Is it a good policy that men should only teach in tandem with another man or their wife when called to Primary? Or does this policy just discourage Primary Presidents from calling male Primary workers? Is the church truly worried about male pedophilia/child protection, or is this a litigation prevention tactic in light of the Catholic Church’s problems? Is this policy an extension of the caution to never be alone with members of the opposite sex? Are men rabid sex-monkeys incapable of controlling their urges, even in a church setting? Is this the Mormon equivalent of the 1% doctrine? (If there is even a 1% chance that a man will not be able to contain his urges, we must treat it as a certainty that he will act on those urges in church).
On the flip side, why is it that a man must be present when there is an RS meeting in the church? I have heard this is so, although in practice, I’m not sure I’ve ever been aware of it. Perhaps the wards I’ve been in don’t take the requirement seriously, or the Priesthood leaders are just really good at lurking. Since it’s not a general requirement that women individually have one-on-one male escorting, why was this guideline added? Is it to protect the women from terrorists? To make sure they aren’t plotting the overthrow of the bishopric? To prevent lesbian orgies?
Lastly, why is it OK for a woman (even a very young woman) to be alone with a member of the bishopric behind closed doors with no window, but not alone with a co-teacher of a class who is not her spouse in a room that does have a window and several children?
These are some oddly specific rules that have become very tangled over time (and I do remember a time when most of these rules didn’t exist). Clearly these changes were made for a reason, but as with most policy changes, these things were just handed to leaders with no official explanation given to those of us who work in and run these organizations, leaving room for speculation. Consider:
- Primary. OK for women to teach children alone (only 15% of pedophiles are women, and none of the Catholic priests who molested children were women – perhaps because there are no female Catholic priests). OK for men to team-teach children, with another man present or their own spouse. Not OK for men to be alone with a non-spouse female in a room teaching children, nor for a man to teach children alone. Implication: Men can’t be trusted to be alone in a church classroom with children. Men can’t be trusted to be alone with any woman other than their spouse.
- Missionary dinners. OK for missionaries of either sex to eat dinner with the family, provided both husband and wife are in attendance. Not OK for elders to eat dinner at the home of a single mother. Implication: Here’s to you, Mrs. Robinson! Not OK for sisters to teach a single man. Implication: a swinging party will erupt spontaneously over the First Vision. On this second one, a district leader actually accused me of this very thing after he saw a single man we had given a Book of Mormon to drop us off at the church. Like giving the guy a BOM was our pickup line. Moron.
- Youth Sunday School, Gospel Doctrine & Gospel Essentials. Anything goes.
- Relief Society Meetings (during the week). A Priesthood holder must be present. Implication: Women need to be monitored by a male authority.
- Girls Camp. A Priesthood holder must be present. Actually, I do remember this was true when I was in YW, that the men should show up on the last day, and frankly, it seemed a little creepy to my 15 year old self, like someone’s dad hanging around a little too much at a sleepover. Implication: Even 4 or more female leaders of Young Women are not trusted with the Young Women unless there is a man present.
- Youth Interviews. Members of the bishopric can interview youth of either sex alone, one on one in an office with a closed door, including asking chastity-related questions to young teenage girls and boys. Implication: Male leaders are above suspicion and can be trusted in situations everyone else is cautioned to avoid.
Is duplicating callings in order to include men in Primary necessary? This is fine in wards that are very large where there never seem to be enough callings to go around and silly callings are invented to keep people busy, but it probably means smaller wards will never have male Primary workers, giving an undue burden to the sisters to man (no pun intended) this large organization. One suggestion I would make to solve this is to collapse the Elders’ Quorum and High Priest Group into one organization (as the Relief Society is one organization for all women age 18-grave) thus eliminating the duplicate administration required to staff two solely male organizations.
So, why have these rules come about over time? Is it because we don’t trust people (and by “people,” I mean men) to control their lustful or sick urges? Is it to avoid law suits or bad PR? Or to avoid contention between people in wards along the lines of reality TV (e.g. “I saaaaw you lookin’ at ma man!”, “O no you diduhn!,” followed by shrieking and hair pulling)? Is it necessary? Is it better than the alternative?
