Men Serving in Primary

[clwnuke]

In Handbook 2: Administering the Church section 11.8.1 Men Serving in Primary it states: 

 

"When men are assigned to teach children, at least two responsible adults should be present at all times. The two adults could be two men, a husband and wife, or two members of the same family. In small branches, if it is not practical to have two teachers in a classroom, a member of the Primary presidency frequently visits and monitors each class that a man teaches alone."

 

This change was made a few years ago, and I understand the concerns related to it, but something I did not like was singling out men rather than focusing on two-deep leadership for all teaching situations. It makes me feel as if I'm considered a suspected pedophile just because I'm a man.

 

Having been raised in a large family, and having raised four daughters and two sons of my own, and having worked in Scouting for 25 years I fully support the two-deep leadership principles of the Scouting Program. But they apply equally to men and women.

 

Would you support changing this policy title to Adults Serving in Primary and having the text changed to:

 

"At least two responsible adults should be present at all times when teaching Primary. The two adults can be two men, or two women, a husband and wife, or two members of the same family. In small branches, if it is not practical to have two teachers in a classroom, a member of the Primary presidency frequently visits and monitors each class that is taught alone."?

[mdfxdb]

Men are the perpetrators in 96% of sexual assaults..........

 

I would not move to make any changes as written.  I think they've covered the bases.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

My best guess is that the church has dealt with male offenders, but no female offenders. Women can be offenders too but is far less common. I once knew a young lady who was sexually assaulted by her Primary teacher (male).

I understand your point, but Im giving you my best guess why the policy is as it is.

[Vort]

 

Men are the perpetrators in 96% of sexual assaults..........

 

I disbelieve this. Men may perhaps be accused 96% of the time. It's even possible that 96% of those convicted are men. But I disbelieve any glib statistic claiming that 24 out of every 25 sexual assaults are perpetrated by males. If you can demonstrate this in any reasonably rigorous way, please do so.

[Backroads]

I agree. 2-deep leadership, but don't rely on anecdotal evidence to single out men. Why bother teaching our young men and boys all about being good and loving citizens and church members if we secretly believe they'll commit a sexual crime as soon as a back is turned?

I can't find a good statistic that gives a percentage beyond specific types of sex crimes, but really, find a better way of preventing problems. Saying "all males are potential sex criminals" ignores looking at other issues. Lazy and unjustified.

[clwnuke]

Men are the perpetrators in 96% of sexual assaults..........

 

I would not move to make any changes as written.  I think they've covered the bases.

 

But researchers estimate that less than 1% of adult men are potentially pedophiles, with the actual number likely being much less than 0.5% when you only consider children's age groups less than 14 years-old. So 99.5% of men are not a threat but that justifies singling men out? Would it not be wise to make sure ALL situations are safe?

 

My wife does a lot of babysitting at night to earn extra money. At times there are more jobs than she can handle so she often asks clients if our older daughters can help. I have also been volunteered several times, but my wife says clients freak out when she says I'm a man. The funny thing is that they trust her child care because she's a woman, but don't trust mine because I'm a man. However, the relevant facts are: 

 

1. I was raised changing sibling's diapers and babysitting kids in the ward, but my wife was a single child and didn't.

2. When we had our first child, my wife was overwhelmed and didn't know what to do. I did everything other than breastfeed - even getting up at night until they were toddlers.

3. We had six kids and I did just as much if not more diaper changing and caring for them.

4. My wife has always acknowledged my ability to relate to kids and turned to me when things got tough. 

 

So I find it funny that her clients "think" that they will be putting their children in harms way if they have me babysit.

[Str8Shooter]

Men are the perpetrators in 96% of sexual assaults..........

 

I would not move to make any changes as written.  I think they've covered the bases.

Correct. Against children, approximately 80% are male offenders.

http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html

[clwnuke]

Correct. Against children, approximately 80% are male offenders.

http://www.csom.org/pubs/mythsfacts.html

 

The great majority of serial murderers are men as well, but that doesn't make the case to treat all men as serial murderers. I think you may be misconstruing the statistic you cite. Even if 100% of child abuse cases were male, it would not justify treating the 99.5% of men who do not abuse children as potential child abusers. The facts do not support the conclusion.

 

Since some child abusers are women it seems prudent to make the policy a blanket policy. I am not aware of any other organization that limits its child protection policies to men only.

[Just_A_Guy]

 

. . . I fully support the two-deep leadership principles of the Scouting Program. But they apply equally to men and women.

