- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have seen some comments that given that the church “ignores” the immigration status of individuals as far as church membership, there is a portion of members that don’t want any “government check”. I can see that, but those are exceptions And as Roy has said, nothing is fool-proof. But I would think that background checks (and the knowledge that they would be done by the church) would keep the egregious breaches under check.
I also think there are two separate paths to think about. One is protecting the church and the other is protecting the abused (and preventing the abuse in the first place). The church does need to protect itself from frivolous lawsuits, but not to the extreme of increasing the risk of allowing more abuse but keeping it from sticking to the church.
Our local school district requires all parent volunteers to go through a background check. If you want to read a story to a class, run a booth at the fundraiser, or be in anyway involved at the school, you WILL go through a background check. And yes, there are parents who do not pass. That is the Gold Standard.
There are locks for my clothes and purse in the temple. The safety of my child should be more important than my wallet.
Jana Riess sure doesn’t hold back and shows some cases of some churches doing good work against abuse. http://janariess.religionnews.com/2016/02/02/mormon-statement-on-child-abuse-move-along-folks-we-dont-have-a-problem/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://janariess.religionnews.com/2016/02/02/mormon-statement-on-child-abuse-move-along-folks-we-dont-have-a-problem/ Seems a little two-faced for the church to claim a “golden standard” about abuse, and then have doctrines and policies that create cultural environments where suicide is the only way some LGBT youth can find a way to cope. It also seems a little contradictory for a church to be so self congratulatory, and also have a policy where it (the church) never says its sorry,…ever.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.