Repentance and Callings

[jadesroom]

This is something that I've been trying to sort through for the past few years. That's when a member of my stake high council sexually molested a teenage boy in my ward. The crux of my thoughts is this:

• 25 years ago he was a high school teacher and was accused of touching boys at that time
• I wasn't living in my present town at the time, but evidently there were school board hearings and the chance that the teacher would be fired
• No charges were ever filed, and many in the community--even some who are LDS--felt strongly that local church authorities on the school board intervened and that is why no charges were filed.
• Years passed. The man divorced and remarried and was called to the high council.
• He served for three years until the most recent molestation allegation. He was arrested, convicted, and is serving time in prison

The problem I have is that on the one hand I believe in repentence and the opportunity to move forward; but at the same time, I question the stake presidency's foresight in giving a high-visibility calling to someone with such a sketchy background, even if the initial accusations occured 25 years in the past.

Your thoughts?

[BigPiney]

I don’t have a good answer, but that sucks. I would hope that somebody brought up the previous allegations during the discussion to call this guy.

Did the new issues have anything to do with his call on the high council?

[jadesroom]

I don't think so other than he was able to become friends with the parents and their teenage son. You should be able to trust those on the high council.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Geez, that is horrible.

I found out the other day that our old stake president was accused of child molestation and then took his own life. He sent our oldest son on his mission. Never would have guessed.

[BigPiney]

That also is horrible.

[BigFatMeanie]

Is High Council really that high-visibility of a calling? I suppose it depends on where you live and what your stake is like. Here in the 90% LDS world of South Jordan, where stakes are small and encompass just a few blocks because of the membership density, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a current or former high councilor.

[Clark Addison]

Is High Council really that high-visibility of a calling? I suppose it depends on where you live and what your stake is like. Here in the 90% LDS world of South Jordan, where stakes are small and encompass just a few blocks because of the membership density, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a current or former high councilor.

I think you are correct that it is geographical. My brother, who has lived much of his life in Sandy and Utah County, has been in wards where you have multiple former mission presidents, and a dozen or so men who have been Bishop or in stake presidencies. In an area like that, I don't think HC is seen as high-visibility. In my last 20 years though, my wards have usually had one, maybe two former bishops. Usually zero former stake presidents. I have never been in a ward with a former MP. In wards/stakes like that, HC is viewed as a "higher" calling.

[BigPiney]

Is High Council really that high-visibility of a calling? I suppose it depends on where you live and what your stake is like. Here in the 90% LDS world of South Jordan, where stakes are small and encompass just a few blocks because of the membership density, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a current or former high councilor.

That is also true. In my stake I know who maybe 4 members of the high council are, and that is because I served with them when I was on it. The rest I have no idea.

Now, in our new structure, they are part of the very small High Priests quorum. Don't know if that makes them more high profile or not, but they do work closely with the Stake Presidency.

In any case they should not be pedos. Of course that goes for all callings.

[Bo Diddley]

This is something that I've been trying to sort through for the past few years. That's when a member of my stake high council sexually molested a teenage boy in my ward. The crux of my thoughts is this:

• 25 years ago he was a high school teacher and was accused of touching boys at that time
• I wasn't living in my present town at the time, but evidently there were school board hearings and the chance that the teacher would be fired
• No charges were ever filed, and many in the community--even some who are LDS--felt strongly that local church authorities on the school board intervened and that is why no charges were filed.
• Years passed. The man divorced and remarried and was called to the high council.
• He served for three years until the most recent molestation allegation. He was arrested, convicted, and is serving time in prison

The problem I have is that on the one hand I believe in repentence and the opportunity to move forward; but at the same time, I question the stake presidency's foresight in giving a high-visibility calling to someone with such a sketchy background, even if the initial accusations occured 25 years in the past.

Your thoughts?

This strikes me as a small town/good ole boy issue. My guess is that 25 years ago, people intervened in his behalf and let him off the hook. It's possible those who called him to the High Council didn't know about what happened in the past. Then when it went for a sustaining vote, did anyone oppose? If not, that stake president who knew nothing about his history still doesn't.

I think in many cases, the Church could do a better job at vetting some of these callings. But it's a huge church, and difficult to manage.

[Pelado]

This strikes me as a small town/good ole boy issue. My guess is that 25 years ago, people intervened in his behalf and let him off the hook. It's possible those who called him to the High Council didn't know about what happened in the past. Then when it went for a sustaining vote, did anyone oppose? If not, that stake president who knew nothing about his history still doesn't.

I think in many cases, the Church could do a better job at vetting some of these callings. But it's a huge church, and difficult to manage.

It seems like child molestation didn't used to be taken particularly seriously a few decades ago.

[clackamascoug]

The stories above reminded me of my mission - Tahlequah Oklahoma Branck of 50 attendees on Sunday - 12 people in priesthood meeting.

• 3 former stake presidents - now serving on couple's missions to the Cherokee Nation
• 1 former Mission President who was an Economics Professor at Eastern Oklahoma
• 1 Regional Representative - who had a large business in town.
• 2 Crazy missionaries that everyone loved.
• 1 Branch President who didn't own a suit and wore a bolo tie with his white country cut shirt with snaps not buttons.
• 1 Church employee - who was on loan to the Cherokee Nation establishing archiving practices (2 year term)
• 2 Two Brothers in Law - one killing the other 2 weeks after I left for home.

[Non Sequitur]

The idea of repentance is great, but in the real world the recidivism rate for child molesters is near 100%. For some offenses you need to leave forgiveness up to the Lord and let common sense dictate who you do and do not call to leadership positions within the Church.

[myboynoah]

The idea of repentance is great, but in the real world the recidivism rate for child molesters in near 100%. For some offenses you need to leave forgiveness up to the Lord and let common sense dictate who you do and do not call to leadership positions within the Church.

Agreed.

[Moliere]

This is something that I've been trying to sort through for the past few years. That's when a member of my stake high council sexually molested a teenage boy in my ward. The crux of my thoughts is this:

• 25 years ago he was a high school teacher and was accused of touching boys at that time
• I wasn't living in my present town at the time, but evidently there were school board hearings and the chance that the teacher would be fired
• No charges were ever filed, and many in the community--even some who are LDS--felt strongly that local church authorities on the school board intervened and that is why no charges were filed.
• Years passed. The man divorced and remarried and was called to the high council.
• He served for three years until the most recent molestation allegation. He was arrested, convicted, and is serving time in prison

The problem I have is that on the one hand I believe in repentence and the opportunity to move forward; but at the same time, I question the stake presidency's foresight in giving a high-visibility calling to someone with such a sketchy background, even if the initial accusations occured 25 years in the past.

Your thoughts?

Does it also depend on what his assignment was on the HC? Was he working with youth or in a different capacity? I have no issues giving a calling to someone that has repented of a heinous crime but if that person molested a child they should never be out in a calling that they work directly with youth.

[chrisrenrut]

As many here know, but some may not, some member records come with notes to leaders that they are not to have callings that put them in contact with youth. I’ve seen it more times than I would have thought in our ward in Davis County. I’ve never been privy to the root cause of the notes, but I think it shows the church also believes that although someone has repented, they use caution for future callings.

I don’t think High Counselor would be considered a calling with a lot of youth contact. At least not to eh degree of a primary or YM/YW calling.