Welcome to Study Faith with AI, where we use the power of AI to help you explore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm Meg Jensen.

And I'm Paul Carter,

and we're Google AIs. Whether you're a lifelong member or just starting to learn about the Church, we're here to dive deep into its history, beliefs, and culture.

So, if you're ready to learn, you're in the right place.

That's right.

Let's get started. 

Welcome to the deep dive. Today we're tackling uh a really sensitive and important topic, child abuse within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It's definitely a difficult subject. And we want to be clear, our approach is grounded entirely in the sources we've analyzed, survivor accounts, legal documents, policy discussions, respectful and factual.

Absolutely. Our mission here is to really understand the scope of this. You know, how it's handled, what the sources suggest about the Church's priorities. and the debates happening around it. No personal opinions, just distilling the information.

We know you want to get the core insights quickly but thoroughly. So, we've done the leg work to pull out the crucial details for you.

Okay, so let's dive right in. How big is this problem? According to the material we looked at,

well, a major piece of context comes from the Boy Scouts of America bankruptcy. The Church was heavily involved there,

right? The settlement. And there was a figure mentioned, wasn't there? Around 2400, maybe 2500 cases.

That's the number cited in relation to use in LDS-sponsored troops within that BSA lawsuit. Yes.

And we should stress that number, as significant as it is, might even be low, couldn't it? Because of, well, how hard reporting could be.

Exactly. Reporting limitations are a real factor. But it does point towards something potentially more systemic than just isolated incidents, especially given the Church's history with scouting.

Can you elaborate on that history? Just how connected were they?

Oh, incredibly connected. For a long time, the LDS Church was the single largest sponsor of scout troops nationally.

Wow. What kind of numbers are we talking?

Sources mentioned maybe 35 to 40% of all troops, something like 400,000 boys enrolled in Church-sponsored troops. Huge financial contributions, too.

Okay. Huge involvement. But then there's this counterpoint in the sources, right, about how these troops were run.

Yeah, that's a, a really interesting and quite troubling claim. Some sources describe the Mormon-run troops as often being the sloppiest run.

Sloppiest. What do they mean by that? Not intentionally bad, but

the reasoning given was that scouting, while encouraged, maybe wasn't the core religious priority. So, it often relied heavily on volunteers, perhaps with less formal oversight compared to, say, secular troops.

Less rigorous adherence to safety protocols. Maybe.

That's the implication. One source directly contrasted the professionalism and safety measures, suggesting Mormon troops sometimes fell short.

So, the sheer number of troops combined with potentially uh looser standards could have inadvertently created more risk.

That's the concern raised. Yes. An environment where abuse might be more likely to occur or, you know, go undetected across such a massive system.

And this isn't just limited to scouting, is it? The sources talk about abuse in other Church contexts, too.

Absolutely. We have accounts detailing alleged abuse by bishops, Stake Presidents, other leaders, sometimes within families where leaders were reportedly aware but didn't act.

The volume of survivor stories mentioned is striking. Even the ones we have access to are like just a fraction.

Which brings us to the critical question. How is abuse reported and what actually happens then? Or maybe what doesn't happen consistently?

Let's start with the official channel mentioned the helpline,

right? The helpline established after some legal challenges, but its function seems complex.

How so?

Well, one source describes it less as victim support and more as an early warning system for the Church's lawyers, Kirton McConkie.

So, the primary goal might be managing legal risk for the institution.

That's the suggestion,

which seems different from say a primary focus on the victim's immediate needs.

And how does that compare to what was supposedly done before?

Sources suggest the policy, at least on paper, used to lean more towards mandatory reporting laws before this helpline system came into place.

Okay, that's a key difference. And then we have these really difficult survivor accounts.

Yes. Allegations that leaders, bishops, Stake Presidents, even mission presidents actively discouraged reporting to the police.

Discouraged reporting. Why would they do that?

The accounts suggest the priority was often protecting the Church's reputation or the abuser standing, maybe their mission service, over the victim's well-being.

That's incredibly disturbing. And there are examples of inaction, too.

Yeah. Cases where leaders allegedly knew about abuse, sometimes even within their own families or by other members, and didn't report it.

Citing reasons like not wanting to ruin families.

That's one reason mentioned, it points to maybe a cultural pressure to keep things internal even at the expense of individual safety.

And it gets worse, right? Alleged abusers sometimes staying in positions of trust.

Yes. Sources include accounts where individuals faced accusations or even reportedly confessed but were allowed to continue working with youth or even got promoted within the Church structure.

That raises serious questions about accountability.

It certainly does. There's also a point in the sources about resistance initially at least to the Boy Scouts own sexual abuse training.

Oh, interesting. Did the Church implement its own then?

Yes, eventually they did implement their own training though one source called it subpar while still acknowledging it was you know a step

okay this whole area of prevention leads us to background checks there's been movement there hasn't there especially in the UK

yes that's highlighted as a major development background checks are now required for those serving with youth in the UK

what drove that change

seems to be a combination of activism and crucially concerns about the personal legal liability of local Church leaders under UK law. One source called it a huge victory for child protection advocates there.

So external legal pressure was a big factor. How does that compare to the US?

It seems more limited here. Background checks happen but often mainly where they're legally mandated like California. You do hear about things like Stake-level scan events for specific roles sometimes.

But it's not universal. And there's a debate about how effective they really are, isn't there?

