Predators and the Mormon Church
As the abuse scandal of the Catholic Church unfolded, I comforted myself with the Mormon Church’s lay ministry and ecclesiastical court system. We systematically excommunicate offenders. Our lay clergy are married and have a vested interest in protecting the vulnerable of the church. Then I read an opinion article in the Seattle Times that caused me to reevaluate our situation.
David Henry Herget, a High Priest, was excommunicated in 1993 for child rape then reinstated in 2004. The general body of the congregation knew nothing of this history and the author, Norton R. Nowlin, writes a chilling scenario of Herget having the trust of and access to primary children. Herget was recently arrested on suspicion of 18 charges, including child rape and sexual exploitation of a child.
Nowlin’s position, himself a Mormon, is clear:
Perhaps it is high time that the Mormons, and all other churches that routinely protect the identity of sex offenders, take a long hard look at their disclosure policies and whom they regularly ordain as priests.
I had not previously thought of myself as clergy in the institutional sense, nor complicit in systematic obfuscation. How do we, as Christians, extend the hand of fellowship to the penitent without endangering our children? Will the policy of the priesthood being accessible to all men be revised? I know that child abuse of any sort is one of a few actions that requires amendment of church membership records. Is this not enough?
With the Church’s 30 lawsuits across the nation, these questions are just beginning to surface.
Something doesnt sound right here. Anyone ever convicted of any kind of sex crime (my memory might be wrong here, it might just be juvenile-related sex crimes) gets a permanent code letter on their Church Membership Record. That code letter notifies the ward leaders the individual is to never have a calling that relates to the you at all. If this guy was ex’d and then reinstated, he still should have had that letter on his record, and the Bishopric should have acted accordingly. The Church policy and position on this matter is very very clear.
Comment by Kurt — September 22, 2005 @ 11:19 am
He didn’t need to have a ward assignment in the Primary to gain the trust of and access to children. Even if his records were tagged, it may have been only the ward clerk and Bishop that knew about it. The sticky question is whether everyone in the ward ought to be able to find out about these serious past transgressions or not. Regarding such sins, such a scenario would be something like “I the Lord remember them no more, but we the Ward do”.
Comment by Geoff J — September 22, 2005 @ 11:35 am
I think you hit the nail on the head Geoff.
Comment by J. Stapley — September 22, 2005 @ 11:41 am
It’s a tough issue, but Pres. Hinckley has made clear where our priority is–the protection of the innocent. If we must err, we must err on the side of the children.
I think we need to publicize the priority and punishments a little more. In effect it would serve as a warning to potential offenders: “Commit this kind of sin and you will be marked for the rest of your mortal life. It is a consquence you bring upon yourself if you cross that line.”
Comment by Jared — September 22, 2005 @ 12:05 pm
It’s an interesting question. I’ve been in a ward where one person in the ward had been arrested on sex charges and banned from being near schools. I never knew what he did. But how do you react to people like this?
From all I’ve read, it’s pretty near impossible to fully rehabilitate pedophiles. So what is our Christian duty? I sure don’t know.
I do think though that there have been numerous screwups in various wards. Often when Bishoprics change, the new Bishop doesn’t know about all these things, is overwhelmed, and people slip through the cracks. Then there is the issue of publicizing their tendencies. It’s probably inappropriate (if not illegal) to do so. Yet Mormons (unfortunately) are far too trusting a bunch, leaving themselves open to scam artists and worst. People assume that just because someone “appears” to be a good Elder or the like that they are fine.
Then there are the few leaders who are horrible apples. We know of those in church history. (Bennett comes immediately to mind) But just last year there was that Stake President from Butte, Montana who was arrested in a sting operation for soliciting sex from a minor online.
I think most of us know of these things. The problem is that there are many naive and frankly too trusting people in the world. What’s sad is that so many, instead of recognizing this as a common problem throughout history, think of it as evidence the church isn’t true. I know many people who’ve left the church either through direct experience with these sorts of people or upon finding out about it. After all, how would you feel if the Stake President you were confiding in was a pedophile?
Yet I think the lessons of the Gadianton Robbers, among others, ought be a lesson for us. A lesson we’re too often unwilling to heed.
Comment by Clark Goble — September 22, 2005 @ 12:08 pm
This particular case is a crying shame. You would think whenever a ward had someone with these issues in their ranks the Bishopric would actively pay special attention to the individual. There is no need to breach confidentiality, just keep in touch with the Primary Presidency and ask them what they think of Br. SoAndSo periodically. If he is spending any time at all near the Primary, then pull him aside and pull the plug by telling him he has to leave Church grounds when Sacrament Meeting is over and he isnt allowed to Home teach any families with kids. Thats easy enough.
That aside, we cannot point the finger of blame at the Church. What are they supposed to do, start handing out Scarlet Letters? Doesnt work that way. Ultimately, we have to protect our own kids. We cannot expect anyone to protect them for us. I periodically check the sex offenders web sites. If you have kids and you dont, then I dont know what youre waiting for. If you want to check your neighborhood, you can at:
http://mapsexoffenders.com/
Assuming youre in one of the 38 states they map. Utah isnt one of them, but you can check Utah’s registry online.
Comment by Kurt — September 22, 2005 @ 12:22 pm
Wow. I looked up the Utah one and was shocked to see how many were in my area – including one transient guy I’ve seen around a lot! Very scary.
Comment by Clark Goble — September 22, 2005 @ 2:40 pm
Here’s a true life horror story for you. I serve in Primary, and heard through the grapevine (i.e., was stopped in the hallway by the ward gossip monger), and told to watch out for one of the new members of the ward because he was a convicted sex offender. She had some seemingly reliable information, so I told the Primary President, and she asked the bishop to verify this information.
Turns out the bishop had forgotten to say anything to her – he said it didn’t even cross his mind to tell primary and nursery workers about this guy.
Comment by Tess — September 22, 2005 @ 4:39 pm
One of the problems with the blanket term “sex offender” is that it gives no relative indication of the danger a person poses to children. As Clark indicated, a registered pedophile may justify a state of proverbial “red alert” regarding children. But a guy who got his 16 year old girlfriend pregnant when he was 18 and was charged by her parents for statutory rape might not warrant much concern at all. The lack of information makes this all difficult…
Comment by Geoff J — September 22, 2005 @ 4:57 pm
Geoff J–
Depends on which state you are in. Texas shows the crime commited as well as the victim’s gender and age.
Comment by Julie in Austin — September 22, 2005 @ 6:04 pm
Actually Geoff, looking through the offenders list, the actual charges do indicate a lot. There’s one guy who probably was just guilty of hooking up with a 16 or 17 year old. And frankly young girls often do look old, can get fake IDs, yet guys get charged. So I’d be more forgiving of that if the age difference was small and the women were 15 or over.
But clearly people going after young girls or boys. (i.e. 14 or younger) are bad news.
My inclination on this is that the rules are in place to deal with this in church. The problem is that people are often so overwhelmed with callings and trying to get things done that the rules are neglected. I can think of a few just in my recent experience.
Scouts are *always* supposed to have two leaders present at all times and never be alone. Yet I know in my ward second leaders are often rarely called. I never had one except for two weeks, the whole time I was in scouts. I sensed a lot people being frustrated for me keeping the rules. And that’s when the rules are so prominent. (You have to sign a lot of stuff for the callings)
But same in nursery. A kid need to go to the bathroom and you have temporary helpers in the nursery. Do you trust them to take a kid to the bathroom alone?
Even Primary classes are typically taught by a single person without the door open even if there are only two or three students.
The biggest danger, of course, isn’t people we know are trouble. It’s the people we don’t know about. That case here in Utah from last month involved a couple teaching primary. When the guy’s wife was sick in bed he was fondling the young children as they prayed.
Does this mean that we should seriously rethink how we do Primary? I tend to think so. Obviously that is something that will come down from the brethren. But I think some of the high profile cases here in Utah will lead to changes. But at the same time, what really counts is what happens in individual wards. And the temptation for short cuts, especially in wards where it’s hard to get effective service from people, is large.
Comment by Clark Goble — September 22, 2005 @ 6:18 pm
Thanks for you thoughtful comments, Clark. I have often wondered why there are not windows in the doors at church. You are right that we have all these rules, but that it seems too difficult to implement. I’m reminded of the conversation that was at ABEV, but that I can’t seem to find right now.
Comment by J. Stapley — September 22, 2005 @ 6:40 pm
I didn’t realize that the sex offender lists provide some info on the nature of the crime. If someone in the ward is rumored to be a sex offender I guess parents could check it out online (and perhaps let their friends know…).
One assumption that is being made in most of our comments is that the abuse is taking place at the church. I don’t know how often these crimes take place on church property or at official activiities. I have heard horror stories of pedophiles gaining the trust of families and committing these heinous crimes away from official functions (like volunteering to babysit etc). In those cases the precautions Clark mentioned would do nothing. The only thing that would help would be for every parent in the ward to know the person is a potentially dangerous pedophile.
Comment by Geoff J — September 22, 2005 @ 8:08 pm
The solution is simple: the death penalty. Certainly much more loving than that millstone around their neck is going to be.
Comment by lyle — September 22, 2005 @ 11:44 pm
I agree with Lyle. The death penalty is appropriate for sexually molesting children, and it solves the problem with recidivism. Of course, the Church cannot implement the death penalty, but it can permanently excommunicate sex offenders leaving their rehabilitation up to the Lord in the afterlife. The point being that the children MUST be protected. All other considerations are secondary including the salvation of the offender regardless of whether or not he is repentant.
Now, just in case the Lord does not agree with me about the death penalty for sexual child molesters, perhaps the President of the Church could inquire of the Lord what he thinks is the appropriate measure. Surely, the Lord knows how we ought to deal with the problem, doesn’t he?
There is so much sexual deviance and perversion going on in our society in recent decades that even good people are becoming inured to it and accepting the unacceptable. We are losing our sense of outrage at behavior that is totally outrageous.
