Men Serving in Primary


clwnuke
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've been trying to organize my thoughts about this subject and I am still not sure I am going to be articulate, but.....

 

 

What I am gathering from this thread is that the church and most members of this thread feel that it's necessary to have two-deep leadership only when those leaders are male, and in order to prevent sexual assault because statistics show that the majority of sexual crimes are perpetrated by men.  And that this policy is not necessary when the leaders are female because...well, gee golly gosh...women sometimes commit sexual crimes but since it's less often than men...nope, no need to worry at all.

 

On the face of it, it doesn't appear very balanced.  We assume every male teaching in Primary is a potential pedophile?  And we assume no woman ever is?

 

I have actually in my personal/professional/volunteer life have unfortunately encountered situations in which the perpetrator was a female.   A female babysitter.  A female teacher.  Just a couple of examples.

 

If the concern is to protect the Primary children from sexual assault, why distinguish between the two sexes?  What level of risk does there have to be before it's considered risky enough?  Sexual assault by a female is going to be just as damaging to the child.  And if we are reducing the risk from males, is the risk from females even higher because we think nothing of leaving our children alone with a female, so that situation happens in a child's life far more frequently than being left alone with a male.  And for most people, the thought of sexual assault from a woman doesn't even enter their minds, so they aren't looking for any warning signs as they would with a male, and they aren't picking up on the signs after the assault has happened.  Because they left their child with a woman and therefore they must be safe, right?

 

I babysat a lot as a teenager.  It's how I made my spending money.  But any teenage guy who wanted to babysit was looked at with suspicion.  Yet I am aware of a female babysitter in that town and era who did molest her charges.  Were these children at less risk because she was a woman?

 

I can understand two-deep leadership with males from a liability point of view.  If you have two adults in the room, you have a witness for those occasions like the one mentioned above where the child makes a false claim.  (And of course this policy works at all ages, so you don't have the random crackpot who accuses the bishop, teacher, pastor, etc of inappropriate conduct).  If that is part of the reasoning, I don't necessarily disagree with that.  But - again - I have to ask - why the idea that the same approach is irrelevant when it comes to female leadership?

 

It's like any kind of statistic.  My doc can tell me there is a less than 1% chance that X scary thing will happen.  But then when I get that diagnosis - and I am part of that less than 1% - I am not any less sick than if the chances had been greater.

 

The child who is sexually assaulted by a female is not somehow less damaged because the initial odds were so low as to be dismissed by the church (and others) as too insignificant to worry about.

 

Sexual assault is a terrible, terrible thing to endure.  Especially for children.  The effects can be devastating.  Yes, victims can go on to have a happy, functional life.  But it's like the person who becomes a paraplegic after an accident.  You survive. You thrive.  You overcome.  But you still have legs that don't work. 

 

Yes, we can potentially go overboard in protecting our children.  I've seen this in other ways where parents go such extremes in protecting them from physical injury, for example, that the children are hardly living a normal life.

 

But if there are simple, reasonable ways that we can protect our children from the devastation of sexual assault, then we have an obligation to do so.

 

Is two-deep leadership across the board - regardless of the gender of the leadership - really so onerous as to be impossible to achieve? Are there no creative ways to address this?  And aside from the sexual assault aspect of it, I can think of a myriad of reasons to have more than one teacher/adult present when dealing with a classroom full of children. Plenty of things simply require an extra set of hands...potty breaks, falls, out of control kids....I'm surprised to hear that any adult is left alone to cope with a classroom full of kids.

 

Is the goal to protect our children from sexual assault by men only? It sure seems that way when the two-deep policy only applies to men.

 

 I'm with Backroads on this one. two-deep is simply a good policy across the board and shouldn't be used solely to protect against sexual assault by males.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, this is a purely legal - minded question without any intended subtle accusation.

If an organization is basing policies on likelihood of an event and cost/benefit analysis (such as 2-deep leadership applying to men but not women here), does that hold up as a reasonable defense should something go wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, this is a purely legal - minded question without any intended subtle accusation.

