Callings against the directions of the 1st presidency - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

MikeWaters · 08-02-2006, 03:47 PM

In our ward, they just called a middle-aged man to be in the nursery. Fairly new move-in.

So now he is paired with a single middle-aged beloved member.

This is against the directions of the church, to put in two people of the opposite sex, who are not married.

What is the proper thing here? Say something? Leave it alone?

have any of you ever pulled your kid out of a class due to concerns about the teacher?

Archaea · 08-02-2006, 04:02 PM

No.

Concerns about a teacher? Is he on the sex registery list? If so, then yes.

But he's paired with somebody you trust? I'm not sensitive enough to know.

El Guapo · 08-02-2006, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

In our ward, they just called a middle-aged man to be in the nursery. Fairly new move-in.

So now he is paired with a single middle-aged beloved member.

This is against the directions of the church, to put in two people of the opposite sex, who are not married.

What is the proper thing here? Say something? Leave it alone?

have any of you ever pulled your kid out of a class due to concerns about the teacher?

I am very surprised they did that. If you don't want to ruffle feathers, an anonymous letter to the stake would probably do the trick. Otherwise, I would just mention it to the bishop.

creekster · 08-02-2006, 04:08 PM

As I recall Mike, you were the exec secty prior tot he scouting gig. I would just mention it to the bishop.

fusnik11 · 08-02-2006, 04:12 PM

I hope this is TIC, as if it isn't it's a sad, sad day that any man is now a suspected pedophile.

Why aren't you worried about the woman sodomizing your child?

I think the directive from the First Presidency was stupid.

ewth8tr · 08-02-2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusnik11

I hope this is TIC, as if it isn't it's a sad, sad day that any man is now a suspected pedophile.

Why aren't you worried about the woman sodomizing your child?

I think the directive from the First Presidency was stupid.

I think you misread Mike's post. He was refering to both leaders being single and of the opposite sex.

DrumNFeather · 08-02-2006, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusnik11

I hope this is TIC, as if it isn't it's a sad, sad day that any man is now a suspected pedophile.

Why aren't you worried about the woman sodomizing your child?

I think the directive from the First Presidency was stupid.

I disagree that it was stupid...

I don't think that you'll ever see church leadership say they wish they could've done less in preventing a tragedy.

This is the reality of the world we live in. We may get to the point where they double up callings for both sexes, but for right now, men are the ones committing the acts and thus are much more likely to be accused than women.

I think it is unfortunate that this step had to be taken, but it is better that the church do all they can to prevent things from happening than not do something because it is unpopular with some of the members.

jay santos · 08-02-2006, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusnik11

I hope this is TIC, as if it isn't it's a sad, sad day that any man is now a suspected pedophile.

Why aren't you worried about the woman sodomizing your child?

I think the directive from the First Presidency was stupid.

I'm all about being tolerant and forgiving when it comes to people with problems. But when it comes to protecting my children I go with the percentages. I don't allow my children to go on sleepovers--even to their cousins or next door neighbor who I love and trust. I would be very uncomfortable with a single man in the nursery alone with my children. I know that wasn't Mike's circumstance, but that's how fus answered it.

UtahDan · 08-02-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusnik11

I think the directive from the First Presidency was stupid.

What a shock.

MikeWaters · 08-02-2006, 04:38 PM

Our bishop decided to go with the "other circumstances" exception. I can't remember the exact wording, but there is an allowance for men to teach classes alone if they are frequently checked on by the primary presidency.

Somehow I don't think the 1st presidency intended that the exception be used for a ward of our size, but he's the Bishop.

08-02-2006, 03:47 PM	#1
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Callings against the directions of the 1st presidency In our ward, they just called a middle-aged man to be in the nursery. Fairly new move-in. So now he is paired with a single middle-aged beloved member. This is against the directions of the church, to put in two people of the opposite sex, who are not married. What is the proper thing here? Say something? Leave it alone? have any of you ever pulled your kid out of a class due to concerns about the teacher?

08-02-2006, 04:02 PM	#2
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	No. Concerns about a teacher? Is he on the sex registery list? If so, then yes. But he's paired with somebody you trust? I'm not sensitive enough to know. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

08-02-2006, 04:08 PM	#4
creekster Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: the far corner of my mind Posts: 8,711	As I recall Mike, you were the exec secty prior tot he scouting gig. I would just mention it to the bishop. __________________ Sorry for th e tpyos.

08-02-2006, 04:12 PM	#5
fusnik11 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,506	I hope this is TIC, as if it isn't it's a sad, sad day that any man is now a suspected pedophile. Why aren't you worried about the woman sodomizing your child? I think the directive from the First Presidency was stupid.

08-02-2006, 04:38 PM	#10
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	Our bishop decided to go with the "other circumstances" exception. I can't remember the exact wording, but there is an allowance for men to teach classes alone if they are frequently checked on by the primary presidency. Somehow I don't think the 1st presidency intended that the exception be used for a ward of our size, but he's the Bishop.