At the beginning of mass last Sunday they announced a call for youth volunteers and mentioned that anyone working with minors would undergo a background check. I assume the policy isn’t just from the diocese. It seems like a common sense move in today’s world. Not that people are worse, but institutional standards are rising.

Does TSCC perform background checks on those it extends “callings” to? Or are callings so hard to fill they’d rather go with “don’t ask, don’t tell”?

Yes, I agree. A background check for adults who work with youth is a common sense policy.

It depends on the jurisdiction, in some places it's compulsory. The RC church does this in my neck of the woods, according to my girlfriend.

It's common sense, although it only alerts you to people who have been caught.

Wait, what? You have a girlfriend?? ;)

To work with the youth group I used to be involved with we had to take 8 hours of adult leadership training, pass a certification and do a background check. We also had a rule that for every 5 kids we needed one adult.

My niece was just complaining that she had to pay for a second background check for Girl Scouts even though she needs one every two years for her job clearance at work. They want to do their own, not use the one she already has to have.

It is CYA and a good thing.

sbg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My niece was just complaining that she had to pay
> for a second background check for Girl Scouts even
> though she needs one every two years for her job
> clearance at work. They want to do their own, not
> use the one she already has to have.

In some places these background checks are expensive. It is extremely annoying if you are applying for a job in these areas. Like most of these things it ends up becoming an overpriced government monopoly.

I'm lucky in that my work doesn't really involve children, the elderly or the vulnerable, but I know people who do and you have to pay through your nose to prove your innocence.

As I say above, I believe the screening only catches those who have already been caught, which begs the question of why we need complex background checks when abusers are already on file.

> In some places these background checks are
> expensive. It is extremely annoying if you are
> applying for a job in these areas.

It's unfortunate that protecting children from predators is so inconvenient.


-----------------
> Like most of
> these things it ends up becoming an overpriced
> government monopoly.

Child protection is evidently part of a socialist conspiracy to drain your bank account. It can't, after all, be about child protection. That would be too obvious.


----------------
> As I say above, I believe the screening only
> catches those who have already been caught, which
> begs the question of why we need complex
> background checks when abusers are already on
> file.

Quite.

But isn't the alternative to asking private employers to do the background searches having the government do them? One could make the argument that the taxpayer should finance this aspect of your job search, to be sure, but it seems inconsistent with your general political principles.

"It's unfortunate that protecting children from predators is so inconvenient."

As you full well know, that is not what I mean at all. Just because something is a good cause - such as this, smoking or global warming, doesn't mean someone cannot find a way of making money off it.

If an abuser is ALREADY in police files, surely the answer is a simple and cheaper list that an employer can access with ease. It is not as if the technology is not already tbere.

If you are applying for a low paid job, as many in that sector are, you will probably not have much money in the first place. And if you fail to get that job, perhaps because they didn't like you in the interview or for your resumé, or someone's nephew got the job etc, then you have paid out money for that failed application. You may have a clean sheet, but you still pay for the privilege.

Where I live, you would have to pay up nearly every time you apply for such work. This can become extremely costly for you if you are doing multiple applications. It is an extremely bureaucratic way of dealing with this problem. If I applied for three such jobs over a three week period for example, then I would pay out three times. (The cost of three or four such applications where I live would mount up to over $100 US. A lot if you can barely pay your rent.)

I am just thankful I don't work in that area. I would have a clean sheet, but paying to prove it each time? That's not right either.

I have NEVER hear of the background check as a condition of APPLYING for a job.

Passing it is part of a conditional job offer. It is no different than having to pass a drug test as part of a job offer.

In most cases the COMPANY foots the bill. They want you tested, they test you or investigate you.

As part of your on going feud with Lot's Wife you appear to be blowing smoke.

Yes, I am aware some job applications do drug tests. Never happened to me thank God. It's worth bearing in mind that a urine sample will also reveal if someone is pregnant so the company may have ulterior motives in requesting one.

I do not live in the USA, so circumstances vary here. Some companies will pay for background checks and others won't. It is however hugely inefficient. If someone is a sex offender then it is a yes/no answer most of the time, that should be on law enforcement records.

My niece is a Social Worker, the background check she goes through for work is far better than the one the Girl Scouts wanted. She just could not see why a less extensive one would be necessary when she had the more extensive one to give them.

