- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This press release was originally from 2010. The following now appears with the press release:
Quote:(The following article was published in 2010. Some bloggers have written that the Church “re-released” this article on February 1, 2016. The article was not intended to be re-released. Because of a technical error on the website, some past articles have been showing up with the current date. Because of that issue, some understandably saw this as a current release from the Church.)
I see two possible scenarios.
1) Someone in the Newsroom dug up this old release and decided to re-post it in light of recent events. This probably seemed like a safe thing to do. It says nothing new. Everything in it had already been out there for 5 years. And it couldn’t hurt to highlight the churches successes at combating child abuse – right? Then the bloggernacle lights up in indignation and the newsrooms repositions this re-post of the old release as a technical error.
2) There actually was a technical error and the timing was purely coincidental.
Our building just got the new, windowed doors in 2015. Did they actually start working on this project in 2010? Because that’s a specific thing mentioned in the 2010 press release. Was the expense of replacing doors in church buildings so great that it had to be spread out over a span of 5 years? That seems unlikely, considering that church buildings and temples continued to be built between 2010-2015. Joni wrote:Our building just got the new, windowed doors in 2015. Did they actually start working on this project in 2010?
Maybe. They modded the doors in our meetinghouse a long, long time ago. I didn’t write down any entries in my journal that decade so I couldn’t tell you exactly when they went in other than “it’s been forever.”
Also, the windows are up too high for the more vertically challenged in our ward.
Our building was built with windowed doors in the early 90s. Maybe we were ahead of the curve? I agree that the are on the high side for the “vertically challenged.” I look in every week to be sure my son went to class. (If he’s not there I can usually find him on the stage or in the kitchen, neither of which have windowed doors.) And of course, the bishop’s office, where worthiness interviews take place, has a thick soundproof non-windowed door. I can remember hearing about getting windows put in all the doors was something I heard even earlier than 2010. I was in a new building the other day and they almost all have windows – the bishops and clerk’s offices don’t as Joni mentions
Joni wrote:And of course, the bishop’s office, where worthiness interviews take place, has a thick soundproof non-windowed door.
I wish they would at least put a frosted window there.I have heard that the “desk” is supposed to be a “divide” to keep things like hugging the opposite sex in emotional interviews. It may help sometimes, but if the bishop stands up to walk the woman out – then they had better watch out (yes I am being sarcastic).
I have now had 2 bishops in a row that only sit at the desk when meetings are in the bishop’s office. Any 1×1 and they are in the chairs. They both said it was not to come off as “elevated” as the bishop. I actually appreciate this in them. They both have been rather humble men.
I didn’t know this was already released in 2010. Is it just me, or is there heightened scrutiny in the bloggernacle regarding these kinds issues than there has been on the past? I guess the naive part of me hopes that the Church would never release something like this in this day and age, since I find it so insensitive and indifferent to such great pain. What a difference six years makes. Or does it? I guess I’ll never know. Joni wrote:And of course, the bishop’s office, where worthiness interviews take place, has a thick soundproof non-windowed door.
And yet, the essay says this:
Quote:The Church enforces a “two-deep” policy so that adult males who work with children or youth are never alone with a minor.
Now, I’m not familiar with the handbook, but this has not been the case in my life. I am aware of a policy where adult males are not allowed to be alone
in the buildingwith a minor…not that they’ll never be alone in a room. Can’t count how many times I’ve been alone with a Bishop or member of the Bishopric. It feels like this statement is deliberately misleading. university wrote:And yet, the essay says this: The Church enforces a “two-deep” policy so that adult males who work with children or youth are never alone with a minor. Now, I’m not familiar with the handbook, but this has not been the case in my life. I am aware of a policy where adult males are not allowed to be alone in the building with a minor…not that they’ll never be alone in a room. Can’t count how many times I’ve been alone with a Bishop or member of the Bishopric. It feels like this statement is deliberately misleading.
To be fair, I believe they are referring to not calling a male as a primary or other teacher alone. Several years ago I accepted a call to teach primary with my wife. I was told that if my wife was ever sick that I would need to teach class with the door open. It was explained to me that this was to protect children and also myself from any false allegations that may arise. At the time, I thought it was interesting that nobody was concerned about protecting the female primary teachers from potentially false allegations but I readily admit that the majority of abuse perpetrators are male.
