From the Totally Unsurprising and Completely Expected Files

[wally]

LOL! BOM Prophet Alma II would have never made it past ward librarian if he lived today!

[Pheidippides]

Not joking.

WTF? Doesn't show up on the local paperwork (or didn't as of a few years ago) but I'm well aware on certain information is sent to the local area.

Or maybe it does and we just didn't have anybody in our ward with the issue.

[Indy Coug]

WTF? Doesn't show up on the local paperwork (or didn't as of a few years ago) but I'm well aware on certain information is sent to the local area.

Or maybe it does and we just didn't have anybody in our ward with the issue.

I'm not familiar with this policy for returned missionaries either, but given the dearth of training they give ward clerks, anything is possible I guess.

[TripletDaddy]

So if you're the church, what do you do?

First, don't flag gay members in your records as potential pedophiles. That is a stupid idea that seems reactionary, not though out.

Second, continue emphasizing in training, improve training in general, expand the CHOI, etc that adults are not to be alone with the youth, two adults team teach in classes, and other similar preventative measures. Also, start openly educating the ward members in general about the same rules and expectations. I don't think we do this much if at all. Remind members over the pulpit that for a variety of legal and safety reasons, the church has established a worldwide policy that youth are not to be alone with adult leaders (except bishop, I guess). I think the membership understands today's legal climate enough to grasp the reasons for doing such.

Ultimately, any entity can only do so much. There is no way to completely prevent some of these incidents. If the asterisk policy is an attempt at liability mitigation, then there are many other ways to mitigate (not eliminate) without engaging in what appears to be prima facie bigotry.

[smokymountainrain]

lol.

Only two minutes between those two posts. Or are you going to argue that if one adds "If true" at the start of every post, that changes everything?

Yes I am, because it does.

[Sullyute]

I understand the Church's need to protect itself and the youth. However, a purported asterick for being gay or coming home early from a mission is absurd. I could understand it for a conviction of pedophilia (don't serve with the youth) or for fraud (don't serve with money) but outside of that it is a slap in the face of the atonement. I think that one of the reasons that it feels that the Church is always 30 years behind the times is that they drive many of the moderate and liberal potential leaders from their roles.

[Eddie]

I find the discussion of youth leaders with same gender attraction issues interesting.

To me there is some logic in saying that you don't want to send youth leaders on overnighters with youth that are of the gender that the leaders are attracted to. I'm not even sure it is a pedophilia issue - if you are talking about YM and YW who are 16-17 years old. Many sure don't look like kids anymore - and it shouldn't be a surprise for someone to find them attractive.

I know that the scouting rules state that adults don't ever sleep in the same tents as youth - unless it is parent and child.

Yet there is no rule that I know of regarding YW and YW leaders - or I should say that I know the YW and YW leaders in the wards in our stake share cabins up at the camp that they go to each year.

Along those same lines - men are required to team teach (or at least have another adult) in ALL of their church classes, from Primary to Sunday School to Priesthood. But women aren't?

So apparently there are some gender biases. The church doesn't just think gays are pedophiles, they also think that men are.

Anyway - I can see the logic behind the decision as it relates to youth who go on overnighters. I don't see any logic behind that kind of policy (speaking of the no same gender attraction in callings with youth) as it relates to Sunday School or Primary teachers.

[Green Monstah]

Yes. If you get sent home from your mission, they put an asterisk by your name and you are forever barred fom certain leadership positions. An equally ridiculous policy.

Not that I doubt you, but is this documented anywhere?

[creekster]

Not that I doubt you, but is this documented anywhere?

I, too, am curious about the basis for this assertion.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

You are commiting the age-old fallacy of equating pedophilia with homosexuality. That is nonsense. Homosexuality does not equal pedophilia.

Let's put it this way, who do you think is a greater risk: the openly gay scout leader or the closeted pedophile? There is no comparison. And that is why superficial strategies like banning gays (both leaders and scouts, btw) are meaningless when it comes to protecting children. The only thing that will effectively safeguard kids is to strictly enforce the BSA policies on two-deep leadership.

The BSA ban on gays is nothing more than good old-fashioned discrimination and it will soon be discarded to the dustbin of history just like the ban on gays in the military.

I'm not equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Please tell me what language in my post equates homosexuality with pedophilia. I said I didn't want a dude to be a YW leader even though I don't operate under the assumption that most heterosexual men are pedophiles. I assumed the implication would be clear from that language that I don't think most homosexual men are pedophiles.

I simply think it's unwise to have men in those kinds of situations with 16-17 year old girls. I also think it's unwise to have gay men in those situations with 16-17 year old boys.

Clearly the openly gay scoutleader would be better than the closeted pedophile. One is clearly wrong to have on a camping trip while the other I feel to be inappropriate, though it would be unlikely that anything bad would happen.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

They actually explained the policy as being more extensive than just the youth. They said anything involving kids 18 and younger. As in, couldn't even teach in the primary, be in the nursery, etc.

It's obviously wrong for the church to have that stance with primary, nursery, etc. Scouting is a totally different story.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Isn't it required that a man be present at girls camp? Or present in the building for any activity that would otherwise be all girls/women?

Yes, but they have a lot of adult women around and it's a much more controlled situation then what you have on a boy scout camping trips. A boy scout trip (at least when I was a kid) usually had two leaders around but obviously groups of boys and adults split off, it's just what happens.

[Moliere]

As much as I rip on BSA, the two deep policy is a very good policy. It should be extended to the entire YM's organization as a policy. There should be no concern about having an openly gay man serving in YMs if the two deep policy is in effect and people are trained on it.

I also wouldn't have an issue flagging records of convicted pedophiles and not allowing them to serve in certain callings, given that chances of repeat offending is probably high in some cases. They could still serve in EQP or HPG or many other leadership callings. But treating openly gay men as pedophiles without any prior history of pedophilia is just wrong and borders on paranoia.

[Omaha 680]

Yes. If you get sent home from your mission, they put an asterisk by your name and you are forever barred fom certain leadership positions. An equally ridiculous policy.

I knew I should have gotten myself sent home.