I have mostly been in wards where these guidelines were routinely ignored out of either necessity or maybe people just didn’t realize the rules existed, but there are some wards that conform to these requirements. What do you think? Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Based on what is happening with female teachers and male students, perhaps no one should be allowed to be alone with a child, including bishops. A solution to that would be to having an open door when interviewing a child or having a parent present.
Another big part is to protect men from false allegations. A friend of mine was in the bishopric in a ward in Northern California. The other counselor was taking a babysitter home and was accused by the teen of inappropriate behavior. He denied it and swore up and down he did not do what the girl accused him of doing. It destroyed him. If true, he deserved it. If false, a good man lost everything. If he would have had someone in the car with him, life would be very different fir everyone.
What Will said.
I always leave the door open a crack when teaching primary children, even though I am a woman. It doesn’t hurt.
I am a male primary teacher in the ward I live in, and I greatly appreciate the fact that I’m allowed to teach without another supervising adult. Our ward has roughly 100 active adults, and about 40 active primary-aged children, so demand for teachers is high. I myself am a professional teacher (if I can refrain from molesting children at work, surely I can in church as well), which may contribute to the decision to let me teach solo, but there are two other men in primary of other professions who teach their classes by themselves as well.
As a teacher, I enjoy preparing and expanding my lessons beyond the material printed in the manual. Seriously, the exercises and questions printed in my manual for 11- and 12-year-olds may be appropriate for children half their age, but the students I teach are ready to truly engage with the scriptures and gospel, and not merely be entertained by mythical stories.
As a result, our class is often not what you might expect from a typical Primary class. We routinely discuss pretty complex issues, such as developing personal codes of ethics, a personal relationship with the Savior, and critically thinking about and questioning/determining the value of what the students learn about in church and elsewhere. My students are aware of a few of the difficult historical issues of the Church, and they’re learning to honestly put things together for themselves. I encourage/require the children to continue these discussions with their parents at home and we spend time each week reviewing this “homework.” Given the fact that my students include children of the bishop, a high councilor, and the stake institute director, and that I haven’t heard received any negative feedback, I think my class is going well.
On the other hand, I’m sure that in some wards, leadership may not want teachers going outside the published curriculum. This may be another reason other wards enforce the teach-in-tandem rule. From a comparison of my experiences in Elders’ Quorum with my wife’s experiences in Relief Society, it seems that male teachers are more likely to depart from core curriculum doctrines and engage in speculative theology than are women.
The Primary thing is a lawyer-driven policy that is, unfortunately, necessary. However, when I was asked to substitute once, I used my 24-year old son with Down’s syndrome as my “team teacher” and nobody batted an eye.
collapse the Elders’ Quorum and High Priest Group into one organization
This should happen in any case. The Stake High Priests Quorum should consist of the Stake Presidency, the high council, the various bishoprics (not including clerks or executive secretaries), and the patriarch. Men not serving in one of those positions would fall under the jurisdiction of the Elder’s Quorum.
“To make sure they aren’t plotting the overthrow of the bishopric? To prevent lesbian orgies?”
By the way, LOL on that one.
I think most of these rules are useless, but it seems like the Primary ones would be easiest to address. Couldn’t we start putting windows in the doors of Primary classrooms, instead of having awkward double-standard policies about teacher chaperones?
I was asked once to sit in a primary class with another male teacher and as the class was about to start one 10 year old turned to me and asked what I was doing there. I was tempted to say that I was there to be sure Bro Jones didn’t molest them but didn’t and made up something. It is a bit disconcerting to know that becuase of my gender I’m seen by the church as a potential “rabid sex monkey” but on the other hand it could explain my multiple callings as a clerk. Follow the legal department, they’ll show the way.
When my parents served as nursery leaders I found it creepy/weird that my mom couldn’t so much as go to the bathroom without calling in the other couple to watch dad least they bare the wrath of the Nursery President.
Miri is right, just start putting in windows. At the very least it might ensure everyone makes it to Primary on time 😉
I always assumed the two-men in Primary was an effort to mimick the two-deep requirement in Boy Scouts. (That was the rationale used in one ward in my stake before it became church policy.)
I’ve never heard that a man must be in the building for a weekday RS meeting, though honestly, our stake center is so busy, it’s hard to imagine a time where there isn’t some bishopric member there.
Windows in doors: Capital suggestion.
