as sexual, violent, or financial) or conduct that harms the Church The bishop and stake president submit written notification that the person: - Has admitted to one of the actions listed above. - Has been convicted of a crime involving one of the actions listed above. - Has been found liable in a civil action of fraud or other illegal acts involving one of the actions listed above. - Because some priesthood ordinances are based on gender, the bishop and stake president submit a request to annotate the record of someone who has intentionally transitioned away from his or her biological sex at birth (see 38.6.23). When a bishop receives an annotated membership record, he follows the instructions in the annotation. Only the First Presidency may authorize removing an annotation from a membership record. If the stake president recommends removing an annotation, he uses LCR (see 6.2.3). The Office of the First Presidency notifies him if the recommendation is approved or not. It looks like horrible behavior can more easily show up on a church membership record than a background check. Because, for example, most sexual assaults are not reported to authorities, most of them are not investigated, most of them don't result in an arrest, most arrests don't result in charges, and most charges don't involve a conviction. Whereas in the church, if you assault someone and your church leaders know about it, they can/should add an annotation to your record, regardless of any official government action. Section 33.6 of the handbook also gives this check for someone getting a new temple recommend or Melchizedek Priesthood ordination: Quote Sometimes a member has not lived in the same ward continuously for at least one year. In that case, the bishop or an assigned counselor contacts the prior bishop before conducting an interview to issue a temple recommend or to recommend ordination to a Melchizedek Priesthood office. The purpose of this contact is to ask if there are any worthiness matters to be considered. If a counselor learns that there is confidential information, he ends the conversation. He informs his bishop to contact the prior bishop before conducting the interview. Under no circumstances may membership records be given or shown to anyone other than the bishop or a clerk. mordorbund and Just_A_Guy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laronius Posted September 23 Report Share Posted September 23 On 9/17/2024 at 3:18 AM, JohnsonJones said: The requirements are more to make goals under the Physical, Intellectual, Spiritual, and Social fields. It has suggestions of what you can make as a goal, but no other real requirements. There is no standard in this book that says...You MUST be kind, YOU MUST be friendly. Making goals is also done at a quorum and/or the class level (for young women). This is where i have seen it fall apart. Those who are introverts and are more reclusive are the ones who don't get heard, while those who are boisterous, and loud, are heard more than others. This does NOT empower the humble or meek. It empowers those who are liked and can push their way. As I said, this has had a BAD effect on some of my grandchildren. When you see your grandchildren being outcast or harmed by a program...it does NOT endear you to it. In scouts, even if there were those who didn't do the program correctly, there WERE written standards on advancement and written ways on HOW it should be done. You are comparing a properly run boy scout troop to a current youth program that is not run properly. That's not exactly a fair comparison. LDS troops (in general) were always a far cry from non-LDS troops. Why? Because everyone in a non-LDS troop, leaders and scouts, really wanted to be be there. In the Church leaders were called to lead and scouts were told to go. Did it still produce some good results? Yes. But only to the extent that the leaders were willing to lead and scouts were willing to scout. It's no different with the current youth program. The current youth program does have written standards, it's called the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and a covenant path of advancement, though we usually call it progression. But if leaders are not enforcing the standards then that is a problem with leadership, not the program. Your grandkids' parents need to be having some frank discussions with ward leadership. LDSGator and JohnsonJones 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted September 23 Report Share Posted September 23 (edited) 14 minutes ago, laronius said: Because everyone in a non-LDS troop, leaders and scouts, really wanted to be be there. In the Church leaders were called to lead and scouts were told to go. Did it still produce some good results? Yes. But only to the extent that the leaders were willing to lead and scouts were willing to scout. It's no different with the current youth program. Exactly. Some of us had no business running a boy scout troop either. I had no idea what I was doing. I let the kids play basketball a lot because it was better than me trying to teach them how to build a campfire and somehow burning the ward building down. I did not ask for that calling, that’s for sure. A badly trained chimp could have done a vastly better job than I could have. That said, I showed up and did my best. Edited September 23 by LDSGator JohnsonJones and NeuroTypical 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted September 23 Report Share Posted September 23 57 minutes ago, LDSGator said: I showed up and did my best. Honestly, one of the advantages of this church, is it takes people who would never have otherwise come within a mile of something, and it asks them to try something. I had a crippling fear of public speaking, and landed the call of Gospel Essentials teacher. Preparing for that class was torture. I spent hours, for days in advance. I had to practice saying things out loud. I grappled with the terror of what might happen if I said the wrong thing or messed up. I would sleep maybe 3-4 hours on Saturday night. I'd have to focus so my breathing wouldn't be shallow and rapid, I had to find things I could do to slow my heart rate. I survived the first lesson, and took a massive exhale that lasted the entire rest of Sunday, and was basically useless the rest of the day. The next week was a little better, the 3rd week things were a bit easier. And so on, until now it's all old hat. I still have the anxieties and fears, but they don't run the show any more. lol I survived giving one lesson with my shirt poking out my open fly. I did more than survive, I took it in stride and continued to rock the lesson 5 minutes in after it dawned on me. LDSGator and askandanswer 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSGator Posted September 23 Report Share Posted September 23 (edited) 16 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: had a crippling fear of public speaking, And I love public speaking, especially on camera. This is me hosting a TKD tournament. I’m on at 8:35. In a suit. 16 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said: Honestly, one of the advantages of this church, is it takes people who would never have otherwise come within a mile of something, and it asks them to try something. Yup. Edited September 23 by LDSGator NeuroTypical 1 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.