There has been some interesting discussion on the reappearance of this old press release.
http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2016/02/child-abuse-in-the-church/ Quote:Is there heightened scrutiny in the bloggernacle regarding these kinds issues than there has been on the past?
Yes, absolutely. That is a good thing, but it can be and sometimes is abused, if you will pardon that wording.
I also don’t like the tone and some of the statements. I think I understand why it was written, but that doesn’t help me like it.
There obviously have been and continue to be serious problems in the Church regarding child abuse, but I believe through long years of discussion with leaders and members of other religions and denominations that we are not alone, unique or worse than average in this area – particularly with regard to leadership abuse. The system the Church has tried to implement actually is a good one – but it can’t stop leaders who are abusive by nature or inclination from abusing. The hotline, for example, can work when leaders hear of abuse, but it is useless when it is the leader who is the abuser.
Mormon Stories has a great interview with a prosecutor of sexual crimes to discuss the topic. While I was listening to this I had the thought that maybe God made the slip-up to re-publish this news article so that it would create bad press so that the church leadership would make some needed changes. I am so TBM!
:wtf: Question that I can’t believe didn’t occur to me sooner: gold standard according to whom? Has the Church been praised by child advocacy groups, abuse prevention organizations, ecumenical councils, etc. as doing more than any other church to protect children? Seems like the Newsroom would be all over that.
Joni wrote:Question that I can’t believe didn’t occur to me sooner: gold standard
according to whom? Has the Church been praised by child advocacy groups, abuse prevention organizations, ecumenical councils, etc. as doing more than any other church to protect children? Seems like the Newsroom would be all over that.
The short answer is “no”. Many other churches require background checks for those working with kids and youth. If you go read other blogs, they are pouring over with people showing there are improvements to be made – not all are from decades past. One group is even thinking of having a fast on the 7th for the church to improve in this area.LookingHard wrote:
The short answer is “no”. Many other churches require background checks for those working with kids and youth.Background checks? WOW! I had never considered that would happen, but it certainly makes a lot of sense.
As far as I know, the LDS faith doesn’t do that, with the only possible exception being BSA. I never had anything like that done, and I am not aware of anyone else who did either.
Rob4Hope wrote:LookingHard wrote:
The short answer is “no”. Many other churches require background checks for those working with kids and youth.Background checks? WOW! I had never considered that would happen, but it certainly makes a lot of sense.
As far as I know, the LDS faith doesn’t do that, with the only possible exception being BSA. I never had anything like that done, and I am not aware of anyone else who did either.
I am aware that other churches do it. Keep in mind that in other churches one volunteers to teach Sunday School or vacation Bible school, generally they aren’t “volunteered.” Background checks then protect the church from a volunteer who is also an abuser who may move from one church to another to gain access to more kids and similar scenarios. Also, volunteering for such a position is usually long term – Sunday School teachers hang around for a long time, not just until another calling comes along. I’m not saying the church shouldn’t do background checks, but that process would slow the already slow wheels of issuing callings. There is also a cost associated with the checks.
DarkJedi wrote:I am aware that other churches do it. Keep in mind that in other churches one volunteers to teach Sunday School or vacation Bible school, generally they aren’t “volunteered.” Background checks then protect the church from a volunteer who is also an abuser who may move from one church to another to gain access to more kids and similar scenarios. Also, volunteering for such a position is usually long term – Sunday School teachers hang around for a long time, not just until another calling comes along. I’m not saying the church shouldn’t do background checks, but that process would slow the already slow wheels of issuing callings. There is also a cost associated with the checks.
I have been firmly in the “LDS church should do background checks” camp, but lately I have started to wonder.
How effective are professional background checks vs. the present process of calling the previous bishop of an incoming member?
I imagine that both have their limitations. There would not be any previous bishop for a new convert or a returning inactive for example. OTOH, a background check might only catch stuff that has actually resulted in a conviction. It seems that too many times there is some allegation of abuse that is not carried through to prosecution (accused perpetrator resigns, is fired, is released from his duties, or moves away). A background check might not have this information.
I would hate for the background check to become a way for the organization to avoid responsibility … “We paid for a background check that came back clean. Don’t fault us for what happened, fault the background security check people.”
I suppose the best protection is to use many overlapping protections. None may be 100% standing alone but together they can be very effective.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.