Comment by John W. Redelfs — September 23, 2005 @ 12:08 am
Oh, how I wish I had time to really comment on this one!!!!! I know several people personally who have left the church over this very issue. Abuse survivors told by their bishop or SP that their membership would be in question should they tell anyone about what happened to them, for example. Parents of a child who was abused in the church building being treated like the troublemakers for asking for a ward change, etc…. Actually one even ex’d for pressing charges against a SP. So much of this is simply the result of 9understandable) ignorance on the part of lay leaders.
I think at the very least we need to recognize that leaving ultimate judgment to the Lord does NOT mean putting oneself or ones children at risk. We can forgive without maintaining a relationship with someone. Having people not trust you is a natural consequence of lying. Having people not trust you is a natural consequence of infidelity. Having people not trust you is a natural consequence of abusing people. Repentance and restitution include recognizing and accepting the real world consequences of our actions.
Just one idea–on a fairly regular basis, give ALL adult member of the church the child abuse training that bishops and stake presidents get so everyone in the ward understands the Church’s current policies and procedures (and awareness is raised). At the very least, make sure the SS presidents and Primary presidents and youth leaders also get the training. Also make the abuse helps for leaders booklet available membershipwide.
Comment by LisaB — September 23, 2005 @ 6:38 am
Nice points, LisaB.
Lyle & John, while I precieve your outrage over the topic, blanket capital punishment seems reactionary. I hope that we, as a people, can do better than that. And John, there are pleanty of things I would love the prophet to ask the Lord about and then publish the revelation
Comment by J. Stapley — September 23, 2005 @ 9:58 am
Hi,
I saw a child abuse situation handled properly in Chicago by the SP and B.
They called a ward meeting. Announced what had happened. Asked for advice from the ward members. Got feedback. Announced that the abuser would be excommunicated. Then they dropped the abuser off at the police station where charges were pressed and the SP and Bishops gave statements of everything that they knew about the situation. The abuser went to jail and everybody was satisfied with how the church handled the situation.
Comment by Leonard — September 23, 2005 @ 10:52 am
Geoff, certainly predators seeking trust at church and doing their activities outside of church is a problem. Although frankly, who you let babysit really ought be a careful procedure on your part. I admit I’m pretty paranoid about it. This does happen and if I recall there are a couple lawsuits where some church member that the Bishop knew had troubles befriended people, babysat and abused their kids.
The issue is that it’s not all clear to me what the Bishop should do in those circumstances. There have been lawsuits over announcing sins in church, which is one of the reasons why excommunications typically aren’t publicly announced. As I said, I don’t know what the right answer is.
Having said that though clearly we need always be on our guard. I’m more concerned about the probable majority of abusers who haven’t been caught and who we don’t know are abusers.
Finally a related issue that hasn’t been dealt with is cases where the Bishop isn’t sure whether to trust accusers. The fact is that there are many false accusations on these matters. Things are much more complicated than they first appear.
Comment by Clark Goble — September 23, 2005 @ 11:41 am
My feelings on this matter are a little different from those of most. In civil life, it is common to laud the patriotism of those who suffered wounds and death in battle, with the idea that their sacrifices have contributed to our freedom. I wish we could acknowledge and raise monuments to those who have suffered wrongs due to our freedoms, and that we could feel that, like the death of a soldier, these sufferings, though sometimes heavy, are a price worth paying for general liberty. Requiring the government to make its case against a criminal and giving everyone his day in court is worth some amount of bloodshed.
The good that comes from open association in the Church is greater than the loss from molestation. A fondling that is promptly dealt with is a small thing and shouldn’t be treated as grave, irreparable damage. Cases where molestation continued and involved many children or repeated contacts are due more to lack of open association than to an excess of it. Those cases are possible if children can’t talk to anyone about concerns and their parents don’t share information with one another.
I think defense should be practiced close in so as to dampen as little as possible the many great things that come out of our interactions. Each child should be taught what he doesn’t need to allow and know that there are people, many people, she can go to for help. I can see particular care for the classes of our youngest children, but beyond nursery and Sunbeams, I have no concern whatsoever for a lone man or women spending an hour in a room with a few children. I would greatly regret the loss of such interactions; we would be poorer without them. I prefer that we act on specific problems rather than put everyone under a shadow of suspicion. In this, I don’t oppose careful judgement of people and situations; that’s what I desire: careful judgement instead of all-encompassing preemption.
Comment by John Mansfield — September 23, 2005 @ 2:04 pm
For any who disagree with my last comment, here’s an idea. Mount a couple of cameras in opposite corners of each classroom. Set up monitors in the clerk’s office, and call a Ward Surveillance Specialist.
Comment by John Mansfield — September 23, 2005 @ 2:07 pm
Read the Doctrine and Covenants. Whatever happened to the requirement to confess to sins openly? If offenders are truly motivated toward salvation and return to Heavenly Father, confession, as required–but not enforced (sounds legalistic, I know)–by scripture is the obvious solution.
Two big problems:
1) All research on child abuse and recividism indicates this is seriously addictive, genetically or behaviorally engrained stuff. It’s hard to get over, even for people who are sincere, I’m sure. However, I think many are motivated to get back their church status for social reasons, like pressure from family, or perhaps the pressure to openly regain ‘trust and confidence’ and ‘stature’ in community
2) Church culture once again is a stumblingblock. “Don’t reveal past transgressions” is the order du jour. But shouldn’t be. There should not be shame in having a member get up and share about their struggles with a) WoW b) law of chastity c) etc. –sure there need to be appropriate fora for these. But, there is honestly no way–other than gossip, which bishops try to defuse, even if accurate–for members of the ward family to know what problems others’ face where any problems go unspoken of. Bring the Boo Radleys out. Culturally, we need to grow up.
And I think that’s what people see at complicity. (I.e. you don’t have to be a participant in a murder or robbery to be complicit. Just knowing it’s going to happen and not taking any measure to stop it are a crime. The same is true of child abuse.)
Comment by Norm — September 23, 2005 @ 5:14 pm
(my post is supposed to address all instances… just ones where there are ‘known offenders’ still attending church. I think these ‘known offenders should have to confess, just like John C. Bennett et al, to the congregation (or maybe joint Priesthood/RS). And then have to (even if it’s already ‘taken care of’) each time they move into a new ward, before they are allowed to attend any meetings/activities.
Comment by Norm — September 23, 2005 @ 5:22 pm
When I was in the Primary presidency recently, a member of the bishopbric came and told us the name of someone in our ward who is a convicted sex offender. I believe that info. is passed on to each Primary presidency…at least that is the policy in our ward.
Comment by Lisa F. — September 23, 2005 @ 8:40 pm
First I would like readers to know that I am a therapist and provide sex offender treatment in SLC. When it comes to sex offenders there is NO CONFIDENTIALITY! Thanks to Megan’s law sex offenders must register annually and everytime they move. All criminal charges are public record unless the offender is underaged. Currently, Texas is one of a few states that has a national data base for sex offenders. Sex offender registries post pictures and addresses of the offender so check out your neighborhood, you’ll be surprised. Second, the Church provides a “hotline” for all ecclasitcal leaders which offers legal advise and has laws for any jurisdiction in the US and Canada. If I remember correctly the hotline was set up around 1992 to help leaders deal with the legal obligations for reporting abuse of a child or vulnerable adult. To John M, fondling is sex abuse and needs to be dealt with accordingly. The best defense is to have two unrelated adults in every nursery and sunbeam class, parents should take their own children to the restroom or develop a family buddy system, and good touch bad touch or the “swimming suit rule” needs to be taught in every home! To ME the biggest problems is when the offender is the Young Mens’ Leader, Scout Master or Bishop and parents who are too preoccupied to know that their child has been violated.
Comment by Dr Hart — September 23, 2005 @ 9:31 pm
I like LisaB’s idea of regularaly giving all adult members child abuse training. I would welcome it. Knowledge all around would be very helpful.
I serve in my ward’s Young Women organization. They may be older than the little Primary kids, but they can still be preyed upon. One of the councilors in the Young Men presidency spends most of his time during the joint activities or when the YM/YW are combined for anything flirting with the girls and ignoring the boys (he’s 30-ish, married, and has three kids). It’s creepy and totally inappropriate, and I know at least one of the girls thinks he is interested in her sexually, as reported by the teenage son of one of the other YW leaders. The YM’s president is aware of the concerns of us YW leaders, but he doesn’t want to deal with any conflict and clearly isn’t too concerned. The bishop is aware of our concerns, but nothing has happened.
Education of all the adults would be helpful. Maybe this flirtatious guy would get a clue if someone let him know it is inappropriate (it could very well be harmless friendship in his mind, and he just isn’t seeing what we see when we watch him). Maybe the YM president and bishop would be a little more alarmed if they had regular reminders that this isn’t something that always happens “somewhere else”.
Meanwhile, we just watch our girls carefully and make sure he is never alone with them. I worry that that isn’t enough. I could definitely use more training to know what more I can do.
Comment by Kat Manyanca — September 23, 2005 @ 10:45 pm
Here’s an idea: skip auxiliary and Sunday School meetings altogether and have a one hour Sacrament meeting. I’ve never understood why responsible parents allow strangers to interact with their children just because they’re “called” to work with them. In some tragic cases, these predators are simply “called” to work their kids over.
Train, bond and obligate responsible people and just have an hour-long meeting where parents can supervise their own kids.
Problem solved.
Comment by Brenda — September 24, 2005 @ 2:03 pm
More training and vigilence by parents and leaders alike.
If we’re going to change the rules of repentance and foregiveness
we better do a better job of educating each other about the special consequences of these new rules. Sex abuse of children
means that forgiveness comes with an asterisk.
Comment by comet — September 25, 2005 @ 6:40 am
5.
Clark, “From all I’ve read, it’s pretty near impossible to fully rehabilitate pedophiles.â€
Professional literature in the secular world frequently denies the possibility of rehabilitation because of ignorance, or denial, of the way it can be done. They usually speak of integrating the good and bad parts of the personality and managing behavior. President Benson’s answer is “The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.†(“Born of God†GenCon 10/1985) Either this even applies to child abusers or Christ isn’t omnipotent.