She was not objecting to the check, just the fundamental argument that less was more.

My point is that the Mormons aren’t doing it. No certification training, no background check, no nothing. Usually it’s “Here’s the manual”.

No, no, no, no!! The mormons have a better system. Every person extended a calling has been certified by Holy McGhost or the calling would not have offered!

I completely agree. I didn't think about it at the time I was called, but I worked with Young Men, often alone, and no one questioned my qualifications, my history, or anything. I was simply called by the Young Men's leader to be the Activities Coordinator (or whatever they called it at the time) and I basically ran the Youth nights when the Young Men's president didn't want to.

I will say, even then, as a TBM, I was appalled at the lack of concern or care for the youth of the ward at the time. It seemed that every activities night I found myself alone waiting for parents with some number of underaged kids at the Ward building parking lot (I didn't rank a key to the building). When it happened the first time, I asked the Young Men's and the Young Women's leaders why they left and didn't wait for the parents. They were surprised I waited. They had always just left kids alone with no assurance that anyone was actually coming to pick them up. This was well before cellphones were common. I practically begged other leaders to wait with me or setup a rotation so I wasn't the only one waiting every week, sometimes up to a half an hour for parents to finally show up for their kids (I actually chastised the Stake President once when he was late picking up his kids). I brought it up in Priesthood meetings to please pick up your kids on time... All to no avail.

Apparently, at least in that ward, it was totally OK to leave 5 -10 kids aged 12-14 years old alone at a building that had been broken into multiple times after well after dark and often in the cold. I eventually asked to be released from the calling because it was driving me crazy, but I still worried about those kids.

The catholic church is a little late after years and years

of priests molesting children. I guess the spirit moves in

mysterious ways?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2019 01:42PM by saucie.

saucie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The catholic church is a little late after years
> and years
>
> of priests molesting children. I guess the spirit
> moves in
>
> mysterious ways?

Yes. My niece attends a Catholic elementary school, and my mom--a retired teacher and a grandmother in her 70s--was told she could not help out in the classroom without undergoing a background check. (The teacher had asked for volunteers to help with English activities, and my mom is a retired English and ESL teacher). This despite the fact that she had already been fingerprinted and had a background check done years ago to work as a public school teacher in the state of CA, and was fingerprinted yet again when she taught in the community college system in CA. Yes, I'm sure my elderly mom would be sexually assaulting those 1st graders in a small classroom (with the teacher and teacher's aide present too) in the absence of yet more fingerprinting and another background check. Give me a break. My mom did not mind jumping through the hoops, although she found it a bit silly, but I told her I thought it was insulting to her as a Catholic who, unlike many priests and some nuns, HAS NEVER MOLESTED ANYONE and had already been background checked multiple times.

To be clear, I have no objection to fingerprinting and doing background checks on people who work with kids, but in the case of the Catholic Church, it was almost always the clergy, NOT non-clerical teachers, coaches, etc. who molested and raped minors. Now, after decades of enabling abuse, they make even elderly retired teachers and grandmothers jump through hoops just to prove a point (if there is one). I think it's ridiculous.

On the other hand, I am honestly surprised the Mormon church seems so behind in requiring this stuff. You'd think after all the scandals the Catholic Church has (rightfully) endured in recent years that LDS church leaders would at least be scared of the same happening to them.

But the church is soooo good at sweeping all those pesky molestation lawsuits under the carpet... besides... who is going to pay for an expensive (at least in the state of AZ) fingerprint card and background check for a calling you don't really want to be stuck with in the first place!

You can buy anything in this world for money.

The Mormons turn a blind eye with its "don't ask, don't tell" policy. That's what has worked for them for years. It it ain't broke, why fix it? is their mentality.

When children have been molested from within the church confines they settle out of court, "may" hold a church council or not depending on who the perp was/is. And then it's back to business as usual, guiding the church in the patriarchal order it always has while remaining mum on the abuse.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900034840/bountiful-couple-denies-decades-old-allegations-of-abuse.html

Maybe the church worries that doing it man's way, requiring background checks, will cause a loss of faith in ghawd's way?

Imagine how it's going to sound for a church leader to say, "Bro. Nephi, you can rest assured that I was told by Holy McGhost to extend this calling to you, subject to you clearing a background check. Just sign this form, filling in your social security number and your current and prior addresses back five year..."