FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on abuse is that "abuse cannot be tolerated in any form. Those who abuse their spouses, children, other family members, or anyone else violate the laws of God and man. . . . When abuse occurs, the first and immediate responsibility of Church leaders is to help those who have been abused and to protect vulnerable persons from future abuse."[1]
To view articles about abuse and the Church, click "Expand" in the blue bar:
General Principles |
|
Specific Cases |
Questions relating to the sin of sexual abuse — how frequently does it happen in the Church, how does the Church protect and aid victims, and most importantly, how can we further reduce the risk — are unfortunately necessary to ask in today’s world.
Jennifer Roach Lees, a licensed therapist and former Anglican minister, researched the answers to these questions. Her findings were laid out in a 2023 FAIR presentation. Her findings are summarized below.
Are there higher rates of abuse in our church than in others?
Advocates against abuse have been hesitant to say, “This church is doing better than that church,” because there has been no solid data to base that on. Jennifer said:
An author says, ‘I ended up leaving the Catholic church after I watched a priest defend molestation during a sermon, in the name of forgiveness. It was a horrendous sermon to watch. And in Christian communities like the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, it’s a common message.’ …
“But is it even true? We have very little data, at least up until now, to check statements like this against. … Back in April, the Boy Scouts exited bankruptcy. Part of that was establishing a fund, to fund settlements for victims. … The church paid $250 million into this fund, or 30% of the fund. The question that rises in my mind is: ‘How did they come up with that number? How did they come up with that percent? Why 30%?’ … You can find claims online where people will say … ‘They’re getting off for pennies on the dollar. Surely the church is responsible for more than 30% of the abuse that’s happened in the Boy Scouts!’ But is that true? Is our Church responsible for 30% of the abuse that happened? What can we actually know?"
Jennifer discovered that Latter-day Saint-affiliated troops made up as much as 30% of all Boy Scout troops, depending on the decade in question. Accordingly, they paid 30% of the money into the victim compensation fund. So, does that mean Church members are responsible for 30% of the abuse inflicted on Boy Scouts over the decades?
What are the Boy Scouts “P-Files”?
To answer this question, she looked at the only database she could: the Boy Scout Ineligible Volunteer Files, or what are commonly called the “P-Files” or “Perversion Files.”
She explained, “We do not have access to all of the information on all of the claims about the Boy Scouts or all of the abuse that has happened. But … over the last 80 years, the Boy Scouts have kept records on the abuse and other perversions that have happened in their ranks. They have documented these for quite a long time. Those documents have been put into a database. The Los Angeles Times owns that database. You can go online — anyone can — you can search it for free. You can see abusers that happened in your area, you can search by their names, you can search by troop number. It’s very fascinating just to kind of look through. I decided to analyze these files and find out what we could learn. The files vary widely in terms of their size and their completeness. Some are just a couple of pages, especially the older ones. The older ones are not very complete, while others have like 100 pages in them or more. Court documents, victim statements, photographs, newspaper clippings, all kinds of things are in there.”
Each file comes with a cover sheet asking for basic information about each case, including the religion of the alleged perpetrator of the abuse. This is the only database of its kind that Jennifer has been able to find that lists the religious affiliation of those accused of abuse. The perpetrators are overwhelmingly male, so much so that female representatives are statistically insignificant. If their religion is left off the cover sheet, most of the time that information can be found by reading through the file, but in about 3% of the cases, it could not be located, so they were removed from her sample.
In the “P-Files” were details of approximately 5,000 cases spanning across 80 years that Jennifer used to gather her data. In addition to the 3% whose religious affiliation could not be determined, roughly 1% were so heavily redacted, they could not be used. Another 1% was eliminated because the files were “perversion” files, not “abuse” files, and some cases involved homosexual activity between consenting adults, not the youth. That left her with approximately 95% of the cases she could use for her research.
Do Latter-day Saint leaders make up 30% of abusers in the Boy Scout files?
What were the results of the research? Jennifer continued, “Are 30% of these leaders LDS? … 30% of the troops were LDS; we gave 30% to this Victims Compensation Fund. Is that the right number, or isn’t it? Using statistical sampling I pulled files to see who’s committing this abuse. What was their troop affiliation?”
When she looked at the results, she was surprised by the findings. “It wasn’t even close!” she said. “Not even close to 30%. 5.16% of the abusers were LDS-affiliated. … Statistically, that means we’re seeing 75% less abuse in an LDS troop than in a non-LDS troop.”