We’re basically talking about an addiction here and the classical addiction model of lack of feeling for other people applies. Love is essential to joy and some people end up with the closest substitute that they can have, if they lack real connections of love with others. Many of those substitutes are evil and destructive… and beguiling to the isolated and lonely. Pursuit of them leads to being “taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.†(Alma 12:11). Most of us don’t understand the desperation of this state, the truly lost and hopeless feeling of being caught in something that is destroying you and from which you do not have the strength to break free. “And if ye have no hope ye must needs be in despair; and despair cometh because of iniquity†(Mni 10:22) The scriptural description of this state is a broken heart and a contrite spirit.
From this position of abject humility is possible the basic miracle of this life: a change in nature from the natural man and healing. Jesus is the Savior of the entire world and through the atonement God can change even the hearts of child abusers. “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.†(Ezk 36:26-27).
This can happen when one of these people hits bottom, admits his inability to manage his life, and asks for help (If you’re heading in the wrong direction, when do you hit bottom? When you stop digging!) The way to break this cycle is through intervention by others and connecting to them. Love not only is the most joyous to the soul, but it prepares you to have your soul healed by the Holy Ghost. It’s difficult and possible for child abusers to “rehabilitate†– if they connect to others and fully commit to changing. I don’t know how one could change without this love and commitment.
Alma recounts this change in other people who were lost: “Behold, he changed their hearts; yea, he awakened them out of a deep sleep, and they awoke unto God. Behold, they were in the midst of darkness; nevertheless, their souls were illuminated by the light of the everlasting word; yea, they were encircled about by the bands of death, and the chains of hell, and an everlasting destruction did await them. And now I ask of you, my brethren, were they destroyed? Behold, I say unto you, Nay, they were not. And again I ask, were the bands of death broken, and the chains of hell which encircled them about, were they loosed? I say unto you, Yea, they were loosed, and their souls did expand, and they did sing redeeming love. And I say unto you that they are saved.†(Alma 5:7-9)
Elsewhere, King Lamoni’s queen exclaimed as she awoke from her deep sleep, “O blessed Jesus, who has saved me from an awful hell! O blessed God, have mercy on this people!†and Lamoni’s servants who were converted declared that “their hearts had been changed; that they had no more desire to do evil.†(Alma 19:29, 33)
The story of the re-baptized brother HP in Washington that returned to his sins is tragic. We ask, “Now that someone has received the new heart from God, how can he keep from falling back?†The answer is humility and to keep our sacramental promise to always remember Him: The BoM promises, “…if ye have known of his goodness and have tasted of his love, and have received a remission of your sins, which causeth such exceedingly great joy in your souls… always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness, and his goodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures, and humble yourselves even in the depths of humility, calling on the name of the Lord daily… if ye do this ye shall always rejoice, and be filled with the love of God, and always retain a remission of your sins.†(Msh 4:11-12)
This works, but it is very different from what you probably read “From all I’ve read, it’s pretty near impossible to fully rehabilitate pedophiles†because God’s plan is to change our nature, not to rehabilityate the natural man.
Comment by manaen — September 25, 2005 @ 11:56 am
Manaen, I don’t think anybody here denies the efficacy of the atonement. However, there is great empirical evidence that predators have very high rates of recidivism. Does that mean that Christ can have no sway over these folks? No, it simply means that for most of these folks, repentance isn’t finished until mortality is.
Comment by J. Stapley — September 25, 2005 @ 5:26 pm
manaen, I can appreciate your good thoughts and intentions and the Gospel application of the truth in the words which you speak. However, I MUST agree with J. Stapley. As the parent of a child who was molested by a person “very intent on repentance”, but one “who failed in the moment of temptation” I have no other sorce to cling to than my own experience.
Good intentions are just that and can be disregarded very easily. Lest anyone feel that we as parents were not watchful or somehow at fault here, the situation was as controlled as it can be without being at your child’s side literally at their side, 24 hours a day. Let’s face it, if a preditor wants a child, he finds an opportunity.
The scars of this molestation will not go away from my child. For the rest of her life she will base miniscule descions based on that one inciddent, her relationships in the future will be slanted, her trust WORKED for, and her ability to see the good in everyone denied. This is her life sentence for being a victim.
The preditor’s “team of professionals” have assured us that because of our daughter, this man will never see the light of day again. They tell us that he is incapable of rehabilitation, “AND SO ARE ALL THE OTHERS LIKE HIM”.
I believe in the atonement. I also believein restitution and accountability, and there are no earthly ways fro this man to give back what he has done to my child. I feel sorrow for this man who had these things done to him in his youth. Perhaps if his perpetrator was sentenced to death he would not have been a vicitm either. It needs to stop. aThe only way for it to stop is to lock these people away FOR LIFE or sentence them to DEATH. There is no other way.
Comment by name withheld — September 25, 2005 @ 7:08 pm
LisaB
If you have more details, I’d love to be able to report that. There should be an extremely significant amount of review if someone was x’ed for pressing charges against anyone. Was he convicted, btw, can you give me names, dates, etc.?
It seems like a number of people need to be disciplined severely over that incident.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — September 25, 2005 @ 7:33 pm
Manaen, while Christ can change our natures, it appears that for the physical aspects of that change it must typically await the resurrection. It is hubris, I think, to believe otherwise.
Comment by Clark Goble — September 26, 2005 @ 10:58 am
People have mentioned the Scouts a couple of times — they instituted two-leader rules and regular, mandatory training on abuse prevention, but only after abuse cases became a negative publicity problem and a legal liability. The LDS Church has made some policy changes, but not to the degree the Scouts have, partly because negative publicity and real liability hasn’t come home to roost yet. I’m surprised there isn’t a simple “no men called into the Primary” rule, for example.
Comment by Dave — September 26, 2005 @ 12:28 pm
From purely a numbers perspective, could the church ban men from Primary? I’m not sure but what that isn’t an over reaction. Further I think it simply neglects the issue of female abuse of children. Certainly men are the majority, but women do abuse children. As I mentioned, in our area there are women listed on the sex abuser list.
I earnestly think that windows on doors would resolve most problems. That way someone from even outside the ward couldn’t come in and grab a kid into a room.
I confess I’m a bit more paranoid since after checking the sex offenders list I found out there is one in our ward and he sat in front of me at church!
Comment by Clark Goble — September 26, 2005 @ 1:44 pm
Yeah, I don’t see primary going completely female (though it is is mostly anyway – ever see a male primary president?). Nor do I think it would be a good idea.
I’m actually pretty surprised, Clark, that there are so many in your area. Bellevue has very few (but that could be a median house price thing). So, if I may ask, how did you react?
Comment by J. Stapley — September 26, 2005 @ 1:55 pm
I’m still creeped out. My baby in Sunday School crawled back and was playing near his chair. My wife went to get him, recognized the face, and was a little upset. I’m still working through the issue. I don’t know how to react. The charges on the page unfortunately don’t clarify exactly what he did. It was short of actual abuse, but did involve a child.
Any idea on how I should react? I’m still pretty shocked from yesterday. Had it not been for this thread I’d never have looked.
As for why there are so many in my area, my zip code includes south Provo and thus areas that aren’t quite so middle class. (Not that offenders aren’t always middle class, but I suspect ex-convicts have a harder time being middle class) We also have the asylum in our zip code and all the offenders incarcerated there are listed. (Including creepily, a woman offender who apparently dressed up like a man to rape)
Comment by Clark Goble — September 26, 2005 @ 3:50 pm
Any idea on how I should react?
None at all…again, we are back to the hard questions. Thanks for the account though. I know what I’ll be doing before my first day in a new ward from here on out (sadly).
Comment by J. Stapley — September 26, 2005 @ 4:35 pm
Regarding the Primary Presidency, I believe it is a rule that the Presidency has to be female. So far as I know, it’s been that rule for quite some time. I remember back when I was still single it being discussed, simply because over 30 adult males sometimes feel a bit excluded because so often they aren’t given callings and are distrusted over issues like this. (i.e. how can you trust someone still single who is male?)
It’s a weird feeling, as I recall being angry at all the restrictions on males a few years ago. Yet now that I’m male and have a child, I’m worried about reacting too much the other way. It’s a weird feeling and makes me appreciate leaders and their failings. As you said, sometimes the answer are anything but clear. Further, no matter what you do, someone gets hurt.
Comment by Clark Goble — September 26, 2005 @ 5:52 pm
As for banning men from Primary, I think that makes a lot of sense. It is only very recently that men taught in Primary anyway. Back before the block schedule began, Primary was on Wednesday afternoons when most men were at work.
I suspect that men being called into primary and nursery in the first place was at least in part a reaction to women complaining that they were carrying too much of the child teaching load.
Since I returned from my mission I have had Primary teaching callings from time to time. Until very recently, I was always a solo teacher. The last time I taught primary was about five years ago and I admit that it crossed my mind that if a child accused me of wrongdoing I would have no way to defend myself. Keeping men out of primary would both protect children from the most likely offenders and protect men from false accusations.
Comment by Jason — September 26, 2005 @ 6:20 pm
Just catching up with this thread. Please understand that in writing about the change in nature possible in sex offenders, I in no way meant to minimize or even downplay the horror and injury to their direct and indirect victims. This is particularly horrible to LDS because our goal is to create safe homes in which to nurture the spirits we bring to earth. Once here, as Sister Okazaki observed, we teach them to sing “I’m so glad when Daddy comes home†(Healing From Sexual Abuse: Eight Messages for Survivors, Families, and Leaders “Disciples†[Deseret Book Co., 1998], p. 96) that includes climbing on his knee, hugging him tight, and giving him a big kiss. A different version of this talk is available on-line at the link given below.
.
I especially empathize with “name withheld†and having to work with his/her abused child’s injuries and fears. I don’t believe anyone has sufficient faith for immediate healing from, or forgiveness for, this tragedy. A few resources that may help are:
- BYU’s Oct., 2002 conference on healing from abuse, “Embracing Hope.†KBYU rebroadcasts presentations from that conference regularly. They can be read and heard at: http://byubroadcasting.org/embracinghope/ I especially like Sister Okazaki’s and Dr. Elaine Walton’s presentations
- “Courage to Heal†by Laura Davis and Ellen Bass, non-LDS writers
- “Creating Love†or other books by John Bradshaw, non-LDS
- “Out of the Shadows†by Patrick Carnes, also non-LDS, walks you through what is going on inside a sexual offender and how he can recover
- “Breaking the Cycle of Compulsive Behavior†by John & Martha Beck (yes, those Becks) gives a good LDS view of the trap of compulsion and an LDS approach to recovery
- Prayer and the atonement
.