We now have windows in all the classroom in our chapel. But I think we need a hidden microphone and speaker on the outside of each room to insure that correct doctrine is being taught and that the Sisters are not indoctrinating the girls on Satanic Feminist ideologies. That would apply to YW as well. 😉
Better than windows in the doors would be a couple of cameras in each room mounted on the ceiling. They would be monitored in the clerk’s office by the Ward Surveillance Specialist.
I wonder why anonymous feels the need to stray from the curriculum? Whether he is right about whether the students are ready for more depth is besides the point. The Church has established the curriculum to put everybody on par, and even the presiding leadership, who I assume anonymous sustains as Prophets/Seers/Revelators, have requested that sunday school teachers stick to the manuals. How does anonymous teach the importance of the Priesthood, the restoration, following the Prophet, etc; while operating under an exception to the rule?
Not to misunderstand, I don’t believe in the authority of Church leaders, so I don’t live by their counsel necessarilly…but…I don’t teach Sunday School advocating trust in Church leaders either.
More seriously, for some reason bishoprics across America have been calling me to do cub scouts for most of the last twenty years. The ever mounting paranoia has taken away a lot of the fun and joy of the job. The last time I was asked to serve I felt like I was being required to put on a signboard reading “POTENTIAL MOLESTER! WATCH OUT!”
#12 – “We have also extended a calling to Bro. __________ to serve as the Ward Perp Monitoring Specialist. All those who would like to sustain him in this calling please manifest it by making the sign. All who oppose are invited to submit to a criminal background check”.
My dad used to tell me that had a bishop in England whose father was trampled to death by a mob that broke into an LDS meetinghouse while weekly a Relief Society meeting was going on (before the change to block meetings) He tried to barricade the front door while the women were able to slip out another door. Not sure if how true the story is, but the policy may be based on events like that in other parts of the world outside the United States.
Cowboy,
Not wanting to sidetrack the discussion too much but,
“The Church has established the curriculum to put everybody on par, and even the presiding leadership, who I assume anonymous sustains as Prophets/Seers/Revelators, have requested that sunday school teachers stick to the manuals.”
We are to teach by the Spirit using the manuals as our guide. We are called and set apart to use our skills and spiritual discernment as teachers to determine how to present the lesson to our class.
It is not as black & white, blind obedience as you make it out to be.
I think putting light kits in the doors is a good idea. It is relatively inexpensive, about $100 per door installed, but it wouldn’t solve the problem totally. After the bishopric story in No. Cal, I am never alone with anyone of the opposite sex; and, never alone with ANY youth at any time. All it would take is one young man or woman with a grudge not fully (or maybe fully) understanding the consequences to totally ruin your life. I say window, or no window, guard yourself. It is tantamount to having two members of the ward (one from the bishopric) account for all the tithes and offerings. It protects the individual more that it protects the church.
Our stake recently installed windows in all the classroom doors, and supposedly that means men are allowed to teach alone now. I think it really is a CYA move on the part of the Church (and teachers individually, too). Making sure there are always multiple witnesses that nothing happened makes it much more difficult to make accusations.
I’m the ward executive secretary, and the bishop has asked me to be there for all of his interviews, but especially those with women (young, old, single, married, it matters not). He said there were two reasons.
First is that he heard that the last apostle excommunicated had engaged in an affair with a woman he was counseling as her bishop. And his reasoning is that if an apostle could make this mistake, so could he.
The second is the CYA angle mentioned above. But I’m not sure how that would work since I’m not actually in the room.
Oh, and my take on having a priesthood holder there for RS activities — I always thought it was so we could use our manly masculinity and defend the sisters from terrorists or even regular ol’ violent criminals. At girls’ camp, there was that plus the ability to give a girl a blessing if an accident should happen. That one isn’t just girls’ camp, either. I was ordained an elder when I was specifically because they needed a priesthood holder at Boy Scout camp for the entire week, and the actual leaders couldn’t be there for some reason.
Jeff:
Having served in both Stake and Ward Sunday School presidencies, and having attended the general leadership trainings in both cases, I don’t think so. Teach by the spirit using the manual as a guide is not an invitation to take the class where you want to, but to rather move at the pace of the class. Particularly, the teachers are generally not to prepare lessons from sources other than the curriculum manual, the scriptures, and the Church magazines. That is the limit of the latitude.
1) All men in leadership are infallible, while the rest are simply sexual predators who have not been caught yet.
