My point is, your assertion their rules are not consistent isnt well made - Morph
I disagree. If two unrelated people admit to staying unchaperoned in the same house overnight, with no exceptional circumstances, they are liable to be disfellowshipped for fornication. Even if they adamantly deny that anything happened there will be an assumption of guilt based on circumstantial evidence.
The organisation is passionate about punishing even a suspicion of fornication in order to protect its reputation.
In contrast even the most compelling evidence of child sex abuse will be suppressed and accusers silenced unless their unreasonable standards of proof are met.
The organisation is passionate about covering up child abuse in order to protect its reputation.
This has led to a blatant inconsistency.
The Fall Guy makes a good point; your criticism is misplaced.