I’ve been involved with cases of several sexual offenders, but like “name withheld,†I only am fully familiar with one. However, I know that healing and recovery is possible in this life. Victims need a lot of time to heal. So do offenders. Offenders can be broken of their evil desires, Alma-like, fairly quickly through a cataclysmic spiritual change of heart, love, and help from others but, like victims, they need a lot of time to work through their guilt and pain, learn how to live a healthy life, have healthy relationships, and face the consequences that come. I believe it cannot be done without help from others because this compulsion is a negative of love – it has to be replaced by real love. Repenting offenders also need guidance and modeling to learn new patterns of living connected to other people. They can continue to grow away from who they were as offenders, but must be careful of “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.†(Luke 9.)
.
22 Norm,
I understand your desire for an open confession and that would work if the purpose is to shame or punish. However, we belong to a Church that is bringing these people back to Christ and to healthy lives. This requires a lot of sensitive work by bishops and stake presidents with people who are fearful of what they were and what lies ahead. Open confession likely would bring at least the spirit of the calls for the death penalty that we’ve seen in this thread if not actual calls for it. Like the sacred work of the temple, working with repenting members requires a sacred atmosphere of love and support.
.
In my ward, a member of the high council, who was on the offender’s disciplinary council, was assigned to monitor quietly the offender during church. This way, the ward was protected and confidentiality was maintained.
.
25. Dr. Hart,
Several writers commented on the high recidivism rate for sexual offenders. I would like to know what it is for repenting LDS offenders. Can you share any information on this? I only have the anecdote of the one case I know well, which is going well.
.
As for No Confidentiality, bishops now (at least in my state) report sexual abuse to the police as a matter of obeying the law. I hope “Miracle of Forgiveness†is emended to reflect that because Pres. Kimball wrote that bishops will not break confidentiality.
.
26. Kat,
I would be very concerned about the flirty YM counselor. This is at best a sign of emotional immaturity that he would seek attention from them. At worst, it is much worse.
.
33. Clark, “Manaen, while Christ can change our natures, it appears that for the physical aspects of that change it must typically await the resurrection. It is hubris, I think, to believe otherwise.†After Christ changes our natures, there is no physical aspect yet to await. However, like any repentance, we must be vigilant that we don’t presume immunity to temptation and thus fall from grace. It is possible to have no more desire to do this evil and yet need to avoid temptations that would rekindle it.
.
14, 15, 31
I understand the outrage that leads to the call for the death penalty, but I’m concerned that writers here propose it for something for which God does not require it. The Church is for us to help each other “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ†(Eph 4:13). It is for healing wounded souls and our calling is to love our neighbor instead of seeking to seal his damnation by causing him to die in his sins. Alma recounts about the people rescued from the chains of hell, “And now I ask of you, my brethren, were they destroyed? Behold, I say unto you, Nay, they were not. (Alma 5:8) As the Riddler said in Batman Forever, “Don’t kill him! If you kill him, he won’t learn nothin’!â€
.
Instead of destroying trapped brothers and sisters, maybe we should pray as did Alma “O Lord, wilt thou grant unto us that we may have success in bringing them again unto thee in Christ. Behold, O Lord, their souls are precious, and many of them are our brethren; therefore, give unto us, O Lord, power and wisdom that we may bring these, our brethren, again unto thee.†(Alma 31:34-35). Jesus not only said that “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the *least* of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me†but also, “Inasmuch as ye did it *not* to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.†(Matt 25:40, 45)
.
I believe that when Jesus said, “Come unto me, *all* ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.†(Matt 11:28) that he meant the kind of restorative rest we seek on the day of rest, not the rest-in-peace-on-a-tombstone kind of rest.
.
37 & 38 Clark & J. Stapley
What to do with the sex offender in your ward? If he threatens your child, do whatever you need to do to protect your child. But if he’s sitting in Sunday School, he probably is trying to learn to walk the strait and narrow path and needs social support to do it. In any event, it’s unlikely that he would “act out†during the class. If you’re able, it would be more helpful shake his hand and encourage him in what he’s doing right. A repenting sexual offender is learning how to connect to people. These connections, that are so natural to most of us, are crucial to his recovery. It seems paradoxical to people who feel threatened, but extending real love to the person you worry may do evil lessens the likelihood that he’ll seek evil substitutes for love. This is most difficult in this case in which the potential evil is the most heinous. However, the pattern of supporting a repenting brother applies if you’re up for it. This, by the way, is true for raising kids or any other service we give.
.
Clark asked earlier what our Christian duty towards sex offenders is. Few of them, if any, enjoy their perversion. They are suffering and looking for a way out. Our duty, like with any one else, is “Wherefore, be faithful; stand in the office which I have appointed unto you; succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees. And if thou art faithful unto the end thou shalt have a crown of immortality, and eternal life in the mansions which I have prepared in the house of my Father.†(D&C 81:5-6) and to “willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort†(Msh 18:9). I believe this is not just for the innocent, or why is it good to visit those in prison (Matt 25:36)?
Comment by manaen — September 27, 2005 @ 3:07 am
A couple of thoughts on this topic.
Our building is a year old, or so. It has windows in the doors to the nursery.
I have been in one ward where an adult male (I believe he was in a position as assistant scoutmaster) engaged in some inappropriate behavior with the scouts while on a camping trip. I don’t know precisely what he did, that wasn’t made public. However, the bishop and SP called a meeting of all adults in our ward and told them what had occured. The man was excommunicated and he was required to attend another ward so that his presence would not be stressful to the boys he had injured. I would imagine that this information was all relayed to the ward where he was sent. So, there are very good responses out there to these sorts of situations.
I personally believe that people who sexually abuse children should have their records marked for life, even when they are excommunicated and then rebaptized, that at the very least the members of the ward council should be made aware of their status, and that someone in the ward should be made responsible for simply keeping a quiet eye on that person during all church meetings. I hope that, as some have stated, much of this is already going on.
When someone committs such a sin, part of the consequence is that, for the rest of their life, they must realize that the adults around them will treat them as a potential threat to their children, and properly so. Our children are too precious and the risk is too great. Part of repentence, for these offenders, I believe, is that they accept the fact that their actions have created this situation and that it should continue throughout their life. In some ways, this is a protection to them as well, because public disclosure of their past actions makes it harder for them to fall back into them, even if they have fully repented and genuinely feel that they have changed. The truth is that we are human and cannot know precisely what will happen in the future, what temptations an offender will be faced with, the level of their resolve, or the extent of their change of heart. And the risk of endangering our children is simply not worth it.
God forgives whom He will forgive, because He is the only one who really can. You keep reading that passage in D&C 64 and you will note that we are required, in order that we not offend God, to hold people responsible for their sins. Part of that responsibility, I very strongly feel, is that known offenders not be extended the same level of trust than they would be, absent that action.
Comment by Jesse — September 27, 2005 @ 9:06 am
41. CORRECTION: When I wrote “Offenders [...] like victims, [...] need a lot of time to work through their guilt and pain, learn how to live a healthy life, have healthy relationships, and face the consequences that come.” I meant that offenders are like victims in that they need time to heal. I did NOT mean that victims have guilt.
42. Jesse, Amen.
The church records of sexual abusers are marked for life. The mark is a code that instructs the bishop to call Church headquarters. They give him the needed information when he calls. This process gives the local leader needed information without risking gossip by partially-informed people that handle records.
Comment by manaen — September 27, 2005 @ 1:04 pm
Manaen: After Christ changes our natures, there is no physical aspect yet to await.
You are then conflating two issues. The point being that the complete sanctification you speak of only takes place at the resurrection. You are in effecting denying the effects of our fallen nature which includes the effects of our brain on our thinking. Yes Christ can change even our personality within our brain. No, he rarely does that in this life.
You can believe otherwise, but the evidence is overwhelming for the opposite conclusion. There is abundant evidence for this.
Certainly Christ can perform miracles. It is hubris to assume that just because we have prayed for forgiveness that he will remove all the effects of the fall in this life.
Comment by Clark Goble — September 27, 2005 @ 1:20 pm
Well said, Clark.
Comment by J. Stapley — September 27, 2005 @ 1:27 pm
Uh, Clark, I’m not talking about sanctification later, but about a change in our nature now. What I have to support it is the evidence of my own change, which overwhelms me every day.
I’m talking about “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.†(Ezk 36:26-27) I’m talking about the mighty change of heart that Alma asks whether we’ve #already# had (Al 5:14). I’m talking about putting on the new man created in righteousness and holiness that Paul enjoins in Eph 4:21-24. I’m talking about yielding to the Holy Ghost, putting of the natural man, and becoming a saint in nature through Christ’s atonement (Msh 3:19).
This isn’t the hubris of supposing a prayer for forgiveness will change us, but the fruit of wrestling before the Lord as Jacob/Israel and Enoch did. It is not supposed to be a rare event in this life, but one that each us is to obtain now.
There are different ministerings of the Holy Ghost. One is a testimony and another is this change in nature. Pres. Romney explained it, “A moving testimony vitalizes faith; that is, it induces repentance and obedience to the commandments. Conversion, on the other hand, is the fruit of, or the reward for, repentance and obedience. […] [Someone] may be assured of it when *by the power of the Holy Spirit his soul is healed.* When this occurs, he will recognize it by the way he feels, for he will feel as the people of Benjamin felt when they received remission of sins. The record says, ‘ . . . the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience. . . . ‘ (Mosiah 4:3.)†(GenCon 10/1963).
President Benson talked about this change now in our nature. Some of his remarks are:
“’No man,’ said President David O. McKay, ‘can sincerely resolve to apply to his daily life the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth without sensing a change in his own nature. The phrase ‘born again’ has a deeper significance than many people attach to it. This changed feeling may be indescribable, but it is real.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1962, p. 7.)