2) We can trust women to teach children, but not to teach themselves.
When can we expect to see these added to Gospel Principles in the section on the eternal nature of gender and gender roles?
Well, if we live in a world that is driven by litigation and by inability to spot one percent situations then better the rules than tragedy.
In my stake, a child molestor who moved to another ward in our stake was given an unofficial calling in the primary while his child rape charges went through the legal system. No official church actions had been taken because the case is still pending. The church lawyers apparently wanted enough confidentiality to protect them against lawsuits from the molestor in case of an acquittal so the stake president didn’t give the new bishop enough information to be able to make a reasonable call. Two deep seems reasonable to me. I don’t think that the way the church handles abuse cases necessarily protects children. It is more like a legal calculus that minimizes risks for the church. If something happens, the church can just say that the members violated the two deep policy and the church is not to blame.
cowboy,
“Particularly, the teachers are generally not to prepare lessons from sources other than the curriculum manual, the scriptures, and the Church magazines. That is the limit of the latitude.”
Well, I’ve been doingthis callings for many years and while I gernally use the manual and of course, the scriptures, I also use a number of other sources, both in the church and without.
I’ve had the Stake President, my Bishops, High Councilors, Stake SS leaders in my classes and no one has ever said a word of criticsm toward my lessons and my sources. I am careful to name my sources and point out my ideas and/or speculation that some from me or a class member. My general impression is the calss enjoys the lessons. I hope so, because I do enjoy teaching.
It sounds as if the Lawyers may have wrestled the Church away from Jesus …. again.
And this is why I now refuse any and all callings to work with children and youth. Not even remotely interested in working under suspicion in a place where I should be worshipping and feeling loved. Just leave me out of it, is all I have to say.
This seems relevant, published today.
“the predator to watch out for is less likely to don a trench coat and lurk behind a bush than to wear a clerical collar and stand near the altar or to hold a stopwatch and walk the sidelines. And he (or, for that matter, she) works with children as a function of being drawn to them for reasons beyond their welfare.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/opinion/the-molester-next-door.html?_r=1&hp
To be balanced with, “Parents face a tricky challenge. They need to be watchful but not paranoid, because most clergy members, scout leaders, camp counselors and coaches aren’t abusers in waiting and are improving children’s lives. They deserve the opportunity to.”
I don’t doubt your class enjoys the deviation – I’m not arguing that the manuals provide good quality lesson material. Far from it.
As for the teaching arrangements, I don’t really see much of a problem with the Church’s policy. I don’t think it is so much about implying that men unsupervised will do devious things. Rather, I think it is just a good protocol based on many bad past experiences where smart leaders have looked back on a bad situation and said: “You know, if there had been another adult leader in the room, this may have turned out differently”. Either because another adult would have been a deterent to bad behavior, or because they can offer a second reliable perspective on what occured.
As for Bishops asking probing questions of my children one-on-one in a closed door interview…well, that won’t be happening with my kids.
I don’t find the manuals THAT bad. I just ignore the stuff that is intended for the youth and don’t ask some of the dumb questions like “How does that affect your testimony?”
Our meetinghouse has windows in the classroom doors. Despite this, I was asked to team teach a 5 year-old primary class with another male. I understand fully the legal implications involved. Nevertheless, I completely agree with my team teacher when he said, “It’s pathetic that the church won’t trust a temple recommend holder to behave himself”. It’s sad that it’s come to this.
Great post, by the way.
Team teaching is nice for all sorts of reasons, but also problematic if one of the partners is unreliable and we must have both partners present for the show to go on. Unreliability of one of the two partners has a high likelihood when reliable people are too scarce to waste two of them in the same room.
Ben,
Almost anything written by the NY times should be crinkled up and used for camp-site fires or toilet paper.
The two members of my ward who I would object to teaching my children in primary are both women. I really dislike the assumption that all women are naturally kind and safe around children.
And I know several men who are would be EXCELLENT primary/nursery teachers and would enjoy doing it but instead are stuck in lame priesthood callings.
Molestation is so damaging to the victim, and the tendency to believe in the righteousness of clergy so innocent that precautions like team teaching and windows in doors are more than just litigation protection — they’re something shepherds should do to protect their flocks from wolves. And something leaders should do to protect shepherds from false accusations.
