Mighty Builder wrote:I asked if Romney had allowed Sex Abusers protection from prosecution given that the Mormon Church say's it would be a Bishop's right to do so. I did not state that Romney DID protect Sex Abusers.
Thank you for making that distinction. Your first post was much more accusatory in nature.
The Mighty Builder wrote: A "Calling" is no more protection from a predator than is said same predator volunteering. Whereas many religious groups and other sponsors of the Boy Scouts REQUIRE background checks on volunteers, Mormons just rely of the "Burning in the Bosom. Which do you thing is more protective of children?
My point is that child predators tend to volunteer to work with children. You cannot do this with the church since they call members from the ward to serve in the position, so a predator may not be able to get the calling. Background checks are great, but it doesn't stop many of them who haven't yet committed these crimes or have been good at covering their tracks. The burning is the bosom is just one intuition. Some are better at it then others, but it is not from some unseen divine being, and cannot take take the place of background checks.
The Mighty Builder wrote: Background checks are a Proactive Protection. Bosom Burning is Witchcraft/Soothsaying at its Worst.
You still would need to take into account the church's different method of getting scout leaders to show a cover up, and bosom burning is just intuition that is incorrectly attributed to the spirit.
Themis wrote:You still would need to take into account the church's different method of getting scout leaders to show a cover up, and bosom burning is just intuition that is incorrectly attributed to the spirit.
My point still stands, and I have not commented on others policy's that I agree should be implemented by the LDS church. In order to show a cover up you would need to look at policy's and how they recruit scout leaders.