 

Spoken like someone who has never had to fully staff a ward Primary.  :)

 

Two-deep leadership is great to prevent lawsuits in our litigious society; but it is also terribly burdensome to maintain.  The status quo, while certainly grating to the men's-rights crowd, strikes a balance between forestalling the vast majority of likely litigation claims while still being sensitive to Primary presidencies and bishoprics who find they just don't have the ten extra adult members it would take to put two-deep leadership into every single Primary class.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[f1lbr]

In being bluntly honest, my instinctual response is to trust men less than women wrt children. That being said, I do get the OP concerns, which have nothing to do with requiring the two deep leadership but with the gender assignation. Despite our society's "claim" about gender equality, things aren't actually so. If there were a hypothetical situation in which women were passively called out as presupposed guilt, would it not create an outcry?

 

As an example of something (of attitudes) I struggle with. I know a Stake President who gave counsel to the single sisters of his stake to ask the men they date, "when was the last time you looked at pornography?" Not, "have you looked at pornography and if so, when was the last time?" The presupposition of guilt really makes me frustrated and, yes, sometimes angry.  Believe it or not, some men have no interest in porn.

 

It equally makes me frustrated when people pull out the same old, proven flawed statistics stating that porn addiction is higher among LDS than the national average. Yes, we have problems among LDS men. But when most legitimate studies show that porn usage among LDS men is either slightly lower or on par with national average, why do so many people, even on this forum, yank out the same old myths?

 

Why the compulsion to beat down LDS men?

 

Frustrated...

[clwnuke]

I've worked in primary many, many times. It's a wide-spread custom to be called into nursery and primary when you are a young couple with little children. Having also served in bishoprics and stake presidencies I appreciate the challenges of staffing, but I still believe the policy would be enhanced by closing that gap.

 

Since the policy provides an alternative for those wards without the ability to provide two-deep leadership I think the change is highly prudent precisely because of our litigious society. The first question a good lawyer will ask in a lawsuit over a child abuse claim at a Mormon church perpetrated by a female will be "Why didn't you require two women as well as two men? Were you not aware that women perpetrate these crimes as well?"  

 

You don't have to look very hard in the news to find a female perpetrated child abuse case.

[Backroads]

Women are far more likely to be kidnappers. There we go, a need for 2-deep leadership.

And indeed, what would the Church's response be if a female by herself abused a Primary kid? How would they respond to the lack of requirements on female 2-deep leadership?

Edited August 30, 2015 by Backroads

[Jane_Doe]

In Handbook 2: Administering the Church section 11.8.1 Men Serving in Primary it states: 

 

"When men are assigned to teach children, at least two responsible adults should be present at all times. The two adults could be two men, a husband and wife, or two members of the same family. In small branches, if it is not practical to have two teachers in a classroom, a member of the Primary presidency frequently visits and monitors each class that a man teaches alone."

 

This change was made a few years ago, and I understand the concerns related to it, but something I did not like was singling out men rather than focusing on two-deep leadership for all teaching situations. It makes me feel as if I'm considered a suspected pedophile just because I'm a man.

 

Having been raised in a large family, and having raised four daughters and two sons of my own, and having worked in Scouting for 25 years I fully support the two-deep leadership principles of the Scouting Program. But they apply equally to men and women.

 

Would you support changing this policy title to Adults Serving in Primary and having the text changed to:

 

"At least two responsible adults should be present at all times when teaching Primary. The two adults can be two men, or two women, a husband and wife, or two members of the same family. In small branches, if it is not practical to have two teachers in a classroom, a member of the Primary presidency frequently visits and monitors each class that is taught alone."?

 

Somethings are simply ruined for all because of a few bad apples, this being a prime example.  You yourself may be the best parental figure in exsitance, but we need to safe guard against the 1 in 500 which is a bad apple-- the stakes are too high.    

 

Note: you don't see me arguing against 2-deep leadership for females as well.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[Backroads]

Men are the perpetrators in 96% of sexual assaults..........

I would not move to make any changes as written. I think they've covered the bases.

No, they haven't. That policy does not prevent a woman from sexually abusing kids when teaching by herself.

[Backroads]

Men are the perpetrators in 96% of sexual assaults..........

I would not move to make any changes as written. I think they've covered the bases.

No, they haven't. That policy does not prevent a woman from sexually abusing kids when teaching by herself.

[bytor2112]

I would fully support it Clwnuke....