The necessity does say something unpleasant about our society, but it’s something we need to acknowledge rather than pretend we’re above it all.
If I could give five more “likes” to Firetag’s comment, I’d do it.
Firetag,
” but it’s something we need to acknowledge rather than pretend we’re above it all.”
But the fact is most of us ARE above it. But the innocents have to be protected against those few who are perps. Sad, but true.
What I think we have to acknowledge is that there are ones who are NOT above it who hide among us.
I totally agree with Firetag that the primary motivation should be to protect the flock. To me the question is implementation. It has been my experience if you approach it from a personal liability standpoint you will have the best success at implementation. Telling people you are doing something to protect the children makes those involved feel defensive and thus be less responsive; while, illustrating how a false accusation could wreck their live is proper motivation. This is how the church should approach the issue in public and private. This will translate into the best overall results, in my judgment.
Great post and a good thought stimulator.
One. So why is it that the Holy Ghost can help us find our car keys or keep $5.00 in our pants when they go to the cleaners, but the Bishop can’t discern a child predator, which is actually pretty damn serious?
Two. Why is it such a big deal to have Elders and High Priests seperated? They use the same manuals, do basically the same projects, and both sometimes home teach. We have guys in our ward who are nearly retired that are still Elders and the SP won’t allow them to attend HP group. Makes no sense, and gives rise to resentment from older guys who see themselves as somewhat “inferior” simply because they happen to not have been called into a leadership position. Makes their wives feel a little less also.
Three. Although it’s preached as a protection for the members (which can be true), it’s really about protection for the corporation.
Four. Since I have one of those male thingies, I must be a pedophile, watch pornography, and regularly don’t treat my family/wife with respect. Dang, I wish men were incredible!
Hawkgrrrl, I was just wishing someone would blog about this. I can now say that I taught primary back in the day when men were trusted (and so that dates me). Our building was renovated with windows in the doors and for a period of time that was considered to be sufficient for men to teach primary without a team mate. Our current primary president has interpreted the new handbook as meaning that windows are not enough any longer and so team teachers are needed for all male primary teachers.
When I was a counsellor in the bishopric, I did all my youth interviews in rooms with windows. (I didn’t want to place myself in the Bishop’s chair by any means). Counselors are not supposed to hear confession anyway, so if they had to unburden themselves, I would have cut the interview to an end and referred them to the bishop. Most of the time, the Bishop selected those he knew would need that extra time for personal interviews anyway. No probing questions from me.
Have your wards discouraged youth leaders from driving youth home from an activity where there is only one youth in the car? Mine has. Very difficult sometimes when a kind ward member drops someone off for an activity thinking they have made a nice gesture in encouraging someone to come to an activity, then placing the youth leadership in a position of looking for two deep leadership to drive the youth home (and we don’t live in a Utah 2 block geographic ward). Yet it is still considered ok for youth to go home teaching with Melchizedek Priesthood companionship alone. Somehow the fact that it is a priesthood duty means that all will behave.?
I can live with the no male teacher in primary if it really means that children will not be molested. That is a small price to pay. On the other hand, I think there needs to be a raising of the bar for women primary teachers. Perhaps the sister that is living with her non-member boyfriend and their child might be released?
So why is it that the Holy Ghost can help us find our car keys or keep $5.00 in our pants when they go to the cleaners, but the Bishop can’t discern a child predator?
If Yoda can be in the same room with Senator Palpatine and not discern by a disturbance in the force that he is in the presence of the sith leader of the dark force, can there be any hope for the rest of us?
When my wife was in the primary presidency, I was called to teach junior primary by myself. Later on, we had a divorced man teach junior primary by himself. She was once again in the presidency when the current rule was announced. A very nice man was called into the HP group leadership, because the new policy recommended that he not teach children (including one of his grandchildren) alone. The rule has some flexibility if the unit does not have a lot of adults who can fill these callings.
The relief society meeting with a priesthood holder in the building is somewhat interesting. I think it is about not getting a set schedule where a few women will be alone before or after the meeting. The RS president should not be there alone for a long time, but the ward clerk – no problem.
From the outside, I thought that the RS thing had to do with preserving the “presiding” role for PH rather than any concern about inappropriate sexual behavior.
#43 – YO!!!!!!!
