A survivor of sexual abuse in the Church finds comfort as a friend offers a shoulder to lean on, symbolizing the power of compassion and support.

Understanding the California Sex Abuse Lawsuit: The LDS Church’s Response in Context

Are the California lawsuits proof of systemic failure? The numbers indicate otherwise, but every case warrants scrutiny.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Approximately one hundred people in California are alleging sexual abuse or misconduct linked to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in California courts. If these claims all turn out to be true, that would represent one hundred individual tragedies—one hundred instances of innocence lost and one hundred relationships with God potentially complicated by the grievous actions (or inactions) of leaders. It would reflect one hundred stories of emotional and psychological pain.

Even if some of the cases do not hold up in court or are found to be inaccurate, it is heartbreaking to think that someone might feel so angry or disaffected as to make a false or exaggerated claim against the Church. Whether a claim is true or false, it indicates deep pain for those individuals and potentially serious consequences for the faith community they are accusing.

Responding with Care

As Latter-day Saints who have covenanted to mourn with those who mourn, we have an obligation to respond as best we can to these developments. Responding effectively to disclosures of sexual abuse requires empathy, active listening, and clear, survivor-centered steps. First and foremost, start by believing the survivor—thank them for trusting you and reaffirm that what happened was not their fault. As emphasized by RAINN and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, a supportive response prevents secondary victimization, where a survivor is retraumatized by disbelief or judgment.

There is a role for recognizing that false accusations exist. But that role is in broader policy conversations and in specific accusations where the legal system is equipped to provide the accused with the presumption of innocence.

Next, listen without pressing for details the survivor is not ready to share. Calmly acknowledge their pain: “I’m so sorry this happened to you. You’re not alone, and I’m here to help.” Validate their feelings of anger, sorrow, or confusion. According to the Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs, avoiding “why” questions and blame is crucial for building trust.

We have an obligation to respond as best we can.

Survivors need practical resources and emotional support. Empower their choices—offer options such as counseling, medical care, or contacting the police, but let them decide. For faith communities, consider how spiritual care can integrate with professional help. The FaithTrust Institute notes that survivors may grapple with spiritual doubts if the abuse occurred in a religious context. Faith leaders can provide prayer, scripture study, or pastoral conversations if the survivor desires it. We can privately implore that the atonement’s healing power will reach them if they do not desire in-person interactions of this kind.

Above all, do not underestimate the healing power of compassion and genuine support. A caring, nonjudgmental environment helps survivors feel safe enough to begin rebuilding their lives. As followers of Jesus Christ this may be our best way to help as the Savior’s hands in moving healing forward. By following these best practices—believing, validating, providing options, and ensuring accountability—you can be a steady source of hope and healing for those who have experienced sexual abuse.

What the Church Already Does

There are established mechanisms within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to handle and prevent abuse. 

Their processes start with following best practices in training and policies that prevent abuse. The Church was a leader in abuse prevention, starting regular public sermons on the subject in the 1970s.

The Church’s sexual abuse prevention training is required for everyone who works with youth. Outside groups such as The National Children’s Alliance have recognized the Church’s efforts in this area. 

The Church’s policies, including its geographical boundaries and its calling system, also have the effect of dissuading predators. 

When abuse has occurred, the Church utilizes a helpline staffed by mental health and legal professionals. These are the kinds of professionals that the best research suggests are in the best position to report abuse and result in lower abuse rates. When it is legal, the Church then passes on reports to local authorities. Regardless of the legal situation, the Church then begins to help the victims. 

Statements from the Church indicate that their first priority is providing healing for victims. This often starts with professional mental health counseling. Bishops across the United States have access to networks of therapists that they can utilize, including trauma-informed therapy for abuse survivors. 

Records leaked from church offices several years ago showed that the most frequent first step when victims were identified was to connect them with therapists.

Additionally, the Church has stated that where it or its representatives are directly at fault, it has provided substantial funds for victims’ medical and mental health care. Bishops have access to resources for professional counseling for members who need it, including specialized therapy for survivors. In cases where church leaders are at fault, the Church will work to compensate the victims to the best of their abilities. 

In addition to directed funds, for which the Church’s leaders are responsible, the Church provides financial compensation to help the healing process. Financial payouts can never really repair the damage, but they can help by providing time and resources to help recover. By all accounts, the Church’s offers are generous and well above what would normally be expected.

The Church often utilizes non-disclosure agreements in cases like this. This part of their procedure is controversial. Some see the NDAs as following the Savior’s example of asking those He healed not to broadcast it. Others see these NDAs as cynical attempts to protect the Church’s PR. 

