So the attorney for the LDS "church" says that it did not do anything wrong. Wow! What a surprise! Come on, Restornu, even you have to take an attorney's statement about his client's innocence with a grain of salt.
This attorney specializes in "child abuse cases for the church" in Salt Lake City? Exactly how much work does he get?
Good question, CC.
I found these two comments from another Web site made today "interesting." (I assume Mormons made the comments; but I can't say that with certainty):
This comment was made from poster Alas @ www.newordermormon.org: When the wife went to the stake president, it was no longer a confessional, but a wife reporting what her husband had done and that by law should have been reported because it was NOT a confession. So, by their own standards of "we must protect the confessional" they didn't report when they should have.
Source: New Order Mormon: Did fellow Mormons cover up officer's baby molestations discussion
There ya have it: Mormons breaking the law by staying silent to protect a pedophile. (Well what'ya expect?...How many hundreds, if not thousands, of Mormons didn't "tattle" on the Mountain Meadow Massacre slaughterers of babies & children & their parents in the 1850s as that silence lingered into the 1860s, the 1870s, the 1880s, the 1890s, & then into the 20th century before taking it to their graves?)
My dad grew up in Mormon culture amongst Mormon people. He partially defended Mormons, saying, "They knew how to take care of their own."
(Well, I "guess" they do)
BTW, from the same source above, poster Zadok @ NewOrderMormon.org concluded:
If I am not mistaken, I believe the instructions to the Bishops and Stake Presidents of the Church are to notify authorities. The greater good of protecting the innocent children, (and of course the good name of the Church) trump the sanctity of the confessional in these circumstances.