Answer: I’ll betcha that if there were any “Kinko the Clown” types in Tommy Monson’s ward when he was bishop (and wasn’t he only 26, he must have been wise and mature well in advance of his years), they didn’t slip by…the HG “can” help, but I don’t recall that every leader’s “radar” is perfect. Were it so, it’d kinda run roughshod over free agency. Bishops do at times screw up, Stake Presidents less so, and the gaffes of General Authorities seem to be fortunately few and far between. The Lord is “constrained” to pick his Church’s leadership from the “hew-mon” race, and the male portion thereof…talk about working with one’s hand tied behind the back!
As for Darth Sidious putting it over on Grand Master Yoda and the rest of the high-falutin’ Jedi Council…yeah, so much for their “master” of the Force. You might say that they were George Lucas’ vision of “so heavenly mind that he’s no earthly good”…e.g., both arrogant and cocksure of their own goodness they couldn’t recognise a bona fide threat if it jumped up and bit them in the hiney. That’s why they needed the “Chosen One”…but, hey, even Anakin was blind on several occasions…(1) not realising that he was Sidious’ primary target in the Imperial takeover; (2) not discerning Obi-Wan’s presence aboard Padme’s yacht and not discerning her open mind that she was also deceived; and (3) not even recognising his own daughter, whose presence he’d detected in utero, especially when she confronts him aboard the Tantive IV orbiting Tatooine, or her own latent force sensitivity!
As you can guess, I’m quite familiar with the SW genre. I’ve submitted a few fan fiction items, but there are better writers than I that have explored various facets.
http://www.fanfiction.net/movie/Star_Wars/
http://www.bastcastle.net
P.S. In my rewrite of the SW Sage, Vader recognises Leia upon her capture…make things take a different twist! (And others have explored this as well…)
(OP) Apologies, Hawk, was so anxious to chip in my “two Republic credits” worth on the SW thing that I forgot to remark on your post!
I can understand having a reasonably mature Priesthood holder around at the church building during a RS or Primary activity as a measure of protection…though there have been more than a few sisters that even a gym rat like myself would be wary of tangling with! But spying…I dunno. Most brethren I know, if there wasn’t something Church-related they could be doing while “babysitting”, would either have a book to read (and why NOT the Scriptures?), or nowadays top their high score on “Angry Birds”. They’d have no interest in whatever was going on with the sisters, except when they could go home.
As for being a bishop/SP and interviewing or counselling a young, perky sister…I’d say that if any female member wanted someone from the Relief Society to sit in, I wouldn’t be offended. Truth is, I would feel reluctant to be “alone” with any sister if there’s any possibility that things would be taken the wrong way. However…practically every bishop or SP I ever knew was perfectly capable of handling himself honorably and with candor, discretion, and sensitivity. Truly, there is some sort of “mantle”, which they still must WORK for…and they do…
As for Men and Primary…well, they are needed for the top two years when boys and girls are separated, at least for the boys! Again, it’s a perception thing, especially if you have to work in Primary nursery or with the Sunbeams…we want men to be “nurturing”, but if they are, then they’re considered to be either gay or a paedophile, or both…and if you have a brother and a sister working in a Primary class that are married (but not to each other), next thing the bishopric is checking the local cheap motels to see if their respective cars are parked there the following day! Hence the silly-assed rules, because enough idiots have made it necessary.
I have an easier way: at age 52, and with 32 years in the Church, I’ve made it clear to my own leaders that I’ve wiped many snotty noses and read a library of bedtime stories…let someone else deal with the brats. Selfish? Darned right…I’m middle aged and grouchy and proud of it. Yes, I’m a grandpa myself, and I love the little dears, but I just rent ’em for the afternoon, their parents can take ’em home and change their soiled diapers!
I’m grateful for the team-teach policy. I certainly don’t feel mistrusted or accused by it. It’s an insurance for the teacher(s), not for the kids, and the socially-conscious ward members don’t have to stick out by requesting the assignment of a co-teacher. It’s entirely practical in our society, I think.
There’s not really a way around one-on-one time in some situations, like worthiness interviews or some other Priesthood duties, so the abundance of caution can’t be exercised there, however nice it may be. You’ll just have to trust your ward members if you get put in as bishop.
