New Church Calling: Stake Safeguarding Specialist

[Dr. Sunstoned]

In practical application, how much authority are these specialists given? Will they be allowed to sit in as the third person in Bishop interviews? What investigative powers will they have? Can they interview victims/suspects, or will they be limited to hall monitor status?

[I Have Questions]

In practical application, how much authority are these specialists given? Will they be allowed to sit in as the third person in Bishop interviews? What investigative powers will they have? Can they interview victims/suspects, or will they be limited to hall monitor status?

The latter. It’s pretty much nothing except to mention to the Stake President if they notice things like background checks aren’t being done by Bishops. But the SP can get that information for himself. The High Counsel visitors can get that information already. So can Stake auxiliaries. It’s a title to make it sound like it’s being taken seriously without actually taking it seriously. The other downside with appointing a safeguarding specialist is that now everyone else thinks it’s that persons task, and not theirs. Great. It’s counter productive.

The best thing the Church has been forced to do (like a child not wanting to go to bed) is the background checks for people serving with children and youth. But that’s been in place for schools etc for more than a decade. The other thing that’s been out in place is the requirement for Primary Classes to have 2 teachers in them, to avoid an adult being alone with impressionable kids.

But the reality is the Church is a very long way behind on safeguarding. What’s worse is that they aren’t being proactive in catching up. It’s rogue members forcing the isolated changes. Not Apostles leading the charge.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

I agree. It seems that church leadership does not prioritize this matter. The changes made appear to be responsive rather than proactive.

[2bizE]

So…statistically we are calling sexual predators as specialists to monitor for sexual predators.

[pistolero]

The fundamental issue with the Stake Safeguarding Specialist role as currently structured is that it lacks true independence and authority. Creating this position shows some recognition of the need for dedicated safeguarding oversight, but having the specialist report to the stake president effectively creates an inherent conflict of interest and potential bottleneck.

For this role to be truly effective, it needs an independent reporting structure outside the traditional stake hierarchy, authority to investigate concerns without requiring stake president approval, direct channels to report serious issues to appropriate authorities when necessary and finally protected status to prevent retaliation for raising concerns.

The current setup, where the specialist serves essentially as an advisor to the stake president, will likely perpetuate the same dynamics that have historically made it difficult to address abuse concerns in ecclesiastical settings. Real institutional change requires creating truly independent oversight mechanisms with actual authority to act.

We have to look at models from other organizations that have successfully implemented safeguarding programs, where protection officers have clear mandates, independent authority, and multiple reporting channels. Without these elements, the specialist role risks becoming merely ceremonial rather than an effective safeguard.

The very title "Stake Safeguarding Specialist" reveals part of the problem. "Safeguarding" suggests serious protective authority, but "Specialist" reduces it to merely an advisory role - someone who knows about safeguarding but lacks any real power to implement it. Compare this to titles like "Safeguarding Officer" or "Child Protection Officer" used in other institutions, where the role carries actual authority and enforcement capabilities. The current title reflects the fundamental weakness of the position - it's designed to sound reassuring while carefully avoiding any implication of real independent authority.

[I Have Questions]

The fundamental issue with the Stake Safeguarding Specialist role as currently structured is that it lacks true independence and authority. Creating this position shows some recognition of the need for dedicated safeguarding oversight, but having the specialist report to the stake president effectively creates an inherent conflict of interest and potential bottleneck.

For this role to be truly effective, it needs an independent reporting structure outside the traditional stake hierarchy, authority to investigate concerns without requiring stake president approval, direct channels to report serious issues to appropriate authorities when necessary and finally protected status to prevent retaliation for raising concerns.

The current setup, where the specialist serves essentially as an advisor to the stake president, will likely perpetuate the same dynamics that have historically made it difficult to address abuse concerns in ecclesiastical settings. Real institutional change requires creating truly independent oversight mechanisms with actual authority to act.

We have to look at models from other organizations that have successfully implemented safeguarding programs, where protection officers have clear mandates, independent authority, and multiple reporting channels. Without these elements, the specialist role risks becoming merely ceremonial rather than an effective safeguard.

The very title "Stake Safeguarding Specialist" reveals part of the problem. "Safeguarding" suggests serious protective authority, but "Specialist" reduces it to merely an advisory role - someone who knows about safeguarding but lacks any real power to implement it. Compare this to titles like "Safeguarding Officer" or "Child Protection Officer" used in other institutions, where the role carries actual authority and enforcement capabilities. The current title reflects the fundamental weakness of the position - it's designed to sound reassuring while carefully avoiding any implication of real independent authority.

Great points.

I would add that when someone is appointed as a Safeguarding Specialist (in addition to their existing Stake calling, and without any training how to do it) everybody else subconsciously thinks safeguarding isn’t their responsibility anymore. It’s counter productive in that it gives the false impression that there is more safeguarding activity and focus, where in fact it generates less focus across the Stake.

Here’s an idea. Invite a specialist member of the Police to visit and review safeguarding of minors in Church Wards. Let them visit unannounced during lesson time etc. Talk them through the Bishop’s interview. Be open and honest about everything. Let them report their findings to the Stake Counsel and Area Presidency, with recommendations. And then follow their advice.

The first thing they will say is that Bishops should not be alone with minors having discussions of a sexual nature. At all. Ever.

They will probably suggest every member be given awareness training about what grooming looks like. So that they can be more aware and report it.

The Church will never allow such scrutiny, because they know they have a massive problem and want to pretend they don’t.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

The Church will never allow such scrutiny, because they know they have a massive problem and want to pretend they don’t.

Nailed it. Bishops and SP will never give up any of their authority. Eventually, the church will be forced to give up one on one interviews. They won't voluntarily give them up because it is the right thing to do. The church doesn't work that way. They will have to be forced to.

[I Have Questions]

“Wave of sexual abuse lawsuits filed against LDS church in San Diego and across California”

Five San Diego County plaintiffs are among at least 91 who recently alleged childhood sexual abuse by church leaders and the failure of Mormon church to stop the abuse.
Plaintiffs in San Diego and across state allege Mormon church failed to stop childhood sexual abuse by church leaders

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/20 ... alifornia/

The Church has a huge hidden problem. Or at least they hoped it was hidden.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

“Wave of sexual abuse lawsuits filed against LDS church in San Diego and across California”

Five San Diego County plaintiffs are among at least 91 who recently alleged childhood sexual abuse by church leaders and the failure of Mormon church to stop the abuse.
Plaintiffs in San Diego and across state allege Mormon church failed to stop childhood sexual abuse by church leaders

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/20 ... alifornia/

The Church has a huge hidden problem. Or at least they hoped it was hidden.

It just never ends..........

[Philo Sofee]

“Wave of sexual abuse lawsuits filed against LDS church in San Diego and across California”

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/20 ... alifornia/

The Church has a huge hidden problem. Or at least they hoped it was hidden.

It just never ends..........

When one has his second anointing, there is no sin capable of preventing their Godhood. I pray mightily that none of my eternal spirit children are not in any of THEIR universes.......