“Can human hearts be changed? Why, of course! It happens every day in the great missionary work of the Church. It is one of the most widespread of Christ’s modern miracles. If it hasn’t happened to you—it should.â€
“President McKay said that Christ called for “an entire revolution†of Nicodemus’s “inner man.†“His manner of thinking, feeling, and acting with reference to spiritual things would have to undergo a fundamental and permanent change.†(In Conference Report, Apr. 1960, p. 26.)â€
“The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.
“’Human nature can be changed, here and now,’ said President McKay, and then he quoted the following:
“’You can change human nature. No man who has felt in him the Spirit of Christ even for half a minute can deny this truth. …
“’You do change human nature, your own human nature, if you surrender it to Christ. Human nature has been changed in the past. Human nature must be changed on an enormous scale in the future, unless the world is to be drowned in its own blood. And only Christ can change it.’ (Beverly Nichols, in David O. McKay, Stepping Stones to an Abundant Life, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1971, p. 23.)
“Yes, Christ changes men, and changed men can change the world [now, not in the resurrection – manaen]. Men changed for Christ will be captained by Christ. Like Paul they will be asking, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?†(Acts 9:6.) Peter stated they will “follow his steps.†(1 Pet. 2:21.) John said they will “walk, even as he walked.†(1 Jn. 2:6.)
“Their will is swallowed up in his will. (See John 5:30.) They do always those things that please the Lord. (See John 8:29.) Not only would they die for the Lord, but, more important, they want to live for Him.â€
(“Born of God†Ensign, 7/1998, p. 2)
More-current information is available here.
This isn’t just coming to know the gospel is true and then trying to live it. This is a change in your nature so that you “lose the desire to do evil.†I apologize for my inability to convey this well. I had no understanding of it before it happened to me.
This is why I separate repenting LDS offenders from other non-LDS offenders that are not led to go through this change in nature. I hope this is more understandable to you now.
This conversion, beyond just a testimony, is available to everyone. Elder Christofferson explained the difference when he taught how to attain it (Ensigh, 5/2004, p. 11): “How can you become converted? How can you make the gospel of Jesus Christ not just an influence in your life but the controlling influence and, indeed, the very core of what you are?” Which is another way of saying “new man” or “changed nature.”
He explains how to become converted in his talk. One part of it that is particularly meaningful to me is: “Most of all, you should pray to be filled with the love of Christ. This love is given to those who are true followers of Jesus Christ, who ask for it with all the energy of their heart. This love is the fruit of the tree of life, and tasting it is a major part of your conversion because once you have felt your Savior’s love for you, even the smallest part, you will feel secure, and a love for Him and for your Heavenly Father will grow within you. In your heart you will want to do what these holy beings ask of you.” This security that he talks about is crucial to a repenting offender because it is lack of love, and fear of losing love, that drives his compulsion. The feeling of security in God’s love — which is “most joyous to the soul — that comes after conversion frees the offender to accept the Holy Ghost’s healing of his soul. With the resulting sense of well-being comes the desire to do God’s will out of love for him. These are some of the fruits of having your nature changed as I meant it.
I strongly believe that it’s better to help offenders, and everyone else, to find this healing than to heap more weight upon their burdens. This will further change our natures to be more Christlike, which will help us to achieve the oneness that he prayed for in Gethesemane.
Comment by manaen — September 27, 2005 @ 8:36 pm
.
Comment by manaen — September 28, 2005 @ 11:48 am
46
CORRECTION: The reference to Pres. Benson’s comments should read (“Born of God†Ensign, 7/1989, p. 2)
Comment by manaen — September 28, 2005 @ 1:01 pm
Stephen–do you have e-mail?
Manaen–There is a “comments” section. My bishop showed me where on the (computer) records. My understanding is that once someone is rebaptized after being ex’d, the records are clean again (“flag” gone). Also that a priesthood leader can remove the note if they feel the person has fully repented. Please correct me anyone who knows for sure the policy on this.
Also agree with whomever said that the unconvicted molesters are of greater concern.
Whoever said it didn’t go as far as “abuse” I’m curious what you mean. Is that like a newspaper report saying that where a woman has been attacked and fought off her attacker so was not raped even though her clothes were ripped off in the process that she was “unharmed” in the incident?
I agree with whoever said the unknown predators are of greater concern. Especially since pedophiles usually have scores if not over a hundred victims before they are caught. Legalities differ by law, and sexual abuse cases are hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt anyway because sexual abuse of children is unreasonable and hard to believe to begin with.
Given the statistics of abuse in our country, every Latter-day Saint could probably safely assume that there is at least one predator in their ward. I highly recommend Gavin deBecker’s book Protecting the Gift for parents who would like concrete information about how to reduce the odds of your child being abused, and what specific behaviors to be aware of and concerned about in others (ie how predators work). It’s the first child safety book that has left me more confident in my abilities as a parent to protect my kids rather than just scared by statistics & horror stories.
Comment by LisaB — September 28, 2005 @ 1:56 pm
Oh, and I wish the church’s abuse advice hotline was child welfare advice, not just legal advice. But our experience was that the latter was of greater emphasis and concern. And that really makes me angry.
Comment by LisaB — September 28, 2005 @ 1:58 pm
That was me who said it didn’t go as far as abuse and I was just referring to the charge listed on the government web page. Like you I’m not sure it is that informative.
Comment by Clark Goble — September 28, 2005 @ 4:05 pm
I have also heard that once someone is rebaptized they get a clean record.
I am currently one of plaintiffs in one of the Church’s 30 or so lawsuits. 2 bishops, a stake president, and LDS family services all knew about the abuse, but no one reported the abuse and in fact discouraged me from going to any professional. At the age of 13, I was scared to death by the first bishop I told and he essentially told me that if I told a professional, my family would go bankrupt and we would be homeless. So, I didn’t say anything, the abuse turned to daily sexual harassment and my step-sister and sister were his next victims. What I have found, and what my lawyer has found, as he has represented many victims, is the Church’s unwillingness to do anything serious about the problem. The keep finding ways to cover themselves and protect themselves, but they aren’t doing enough to prevent the coverup and ignoring that occurs when victims seek help from their bishop. I have seen the questions that are asked when a bishop calls the “help line.” The questions aren’t there to help the victim, they are there to protect the Church from any legal problems. My lawsuit isn’t about money, it is about change, and serious change.
Comment by anonymous — September 29, 2005 @ 3:20 am
I think there are way too many do-gooders feigning concern about child welfare. In my experience they far outnumber the pedophiles, and do a lot more harm. In this context I suspect interest probably stems more from latent voyeurism than any sense of compassion. That and an opportunity to exploit the neurotic fearful for financial gain. Perhaps the example from Seattle epitomizes this argument.
“Tracking the boogyman” is becoming a regular obsession in our society. How sad it is that those of you investing your time and energy in such futile pursuits will never find effective protection through such measures. Whatever the preparations you make, something will get through the walls and defensive tactics and protocols. The boogyman will always be sneaking up on you.
Be afraid.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — September 30, 2005 @ 9:24 pm
Huh. Could you explain? Are you saying that it’s inappropriate that I be worried that a convicted child sex offender is in my ward and my neighborhood?
Comment by Clark Goble — October 1, 2005 @ 9:11 pm
Clark,
Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying, particularly if you are obsessing irrationally about this particular matter and neglecting others that might be more immediate and vital.
Why are you afraid of this person? What has he done to you?
Maybe you’re tending to side with Redelfs rather abrupt verdict that we ought to just kill such “creeps” and be done with it.
Not that I really particularly care what happens to sex perverts. I just think they have enough problems without having us turn their punishment into a life sentence in the public pillory — or a self-imposed death penalty, which is a common outcome for such unhappy individuals.
The law already provides for dealing with criminals. I’m thinking that we are not justified in presuming to extend the criminal sentence in some way, even if it is motivated out of a desire to protect children.
It is fortunate for folks like your “creepy” ward member — and for me — that we as a membership are not entitled to pick and choose who can come into the church. We don’t have any policy for branding pariahs or “creeps”, because that would certainly be inappropriate, to say nothing of uncharitable and unChristlike. Such actions, if they were ever even appropriate, would rightly be the domain of the criminal justice system.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 1, 2005 @ 10:59 pm
I strongly disagree. My experience with sexual criminals are that they are very dangerous and not to be trusted. And also in my experience, they are very adept at putting on a front of being “changed” when they are anything but. Most are master manipulators.
If I had some reason to believe things were different I would. But you are saying that the *default* view is to assume everyone is a completely changed person which I find horribly naive.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 2, 2005 @ 7:35 pm
The default view is to assume nothing about someone you do not know. Anything more or less lacks a rational basis. You cannot correctly assume any connection with other experiences.
I find that people in general are quite often adept at putting on a front and manipulating others. This is not a special propensity of child molesters.
What was your impression of President Hinckley’s Sunday morning conference address? I wonder, do we really believe in forgiving people? I am doubting it.
Hinckley quoted a scriptural passage that says those who do not forgive others in their hearts incur greater sin than those they hold a grudge against. Imagine yourself more culpable than a child molester.
Perhaps I heard wrong. Maybe your particular inclination in this matter is justified. Or perhaps the scriptural injunction and President Hinckley’s counsel are just meaningless hyperbole.
I’d be interested to learn about how you deal with the apparent dissonance.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 2, 2005 @ 9:11 pm
But Jim, I do know something about him. I know he’s been charged and found guilty with sex crimes. Further I know that most sexual predators have mental difficulties. Thus my judgment.
The issue is the difference between forgiveness and judging righteously. I have no trouble forgiving. But as the old parable goes, “you knew my nature…”
Comment by Clark Goble — October 3, 2005 @ 12:18 am
56.
Clark, I agree that caution is important around sex offenders. I don’t know the recidivism percentage for repenting LDS offenders, but even a low percentage merits caution when the downside is this steep.
Having said that, I continue in my assertion that real change in nature is possible through the atonement, as is true in the one case with which I’m well familiar.
I’m interested in knowing your experience with offenders to which you referred.
Comment by manaen — October 3, 2005 @ 2:09 am
Clark:
I suppose it matters what you propose to do about it now.
Perhaps you should start a whispering rumor in the ward or in the neighborhood to let everyone know that he is “dangerous”?
