Mormon Church Abuse Hotline – A Help or Harmful?

1) Executive Summary

This white paper evaluates the U.S. policy and practice of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints’ (“LDS Church”) abuse help line against victim‑safety standards used in health care, long‑term care, and peer faith communities. The central finding is that the LDS help line, as documented in court records and reporting, embeds structural features—routing through Risk Management, legal‑counsel gating, instructions to withhold identifying information, and routine destruction of call notes—that predictably prioritize institutional liability over rapid, trauma‑informed victim safety actions.¹ These features conflict with the Church’s own written guideline that “the first responsibility of the Church in abuse cases is to help those who have been abused.”²

The Arizona “Adams case” illustrates the stakes: a bishop who called the help line reported being told, “You absolutely can do nothing,” after a confession of child rape; years of additional abuse followed before arrest by federal agents unrelated to any Church report.¹ While the Church disputes characterizations of the help line and defends clergy‑penitent privilege,³ multiple documents confirm a protocol stating help‑line staff “should never advise a priesthood leader to report abuse; counsel of this nature should come only from legal counsel,” and instructing staff to accept “first names only” and “no identifying information.”¹

Comparators matter. In health care, HIPAA explicitly permits immediate disclosure for child abuse to authorities;⁴ long‑term care imposes firm reporting clocks (2 or 24 hours) for suspected crimes;⁵ and U.S. Catholic policy (the “Dallas Charter”) embeds mandatory safe‑environment systems and restricts NDAs to victim request.⁶ Southern Baptist reforms, while inconsistent, moved toward centralized “Ministry Check” vetting after independent investigation revealed systemic minimization of reports.⁷

We propose twelve concrete reforms (Section 8) to align LDS policy with a victim‑first standard: direct‑to‑authorities reporting by leaders (with counsel after), independent survivor services, written “duty to report” regardless of privilege where lawful, public annual safety metrics, a re‑chartered help line outside Risk Management, and a narrow, published NDA policy, among others. These are feasible under current U.S. law and consistent with trauma science and pastoral care.

2) Scope & Method

This analysis focuses on U.S. LDS Church policy and practice, triangulating primary documents (court affidavits, state statutes, federal rules), major‑outlet reporting (Associated Press investigations), Church publications, and benchmark standards from health care and other denominations. It incorporates clinical research on harm from institutional betrayal and the trauma sequelae of child sexual abuse.^{8, 9}

3) Background: What the LDS Abuse Help Line Is—and Is Not

4) Evidence of Policy Gaps and Failure Modes

4.1 The Adams (Arizona) case

In Cochise County, Arizona, a father confessed to his LDS bishop that he was sexually abusing his five‑year‑old daughter. The bishop called the help line and later told law enforcement he was told, “You absolutely can do nothing.” The abuse continued for years; federal agents ultimately made the arrest after finding videos online—not via a Church report.¹ Litigation over the clergy‑penitent privilege continues to evolve in Arizona; courts have alternately upheld privilege protections and remanded claims for trial on the duty to report.^{10, 11}

4.2 Internal protocol features that delay protection

“…those taking the calls should never advise a priesthood leader to report abuse. Counsel of this nature should come only from legal counsel.”¹

• Withholding identifiers (“first names only,” “no identifying information”) hinders mandated‑report thresholds based on “reasonable suspicion,” increasing risk of paralysis and error.¹
• Daily note destruction undermines institutional learning and external accountability; it also complicates victim‑centered reviews.¹
• Risk Management leadership and attorney‑client privilege structurally bias toward liability control over immediate survivor safety actions.¹

4.3 Patterns across cases

The Associated Press’ investigative series (2022–2023) documents a recurring pattern: the help line “plays a central role” in diverting allegations away from law enforcement, even as the Church asserts the opposite.¹² Earlier litigation in West Virginia (Jensen) settled after allegations that Church leaders failed to protect children despite multiple notice points.^{13, 14}

4.4 Clinical lens: harm from institutional betrayal

Trauma research shows that when trusted institutions fail to respond supportively, harm is compounded—institutional betrayal—leading to worse PTSD, depression, and trust erosion.^{8, 9} A protocol that delays reporting, obscures records, or centers the perpetrator’s spiritual process over a child’s safety is likely to inflict such secondary harm.

5) Comparative Benchmarks (Health Care, Long‑Term Care, Other Faiths)

5.3 Other faith communities (U.S.)

• U.S. Catholic Bishops (Dallas Charter) institutionalized safe‑environment training and report‑to‑civil‑authorities norms; confidentiality settlements are barred unless requested by the victim.^{18, 6}
• Anglican Church in North America instructs: immediately report to law enforcement/child protective services first, then notify the diocese for pastoral care.¹⁹
• Southern Baptists, after the Guidepost investigation and the Houston Chronicle’s Abuse of Faith series, attempted “Ministry Check” to prevent church‑hopping by known abusers—progress uneven, but a transparency model to study.^{7, 20, 21}

6) Legal Landscape: Clergy Reporting & Privilege in the U.S.

