I find it interesting that they urge members to report things to authorities, but they don’t state any clarification on when or if they themselves are obligated to do so. Perhaps because of the church’s worldwide presence now which would mean in every nation or area the case or situation may be different?

If it is the case that Church leaders do not choose the models in articles, then I guess I can just chalk up the fact that my friend’s abuser was picutred as an abuser as a happy coincidence. Regardless of the reason he was chosen as the model, I still get some satisfaction knowing how this guy was used in the Ensign.

Any one want to answer why they do not do this???

I always found it disheartening to send my kids off to primary to be taught by a total complete stranger, whom I had no idea who they were and what their back round was.

Most large churches run criminal back round checks. Why not the LDS?

Regards,
gloria

Our local JRCLS had Mark Romney give a presentation for leaders about what they needed to know, aimed at immediate reporting, the 800 numbers, etc. It was very useful, the sort of thing I should have saved for a post on Mormon Matters (except it predated Mormon Matters).

That gives me some ideas …

Though as Peter has noted, there is a real problem in dealing with hierarchical churches and dealing with lay ministries. The local cases have held people responsible for their professional skills, stepping away from religious doctrines and clashes.

So, try to escape professional licensing and other duties by calling it church services? Bammm.

Engage in an historic religious function: immune.

The real question is who gets second guessed and how. Such as what about liability for the acts of someone who used to home teach a family five years before who then commits a crime against them (thinking of a real case)? Does that impose some sort of duty on the bishop who has no actual knowledge to have been aware?

Lots of really interesting issues continue to develop, jurisdictions vary widely.

My feeling is that many jurisdictions are unsure how to deal with the lay ministry structure of the Mormon Church. In most denominations you have clearly defined pastors or priests that can be accurately considered agents of the church. It’s harder within Mormonism, where even 12-year-old kids have certain degrees of authority. Most courts seem to struggle with the structure of Mormon congregations. This might even partially explain why few of these sex-abuse cases arise in Utah, if courts there are familiar with the structure of the Mormon Church and limit liability as to congregation members in spite of callings or assignments.

Yes, I was being somewhat sarcastic. If I were being even more sarcastic, I might have summarized the argument as, “You can’t expect us to be accountable for our advice; it’s only religious advice after all.”

“Also in Washington was a case by the wife of a sex abuser who sued her bishop for granting her a Temple Recommend in order to get married, despite indications that her husband had such proclivities.”

I just see that there is a need for the Church to have some sort of policy in place, and yet there is going to be a substantial difficulty in making and interpreting such policies.

There is a difference between a Bishop being aware of someone’s involvement with Pornography, and knowing that this leader was planning to take such material to a scout camp. It is a little unfair to lay fault at his door. unless your believe that no one who has seen a naked image should be around children.

I am alarmed at the leak of information; had this bishop not heard of confidentiality.

With respect to your original comment, BIV, I’m not even saying I necessarily disagree with you that that’s something a woman should be concerned about, or even that it should be a red flag when considering marrying someone. I would not tell another person they are silly for thinking pornography is a really big deal. I was just pointing out that within the context of a church leader having an obligation to take preemptive steps to prevent criminal behavior before it happens, I don’t think porn usage would really rise to that level. I do think your example raises some very interesting issues, though.

Of course, I recognize that porn has become much more prevalent in our society since then due to different avenues of distribution. But I think the over-reaction to natural boy curiosity creates more harm than just letting it pass. If you teach your children to avoid such things in FHE, then they will make the right choice.

IMHO, we have just gotten entirely TOO paranoid about controlling every risk factor in a child’s life. Most things are not as damaging as we make them out to be.

NOTE: I am not equating serious sexual abuse with more minor items such as viewing a Playboy. Totally different things. So please do not re-interpret my comments to conclude that I am totally devoid of understanding or minimize true abuse.