Does the Church Make Abuse Worse?

While the Church’s policies certainly are intended to prevent abuse, do they work, or are there cultural or implementation factors that result in higher rates of abuse among Latter-day Saints?

To the contrary, the best evidence suggests that Latter-day Saints commit sexual abuse at lower rates than the population in general. 

For example, Latter-day Saint troops within the Boy Scouts of America historically had lower rates of documented abuse compared to national Boy Scout averages. While no reliable system can ever guarantee zero incidents of wrongdoing, a review of Boy Scouts’ so-called “perversion files” showed that LDS-sponsored troops constituted roughly 20–30% of overall Scout membership but only around 5% of documented historical abuse cases in that organization. This discrepancy suggests that whatever measures were put in place—such as two-deep leadership or vigilant local oversight—may have contributed to a statistically lower rate of reported abuse.

While not immune from abusive behaviors, evidence suggests our culture, norms and policies make LDS outliers in preventing abuse.

Another data point cited by some Latter-day Saints is the relatively low incidence of sexual misconduct at church-affiliated universities. While sexual assault does indeed happen at BYU and has been the subject of intense scrutiny in recent years, climate surveys still place its abuse rate significantly lower than the national average.

Recent research suggests that these trends may begin in adolescence when Latter-day Saint teens are less likely to participate in violent behaviors

Overall, the best evidence seems to suggest that while Latter-day Saints are certainly not immune from violent or abusive behaviors among their number, there is something about our culture, norms, and policies that make Latter-day Saints an outlier in preventing abuse.

Does This New Lawsuit Mean We Must Reevaluate Our Effectiveness?

While past evidence might suggest that Latter-day Saints are doing well in this space, this newest lawsuit in California might suggest that we need to reevaluate these beliefs. One hundred is an awful lot of sexual abuse cases and may suggest that the problem is considerably more prevalent than previously believed.

And to the extent these revelations prompt self-reflection on how to continue to improve, that would be a welcome result.  

To understand the extent this should revise our understanding, we must understand the context.

The most important context here is that California passed a law allowing victims to file lawsuits within three years, which would otherwise have been too late. So, we would expect a bunch of lawsuits to come forward. 

For example, the Los Angeles Diocese of the Catholic Church faced a similar lawsuit. There, approximately 1900 victims filed suit, at a rate of approximately 43/100,000 Catholics within the diocese.

While cases against school districts are still accumulating, there are some rough numbers. Reports suggest there are a few thousand lawsuits; if that ends up being about 3,000 victims, it would equate to a rate of 50/100,000 students. Many districts are concerned the cases could bankrupt them. 

The 91 suits across California for Latter-day Saints represented 12/100,000 Latter-day Saints within the state—a little less than a third as often. This is about the same comparative rate as seen in the BSA case. 

Essentially, no institution has been spared. Sexual abuse, as disgusting as it is, exists. The fact that it exists among Latter-day Saints should certainly humble us and cause us to continue to seek the best ways to eradicate it. But the fact is that even in this case, the numbers suggest that Latter-day Saints are effective in reducing sexual abuse numbers.

We also recognize our responsibility as members to do all we can to protect children and vulnerable adults.

There are other matters to consider here. This lawsuit was aggressively marketed, the Church’s wealth and generosity in these cases have been widely reported, and early investigations suggest a higher incidence of discrepancies than you might expect.

The sad truth is that approximately 1 in 10 adults in the US have experienced sexual abuse in their lifetime. Even if Latter-day Saints were successful in eradicating 99% of abuse compared to other groups, there would still be thousands and thousands of victims. 

What Can We Hope For?

The proper response to these allegations, first and foremost, is mourning. Even if one single Latter-day Saint was abused by someone in the Church, that is a tragedy that demands our empathy and our resolve to do better. The stark reality that an abuser could be a friend, neighbor, or even a trusted spiritual leader is painful. It reminds us that no institution is immune to predatory behavior.

We also hope that justice is served through the legal process, whether that means validating the claims of those who were truly harmed or filtering out any disingenuous lawsuits. The Church has a longstanding track record of responding responsibly in these cases.

None of these points justify complacency. What is needed is sensitivity and support for those who have gone through trauma and vigilance in preventing future abuse. As Latter-day Saints, we also understand that whenever a non-mainstream or “out-group” religion faces such allegations, the public commentary can be harsh. People who already dislike or mistrust the Church may seize upon these scandals as evidence of broader failings. It’s possible we will see sensational coverage or commentary that fails to address how the Church responds or how it compares statistically to other organizations.