If an organization is basing policies on likelihood of an event and cost/benefit analysis (such as 2-deep leadership applying to men but not women here), does that hold up as a reasonable defense should something go wrong?

 

Cost/benefit wasn't a reasonable defense for Ford against the Pinto memo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question of whether the church would be legally negligent, absolutely is calculated based on what the church (and specific ward) knew about any need for protection before it took place.

 

But I think the reason why this is required of men is not just because they are men, and most pedophilia is by men (not all, 2000 study put 12% women for under 6 years, and 6% 6-12, with 19%  non-relatives).    It is also because in the church men hold the priesthood and some members (and a lot of non-members) think that gives them more righteousness or more authority meaning a child might be more willing to do what they suggested rather than to scream bloody murder.   And it is because men are more likely to be falsely accused such that they need the protection of 2 deep leadership (BSA is materially different in my view because they are going away from a building into the wilderness or outside activities and on overnight things.)

 

I think the counsel is not just to eliminate all possibilties, but also to protect men who serve in teh church.

 

I would not change the handbook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blanket regulations should be used to provide actual protection to the children and legal protection to the ward. Ramping up the regulations because it is not fair to men unnecessarily ties the hands of those trying to run the programs.  On the other hand, if "two-deep leadership" is intended to optimize learning and provide actual protection to children, then great.  I've seen two statistics tossed out here.  One says 96% of those who prey on children are men.  If so, two-deep leadership seems needlessly burdensome.  The other said that 80% of the perps are men.  Now we're approaching an area where two-deep becomes a policy to consider.  If the male rate goes to 75% or lower, I'd contend for two leaders per class.  Of course, my view gets tossed out of local laws are specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

 

f1lbr, I believe that beating down LDS and non-lds men is the key to Satan's plan to destroy the family. If I wanted to create a game plan to make Priesthood power ineffective on the earth I would focus my time and efforts on young men and fathers.

 

Pornography is one of the weapons employed to destroy trust in relationships, and while I can fully appreciate the Stake President's counsel you quote above, the advice does nothing to foster trust, love, or improve the behavior of Priesthood holders. It will however frustrate the men who are asked the question and decrease their chances of ever finding a worthy companion because they are asking about personal sins and becoming judge and jury.

 

Now I'm sure most of the good women who might read this post will think that the question "When was the last time you looked at pornography?" to be a perfectly legitimate question in this day and age for a women who is dating, but let me generally illustrate how it may feel to a man to be asked that question and then end this post with a spiritual warning based on my own experience.

 

From a scientific point of view, the brain patterns of a woman (or a man) desiring and eating chocolate are indistinguishable from a man (or a woman) desiring and viewing pornography, or an addict seeing drugs, desiring drugs, and using drugs. And the evidence is clear that many women have a weight problem, many men have a pornography problem, and many people have addiction problems. In each case, the problems are made worse by the ready availability of the consumed product.

 

There is no scientific difference in the weakness or lack of resolve shown by women who overeat, men who view pornography, or addicts who use drugs. The difference is in how we view the behaviors. We have normalized being overweight, despite strong spiritual counsel to take care of our temples. However, we have not normalized viewing sexual content or drug addiction. The result is that we shame and guilt the latter two groups endlessly, while bringing chocolate to church and feeding the problem of the first group - but the weaknesses in sinning and the brain areas stimulated can not readily be distinguished between the three. None of them should be normalized behaviors.

 

You do not even need a product to have this problem. Experiments show the same addictive behavior will develop in people with electrodes implanted into the pleasure centers of the brain. The novelty soon turned into an insatiable appetite to press the electrode button, sometimes 1500 times an hour, resulting in callouses on their thumbs, and ultimately to depression and frustration. It's not the product, it's the behavior. Chocolate, pornography, drugs, or electrodes, they can all result in the same damaging behaviors.

 

Now then, how would it be if a Stake President were to counsel men to ask "When is the last time you exceeded your ideal BMI and overate?"? And more importantly, how would women feel if the question were considered legitimate by the majority of men in the church? The advice would do nothing to foster trust, love, or improve the behavior of women. Sound familiar? Men who are struggling with the same desire to feed the pleasure centers of the brain feel just as degraded when asked about pornography. Women especially need to realize this.