6.1 Mandated reporting & clergy

States vary on whether clergy are designated mandated reporters and whether a clergy‑penitent privilege exempts certain confessional communications. Current state summaries are maintained by the U.S. Children’s Bureau (Child Welfare Information Gateway).^{22, 23}

6.2 Trends (2023–2025)

• Utah (2024) expanded immunity so clergy who learn of abuse in confession may voluntarily report without civil liability risk (the privilege remains).²⁴
• Washington (2025) enacted a no‑exception clergy reporting law (SB 5375), then a federal court enjoined it pending constitutional review—illustrating unresolved First Amendment conflicts.^{25, 26}
• Stateline noted several states weighing removal of confessional exceptions in 2023; the policy debate is active nationally.²⁷

6.3 The Arizona litigation

Arizona’s Supreme Court affirmed application of clergy‑penitent privilege in 2023 in the Adams matter with respect to certain disclosures;¹⁰ in July 2025, the state Court of Appeals remanded related claims on whether leaders nevertheless had a duty to report under state law—underscoring the case‑specific nature of privilege and duty analyses.¹¹

6.4 Comparative law note

In U.S. health privacy law (HIPAA), privacy never bars a provider from reporting suspected child abuse; federal law explicitly permits such disclosures, and state duties apply concurrently.⁴ Long‑term‑care law imposes explicit reporting deadlines and penalties.⁵

7) Theological & Pastoral Considerations for a Victim‑First Approach

• Duty of care: Christian ministry has long acknowledged a special duty to protect “the least of these.” A policy architecture that predictably delays intervention violates this basic pastoral duty—regardless of denominational polity.
• Privilege vs. protection: Theological convictions about confessional secrecy must be balanced with scriptural and moral imperatives to rescue the vulnerable. Many traditions adopt narrow, explicit protocols to reconcile these goods (e.g., urging penitents to self‑report, abstaining from absolution absent immediate safety planning, and reporting non‑confessional information).
• Institutional betrayal as spiritual harm: Clinical literature on institutional betrayal describes deepened trauma when institutions fail survivors; in a faith context, this is also spiritual injury requiring repentance, repair, and restitution by leaders.⁸

8) Objective, Victim‑First Reforms for the LDS Church (U.S.)

Design principles

• Safety first. Reporting pathways must put the child’s safety ahead of institutional risk.
• Speed matters. Adopt explicit timelines (hours, not days) for actions, paralleling Elder Justice standards.
• Transparency & auditability. Preserve records securely; publish de‑identified annual safety metrics.

8.1 Governance & structure

1. Re‑charter the help line under an independent Safeguarding Office (separate from Risk Management and outside defense‑counsel chain). Clinical triage, not legal triage, should be step one.¹
2. Direct‑to‑authority reporting default. In every U.S. jurisdiction, leaders must report to CPS/law enforcement immediately upon reasonable suspicion, except where the only source is a privileged confession and state law clearly forbids disclosure. Where privilege permits reporting or where information is non‑privileged, report without delay.^{15, 4}
3. Written confessional protocol. Publish a narrowly tailored procedure (urge penitents to self‑report; withhold ecclesiastical resolution until a civil safety plan is in place; never use privilege to block non‑confessional facts from being reported). Document that privilege does not bar reporting of independent, non‑confessional information.²²
4. Stop routine note destruction. Implement secure retention with survivor‑access pathways and legal holds; maintain de‑identified data for quality improvement.¹
5. Public metrics & external review. Annually publish: number of calls; percent reported to authorities; time‑to‑report; survivor services activated; outcomes; external audit letter (as the U.S. Catholic Church does via annual Charter reports).²⁸

8.2 Victim‑support operations

6. Independent survivor services. At first disclosure, offer paid access to licensed trauma‑informed care and advocates independent of Church legal counsel.
7. Mandatory “two‑deep” pastoral contact and limitations on solo interviews with minors; all youth leaders complete safeguarding training before service; publish local compliance reporting (mirrors Dallas Charter safe‑environment systems).^{29, 18}
8. NDA policy reform. Prohibit confidentiality clauses in abuse resolutions unless expressly requested by the survivor; publish the policy (mirrors USCCB practice).⁶
9. Whistleblower/ombuds line. Establish a survivor‑facing ombuds independent of Risk Management for complaints about handling or retaliation.

8.3 Leader tools & scripts (U.S.)

10. “Report‑and‑Refer” script: When any child‑safety concern surfaces, a bishop/stake president first calls state CPS/law enforcement, then contacts the Safeguarding Office for clinical and legal guidance. Document time of report.
11. Confessional script: If a perpetrator confesses: urge immediate self‑report in leader’s presence; if state law forbids clergy disclosure, the leader still (1) protects any non‑privileged victims and (2) activates survivor services while seeking anonymous legal counsel on boundaries.²²
12. Do‑not‑delay checklist: Steps to ensure the non‑offending caregiver is contacted, the child is medically evaluated, and the scene is safe—before ecclesiastical counseling proceeds.