Absolutely. The arguments against relying solely on them are quite strong. One major issue is delayed disclosure,

meaning people often don't report abuse until years later.

Exactly. Sometimes long after the statute of limitations has run out. Plus, a background check only shows reported crimes, convictions, usually.

So, someone could be abusing people but have a clean record.

Yes. And that green check could create a false sense of security, which an abuser might actually exploit. It doesn't prove someone is safe, just that nothing official has been recorded against them.

That's a really important distinction, a snapshot, not a guarantee,

right? But the counterargument is also powerful,

which is

that even if checks only catch some potential abusers, preventing even one instance of abuse makes them worthwhile. It's a valid point. It's a complex debate.

Is there any internal tracking system the Church uses like their member numbers?

The member record system is mentioned. Theoretically, it could track people across congregations, but its effectiveness in preventing abuse is questioned.

How so?

There's an account in our sources, an alleged example, where notes about past abuse concerns on someone's record were apparently ignored when they moved to a new area and worked with youth again.

Wow. Okay. Let's shift gears slightly. Sam Young's excommunication comes up a lot in these discussions.

Yes. His case is prominent. His activism focused squarely on ending those closed-door one-on-one interviews between bishops and youth,

particularly because of concerns about sexually explicit questions being asked. Right.

That was a major focus. And his, his public campaign for policy changes ultimately led to his excommunication.

There's quite a contrast, isn't it? His outcome versus the success activists had in the UK getting background checks implemented.

Very different outcomes for pushing for child safety measures.

Though there was one policy change related to those interviews, correct?

Yes, that's important. Following the concerns raised by Sam Young and others, the policy did change to allow parents to be present during those youth interviews.

Okay. So, looking at all this, the helpline structure, the alleged discouragement of reporting, the resistance to some external measures, the handling of accusations. What do the sources suggest about the Church's underlying priorities?

Well, if you analyze the patterns described, the actions, the inactions, the official statements versus the alleged realities, certain themes emerge,

like the protection of reputation and finances

that appears frequently. The alleged push to handle things internally, the helpline's potential focus on legal warning, the widow's mite analogy used by one source. It suggests a strong focus on protecting the institution itself.

And what about clergy confidentiality? How does that play into it?

That's another key area. The principle exists to allow people to seek counsel confidentially, but some sources argue it's sometimes used in ways that shield the Church legally rather than protecting victims.

The concern being it might make abusers feel safer confessing to a bishop knowing it won't automatically go to the police.

That's the concern raised. Yes. And generally, there seems to be a pattern described in the sources of resisting external scrutiny

like the initial hesitation on BSA training or managing information tightly.

Exactly. Which creates this apparent gap

between the stated commitment to child safety

and the actions or lack thereof described in many of these accounts and analyses we've reviewed.

And the impacts of all this are massive, aren't they? Personally, legally,

absolutely. Personally, the trauma for survivors is devastating and lifelong. The sources detail feelings of shame, confusion, long-term difficulties with relationships, intimacy, just profound harm.

And legally, we mentioned the BSA settlement.

Yes, the $250 million settlement in the BSA bankruptcy is a huge figure. Plus, there's ongoing legal exposure from mixed claims abuse outside scouting, but involving Church leaders or settings. And legal liability fears clearly drove the UK background check policy.

Reputationally, this must be damaging, too.

No question. The negative publicity has been extensive. We saw that example of the Church seemingly scrubbing its online ties to the Boy Scouts after the scandal broke widely

and financially beyond the BSA settlement.

There's the potential for ongoing and future legal costs related to abuse claims which remains a significant financial factor for the Church.

Okay. And just briefly on scouting as we planned, we've established the deep historical ties, the Church being the biggest sponsor.

Right. And that relationship ended. The Church cited reasons like values alignment, honor, truth, diversity.

But some sources suggest other factors were at play.

Yeah. Some suggest the BSA bankruptcy and the associated legal liabilities were more central to the timing and decision. And we already touched on those alleged differences in professionalism and safety between Mormon and secular troops.

Which brings us back to safety. And this is really a question for you, the listener, after hearing all this.

What changes? What specific actions or assurances would make you feel comfortable having your child participate in a Church youth program? It's not a simple question, but it makes you think about what truly creates a safe environment.

Things like robust background checks, acknowledging their limits, of course, clear enforced mandatory reporting, victim-centered processes, real accountability for leaders,

transparency, these seem like essential elements that come up again and again in the material.

So, to sum up this deep dive, we've looked into the complex issue of child abuse connected to the LDS Church, exploring the scope, reporting, responses, and the surrounding debates all based on the sources provided.

We've tried to pull together survivor perspectives, legal angles, policy analysis to give you a nuanced picture. Remember, everything we discussed comes directly from that source material.

Our aim was a factual, clear understanding of a very sensitive topic.

And we want to leave you with this final thought to mull over. Given everything we've discussed, what is the fundamental responsibility of religious institutions when it comes to protecting children?

And maybe more importantly, what are the most effective, most ethical ways to actually create environments where children are genuinely safe from harm. It really warrants ongoing thought and engagement.

Thank you for joining us for this important and admittedly difficult deep dive.

If you find value in this exploration, please like, share, follow, and consider becoming a subscriber. Your contributions help keep these conversations going and allows us to maintain the highest quality production. You can find all the details at studyfaithwithai.com. Thank you for being part of this journey.