Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Content note: This case study contains a description of childhood sexual violence in the Survivor Account boxes.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS/Mormon Church) is a global religious institution headquartered in Utah, USA, with significant social and financial capital and millions of global members across diverse cultural contexts. 

Governance within the Church is highly centralised. Senior leadership bodies, including the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, oversee policies guiding congregations worldwide. At the local level, lay male leaders exercise extensive authority, providing pastoral care to congregants, including children and young people. A key limitation is that these lay leaders are almost exclusively men, lack formal training in psychology or social work, and are required to complete only a 20-minute safeguarding video once every three years. 

Doctrinal teachings emphasise trust and dependency in church leadership, confidentiality in pastoral matters, and institutional loyalty. While intended to support spiritual care, survivor and advocate experience suggests these norms can discourage disclosures, and, where abuse is reported, enable it to be concealed within the institution.

Even when local law requires clergy to report child abuse, survivor and advocate experience suggests that institutional processes and norms can shape how their legal obligations are understood and acted on.

The practice-based knowledge in this case study draws on several sources of learning:

• Qualitative data collected under an approved ethical protocol for ongoing academic research. Sources include 22 in-depth trauma-informed qualitative interviews with survivors and 258 open-text responses (totalling 55 pages) from a global survey of 924 participants, conducted during Phase II testing of the Religion, Gender, and Violence Scale.   This data generated significant practice-based insights. Consent was obtained from survivors to share their accounts. 
• The case study also draws on the knowledge creator, Suzanne’s own lived expertise as a survivor within the LDS Church.
• Additional learning emerged through Suzanne’s work as a survivor advocate engaging with individuals navigating institutional responses to abuse. These interactions provided further insight into how reporting pathways operate, how authority structures influence decision-making, and how survivors experience institutional processes in real time.
• These sources are complemented by publicly documented survivor accounts, legal cases, investigative journalism, and institutional materials.

Institutional culture discourages external reporting 

• In hierarchical religious communities where male priesthood authority is deeply respected, members may find it difficult to report violence, challenge leaders’ judgments, or seek outside intervention. 
• Church participation is also central to family relationships, social networks, and community identity. Public criticism may be interpreted as disloyalty to the institution, creating pressure to resolve concerns internally.  
• Even when survivors report, leaders are required to report abuse to a church helpline managed by the institution’s legal arm. Survivors reflect that this helpline is more focused on managing risk for the institution than on direct reporting to secular authorities.

Culture of disbelief and backlash against those who report 

• In male-dominated leadership systems, survivors - particularly women and children - may find their disclosures filtered through the lens of male leadership. Women and child survivors reporting abuse are frequently met with disbelief, suspicion, or moral shaming. Some survivors describe this dynamic as “Bishop Roulette,” reflecting how responses to abuse may depend heavily on the personal attitudes of individual bishops rather than consistent safeguarding standards.
• Survivor accounts indicate that credibility can be weighed against the social standing, spiritual authority, or perceived reputation of the accused. 
• Survivors and advocates describe significant consequences for speaking out, including social exclusion, reputational attacks, strained family relationships, and formal discipline such as excommunication. 

Internal disciplinary processes may replace safeguarding action

When disclosures are addressed, it is through internal religious disciplinary processes known as “courts of love”. These processes are managed by lay clergy (bishops and stake presidents). Survivors describe how confidentiality is perceived to override criminal law. While framed as pastoral care or spiritual accountability, these processes delay or even avoid external intervention. These processes may create an appearance of accountability while allowing perpetrators to perpetrate further harm.

Forgiveness and repentance norms can override child protection responsibilities

Not only do these internal disciplinary councils avoid external reporting, but they also often prioritise the perpetrator’s spiritual rehabilitation over child safety, returning perpetrators to community church positions without mandatory reporting or other safeguarding measures to protect children from further violence.  The institution understands and manages wrongdoing through its own spiritual processes or internal disciplinary courts. The experiences of survivors and advocates highlight that substantial risks arise when internal church disciplinary courts are treated as equivalent to child protection.

The insights presented in this case study are still evolving through lived expertise, advocacy work, and ongoing institutional reflection. The following reflections highlight practical directions emerging from PbK. These recommendations may be relevant not only for the LDS Church, but for any religious community where spiritual authority and institutional reputation can influence responses to child sexual violence.

• Embedding survivor knowledge in institutional reform: Some of the most detailed insights into institutional failure emerged from survivors and advocates working in the field. This highlights the importance of creating formal roles through which survivor knowledge can shape safeguarding policy and practice.
• Clarifying the limits of confidentiality: Confidentiality norms can function to protect institutions rather than survivors. There is a need to clearly define the limits of pastoral confidentiality when childhood sexual violence is disclosed.
• Ensuring abuse disclosures trigger external safeguarding action: In several cases, disclosures were treated as sacred internal matters, delaying reporting and leaving children exposed to harm. Internal repentance processes can result in bypassing legal accountability or child protection obligations. The learnings highlight the importance of ensuring immediate engagement with secular authorities.
• Preventing restoration of perpetrators to positions of trust: In several cases, internal processes restored perpetrators to community standing while risks to children remained unaddressed. Faith communities must maintain clear checks on perpetrators returning to positions of authority over children, consistent with legal requirements and independent of any internal determination of repentance or rehabilitation.

The following questions may help practitioners and advocates identify potential safeguarding risks in faith-based institutions:

• Is the responsibility to report to secular authorities understood? Does the institution explicitly acknowledge that reporting requirements and child protection legislation take precedence over confidentiality or internal processes, and are leaders trained on their legal obligations?
• Do policies require secrecy, and where are there clear exceptions for reporting child abuse? Are leaders explicitly required to report suspected abuse to civil authorities? Who has the authority to decide whether a case stays internal or is reported externally?
• How do rituals, covenants, or religious teachings influence reporting? Do institutional teachings about unity, obedience, or protecting the reputation of the institution discourage members from raising concerns publicly?
• Who holds decision-making power when abuse is disclosed? Are safeguarding decisions made by trained professionals, or primarily by local leaders operating within hierarchical chains of authority?
• How is survivor knowledge incorporated into institutional learning? Are there safe and meaningful ways for survivors to share insights that directly inform safeguarding policies and practices?
• How does the institution respond to public allegations or criticism? Does concern about scandal discourage transparency, or are allegations addressed through open and accountable processes?