In such an environment, we pray that sober, thoughtful journalism will prevail. We also recognize our responsibility as members to do all we can to protect children and vulnerable adults, ensuring no policy or practice inadvertently shelters abusers. That means continuing to refine our safeguarding measures, increasing transparency wherever possible, and emphasizing personal accountability among leaders at every level.

About the author

C.D. Cunningham

C.D. Cunningham is a founder and editor-at-large of Public Square magazine.
On Key

You Might Also Like

When Did We Stop Trusting the Media? A Review of “September 5”

When did we begin to lose trust in the news media? There are plenty of theories. Some suggest March 6, 1981, Walter Cronkite’s last broadcast. Others suggest it was the coverage of President Bill Clinton’s perjury and impeachment. Others suggest it was the advent of 24-hour news stations. The newest film from Paramount Pictures suggests another option in its title, “September 5.” September 5, 1972, is the day that the Black Sabbath militant group kidnapped Israeli Olympic athletes. In total, eleven Israelis were killed. But according to the journalists at the center of the movie, none of that was nearly as important as making sure the “ABC” logo was on the TV screen while the coverage went on. A brief epilogue about how the incident turned out ends with these eerie words, “900 million people watched.”  “September 5” is interesting because, in a movie presumably about the attacks, we see none of it ourselves except through camera lenses and TV screens. It’s not a movie about the attacks at all; it’s a movie about watching the attacks. The film opens as Geoff takes over the control room for ABC Sports. He’s running the night shift, when word comes in about the attacks.  The ABC studios are yards from where the attacks are happening. So they rush Peter Jennings into the Olympic village, and put their own studio camera on top of the building so they can keep a camera on the room where the hostages are being held at all times. Geoff wakes up his bosses, Marvin and Roone, who often debate the relative merits of their decisions, such as whether to turn the story over to ABC News rather than the sports division or whether or not to call the attackers “terrorists.” These compelling arguments make for thoughtful viewing. Ben Chaplin, who plays Roone, an American Jew, does particularly good acting work as he tries to find a nugget of morality in what they are doing.  But every argument ends with the decision being made that will best help ratings and ABC. No matter how many times they argue about good practices, such as waiting for a second confirmation that the hostages were all safe before reporting, the better angels of our trio of decision-makers always lose.  By the way, the hostages weren’t safe, ABC did get the story wrong because they were relying on German state news, and Germany was trying to look safe and less militaristic in their first major international attention since the end of WWII. But for a moment, when the station thought the hostages were safe, their only concern was getting them in the studio for interviews.  Marvin Bader tries to use the language of “the story” as though his audience deserved to have “the story” in real-time. And no matter what decision they made it was in pursuit of capturing the story. But this justification rang shallow as the movie moved on. When the German police burst in to get them to stop telecasting their rescue attempts live because the militants were watching, they stopped to get them to put their guns down, but turned the feed back on nearly as soon as they had left. All of this makes this an engaging movie that is worth watching. When journalists are the main characters, we expect them to be the good guys. “All the President’s Men,” “Spotlight,” “The Post.” Even the film “Shattered Glass” about a dishonest journalist, spends more time highlighting the good journalists who caught him. “September 5” doesn’t offer the media such a convenient way out. By making its characters clear-headed and conflicted, they are more than simple villains. They are exactly what the pressure of studio news would naturally produce. There are real powerful forces driving the decisions of the news industry that are at odds with what is right or good, and all too often, there’s nothing we can do about it. If we are curious about how the spiral of trust began, this film serves as a worthwhile primer while being entertaining as all get out. The film is rated R. It is thematically tough, dealing with questions like whether to broadcast an execution live, but none of the violence of the incident is actually seen the movie. In terms of a ratings feel, I might compare it to the film “Gravity” while using the word “f***” three more times than is allowed in a PG-13 film. I wouldn’t recommend this for young children or young teens, but the themes about how media manipulates us would be important for older teens, and I might consider watching this film with my kids once they turn 15 or so.  If I did, I’d ask them questions about the nature of journalism. Is getting the story more important than the lives of the kidnapped Olympic team? Do we need to know about what’s happening in real-time on the other side of the world? How has constant news coverage made the world a better or worse place? What motivates those who choose what to show on the news, and how they tell those stories? Four out of Five Stars. September 5 has already had a limited release, and it is rolling out in individual markets across the country through January. 

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!