I gave this some thought, and whether I am thinking as a parent, a teacher, or a church leader trying to fill callings, any way I look at it, this is a wasteful practice with weird and undesirable implications. My internal engineer is thinking it’s an incredible waste of resources. My internal leader is thinking it’s demoralizing and insulting to the volunteer workforce. My internal caregiver is thinking there’s gotta be an easier way to monitor teachers.
One more weird bit of sexism that I was just thinking about: the sisters having to check in with the elders every night. It’s a little insulting when you are a couple years older and have lived on your own for 3+ years to have to check in with some 19 year old kid who has probably never even cleaned his own toilet. I was talking with one of the elders about it when I was on my mission, what an inconvenience it was and that it seemed ridiculous to me since we were adults. He said it was one reason the elders griped that the sisters were pains who needed hand-holding and extra attention. Yet none of us wanted this stupid nightly check in.
Treating women like children causes men to resent women (for being “needy”) and women to resent men (for not treating them with respect). You can’t treat someone as an equal while feeling it’s necessary to protect them. You protect subordinates and inferiors, not equals. You ally or partner with equals. It’s not at all the same thing.
I would agree totally. Some of the sister missionaries were the best examples by far in our mission. I never called the sister missionaries as a DL or ZL; and, never asked about it when I called the ZL’s as an AP. The reality is most of the Elders would still be trying to get the thought of a lesbian orgy out of there mind.
How about the rule that unmarried males over 30 can’t be called as temple workers. The exception is if they are widowed. What conclusion can we draw from this? That the guy must be gay if he is over 30 and not married?
I went to a ward activity several years ago where the primary kids were performing. There was registered sex offender in our ward at the time and he was in the room mixing with the children. He claimed he was falsely accused and swears by it, but he was still charged and listed on the sex offender registry. He had a wife and kids and there he was…in our ward. What do you do with a situation like that?
Also, the rule in our stake used to be that all the primary room doors stay slightly open during class. It isn’t happening anymore, but they stuck by it for a while.
The problem I have with sex offender registries is that they are too vague. If, when I was 22 I had consensual sex with a 17-year-old (who maybe looked older than she was and her fake ID said she was 21), but then her father found out and pressed statutory rape charges, I would be on the sex offender registry 35 years later, lumped in with ACTUAL pedophiles. I think this is one of those cases where, in our zeal to protect innocent children (which is to be commended), we may end up punishing people who don’t need or deserve it.
But to answer your question, I would just watch my kids very closely in that situation. In fact, we always watch our kids closely, ever since a 3-year-old was abducted from the ward my wife grew up in.
#53 I would probably need a little more information but if I believed he might be a danger to my kids we would attend another ward or not attend at all.
I don’t know if the Church policy even tags an offender’s membership record so that he’s “marked” once he moves on to a different stake/ward. I would think so, but certainly only if a conviction occurs (else Church would be open to slander lawsuits). As for the different kinds of sex offences, it doesn’t seem that the laws in any state distinguish between a situation described above, e.g, a young man barely in his majority, in a romantic relationship with a 17-year old girl who is socially his peer is “railroaded” by her vengeful parents for the proverbial “Statutory Grape” (pardon the pun), versus a vile sicko that has committed repeated grievous acts against young children. If it’d be me (but fortunately it ain’t) that had made a somewhat trifling mistake as a youth that had gotten all blown out of proportion, I’d have to accept that due to the need to be cautious where other’s children are concerned, I’d have to find joy in service to the Lord in other areas and just live with it. Sometimes we forget that this life is but a twinkling of the eye compared to the eternities, and it’s then that these things will get sorted out.
At least, AFAIK, the Church hasn’t seen overt hysteria over sex abuse allegations on the order of, say, the McMartin preschool.
Now, what is to be done if a credible allegation is made, but law enforcement either declines to prosecute or efforts do not result in a conviction? As far as the Church is concerned, is he/she blacklisted anyway? Does the Priesthood leadership let its “inspiration” override the result of legal proceedings or failure to pursue same? Or is the victim(s) simply SOL? During the period of time when someone is under investigation or is on trial, assuming they’re at liberty, are their movements at Church restricted? Are the Priesthood and/or members in general given “warning”? And, finally, if someone is accused falsely (not merely have an investigation dropped, charges dropped, or acquitted as a result of trial), is any action taken against their accuser? All food for thought….
Our building, built 2 years ago, has windows in every door, which is standard church policy for new buildings, I think.
