DiscussMormonism.com

Not sure if this has been brought up in this thread, but here's an example of the Church really screwing up.

This guy was convicted of molestation in Utah, moved to Minnesota, and was called as Elder's Quorum President. He struck up a friendship with a 13yo in the ward and molested him.

https://www.fox9.com/news/from-register ... rch-leader

The first question is why he wasn't ex'd in Utah. That's the most serious problem in all this.

The case in Minnesota seems to focus on his being the EQP. Non members and ex-members seem to be trying characterize that position as having some responsibility for children, but that's obviously not true (but it plays into the prosecution if it is). They say he was conducting some kind of unofficial "Book of Mormon Study" class for the kids, but they don't give additional information.

Setting aside that fact that he wasn't ex'd, it raises the question of what the Church should do as a policy. Should all members be background checked when moving into a new ward, regardless of their calling? If a ward member is found to be a sex offender, should the ward tell everyone, regardless of their calling? Should they not be allowed to attend? I'm assuming being a sex offender would be automatic disqualification from being an EQP or RSP, but should it apply to all callings?

cinepro wrote: ↑

Sun May 08, 2022 7:43 pm

Not sure if this has been brought up in this thread, but here's an example of the Church really screwing up.

This guy was convicted of molestation in Utah, moved to Minnesota, and was called as Elder's Quorum President. He struck up a friendship with a 13yo in the ward and molested him.

https://www.fox9.com/news/from-register ... rch-leader

The first question is why he wasn't ex'd in Utah. That's the most serious problem in all this.

The case in Minnesota seems to focus on his being the EQP. Non members and ex-members seem to be trying characterize that position as having some responsibility for children, but that's obviously not true (but it plays into the prosecution if it is). They say he was conducting some kind of unofficial "Book of Mormon Study" class for the kids, but they don't give additional information.

Setting aside that fact that he wasn't ex'd, it raises the question of what the Church should do as a policy. Should all members be background checked when moving into a new ward, regardless of their calling? If a ward member is found to be a sex offender, should the ward tell everyone, regardless of their calling? Should they not be allowed to attend? I'm assuming being a sex offender would be automatic disqualification from being an EQP or RSP, but should it apply to all callings?

I think there are a couple of good general points within what you are saying here.

You’ve got Church members being too trusting of others. In any other life setting a Mormon parent wouldn’t allow the kind of access to their children that they give to other church members. You’ve also got the institution not doing all that it could do, simply and easily, to reduce the risk of children and vulnerable adults falling victim to abuse. In terms of how to mitigate those risks there’s a number of steps the church could take:
1. Stop covering the problem up. In the aviation industry they go to great lengths to self report and publicise issues, mistakes, near misses etc to aid the collective improvement to safety that now makes it one of the safest forms of travel. For members to be aware of the risks the Church needs to publicise the risks, needs to alert members to what is going on and how members in positions of trust have abused it. And also the risks of behaviours at church desensitising children and vulnerable adults to predatory grooming in other settings.
2. Stop those processes, such as Bishops interviews, that desensitise children and vulnerable adults to the risks of predatory grooming.
3. Introduce more stringent scrutiny of individuals before giving them positions of trust. A good feeling is not a robust process.

Oddly, the article seems to say that the Bishop(?) and the Parents were aware of what Davis was doing and were trying to stop it

According to a harassment order taken out before the latest charges, Kasson Church President Brent Larson was concerned about Davis’ relationship with the victim and thought it was "inappropriate."

Davis had given the boy a cell phone, cowboy boots, and a key to his home.

Even after the family ordered Davis to stay away from their son, the mother discovered the two of them in Davis’ car in the church parking lot, according to the harassment order.

cinepro wrote: ↑

Mon May 09, 2022 5:32 pm

Oddly, the article seems to say that the Bishop(?) and the Parents were aware of what Davis was doing and were trying to stop it

According to a harassment order taken out before the latest charges, Kasson Church President Brent Larson was concerned about Davis’ relationship with the victim and thought it was "inappropriate."

Davis had given the boy a cell phone, cowboy boots, and a key to his home.

Even after the family ordered Davis to stay away from their son, the mother discovered the two of them in Davis’ car in the church parking lot, according to the harassment order.

This just makes the case for background checks. The LDS church leaders in Utah knew about Davis before he moved to Minnesota and started again. From the same article:

Davis pleaded guilty in two separate cases of sexual abuse in Utah before coming to Minnesota. The cases foreshadow the alleged crimes in Minnesota…

Back in 2003, when Davis was 19, they were neighbors and fellow church members. Davis befriended the boy, bought him gifts, and showered him with attention, the boy’s mother said.

Davis exposed himself to the child 10 to 20 times, according to the criminal charges.

"We had approached our bishop about it. But he said, ‘please don't go, talking to a lot of the neighbors about it because we don't want somebody coming up with false accusations’" the mother recalled.

And the key point, for me, also from the same article:

The case raises troubling questions about what Mormon church leaders knew about his past, whether red flags were ignored, and why a simple criminal background check wasn’t conducted.

Marcus wrote: ↑

Mon May 09, 2022 5:52 pm

This just makes the case for background checks.

But this would require background checks for every adult that moves into any ward, regardless of their calling. Has that ever been suggested?

The case raises troubling questions about what Mormon church leaders knew about his past, whether red flags were ignored, and why a simple criminal background check wasn’t conducted.

A simple background check wasn't conducted because he wasn't called to work with the youth. No one has ever suggested that background checks be required for callings where adults work with other adults.