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 3, 2005 @ 4:46 pm
Jim, might I guess that you think forgiveness entails that we don’t judge in any way what someone’s proclivities are?
I guess I’m really unable to figure out what your point is. You seem to be saying that people ought not be concerned about the acts of others and stick their head in the sand. Could you clarify? Are the actions of others ever appropriate in your mind for discerning how we act?
Comment by Clark Goble — October 3, 2005 @ 5:18 pm
LisaB #49–
You wrote: “My bishop showed me where on the (computer) records. My understanding is that once someone is rebaptized after being ex’d, the records are clean again (‘flag’ gone). Also that a priesthood leader can remove the note if they feel the person has fully repented. Please correct me anyone who knows for sure the policy on this.”
Since you asked, according to the CHI p. 129:
“In areas where the First Presidency has given authorization, an annotation may be placed on the record of a member whose conduct has threatened the well-being of other persons or of the Church. An annotation helps the bishop protect Church members and others from such individuals. When a bishop receives an annotated membership record, he should follow the instructions in the annotation.”
However what follows differs from your understanding: p. 106 indicates:
“Although membership records do not mention formal probation and do not mention disfellowshipment or excommunication after discipline has ended, they may include annotations until the First Presidency authorizes their removal.”
and then again on p. 129:
“In all cases, annotation of membership records is removed only with First Presidency approval upon request of the stake president.”
Hope this helps.
Comment by Jason Richards — October 3, 2005 @ 9:21 pm
[...] As a follow up to the earlier discussion here at the BT, I thought you might be interested in the Oprah episode that aired today. It is Oprah’s opinion that child molesters cannot be rehabilitated and that convicted pedophiles should be given a mandatory life sentence on the first conviction. See her pedophile page here. [...]
Pingback by Bloggernacle Times » Oprah hates pedophiles — October 4, 2005 @ 6:05 pm
So, what are these “areas” where the First Presidency has given authorization to have an annotation? Was Franklin Curtis’ records annotated? If so, how was Jeremiah Scott raped? If not, why not?
Comment by anon — October 6, 2005 @ 12:05 am
It’s not usually reported that Jeremiah Scott’s Bishop did counsel Sister Scott not to take Franklin Curtis into her home. Unfortunately, because of the then-in-effect policy, Franklin Curtis’s prior Bishop/Stake Presidency/High Council had to keep private confessions private or be subject to Church discipline. [That policy has since been adjusted (mid 90's), likely in response to the Scott's experience, to allow membership records to be annotated.]
When Sister Scott approached her Bishop, he counselled her not to take Franklin Curtis in, citing financial reasons. But, unfortunately, Sister Scott knew better than her Bishop. She was very charitable don’t you see. And besides, what would he know about lovingkindness.
So since room was tight in their home, Sister Scott had her 11 year old son Jeremiah Scott share a bed with 87 year old Franklin Curtis.
When the **** hit the fan, imagine how Sister Scott felt! Why wouldn’t she look for someone to blame for the tragic consequences of not following her Bishop’s counsel. After all his only explanation had been about financial concerns he didn’t prophesy that Franklin Curtis would abuse her son. There were no guardian angels to prevent this evil consequence of her good deed.
There were no guardian angels to protect me from my abusive baby-sitter while my parents were at the temple either. I was only 5 years old. But it seems that God causes his sun to rise on the just and the unjust.
In answer to your larger question, the ability to annotate a membership record, and the policies surrounding that, were developed in the mid 1990′s in response to horrible incidents like what happened to the Scott family. So they were not in place prior Jeremiah Scott’s ordeal.
Now let me ask a question: How many other churches have a record keeping system for tracking members/former members who are high-potential abusers? Can the Southern Baptists do that? Can the United Methodists? Can the Congregationalists? Can the Presbyterians? Do any of the track their members from state-to-state and country-to-country? So how would they know if a volunteer Sunday School teacher or Boy Scout Leader has a high-risk pattern? Only if they show up on the convicted sex-offender lists.
Is that any consolation? Not really. Even one child is too many.
Do you have a better solution? Please advance it. As it is, we only have family members baby-sit our children. Surviving sexual abuse has made us very cautious with our own children. But I’m afraid it won’t help, because no matter how well we try to protect our children, this is still a fallen world.
Comment by Jason Richards — October 7, 2005 @ 12:14 am
I finally remembered some comments by Pres. Hinckley, towards the end of his talk in the priesthood session of 4/2004 GenCon, about the Church’s purpose and position regarding child-abuse victims, offenders, and records:
——
Now I wish to mention another form of abuse that has been much publicized in the media. It is the sordid and evil abuse of children by adults, usually men. Such abuse is not new. There is evidence to indicate that it goes back through the ages. It is a most despicable and tragic and terrible thing. I regret to say that there has been some very limited expression of this monstrous evil among us. It is something that cannot be countenanced or tolerated. The Lord Himself said, “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt. 18:6).
That is very strong language from the Prince of Peace, the Son of God.
I quote from our Church Handbook of Instructions: “The Church’s position is that abuse cannot be tolerated in any form. Those who abuse . . . are subject to Church discipline. They should not be given Church callings and may not have a temple recommend. Even if a person who abused a child sexually or physically receives Church discipline and is later restored to full fellowship or readmitted by baptism, leaders should not call the person to any position working with children or youth unless the First Presidency authorizes removal of the annotation of the person’s membership record.
“In instances of abuse, the first responsibility of the Church is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse” (Book 1: Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics [1998], 157–58).
For a long period now we have worked on this problem. We have urged bishops, stake presidents, and others to reach out to victims, to comfort them, to strengthen them, to let them know that what happened was wrong, that the experience was not their fault, and that it need never happen again.
We have issued publications, established a telephone line where Church officers may receive counsel in handling cases, and offered professional help through LDS Family Services.
These acts are often criminal in their nature. They are punishable under the law. Professional counselors, including lawyers and social workers, are available on this help line to advise bishops and stake presidents concerning their obligations in these circumstances. Those in other nations should call their respective Area Presidents.
Now the work of the Church is a work of salvation. I want to emphasize that. It is a work of saving souls. We desire to help both the victim and the offender. Our hearts reach out to the victim, and we must act to assist him or her. Our hearts reach out to the offender, but we cannot tolerate the sin of which he may be guilty. Where there has been offense, there is a penalty. The process of the civil law will work its way. And the ecclesiastical process will work its way, often resulting in excommunication. This is both a delicate and a serious matter.
Nevertheless, we recognize, and must always recognize, that when the penalty has been paid and the demands of justice have been met, there will be a helpful and kindly hand reaching out to assist. There may be continuing restrictions, but there will also be kindness.
(Link to full text)
—–
It seems that if this is the Church’s position, it would be well for the Church’s members to make it theirs.
Comment by manaen — October 7, 2005 @ 7:27 pm
The avoids the question of what the punishment should be however, Manaen.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 7, 2005 @ 8:42 pm
67,
That’s right; it does.
I’m grateful for the focus instead on healing and kindness.
Comment by manaen — October 8, 2005 @ 3:55 am
Yet it seems the question of how to handle child molesters, especially given the evidence they can’t be rehabilitated, is key. Yet it is also what some do not want discussed.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 8, 2005 @ 10:51 pm
J. Stapley,
I am in the ward where the victims and abuser were in your referenced article. I have more details and would be happy to answer questions. (He commited suicide in jail by the way).
The church helped the families go to the police to report the crime. No abuse happened at church. He befriended the families of the victims. He did have an annotation on his record, even though he had been rebaptized. Everyone in the ward who had been there 12 years ago knew because the family had been open about his (incest) conviction (he had been abused as a child for years). However, people who moved in later didn’t know. (And those of you who know me know that my previous ward was disbanded and half of us joined this ward, so we did not know him). However, from what I can tell, all of his victims were in families that he knew for years. He did not have a calling in Scouts or in the youth or primary. However, he would offer to help in scouts.
It has been very difficult to deal with personally. There are additional articles which give details of abuse that is horrifying in duration, scope, and number of victims. As happy as I am that he is dead, I realize that for the victims, he is manipulating them from the grave, since he had threatened suicide if they told.
If anyone would like to add their prayers to mine for these young victims to be able to deal with the lifelong effects of their abuse. I can’t imagine anything harder in life to deal with than what happened to them.
Clark, I can identify with your shock and fear. I didn’t find out about our child molester until after he was dead, but it still scared me that my children might have been in danger.I would try to research more details about the offender. I would also speak personally with the bishop, to make sure he was aware, and my personal friends, my children’s teachers, the Primary president and YW president. I would give as many details that I was sure about, and then request “I don’t feel he is a safe person to be near my child without me present.” He does have the right to be in church, but parents and teachers should take precautions. He has a right to be baptized. The church can’t know if members are GOING to commit terrible sin and ex them beforehand, or not let them be baptized. Please be compassionate, but be smart about safety.
Comment by JKS — October 8, 2005 @ 11:56 pm
LisaB,
I’ve never called the child abuse hotline so I didn’t know what kind of advice they give–I didn’t know about it until the ward meeting this summer. Its good to know that they do have legal advice to help.
You should know that LDS Family Services has counselors. I called them once for advice with a neighborhood situation, and they told me their “abuse specialist” would call me back. She did, and spent time on the phone with me which I appreciated. I’ve never had occasion to work with LDS services before, so I don’t know if that was typical or not.
Comment by JKS — October 9, 2005 @ 12:26 am
Wow, JKS. Thanks for your thoughtful and, frankly, horrifying comment. I’m rather speachless.
Comment by J. Stapley — October 9, 2005 @ 12:28 am
Here’s a discussion of a great utopian plan for dealing with fears about sex offenders. It effectively transforms their criminal punishment into a life sentence, which is, I suppose, a practical solution if you lack the will to impose the death penalty.
Why shouldn’t our society fragment itself into separately segregated groups? Separate enclaves for sex offenders is a fine idea. I think we ought to segregate people for all kinds of reasons.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 11, 2005 @ 10:36 am
69.
I don’t believe reliable evidence exists to say rehabilitation isn’t possible. My own experience and that of the rehabilitated and reunited LDS families of former sex offenders refutes it.