 

As an alternative I might suggest asking the question differently once the relationship has matured to an appropriate point. How about something like this "I believe that you and I are growing quite fond of each other, and if we are to move forward it could involve a marriage where we begin to struggle to understand and overcome our weaknesses in order to keep the commandments and our temple covenants. Many men struggle with pornography because Satan wants to destroy them. I want to build you into a great Priesthood holder full of the Spirit of God to bless our family. Are you comfortable trusting and talking to me about this very intimate subject?"  I think the results would be very different.

 

Here is my warning: Please do not ask people to "confess" their past sins to you. If a man or woman has fully repented of their sins, they no longer own the sins. The sin is owned by our loving Savior. He bought them with a price and took possession. If we probe into those sins we are not probing the person in front of us, we are probing the Savior. I once made the mistake of bringing up a past sin of my spouse in a moment of frustration. The Spirit swiftly condemned me with unmistakable power and clarity. I can think of no time in my life where I felt the Lord's condemnation more strongly and I have never wanted to feel that darkness again. I know personally that the Lord takes his role as Redeemer and Judge very seriously. Allow His forgiveness and mercy to flow freely to all, especially those you love most.

 

We need each other. We need to help each other in love and kindness. Satan is working to reduce our love, reduce our trust, reduce our willingness to help each other, and his ultimate goal is to destroy the family and frustrate the Lord's work. He will not be victorious in the end, but until that time even many of the elect will abandon love and hate their own. In this time of war men and women need to help each other be faithful more than ever. I believe that the Balm of Gilead is forgiveness, compassion, and understanding. That is the only path to the true Hope we can rely upon IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well, what sort of rigorous way would you propose, Vort?

 

I dont' know. I just know the onerous and hateful "everyone knows" is insufficient.

 

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.

 

Agreed. I disbelieve the 96% figure. I don't think that is "the best we can [do]". I think it is a figure created out of whole cloth.

 

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.

 

There are several glaring problems with this. Anecdotal evidence is just that. What does "almost all" of 1000 mean? 960? Or 501? Who goes to rape crisis centers, anyway? Do many men go? If not (and we both know the answer), is that because men are never victims of sexual crimes, or because men claiming they were raped Simply Is Not Done? How much more likely is a child to report molestation by a man than by a woman? How much more likely is a child to report molestation by an innocent man than by a guilty woman?

 

These and a hundred other questions are basic, obvious questions that must be answered before we can make any real determinations. Yet to my knowledge, they are not answered. The debate is ruled by emotional anecdotes.

 

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.

 

Please note that these two sentences are in direct contradiction.

 

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. 

 

I have zero problem with two-deep leadership. I have much more of a problem that my sons will ever be considered more likely to engage in gross sexual misconduct because they have a penis and testicles. I expect such vomitous and evil judgment from the world, but I expect more of those who would call themselves "Saints".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't read any of the posts.  This is in response to the OP.

 

My understanding of the rule of 2 for male teachers in Primary is for the protection of the Male teacher.  The children have been protected by church policies as best they can since the inception of Primary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't read any of the posts.  This is in response to the OP.

 

My understanding of the rule of 2 for male teachers in Primary is for the protection of the Male teacher.  The children have been protected by church policies as best they can since the inception of Primary.

 

A very interesting perspective on the matter. Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't had time to read the entire topic yet, but I would like to mention that there are some definition failures, and expected norms that cause some of these statistics to misrepresent the actual reality.

In response the CDC created (2010) an entirely new definition for rape called "forced to penetrate" (mostly men) which mirrors the crime statistics of rape of women. Which isn't even the end of the debate because of political forces on any existing side skewing the results because of their bias.

Edited by Crypto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have zero problem with two-deep leadership. I have much more of a problem that my sons will ever be considered more likely to engage in gross sexual misconduct because they have a penis and testicles. I expect such vomitous and evil judgment from the world, but I expect more of those who would call themselves "Saints".