[Just_A_Guy]

I've worked in primary many, many times. It's a wide-spread custom to be called into nursery and primary when you are a young couple with little children. Having also served in bishoprics and stake presidencies I appreciate the challenges of staffing, but I still believe the policy would be enhanced by closing that gap.

 

Since the policy provides an alternative for those wards without the ability to provide two-deep leadership I think the change is highly prudent precisely because of our litigious society. The first question a good lawyer will ask in a lawsuit over a child abuse claim at a Mormon church perpetrated by a female will be "Why didn't you require two women as well as two men? Were you not aware that women perpetrate these crimes as well?"  

 

You don't have to look very hard in the news to find a female perpetrated child abuse case.

 

Most of what you see in the news involves twenty-something female high school teachers who had relationships with male students in their late teens.  That doesn't really convince me that women pose a clear and present danger to pre-pubescent children in Primary classes.

 

Sure, if a female Primary teacher perps on a child, then yes--there are going to be uncomfortable questions for the church.  But what you miss is that 1) statistically speaking four male primary teachers will perp for every female that perps, bringing questions of acceptable risk into the cost-benefit analysis; and 2) females do not have the priesthood, whereas most of the abuse victims who have recovered against the Church have made much of the fact that the perpetrator was a Mormon "elder" or "high priest".

 

Since you claim you've been in bishoprics, I'll just ask you point blank:  Did you double-staff every single primary class in your ward, regardless of the teachers' genders?  And, if so, did you, personally, assume the responsibility for making sure that every single Primary teacher who couldn't make it to church one day, had a substitute go in their place to maintain that two-deep leadership?

Edited August 30, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[clwnuke]

Just_A_Guy, we did not double-staff our primary when I served in a Bishopric. That was not church policy at the time. But you deserve an answer as if it had been the policy, and that answer is that we would likely have not done so - we did not have the membership numbers in our ward in Georgia to support doing it.

 

However, I think we would have done something similar to what our little branch in New Jersey did years later: kept an open door policy for all classes and checked on them as the handbook currently allows.

 

I really do appreciate the challenges of two-deep leadership. I have a ward that has not been able to call me an assistant Scoutmaster for over two years because nobody will accept the calling. I serve as the 11 year-old Scout leader as well for the same reason. More than 90% of the time I have to rely on my own family members to provide two-deep leadership at meetings and outings.

 

It is not easy, but the statistics simply do not support the idea that men present "a clear and present danger to pre-pubescent children in Primary classes" and women do not. Neither presents a clear and present danger. I'm simply suggesting that it would be prudent to make our primary child protection policy a blanket policy like all other public and private institutions of which I am aware.

 

Gotta get to choir practice. Have a great Sabbath day :)

[sxfritz]

I am male, a High Priest, and I taught Primary for six years. Most years, I taught alone. Any time we had two deep, the lessons degraded not improved. I support the presidency monitoring and the doors to have windows, and classes combined when there is low attendance. But to double up for the sake of doubling would be a burden on everyone involved (including the children). Care should be given in select and monitor the teacher - male or female, to judge performance by talking with the parents of the children. This may sound like work, but not nearly as much as finding double teachers when it is hard enough to find one good, willing teacher.

 

Besides, perpetration of a crime isn't going to happen in the class. A child may be "groomed" in a class but it is up to the parent to monitor the relationship outside of class. They shouldn't be letting their children go off with a single member, in any case other then best friends who already have an established trusted relationship. 

 

Greatest calling ever! I wish I could have stayed in there 20 years.

[NeuroTypical]

I disbelieve this. Men may perhaps be accused 96% of the time. It's even possible that 96% of those convicted are men. But I disbelieve any glib statistic claiming that 24 out of every 25 sexual assaults are perpetrated by males. If you can demonstrate this in any reasonably rigorous way, please do so.

 

 

Well, what sort of rigorous way would you propose, Vort?  If you poll people going to rape crisis centers, would that work for you?  How about if you track ER cases where rape kits are administered?  Or if there was a way to quantify the sorts of confessions and pleas for help bishops encounter from perpetrators and victims?  

 

I can see calling folks on claiming certain percentages when those percentages are not obtained through sufficiently scientific rigor.  However, in absence of that, we're left to do the best we can with what we have.  

 

After 18 years married to a lady who absorbs anecdotes from every walk of life and all sides of all aisles, yeah, the anecdotes support the notion that if you put 1000 people guilty of perpetrating sexual assault in a room, almost all of them will be male.  Go ask the next rape crisis center worker, ER nurse, or bishop what they think.  Go ask the next fifty.