To say such a thing is to ignore the current evidence and to turn away from LDS teachings as
by Pres. Benson. This conforms with the accounts of BoM people that had no more desire to do evil (Al 19:33). The Guide to the Scriptures defines Born Again, Born of God as
We are not governed by brain chemicals, but — through God’s grace — can be free to act and not be acted upon.
73. JIm, this draconian proposal is interesting, it even allows that nearly half of offenders in the general population do not re-offend. If we were to implement this proposal, would we also set up exclaves for murderers, kidnappers, politicians, arsonists, drug dealers, white-collar criminals, pornographers, drunk drivers, speeders, spammers, indolents, and everyone else who commits offense against others. Who would be left outside? My own theory is that earth is such an exclave, in which God contains all of us until we either learn to help each other overcome our faults or prove that we won’t do so.
The proposal you cited certainly runs counter to Pres. Hinckley’s remarks posted in #66. That proposal not only would diminish the likelihood of the healing he refers to in
but it also would lessen the contributions others are receiving now from rehabilitated offenders who contribute in their families and society.
Comment by manaen — October 11, 2005 @ 1:54 pm
Thus the ability to cure things like Schizophrenia by sheer will power alone…
Comment by Clark Goble — October 11, 2005 @ 4:23 pm
Yes, and since we have determined that sex offenders repeat their crimes often enough to pose a significant risk, we must be justified in resorting to “scarlet letter” methods to protect others from their “predation”.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 11, 2005 @ 8:40 pm
I think the evidence is that all sex offenders don’t. Pedophiles though ought, I think, be treated differently. I don’t think a scarlet letter is appropriate. But I think given many events that a permanent GPS tracker to ensure they are fulfilling their probation is entirely in order. And severe punishment if they break it. I definitely think something is wrong when drug users who typically affect few people can get longer sentences than child abusers.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 12, 2005 @ 12:13 am
I definitely think something is wrong when drug users who typically affect few people can get longer sentences than child abusers.
Amen.
Comment by J. Stapley — October 12, 2005 @ 12:49 am
77
Could you explain why? Do you believe that there is a significant difference between recidivism of child abusers and other sexual offenders?
FWIW, I don’t use the term “pedophile” because it’s components mean “child lover” and what we’re talking about is in no way love.
Comment by manaen — October 12, 2005 @ 12:11 pm
Yes, I do think there is a significant psychological difference between child abusers and many other sexual offenders. (Although I think serial rapists should be treated similarly) My understanding is that incest pedophiles have a relatively lower recidivism but that other pedophiles – the predators – have very high recidivism. Indeed I believe they have the highest recidivism of any criminal.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 12, 2005 @ 4:13 pm
The statistic I found said about 2/3 of child molesters repeat. This is less than many other crimes, unlike I said. I gather for many crimes the figure is 80%. However given the danger inherent in a repeat of the crime, I think changing punishments is definitely in order.
What I hear some advocating sounds eerily similar to what the Catholic Church bought into which led to most of the problems they’ve faced. You simply can’t treat child abuse as akin to someone struggling with but apparently conquering say pornography.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 12, 2005 @ 5:02 pm
Clark, the aggregate numbers for “recidivism” for sex offenders tend to track something very different from what you seem to be reading into them.
I have seen that convicted sex offenders are subjected to very strict parole conditions. Any slight infraction of the “rules” is regarded as a repeat crime.
In the case of your “scarlet letter” program where the known offenders are restricted as to where they can go, enforced by some kind of monitoring, it would be up to the regulating authorities whether an infraction of the boundary rules constituted “recidivism”. Offenders might be sent back to jail for wandering into the wrong locale, though their violation had nothing to do with any kind of repeat sex offense.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 12, 2005 @ 10:29 pm
I believe the recidivism statistics in question were for repeat sexual crimes and not merely breaking parole. If you’re aware of different statistics, I’d be interested. I’ve read some papers suggesting that surveys included too many high risk people and that actual recidivism is lower at only 30%.
By using the term scarlet letter I assume you think it inappropriate to try and keep abusers away from say schools and other such locals?
Comment by Clark Goble — October 13, 2005 @ 12:00 am
Obviously, the data available is principally generated by people who have a strong vested interest in maintaining an artificially high “recidivism”, for one reason or other. Is there a more objective source for such information? Not that I know of. We have to accept the assurance of the keepers that the animals are restless, and therefore the keeper’s job is serves a vital purpose.
A typical arrangement for government bureaucracies that seek first and foremost to balloon their budgets and inflate their own self-importance, and I am surprised that you did not recognize this. What better way to insure the flow of funds than to create an unsolvable permanent crises. A more legitimate cause for associated organizations might be possible if the first premise of government corrections people was not the mantra “Pedophiles cannot be effectively treated or trusted, therefore criminal punitive measures must needs be imposed and maintained permanently”.
The only other legitimate and rational approach to this problem, as far as I can judge, is a mandatory death penalty.
“Scarlet letter” is reference to a cultural device used to reinforce social stigma. One primary purpose is to create or accentuate intolerance for unpopular social habits. Again, I am surprised that you fail to recognize this obvious point. In any case I am not voting on what is “appropriate”. That is defined by current civil and criminal law. As per President Hinckley’s remarks on this matter. If you believe such provisions as they now stand are inadequate, perhaps you should lobby for changes in the law. Instead, what I heard seems to suggest a hint of vigilantism.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 14, 2005 @ 7:03 am
A few comments, and then I’ll probably drop out of this because I tend to think that the view you espouse is accepted by almost no one.
1. Child abuse is not simply “unpopular social habits.” Merely saying that in connection to this discussion amazes me. (Actually worse than that)
2. Suggesting that the government is merely creating a crisis where there isn’t one is amazing. I’ve known far too many abused people to believe that in the least. To suggest that it’s all a government conspiracy is amazing.
3. I do lobby for changes to the law.
4. What vigilantism have I suggested beyond claiming the right to make informed decisions?
Comment by Clark Goble — October 14, 2005 @ 12:15 pm
Oh, I suppose it is an amazing thought.
Just imagine hypothetical Dr. Clark, employed by the Colorado Department of Corrections. The state pays him a six-figure salary. He has a secretary to fetch him coffee and answer the phone. He has a cushy office and drives a state supplied SUV. Dr. Clark seems quite prosperous, doesn’t he?. He is a consultant and therapist in the state sex offender “treatment” program.
Dr. Clark wins a $500000 grant to conduct a study of sex criminal recidivism.
What do you suppose his objective findings will be? Will he be inclined to report that the sex offenders are all quickly and efficiently treated, or would he tend to believe that his program needs a much bigger budget because sex offenders can never be “cured”?
Imagine a program for sex offender “treatment” run by the state. The program employs hundreds of therapists and investigators and runs a multi-million dollar budget. Isn’t it amazing to speculate whether the directors of the program feel any incentive to scale down their program budget because their “treatment” program was such as success that they have no more people to treat.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 14, 2005 @ 6:41 pm
As an aside, I did some browsing on Utah’s online sex offendor registry and noted more than a few sex offendors with g’s hanging out of T-shirts. Members should not assume that someone else is looking after their chirdren at church and that those in leadership postions are mercilessly screening out past offenders.
Comment by Darren — October 14, 2005 @ 11:18 pm
Once again, simply assuming conspiracy theories won’t convince many, especially since most people would say that having sexual attraction to children is unnatural enough to be characterized as mental illness. And the evidence is overwhelming that mental illness repeats itself. Thus the burden of proof is on those arguing against this. If, given this burden, one can at best point to conspiracy theories it entails that there is no evidence for their side.
Darren, part of this discussion started when I discovered a member on the offenders list in my ward.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 15, 2005 @ 1:45 pm
Clark,
I guess the question is if you informed other members of the ward if you thought this member was a risk to children? In theory, this should not be a tough call.
Comment by Darren — October 15, 2005 @ 2:40 pm
No conspiracy is necessary in the scenario I sketched. Simple bigotry as a consensus among the majority of those constructing the public information database would suffice. Of course, the majority of them, like you, believe apriori and without rational basis that sex offenders can never change their ways. Therefore such reporting is entirely accurate and justified, within that context. In fact, once you are hermitically sealed against arguments to the contrary, it become the moral imperative to wage war against known sex offenders. We “know” of a surety that they will continue their predations without our “scarlet letter” interventions.
This bias perpetuates itself in public opinion, particularly through channels like Oprah — not the most objective of sources. If there is any conspiracy it is with parties like this who build a reputation on promoting such a cause celebre. They capitalize on the puling public eagerness to slurp up mindless drivel and scurrilous tabloid sleaze. Do you think Oprah loses money when your blog promotes her enterprises? Do you honestly imagine she loses any sleep over the popular causes she promotes?
I suppose there is a far different aspect to this issue if you assume that sexual deviance stems from mental illness. But unfortunately that isn’t a very popular argument these days. There are ever fewer mental health practicioners who are willing to overlay secular and moral values, especially in terms of human sexuality. Deviance, in secular tems, just represents the trailing ends of the distribution curve. There’s nothing “wrong” about it, per se. It’s just a less typical form of self-expression.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 16, 2005 @ 2:46 pm
Think the state is helping protect your kids?
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 17, 2005 @ 4:54 am
I really couldn’t care much less about the welfare of sex offenders, so a lot of this arguing has been pretty much beside the real point. But it bothers me to see ideas promoted that effectively marginalize and make it so easy and convenient to discard others.
Clark, as you advocate scarlet lettering, are you ever thinking of the possibility that you might be in a similar position some day? Maybe it is farfetched, but I know of more than a few who would say that all men are sexual predators by nature, and their recidivism rate is phenomenally high. Why don’t you volunteer to wear a GPS monitor yourself? Might set a new trend in fashion jewelry.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 17, 2005 @ 12:52 pm
Once again you are consistently avoiding the burden of proof. Clearly child offenders are in a different class of acts than regular acts. You are intentionally arguing around the fundamental issue.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 17, 2005 @ 12:55 pm
Clark, I don’t believe you really care about “proof”, so I’m just sharing my own thoughts, which is proof enough that I’m thinking them.
I’m not altogether sure why I should spend my time looking for proof of things I have witnessed myself. Just to feel happy about my own compos mentis?