 

 

Mostly agreed.  Except that you hold Mormons to a higher bar than I do.  And one person's vomitous and evil, is another person's clueless opining from a position of ignorance.  I find it in and out of the church, on plenty of topics. 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having taught in the primary - I can see the value in team teaching.  I think all teaching in the church should be team teaching - such as visiting teaching, home teaching, missionaries  --- etc. ---- even parent teaching children in the home.  I think it is foolish to think teaching is not more effective when there is more than one.  There should be a minimum of 2 whenever possible.  Maybe if we think more than one is not possible - it is because we lack faith.

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding of the rule of 2 for male teachers in Primary is for the protection of the Male teacher. 

 Years ago my wife and I were in the nursery.  One Sunday the bishop came to me with a father who was very upset.

"How did my daughter get a bruise on her head.  She didn't have one when she went into the nursery."

 

I told them that I had no idea.  As far as I knew, nothing happened in the nursery, she did not cry out in pain, etc.

The father gave me a very nasty look.  It could have been very ugly, but I'm sure that since my wife was also there, the whole incident stopped there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh - my daughter can get emotional and cry.  Over the years, I've had two different sweet primary workers, on the verge of tears themselves, come to me and my wife apologetic and just totally destroyed by whatever they did to make my daughter cry.  I've tried to lighten the mood by saying something like "oh don't sweat it, she cried when the Cosby show was cancelled".  Poor sisters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having taught in the primary - I can see the value in team teaching.  I think all teaching in the church should be team teaching - such as visiting teaching, home teaching, missionaries  --- etc. ---- even parent teaching children in the home.  I think it is foolish to think teaching is not more effective when there is more than one.  There should be a minimum of 2 whenever possible.  Maybe if we think more than one is not possible - it is because we lack faith.

 

It is already a strain in our ward to fill up all callings without doubling up.  I held 2 callings for a good 7 years.  We simply don't have the manpower to assign 2 teachers to all classes.  And when a teacher is sick/vacation/etc., it is always a scramble to find a substitute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a father of two girls two years apart in age, unless you're the offspring of an owl and an octopus, handling multiple small children at once is not a one-person job regardless of gender.  You need someone in the overwatch position while the close contact person is distracted by one of the kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a father of two girls two years apart in age, unless you're the offspring of an owl and an octopus, handling multiple small children at once is not a one-person job regardless of gender.  You need someone in the overwatch position while the close contact person is distracted by one of the kids.

 

Yet, us mothers do this work all day long.  By ourselves.  While the husband goes out looking for money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having taught in the primary - I can see the value in team teaching.  I think all teaching in the church should be team teaching - such as visiting teaching, home teaching, missionaries  --- etc. ---- even parent teaching children in the home.  I think it is foolish to think teaching is not more effective when there is more than one.  There should be a minimum of 2 whenever possible.  Maybe if we think more than one is not possible - it is because we lack faith.

Perhaps it is specific to the teacher. I, for one, had a terrible time with team teachers in the room. It was generally a mess with no chemistry. I guess we just lacked faith. Personally, I think the kids deserved better and did better with a dedicated teacher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet, us mothers do this work all day long.  By ourselves.  While the husband goes out looking for money.

 

The home is, or at least should be, a safe environment where it's not a problem for one of the kids to wander off for a few minutes.  Until the youngest was old enough to understand basic concepts like "don't ever drink this," "don't play with knives," and "always make sure the magazine is removed and the chamber is clear before performing any administrative tasks on the firearm" we kept all that stuff well out of reach and/or in a locked closet..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is already a strain in our ward to fill up all callings without doubling up.  I held 2 callings for a good 7 years.  We simply don't have the manpower to assign 2 teachers to all classes.  And when a teacher is sick/vacation/etc., it is always a scramble to find a substitute.

Even in a large, active ward, it is hard to fill Primary callings. People are quick to turn them down. I don't understand it myself. The children teach us so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh that's just a sign of the times; they're shocked that a woman would choose a man as a life partner.

 

I think of the venerable Emily Gilmore of The Gilmore Girls claiming she should have married a female rival years before as it "would have been very modern of me".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share