krk22 wrote:Does it matter which Bishop signs the "testimony of witnesses"? The current ward or the ward in which the ordinance was performed?
The way I read it, the bishop is not signing as witness to the event in question, but as a witness to the testimony. It strikes me as the legal equivalent of placing one's hand on a bible when swearing to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" as well as the legal equivalent of notary public who certifies that the person in question really did sign this paper and it wasn't forged.
While technically any bishop might be able to do this, I think it's preferable that it be a bishop that knows the member(s) signing the statement. I can see where the new bishop might not want to do that for a member who just moved in this week, but at some point the old bishop may not want to do it either as they have been out of the ward for some time. My best suggestion there is to handle this like a temple recommend - if the members have been in the ward for less then a year, the new bishop should consult with the old bishop.
Is the only problem an abundance of caution, or are there some red flags? I am a tad troubled that the two witnesses are the parents who are not disinterested bystanders, but there's nothing in the handbook that prohibits that. So unless they're the only ones who remember, I'm not sure what the problem is.