I was accused by one of my scouts of picking him up and throwing him out the church window, and was grateful that the 6 other boys in the quorum and the other advisor could unanimously testify that I never laid a hand on him. I shudder to think what would have happened if I had been left without witnesses.
Bottom line: the rules are inconsistent, a hassle, and invented by a non-inspired legal department BUT they’re necessary because of the tares growing among us.
Part of me just wonders what kind of society is it that we live in where we feel the need to have to have things like this in place? Why should we feel the need to monitor men in Primary?
It genuinely makes me sad that we live in a world where this is an issue. I can see why the church would make this a policy, having worked in childcare which is full of protocol and safe guards. But that’s point why should we need to safe guard yourselves from people, as its not about protecting the children but the adults from litigation from other parents!
Douglas,
For some offenses or credible allegations, you get the permanent mark whether legal action is taken or not. Generally, the appropriate ward leaders are informed to watch or be careful, etc. Some people have mandatory escorts when at church.
#60 – I’d like some specifics on that IAW Church Handbook of Instructions, not merely what some bishop feels he ought to do.
Again, is it considered an offence IF no legal action is taken? As far as the Church is concerned, probably only if the perpetrator confesses to them. Then he/she is considered to have repented AFTER the legal process has run its full course, whether it be a criminal conviction with jail/prison time, and parole/probation to be fully served, OR; if the authorities decline to prosecute or can’t get a conviction. But…suppose the alleged offender proclaims his/her innocence, the legal system does its thing and no conviction results, THEN, can the Church leaders make a “mark” on the alleged offender? Absent either a conviction or his confession, I’d say no, they can’t. And this can be frustrating in both ways, both in the reputation of an innocent being irreparably damaged due to hysteria, or; the guilty weasels out of his just desserts. I’ve seen it go both ways and it’s never a good outcome. I’d sure hate to be the bishop having to deal with that (see I Nephi 3:7 for the response). I suppose that in an unresolvable matter I’d have to informally “probate” the alleged perp by simply giving him other duties in lieu thereof and leave it at that until my own term was up.
The ward we attend, had a “scandal”. The Bishop had an affair with the Relief Society President. She became pregnant and had the baby.
Both parties divorced their significant others, were Church “Disciplined” and were going to raise the child together. It did not work out.
You may be able to blame this on “spending too much time behind closed doors”, but I believe that if someone is going to cheat regardless of religion, social status, or Religious affiliation they will find a way to make that happen.
Bobby H – I agree. Opportunity doesn’t create sin. Any of us could choose to succumb to temptation.
Does anyone really believe Jesus would be consulting with lawyers and PR firms about what to do in meetings and classes?
I think the biggest problem with church meetings and activities isn’t who is allowed to teach what and how and with who, but it is how parents allow their children to roam freely through the building with little or no supervision. How many times have I seen a parent send their 5 year old off to the bathroom on their own during Sac. Mtg. You have no idea who is in the foyer or who is in the bathroom. The same goes for after church or during activities when all the little and not so little kids run all over the building and the grounds. It is great fun and the adults want to socialize but anyone can be in the building. We even have a convicted sex offender in our ward and it does not seem to bother anyone because he had gone through the repentance process, however he sure does seem to spend alot of time following the little kids around. Just because it is “church” does not make it safe!!!! Watch your kids, keep them safe! It only takes one time to scar a kid for life.
We recently moved to a new ward and my wife was called to teach primary. I am a RM and was a temple recommend holder for most of my life but recently had some issues with early church history and stopped paying 10% and didn’t renew my recommend. (Read the CES letter) I now go to church to support my wife. She wanted my help teaching primary so I passed on a scout calling and later accepted a calling to help my wife as needed. 1st Sunday in the new calling there were only teachers in half the classes so I know it’s not easy finding reliable help. I felt like because I was new(6 weeks) I was under surveillance because a member of the bishopric sat at the back of the room not helping any of the classes without teachers. I felt like it was to observe me because I no longer have a temple recommend so obviously I can’t be trusted around kids. I have a 4 year old daughter and son in primary so I am all about protecting them at all costs if there was ever a suspicious guy teaching. It just felt a little weird being under surveillance if that was the case. It also upsets me to think I am a suspect because i dont pay to play and because I am a male. If it is a policy to observe new people you are unsure about it is a smart one but it just feels different being on the watch list.