 

That doesn't mean you and I have higher odds of abusing someone than our wives.  It does mean that if someone is going to be sexually abused by either you or your wife, the odds are overwhelmingly favoring you as the abuser.  

 

My opinion: In a world with limited resources, 2 deep leadership focused on men and not women is a valid way to mitigate the risk of sexual assault at church.  If we were in a world with limitless resources, we'd not only have to worry about the women abusers, but also minors who are abusers, and we would never allow anyone, of any gender or age range, to be alone with anyone. 

[Jane_Doe]

There was an incident a few years ago in one my wards:

 

An investigator had a ~7 year old son who, frankly, was a terror.  He'd scream all during primary, cuss out and attack the teachers, and that was much better than how he treated his own mother.  He was assigned his own special teacher accompany him at all time.  One day, he ran out of Singing Time, and nearly made it to the 4-lane street by the time his special teacher and my friend (who was in the primary presidency) caught him.  They dragged him back, literally kicking and screaming, into the building, and put him in a classroom (so he couldn't bolt again).  One of the adults then went for more backup.  

 

The teacher had not even made it to the primary room when the kid's mom showed up at the classroom and started screaming about "how dare you leave my darling son all alone with any adult!" and threatening to sue the church.  The kid of course burst into tears, and played victiom about "they touched me and are treating me so badly".  Note: all adults involved here were female, and classroom had 2 open windows (to the hallway and the busy street), and he had been alone with the teacher for ~10 seconds.  

 

Ultimately, nothing happened legally as a result.  All the church adults wrote descriptions detailing the incident within an hour (precautionary), but mom/lawyer never contacted them.  

 

As much as a mess that incident was... I don't think a change of leadership policy would have changed any of it (he had 2-deep leadership).  Some people/circumstances are too extraneous to buffer yourself against anyone whom threatens to sue.  

[Backroads]

I suppose I can't see any numbers to justify Primary presidency checking in on solo males but not solo females. Is it so much extra work?

For the record, I believe the vast majority of men and women aren't going to even think about sexually abusing someone. 2-deep leadership is not about worst-first thinking, just a good idea.

On a separate note on the dangers of men and youth, the past two schools I've taught at have been in high-poverty areas. Male elementary school teachers were often requested than feared, the general idea being single moms wanting a positive male role model for their kids. This seems to be different than how male elementary teachers are sometimes treated in richer-area schools. So I like to see that as a positive for men's rights.

[The Folk Prophet]

There was an incident a few years ago in one my wards:

 

An investigator had a ~7 year old son who, frankly, was a terror.  He'd scream all during primary, cuss out and attack the teachers, and that was much better than how he treated his own mother.  He was assigned his own special teacher accompany him at all time.  One day, he ran out of Singing Time, and nearly made it to the 4-lane street by the time his special teacher and my friend (who was in the primary presidency) caught him.  They dragged him back, literally kicking and screaming, into the building, and put him in a classroom (so he couldn't bolt again).  One of the adults then went for more backup.  

 

The teacher had not even made it to the primary room when the kid's mom showed up at the classroom and started screaming about "how dare you leave my darling son all alone with any adult!" and threatening to sue the church.  The kid of course burst into tears, and played victiom about "they touched me and are treating me so badly".  Note: all adults involved here were female, and classroom had 2 open windows (to the hallway and the busy street), and he had been alone with the teacher for ~10 seconds.  

 

Ultimately, nothing happened legally as a result.  All the church adults wrote descriptions detailing the incident within an hour (precautionary), but mom/lawyer never contacted them.  

 

As much as a mess that incident was... I don't think a change of leadership policy would have changed any of it (he had 2-deep leadership).  Some people/circumstances are too extraneous to buffer yourself against anyone whom threatens to sue.  

 

Why does this feel reminiscent  of almost every experience I've ever had teaching primary. :)

 

Seems like there's always that one kid.

 

[Bini]

Haven't read all the comments, so, this is my response from the initial post.

 

I think the policy works as is. I think it's more preventative than not. So that's a step in the right direction. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to having the policy enforced for women, as well, but with statistics in mind - the more likely "risks" are covered.

[Str8Shooter]

I think you may be misconstruing the statistic you cite. 

 

Don't read too deep into what I posted.  I'm just citing the supporting statistic to someone's claim.

 

 

As for my opinion on two deep leadership for everybody- I don't know.  It's the same way car insurance works.  Men pay higher premiums even if they have never had an accident and I don't agree with that.

What it boils down to is risk.  I am okay with the current two-deep policy.