The troubling question for me is why the guy wasn't ex'd.

cinepro wrote: ↑

Tue May 10, 2022 4:55 pm

Marcus wrote: ↑

Mon May 09, 2022 5:52 pm

This just makes the case for background checks.

But this would require background checks for every adult that moves into any ward, regardless of their calling. Has that ever been suggested?

The case raises troubling questions about what Mormon church leaders knew about his past, whether red flags were ignored, and why a simple criminal background check wasn’t conducted.

A simple background check wasn't conducted because he wasn't called to work with the youth. No one has ever suggested that background checks be required for callings where adults work with other adults.

No, your comment is misleading. “A simple background check wasn't conducted” NOT “because he wasn't called to work with the youth,” but because it’s not required for anyone in the LDS church, including those who work with the youth.

The LDS church does NOT have a standard policy of background checks for people who work with children, like many other groups and religions.

Speaking of the requirements, everyone in my parish who wants to participate as a volunteer when children will be present has to have a background check. You are splitting hairs with this element of the argument.

Marcus wrote: ↑

Tue May 10, 2022 6:04 pm

Speaking of the requirements, everyone in my parish who wants to participate as a volunteer when children will be present has to have a background check. You are splitting hairs with this element of the argument.

My point was that even if the Church had a background check policy for youth-related callings, the EQP almost certainly wouldn't be getting one. So whether or not the Church had this policy is irrelevant to this case. It's a suggested solution that doesn't solve this specific problem (unless the suggestion is to conduct background checks on everybody).

cinepro wrote: ↑

Tue May 10, 2022 11:08 pm

Marcus wrote: ↑

Tue May 10, 2022 6:04 pm

Speaking of the requirements, everyone in my parish who wants to participate as a volunteer when children will be present has to have a background check. You are splitting hairs with this element of the argument.

My point was that even if the Church had a background check policy for youth-related callings, the EQP almost certainly wouldn't be getting one. So whether or not the Church had this policy is irrelevant to this case. It's a suggested solution that doesn't solve this specific problem (unless the suggestion is to conduct background checks on everybody).

I see. Let’s get back to the topic then.

IHAQ wrote: ↑

Mon May 09, 2022 7:25 am

…You’ve got Church members being too trusting of others. In any other life setting a Mormon parent wouldn’t allow the kind of access to their children that they give to other church members. You’ve also got the institution not doing all that it could do, simply and easily, to reduce the risk of children and vulnerable adults falling victim to abuse. In terms of how to mitigate those risks there’s a number of steps the church could take:

1. Stop covering the problem up. In the aviation industry they go to great lengths to self report and publicise issues, mistakes, near misses etc to aid the collective improvement to safety that now makes it one of the safest forms of travel. For members to be aware of the risks the Church needs to publicise the risks, needs to alert members to what is going on and how members in positions of trust have abused it. And also the risks of behaviours at church desensitising children and vulnerable adults to predatory grooming in other settings.

2. Stop those processes, such as Bishops interviews, that desensitise children and vulnerable adults to the risks of predatory grooming.

3. Introduce more stringent scrutiny of individuals before giving them positions of trust. A good feeling is not a robust process.

Marcus wrote: ↑

Wed May 11, 2022 12:04 am

I see. Let’s get back to the topic then.

IHAQ wrote: ↑

Mon May 09, 2022 7:25 am

…You’ve got Church members being too trusting of others. In any other life setting a Mormon parent wouldn’t allow the kind of access to their children that they give to other church members. You’ve also got the institution not doing all that it could do, simply and easily, to reduce the risk of children and vulnerable adults falling victim to abuse. In terms of how to mitigate those risks there’s a number of steps the church could take:

1. Stop covering the problem up. In the aviation industry they go to great lengths to self report and publicise issues, mistakes, near misses etc to aid the collective improvement to safety that now makes it one of the safest forms of travel. For members to be aware of the risks the Church needs to publicise the risks, needs to alert members to what is going on and how members in positions of trust have abused it. And also the risks of behaviours at church desensitising children and vulnerable adults to predatory grooming in other settings.

2. Stop those processes, such as Bishops interviews, that desensitise children and vulnerable adults to the risks of predatory grooming.

3. Introduce more stringent scrutiny of individuals before giving them positions of trust. A good feeling is not a robust process.

In terms of the practicalities of taking these 3 actions, they are fairly simple and would cost relatively nothing. The only barrier is that Church leadership simply chooses not to take the actions. Where would the aviation industry be if its collective leadership had behaved over the last 50 years the way Church Leadership behaves in regards to sexual misconduct of members in positions of trust? The lack of real action on this topic - other than a paranoid insistence on covering up, settling things quietly, avoiding transparency at all costs, is unfathomable. Why is proactively maintaining a lack of transparency more important to these old men in Salt Lake City, than the safety of members kids?

IHAQ wrote: ↑

Thu May 12, 2022 7:47 am

Marcus wrote: ↑

Wed May 11, 2022 12:04 am

I see. Let’s get back to the topic then.

In terms of the practicalities of taking these 3 actions, they are fairly simple and would cost relatively nothing. The only barrier is that Church leadership simply chooses not to take the actions. Where would the aviation industry be if its collective leadership had behaved over the last 50 years the way Church Leadership behaves in regards to sexual misconduct of members in positions of trust? The lack of real action on this topic - other than a paranoid insistence on covering up, settling things quietly, avoiding transparency at all costs, is unfathomable. Why is proactively maintaining a lack of transparency more important to these old men in Salt Lake City, than the safety of members kids?

Because it would be obvious to all (including active members) that members had been ex'ed for valid whistle blowing - people that the church labeled as apostate were in the right, and the Lord's chosen were simply wrong.