Missionaries in our ward baptized a violent sex offender

Schmoe wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
I think I'm with Larrycoug on this one.

Reasonable people my differ on this. We had a person baptized into our ward who had a violent criminal past. Many could not accept him into the ward, but most did. I'm certainly not advocating encouraging recidivism, but I am saying that more information is better than less. And sticking your head in the sand and turning you back on the guy doesn't protect your kids, and complaining about it on a message board CERTAINLY doesn't

Violence and sex offenses are two completely different animals. I worked with sex offenders for years and getting to know them does not in any way help you know when they will reoffend, and recognizing that does not mean that you are "sticking your head in the sand." Asking for advice from others who may have had similar experiences or have more experience with such a specific population CAN help you protect your kids. It's not about whether or not you accept him as a member of the ward, which you should, it's about recognizing his weaknesses and the potential danger he will forever pose to others (I'm inferring that his offenses were against children) in this mortal state, and helping him to never be in the situation again to harm his own soul and others.

I agree with all of this, especailly the last part.

tmoney35 wrote:
Regardless of there being a registered sex offender in your ward or not, I would want the primary to make sure the children are being supervised until their parents come to pick them up. Ours does a good job of that, and I'm glad they do.

Excellent point. There should never be children running around unsupervised at church. That is either a failing on the parent or on the primary. It doesn't matter if there is a registered sex offender or not. Every single sex offender was at one time a non-registered sex offender. Not only that, but kids can get into all kinds of trouble running around unsupervised.



My wife and I spent several years as CTR5 teachers and we always had a rule that we would not let our kids out of our classroom unsupervised. That meant at the end of church the kids couldn't leave until their parents came and picked them up. You'd be surprised at how many parents just didn't care about the safety of their kids and would rather have the convenience of just being able to walk out of relief society have their kids waiting in the foyer and leave.

hawkwing wrote:
There should never be children running around unsupervised at church...

This is great in theory, but difficult in practice. I think that we all agree that at 5 the children need to be supervised, but when does that need lessen? 8? 12? 16?

If you're kids are running around the church at ages 12 or 16, you have greater problems. Most running in the church should end when the kids leave nursery.

ABYUFAN wrote:

There should never be children running around unsupervised at church...

This is great in theory, but difficult in practice. I think that we all agree that at 5 the children need to be supervised, but when does that need lessen? 8? 12? 16?

Ultimately the parents are responsible if they don't care if their kids wander the halls/outside of church during or after church. The age at which parents believe their kids can handle the dangers is one that each will have to make on their own. Of course any kid that is still literally running the halls is too immature to have the freedom to do so and the parents need to take the responsibility on themselves to make sure they are in constant supervision of their child.

Schmoe wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
I think I'm with Larrycoug on this one.

Reasonable people my differ on this. We had a person baptized into our ward who had a violent criminal past. Many could not accept him into the ward, but most did. I'm certainly not advocating encouraging recidivism, but I am saying that more information is better than less. And sticking your head in the sand and turning you back on the guy doesn't protect your kids, and complaining about it on a message board CERTAINLY doesn't

Violence and sex offenses are two completely different animals. I worked with sex offenders for years and getting to know them does not in any way help you know when they will reoffend, and recognizing that does not mean that you are "sticking your head in the sand." Asking for advice from others who may have had similar experiences or have more experience with such a specific population CAN help you protect your kids. It's not about whether or not you accept him as a member of the ward, which you should, it's about recognizing his weaknesses and the potential danger he will forever pose to others (I'm inferring that his offenses were against children) in this mortal state, and helping him to never be in the situation again to harm his own soul and others.

Well said, and totally agree.

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
There should never be children running around unsupervised at church...

This is great in theory, but difficult in practice. I think that we all agree that at 5 the children need to be supervised, but when does that need lessen? 8? 12? 16?

Ultimately the parents are responsible if they don't care if their kids wander the halls/outside of church during or after church. The age at which parents believe their kids can handle the dangers is one that each will have to make on their own. Of course any kid that is still literally running the halls is too immature to have the freedom to do so and the parents need to take the responsibility on themselves to make sure they are in constant supervision of their child.

Though nearly impossible to do when teachers let the kids out early, or to go to the bathroom alone.

ABYUFAN wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:

I think I'm with Larrycoug on this one.