9) Implementation Roadmap & Metrics

10) Appendix: Bishop/Leader Scripts & Checklists

A. Immediate Response Script (suspected abuse; not confession)

1. “Thank you for telling me. You did the right thing.”
2. “I’m going to make sure you’re safe. I need to contact child protection right now. I will stay with you.”
3. Call state CPS or law enforcement immediately; document the report number and time.
4. Activate survivor services (independent counseling and advocate).
5. Notify stake president and Safeguarding Office; preserve evidence; do not privately confront the alleged perpetrator.

B. Confession Script (perpetrator confesses)

1. “You must report this now. I will accompany you to call authorities.”
2. If state law forbids clergy reporting of confessional content, do not disclose that content; however, alert non‑privileged caregivers if needed for immediate safety; seek legal guidance on boundaries; ensure survivor services are activated.
3. Withhold ecclesiastical resolution until a civil safety plan is in place and the survivor is stabilized.

11) References (live links)

1. Associated Press (Aug. 4, 2022), Seven years of sex abuse: How Mormon officials let it happen — documents the help‑line protocol (“first names only,” “no identifying information,” “should never advise… report”), daily destruction of notes, Risk Management locus, and the Arizona case quotation “You absolutely can do nothing.” Link
2. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints, Protecting Members and Reporting Abuse (How to Help manual): “The first responsibility of the Church in abuse cases is to help those who have been abused….” Link
3. Church Newsroom (Aug. 5, 2022), Church Offers Statement on Help Line and Abuse: Church defense of the help line’s purpose and practice. Link
4. U.S. HHS FAQ (HIPAA), Does HIPAA preempt State law to report child abuse? — No; HIPAA permits reporting of child abuse to authorities. Link
5. 42 U.S.C. §1320b‑25; CMS Guidance on reporting suspected crimes in long‑term care (Elder Justice Act): timeframes and obligations. Statute • CMS memo
6. USCCB, Child & Youth Protection “Did You Know”: no confidentiality settlements (NDAs) unless requested by survivor. Link
7. Guidepost Solutions (May 2022), Independent Investigation – Southern Baptist Convention Executive Committee (PDF); Baptist Press/updates on “Ministry Check.” Report • 2024 ARITF Report
8. Smith & Freyd (2013), Institutional Betrayal Exacerbates Sexual Trauma, Journal of Traumatic Stress; University of Oregon institutional betrayal resources. Article • Resource
9. Hailes et al. (2019), Long‑term outcomes of childhood sexual abuse, Lancet Psychiatry (systematic review). Link
10. AP via AZPM (Apr. 11, 2023), Arizona Supreme Court upholds clergy privilege in LDS case. Link • Deseret News coverage: Link
11. Arizona Court of Appeals remand (July 30, 2025) — duty‑to‑report claims revived. AZ Capitol Times • 12News
12. AP (Dec. 3, 2023), Takeaways from LDS abuse reporting investigation. Link
13. AP (2018), West Virginia litigation coverage: trial, testimony, and settlement in Jensen matter. Trial begins • Settlement
14. Salt Lake Tribune (Apr. 1, 2018), LDS Church reaches settlement in West Virginia abuse suit. Link
15. Child Welfare Information Gateway, Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse and Neglect (State Statutes Series). Summary • PDF
16. California Department of Education, Child Abuse Identification & Reporting Guidelines. Link
17. CMS Policy Memo (revised 2012), implementing Elder Justice Act reporting timelines. Link
18. USCCB, Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People (2002; revised 2018). Overview • PDF
19. Anglican Church in North America, Safeguarding—Make a Report (report to civil authorities first). Link
20. Houston Chronicle (2019), Abuse of Faith database & series (SBC). Series • Database
21. Religion News Service (June 4, 2024), SBC abuse task force ends work without names in database. Link
22. AP (Mar. 2024), Utah Legislature expands ability of clergy to report child abuse (immunity extension; privilege unchanged). Link
23. Canopy Forum (July 11, 2025), Reflections on Washington State’s effort to eliminate the priest‑penitent privilege. Link
24. Spokesman‑Review (July 18, 2025), Federal judge blocks Washington clergy mandatory‑reporting law. Link
25. Pew/Stateline (May 12, 2023), States weigh child‑abuse reporting vs. clergy confidentiality. Link
26. USCCB (2024), Annual Child & Youth Protection Report (independent audits). Link
27. Church of Jesus Christ, Protecting Children and Youth (training hub and PDF). Training • Overview PDF
28. Church & member commentary offering a defense/alternative reading of AP’s reporting (included here for balance): Public Square Magazine, Ten ways the AP article misrepresented evidence. Link