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 17, 2005 @ 4:27 pm
By proof I don’t mean an absolute proof. Just evidence. Right now the main evidence is on the other side and you’ve not offered much convincing against it beyond skepticism.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 17, 2005 @ 5:32 pm
Have you read a title something like “Natural History of Rape”, some professor or other from Univ of Colorado. Or another disgusting book that discusses this topic, I think it is “Exuberant Biology” written by an unapologetic homosexual apologist that carries the parallel between monkey and human behavior a bit too far. Might want to wear personal protective equipment if you pick them up, and prepare yourself with a barf bag.
These contemporary works attempt to explore the roots of dysfunctional sexual behavior in some innovative ways. Many other studies or writings that I’ve wasted my time on simply parrot the same things people have always said. We already know they’re wrong because science has failed so miserably in helping us understand sexual problems. After all, if nothing else, the scientist ought to be pragmatic.
I still think you worry needlessly. Attitudes about sexual behavior are changing rapidly. It may well be a limited future for people whose sex life is in accordance with traditional moral values. Clearly we’re in the minority already. Perhaps our society will soon come to embrace pedophila, just as some now do with other sexual perversions. I’m sure you know the idea is not without popular advocacy.
Skepticism is what I am. It cleanses my dusty soul with clean white light. I am not firmly convinced of very much, except perhaps the fact that you don’t know any good answers either.
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 17, 2005 @ 7:45 pm
I didn’t read all the posts or read carefully, so I may be out of context here.
I’m troubled by the lynch mob mentality associated with sexual abuse, although as a survivor and the sister of survivors, I am also ambivalent.
I think we as a society, could be escalating our sins when we decide to blanket condemn so-called predators. Some, as others have said, are merely boys who sleep with girls who appear to be their age. Here in Utah, they don’t explain the charges, so it’s hard to figure out who is a child molester and who just picked the wrong girl.
They look so scared and I think of them going into prison and being gang raped and/or killed.
I know of another situation where a young boy molested several girls in our neighborhood as an adolescent. He is now married, and I believe, no longer abuses. He should pay a price for what he did, but to label him as a sex offender could be the wrong thing.
Very difficult situations. I would kill anybody who hurt my child, though.
I think the law should be :
1. the first time go to jail, do your time
2. The second time, a full frontal lobotomy. Problem solved. We don’t have to pay for their jail time, they don’t suffer, everybody wins.
Comment by annegb — October 18, 2005 @ 9:54 am
In my opinion child rape is Soul Murder! I think that it is worse then murder of a child. My daughter was murdered and I know that she is in Heaven! My niece was raped by her father, (my brother) sometimes 4 times a day, for more then a year. She says life is Hell for her. I know that it will be like Hell for her many times in her life.
I had strong suspicions and I shared them with her Mother. Finally a year later my niece reported everything that my brother had done to her the police I gave her full support. I helped the prosecuting attorney with some additional information that helped the case.
My Mother will not forgive me for this. She says that we support Family no matter what! I have been trying to find in scriptures or any Church literature that can back me up on that what I did is right. Although I know what I did was right, but my Mother does not. My husband told her the other day that he did everything in his power to help the DA. One would think the way Mother acted like we murdered her son. My brother sits there in Prison and even though he plead guilty now he says he did not do it and makes up lies spinning stories about how his Ex and I cooked this all up etc. etc. (Just to making it short) cause his stories are long and so evil.
I had such a strong feeling that he also sexually abused another child. This is all so, very, very sad!
Comment by Nadia — October 28, 2005 @ 4:49 pm
That is very sad, Nadia. I am sorry and you did the right thing.
Comment by J. Stapley — October 28, 2005 @ 5:11 pm
The idea of supporting family, no matter what seems difficult to accept. We love them. But we don’t or shouldn’t support people in sin.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 28, 2005 @ 8:31 pm
100
Clark, re “The idea of supporting family, no matter what seems difficult to accept. We love them. But we don’t or shouldn’t support people in sin.” We’ve disagreed on many points in these discussions but we are in complete agreement on about this. It is what happened in my experience with repentance and my mighty change of heart.
98
Nadia (& Clark) about whether you should report in-family abuse — Yes!
Maybe we could take the Church as an example for our actions: bishops report child abusers confessions to the police, although this may be a matter of law.
President Hinckley explained the Church’s approach in the 4/2002 Gen’l Priesthood mtg:
“In instances of abuse, the first responsibility of the Church is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse” (Book 1: Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics [1998], 157–58).
“Now the work of the Church is a work of salvation. I want to emphasize that. It is a work of saving souls. We desire to help both the victim and the offender. Our hearts reach out to the victim, and we must act to assist him or her. Our hearts reach out to the offender, but we cannot tolerate the sin of which he may be guilty. Where there has been offense, there is a penalty. The process of the civil law will work its way. And the ecclesiastical process will work its way, often resulting in excommunication. This is both a delicate and a serious matter.
“Nevertheless, we recognize, and must always recognize, that when the penalty has been paid and the demands of justice have been met, there will be a helpful and kindly hand reaching out to assist. There may be continuing restrictions, but there will also be kindness.”
Note the separation Pres. Hinckley describes between the Church’s work of saving sinners and the legal penalties for their actions. Again, as Clark said, love them and help them heal but don’t support them in their sins or seek to hide them. Psychologists call that enabling. Judges call it being an accomplice.
Comment by manaen — October 29, 2005 @ 3:19 am
101
I meant to add that there is a world of difference between the person who confesses and asks for help and the person who persists in sin and denies it when confronted.
Comment by manaen — October 29, 2005 @ 3:29 am
An LDS leader of a Sexual Assualt Detail in the LA PD has a balanced article in Meridian Magazine, “Sexual Predators – Serpents Among Us?” Paul Bishop, the author, is a 28-year veteran.
Comment by manaen — November 1, 2005 @ 12:13 am
Hi~very good comments from most of you.
I absolutely agree with the following comments:
“There is so much sexual deviance and perversion going on in our society in recent decades that even good people are becoming inured to it and accepting the unacceptable. We are losing our sense of outrage at behavior that is totally outrageous. ”
Comment by John W. Redelfs — September 23, 2005 @ 12:08 am
Having been a radio journalist for 20 years, and now working with civic and other organizations to fight child sex abuse and child abuse in general, I think 0 tolerance is the definate answer.
I have known people in the Church who have been sexually abused and I even know some men who are convicted abusers. Some of these men held positions such as the following: Tab Organist, Church Public Affairs Radio Director, Bishop, SP…..You know the stories I’m sure.
These men, most of whom I know and have worked with in some professional context over the years, are in excellent Church and state programs to deal with their compulsions and addictions. Some who have advanced in their “rehabilitation efforts” will tell you THEY do not trust themselves with children of young people.
One man, is rebaptized in the ward where the victim’s family and he and his wife reside.
It is a terrible indication of the latter-days we live in. The Brethren speak almost constantly about same-sex attraction,(homosexuality, but not “acting out”) pornography, child abuse, spouse abuse, and of course there are numerous resources for child sex abuse.
The Leaders are trying desperately to protect the women and children of the Church.
I liked Dr. Hart’s comments and suggestions. I would add that education and awareness, just like we educated our children against drug abuse, is the key. It must start in the home. Then go to all the Public Schools and Church. Firesides, meetings, whatever it takes. Certainly training parents like the Bishope and Stake Pres. are trained is an excellant idea.
Some of these men, in my opinion, should remain ex-communicated. I don’t know frankly what the answer is to what degree of repentance warrents these men being able to hold any calling etc.
Our twin girls are 12 years old. We have had numerous talks with them, not to frighten, but to inform and communicate. They have told us about “this neighbor” or that “teacher” etc. trying to get them to come over etc. They knew to not go with these people or to say “we need to go now.” and turn away and leave. Another person tried to seperate them by taking one to the store and the girls have a policy, like the missionaries:) to always stay together in the presence of adults. (or at least be in the same room with any adult male, together)
Well, thanks again for the discussion, it is very enlightning!
Kittywaymo
Comment by Kittywaymo — November 20, 2005 @ 5:51 pm
You’ll have to forgive me… I’m new here, but in perusing the posts on this blog, several thoughts spring to mind.
First of all, there seems to be a definite lynch mob mentality here… which is unfortunate. With few exceptions, most of you seem to lump all offenders into one category… “permanently damned.” Suggestions have ranged from the death penalty to full frontal lobotomies. Unfortunately, this shouts far more loudly about our failure to understand the power of the atonement of the Savior than it offers anything remotely intelligent, much less helpful, about the issue.
While repeat multiple offenders, charged and convicted, ought to be dealt with severely, what about a young man, struggling with profound depressions, fondles his 5-year-old daughter… once… and promptly confesses and seeks help? I know of just such an individual.
He was excommuncated for this isolated incident, even though he voluntarily went to DFS and confessed to them, who decided not to file charges, because of the minor nature of the offiense. He was never charged, and never convicted of any sex crime. He voluntarily spent 6 years in therapy, during which he learned from his mother that he himself had been sexually abused when approx. the same age as his daughter.
The individual recovered fully. No repeat offenses, and he successfully raised 15 children without any recurrance. Now, 25 years later, he seeks to have the annotation removed from his records. Should he?
I think so.
While we’re all clamoring to play God and exact the last pound of flesh, I think we would do well to remember mercy towards those who have committed minor offenses, and have proven themselves over the decades that follow. There ARE differing degrees of offenses. Not all offenders are pedophiles. Not all offenders are worthy of death. Or banishment for life.
Comment by Incognitii — December 13, 2005 @ 1:55 pm
Having said that, I continue in my assertion that real change in nature is possible through the atonement, as is true in the one case with which I’m well familiar.
IF that is true, then let God reward the change on the other side of the veil. But for here, we have to be careful with our sweet children, and I am not willing to bet my children’s virtue on an imperfect perception of change on the altar of Christ’s atonement.
Comment by Jordan Fowles — March 9, 2006 @ 9:47 pm
i’m surprised there’s been no mention of “false memory” yet. nobody in the church should have ever propagated this pseudo-science. leave that to scum like nambla.
Comment by alan inoue — June 12, 2006 @ 4:53 am