Reasonable people my differ on this. We had a person baptized into our ward who had a violent criminal past. Many could not accept him into the ward, but most did. I'm certainly not advocating encouraging recidivism, but I am saying that more information is better than less. And sticking your head in the sand and turning you back on the guy doesn't protect your kids, and complaining about it on a message board CERTAINLY doesn't

Violence and sex offenses are two completely different animals. I worked with sex offenders for years and getting to know them does not in any way help you know when they will reoffend, and recognizing that does not mean that you are "sticking your head in the sand." Asking for advice from others who may have had similar experiences or have more experience with such a specific population CAN help you protect your kids. It's not about whether or not you accept him as a member of the ward, which you should, it's about recognizing his weaknesses and the potential danger he will forever pose to others (I'm inferring that his offenses were against children) in this mortal state, and helping him to never be in the situation again to harm his own soul and others.

I agree with all of this, especailly the last part.

Are there two ABYUFANs?

Larrycoug wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:

There should never be children running around unsupervised at church...

This is great in theory, but difficult in practice. I think that we all agree that at 5 the children need to be supervised, but when does that need lessen? 8? 12? 16?

Ultimately the parents are responsible if they don't care if their kids wander the halls/outside of church during or after church. The age at which parents believe their kids can handle the dangers is one that each will have to make on their own. Of course any kid that is still literally running the halls is too immature to have the freedom to do so and the parents need to take the responsibility on themselves to make sure they are in constant supervision of their child.

Though nearly impossible to do when teachers let the kids out early, or to go to the bathroom alone.

Teachers should never let the kids out early or to go to the bathroom alone. That's exactly what I said above.



If your teachers do this, they need to be educated on how to properly handle their classes. Sounds like your Bishop/Primary President has some work to do.

SpiffCoug wrote:
If you're kids are running around the church at ages 12 or 16, you have greater problems. Most running in the church should end when the kids leave nursery.

How many kids do you have age 3 or older? I'm guessing not many.

I have two (6 and 4) they know that when they're in church, they can only run in the cultural hall (gym) and not on Sundays. Kids over 3-years-old can be taught how to properly behave. There is no reason for Primary children to ever be running in the church building on a Sunday.

The phrase "running around" doesn't always mean actually running... to most people it's like "starving to death" or "bored to tears" it's an exaggeration... so I talk about kids running around in church, it means that they are walking the hallways. Yes I’m that grump that always is telling kids that we don’t run in the halls, and that we don’t use the chapel as a thoroughfare, even if it’s the most direct rouote….we go around the building

If we don't want kids running at church, why did we design them like tracks--with one big circle route around the chapel and cultural hall? :lol: For the record, I like little kids rushing here and there. I like the noise and motion and cacophony of one big ward family moving from one spot to another

hawkwing wrote:
My wife and I spent several years as CTR5 teachers

Well what a coincidence, my wife and I teach the 5 year olds right now. Such a fun age to teach!

ABYUFAN wrote:

There should never be children running around unsupervised at church...

This is great in theory, but difficult in practice. I think that we all agree that at 5 the children need to be supervised, but when does that need lessen? 8? 12? 16?

It's actually pretty easy in practice. The primary presidency makes sure all the teachers know to not let anyone go until the parents pick them up. There are also two teachers for every class, so one can always go with a child that needs to use the restroom. It really works quite smoothly in our ward, and all the parents seem to appreciate it



Also, no need to complicate the ages. We only do it for the primary.

BoiseBYU wrote:
If we don't want kids running at church, why did we design them like tracks--with one big circle route around the chapel and cultural hall? :lol: For the record, I like little kids rushing here and there. I like the noise and motion and cacophony of one big ward family moving from one spot to another

Good point haha! Trust me, having parents pick their kids up from primary doesn't lessen the cacophony. There's still plenty of chaos

tmoney35 wrote:

My wife and I spent several years as CTR5 teachers

Well what a coincidence, my wife and I teach the 5 year olds right now. Such a fun age to teach!

ABYUFAN wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
There should never be children running around unsupervised at church...

This is great in theory, but difficult in practice. I think that we all agree that at 5 the children need to be supervised, but when does that need lessen? 8? 12? 16?

It's actually pretty easy in practice. The primary presidency makes sure all the teachers know to not let anyone go until the parents pick them up. There are also two teachers for every class, so one can always go with a child that needs to use the restroom. It really works quite smoothly in our ward, and all the parents seem to appreciate it



Also, no need to complicate the ages. We only do it for the primary.

BoiseBYU wrote:
If we don't want kids running at church, why did we design them like tracks--with one big circle route around the chapel and cultural hall? :lol: For the record, I like little kids rushing here and there. I like the noise and motion and cacophony of one big ward family moving from one spot to another

Good point haha! Trust me, having parents pick their kids up from primary doesn't lessen the cacophony. There's still plenty of chaos

Sounds like your Primary and setup is how ours was at our ward. The hall ways during church were nice and quiet, once church got out and parents picked up their kids, well, kids are kids and you got a healthy buzz going.



And what a great age to teach, I don't think there is any better calling than teaching 5 year olds.