It also means that 94.84% of the abuse in those files came from non-Latter-day Saint troop leaders. Of the 30% she expected to find, based on the number of LDS troops and the amount paid into the compensation fund, Jennifer only actually found ¼ of that amount of abuse, and had her numbers checked by a professional statistician. There was a ten quintillionth of a chance that the low percentage occurred by chance. There were other factors driving the lower abuse rates.
Those factors include following the best practices to avoid abuse, as well as going above and beyond those practices. The system of calling and sustaining youth leaders, existing associations among Church members, the member number system, gender-specific leaders for the Young Women, disfellowshipping and other membership restrictions, and the helpline all contribute to that success.
What are the best practices to avoid abuse, and how does the Church follow them?
According to Jennifer’s presentation, the best practices to minimize abuse include:
Screening volunteers
Callings are filled by the guidance of the Spirit, along with considering the member’s worthiness, gifts and abilities, and personal circumstances.
People who are not members of the Church can be called to some callings, but not teaching positions, Primary music leaders, or as quorum or class presidency members. They will not be placed in positions of working with the youth.
Those who have had their Church membership withdrawn or restricted may not hold callings.
Training volunteers
All adults in the Church who participate in teaching the youth or supervising their activities have to complete children and youth protection training and to renew it every three years.
Promptly report the abuse when it happens
The Church has guidelines for reporting abuse immediately to both local leadership and to civil authorities. This includes the helpline for the local leadership to access when they aren’t sure of the law.
A two-deep rule among adults who volunteer with children, including transportation and all communications with children
Classes and activities involving the youth, including transportation to events or communications regarding those events should include two or more adults present at all times. Vehicles should be in safe operating condition, seatbelts must be worn by everyone, and all drivers should have a valid license and insurance. No extended one-on-one communications should be had between any adult leaders and the youth who are not their own children.
Parents being informed of private conversations between adults and children, and the opportunity to join those conversations
Parents are informed of all interviews and meetings with the youth, and all such conversations include a second adult or parent in the same or adjoining room, depending on the youth’s comfort level.
Windows on all classroom doors
Many class rooms in Church buildings have windows on the doors, and those that do not are encouraged to be propped partially open during lessons with the youth.
Parents, not teachers, should take their children to the bathroom
Leaders and teachers are encouraged to request parents take their children to the bathroom before attending Primary. If a child needs to use the restroom during Primary, leaders are to send for the child’s parents to escort them.
These guidelines are included in the General Handbook and other Church policies, and each of them plays a role in reducing abuse. However, these guidelines are already being followed by many other churches, too. So, what else is driving lower abuse rates among Latter-day Saints?
What are additional, unique practices in our Church to help protect children?
If best practices are typically followed by most churches, what is it that sets our church apart?
The calling and sustaining system
Leaders in our church are, the vast majority of the time, chosen and called rather than being filled on a volunteer basis. A person typically has to wait and hope to be chosen for the calling they want. Then, if they are called to the position they hoped for, the rest of the congregation sustains that person in their calling. If there is a question about their suitability for that role, those concerns are shared with the Bishop or Branch President. This is not the case for many other churches, in which those positions are filled by volunteers without means for the congregation to vet them.
Existing associations
In our Church, we attend wards, stakes, and branches based on geographical areas. Our address determines which congregation we attend. Our neighbors and others who know us often attend those same congregations with us. In other denominations, people attend whichever church they prefer, regardless of proximity. Strangers can church-hop, going from one congregation to another, if they get into trouble in one church. While it may seem like a silly thing, geographic boundaries with those who know you and your behavior can help protect children. It’s more difficult to hide clandestine and immoral behavior in a small, contained area.
The member number system
Member numbers follow us throughout our lives, from home to home and ward to ward. These numbers can include annotations informing every new Church leader we have that we cannot be trusted around children, if necessary. It warns new Bishops and Branch Presidents that there have been accusations, rumors, or even legal convictions against us. This prevents an accused abuser from ever again working with children in a Church calling.
Gender-specific leaders for the Young Women
Because the overwhelming amount of sexual abuse perpetrated against the youth are committed by men, having gender-specific leaders for Young Women, whom the girls know and trust, is a big protection. Not only does it reduce the risk of men being alone in close proximity to young women, but it also gives young women other trusted adults in their lives they can confide in if abuse is happening to them.
Disfellowshipping and other membership restrictions
If you are caught abusing youth in our church, you are placed under strict membership restrictions, and it often requires First Presidency approval for those restrictions to be lifted.
As Jennifer explained, “If you are caught abusing kids in our church, you will be kicked out, and it requires First Presidency approval for you to come back. The pastor who abused me — he’s still a pastor. He still works at a church. I know where it is. They pay him. They know the whole story. It was in the newspaper. They don’t care. ‘Forgive! We have to forgive him. He’s moved on.’ That’s how it’s normally dealt with. In our church, they’ll kick you out over it.”
The helpline
Because we have a lay ministry without formal training, and because laws are different in every state and country, we have a helpline for bishops, branch presidents, and stake presidents to access. They can help navigate legal complexities as well as point these Church leaders to resources to help victims. This is unique to our church.
Does the Church’s helpline hide abuse?
The Church has a helpline for bishops, staffed with lawyers and counselors, who can give advice on local laws and procedures regarding reporting abuse, and caring for victims who disclose abuse. Critics accuse the helpline of existing to shield abusers and minimize the Church’s culpability in cases where a Church member or leader is the one committing the abuse, but that is far from reality.
Jennifer gave an example to explain why the helpline is necessary:
I want you to pretend for a minute that you are a bishop in the state of Utah. (Kind of easy for some of you, I know.) In the course of your normal Bishop duties, you learn about two scenarios.
1. Two 13-year-olds have engaged in sexual touching with each other; and 2. A 16-year-old and a 22-year-old have had sexual intercourse.
Think in your mind for a minute. Which one of those is a crime? … You do some research. You learn that the age of consent in Utah is 18. Does that make both of these crimes? … Well, I’m not a lawyer, but I can look up the criminal code online just as well as you can. Let me share with you two things that are in the Utah State Criminal Code currently today. Section 76-5-401.3 says no one may engage in sexual touching with a 13-year-old — not even another 13-year-old — and it was a crime if it happens. The section right before that, 76-5-401.2, says it is legal for an adult who is less than 7 years older than a 16-year-old or 17-year-old to have sexual intercourse with them as long as it’s consensual. An adult ‘commits unlawful sexual conduct with a 16- or 17- year-old minor if the actor is seven or more years older, but less than 10’ (it becomes a different category of crime after that).
So, wait a minute, the age of consent is 18. But here maybe it’s 16 and it’s certainly not 13. But if it’s another 13-year-old, it’s still a crime. The two 13-year-olds engaging in sexual touching is the crime here. The 16-year-old and the 22-year-old is actually not a crime. It’s allowed for in the current Utah statutes. Would you have known that off the top of your head if you’re a bishop? Is either one of these abuse? Does it need to be reported? Are you harboring a sexual predator if you don’t report it? Do you see why we need a helpline? …
So, the claim ‘the helpline is there to keep the church out of legal trouble,’ … — of course it is! Do you know what the best way to stay out of legal trouble is? Follow the law! So, yeah, the abuse helpline is there to help people do that. It’s also there to help care for victims. But you bet it’s there to keep the church out of legal trouble and it’s doing that by explaining to people (like you and me who are not lawyers), ‘Here’s what you need to do.’”
Do background checks work?
Many people around the world, including many Latter-day Saints, believe that background checks should be mandatory for those working with the youth. But they were not listed under best practices or extra measures the Church takes. Why is that? Do background checks work?
Background checks only examine someone’s criminal history going back seven years, any aliases connected to that person, whether they’re on the Terror Watchlist or the sex offender registries, and verify their Social Security Number, their date of birth, and their address history.
A major factor affecting the efficacy of background checks is delayed disclosure. According to Jennifer’s research, the average age of someone reporting childhood sexual abuse for the first time is 52 years old, well past the statute of limitations for the crime to be prosecuted. That means that there will be no criminal record for those crimes until decades after they were committed, if ever. Unfortunately, a background check would not work in many cases. Additionally, if someone is sued civilly because they can no longer be prosecuted criminally, that also would not show up on a background check.
Having a “clean” background check, therefore, really just means that “nothing was found on their record.” Most abusers unfortunately can and do pass background checks.
That does not mean that we should not require them, and in states and countries where they are required, the Church readily complies. It is just an unfortunate reality that background checks are not as effective as many people believe they are.
While there is no official Church stance either for or against background checks, there is nothing preventing local members from passing city or state requirements adovicating for these and other safety measures. It is a matter of personal preference and belief in the efficacy of such measures.
Notes
- ↑ 38.6.2 "Abuse," General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (2022).