What it costs people

The Abuse Helpline

A father told his bishop in Arizona he had abused his child. The bishop called the Church’s helpline, says he was told he could do nothing, and did not report; the Church says he was advised how to comply with the law. In 2026 Arizona’s Supreme Court ruled for the Church: the reporting law leaves that decision to the clergy member, and courts may not second-guess it.

The point in one sentence

In Bisbee, Arizona, a father told his bishop he had abused his child. The bishop called the Church’s helpline, as Church policy directs, and did not report. The bishop says he was told “You absolutely can do nothing,” and the Church says he “was advised about how to fully comply with Arizona’s reporting laws,” and those two accounts have not been tested in court. In 2026 Arizona’s Supreme Court ruled for the Church and the bishops, holding that the reporting law leaves the decision to the clergy member and that courts may not question it.

The world it came from

If you grew up in the Church, you were probably taught that what you tell your bishop is confidential. The Handbook calls it a sacred duty. Two rules meet in a bishop’s office, and they pull in opposite directions.

The first is confidentiality. The Church’s General Handbook says: “Bishops, stake presidents, and their counselors have a sacred duty to protect all confidential information shared with them.” Members confess serious sins to their bishop, and the Church treats what they say as a confession. Arizona, where this case happened, has a law protecting what a person says to clergy in that role: the clergy-penitent privilege, which the Arizona Supreme Court upheld in this litigation in 2023.

The second is mandatory reporting. Reporting laws are the other side, and the Handbook says so in plain words: “In many places, priesthood leaders are required by law to report some illegal behaviors of which they become aware. For example, some states and countries require that child abuse be reported to law enforcement authorities.”

Arizona’s reporting law is where the two meet. It requires “any person who reasonably believes that a minor” is abused to “immediately report,” and then makes an exception. A clergy member who receives “a confession or confidential communication” may refrain from reporting it if he “determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts” of his religion. That is the text of A.R.S. 13-3620(A), as the Arizona Supreme Court quotes it. The statute leaves the decision to the clergy member, and the Supreme Court held that courts cannot review that decision.

The Church’s answer to the tension is the helpline. According to the AP, it was “established in 1995 when legal claims of sex abuse against churches were on the rise.” The Church’s own manual describes it this way: “This help line is available for bishops and stake presidents to call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,” and “legal and clinical professionals will answer their questions and provide instructions.”

What the Church says

The Church’s position deserves its full weight, so here it is first and at full strength. Its written rules tell leaders to follow the law and never to discourage reporting. Its statements on the AP story say the helpline exists to make sure children are protected and the law is met, and that the Bisbee bishop was advised how to comply with Arizona’s reporting laws. Its outside counsel says far more abuse gets reported because the helpline exists.

The exhibits

What follows is the case in the primary record: the Church’s Handbook and manual, its own statements, the AP reporting, and the Arizona Supreme Court. Each quote is verbatim and linked, and where a quote is shortened, the gap is marked. Where a quote comes from the AP as republished by a local station, it says so, because the AP’s own site could not be opened.

The breakdown: what the rules say, and what the record shows

Each row sets a line the Church publishes next to what is on the record in the Bisbee case.

In these rows the record does not show a Church rule being broken. That is the point. Each rule defers to the law or to a bishop’s reading of doctrine, and in Arizona the statute left the decision whether to report with the clergy member, whose decision courts may not review.

The same pattern from the other end: readmission

In Bisbee, the bishops did not report what they were told. The second case is about what happened after a member was removed from the Church over allegations of child abuse. Reporting on it is by the Chicago Sun-Times. Where something is an accusation rather than a finding, it says so. The man at the center has pleaded guilty to a federal charge; other accusations against him were never tried.

The Church’s rules allow a member removed from the Church to come back. The Handbook says child abuse requires a formal council, and that readmitting a person whose membership was withdrawn requires First Presidency approval.

The 2010 Handbook 1 (section 17.3.2) said a person whose record is annotated for having abused a child “must not be given any calling or assignment involving children or youth.” Nothing in the rules found for this page requires that a readmitted member’s new congregation be told why he was removed.

The Church says it is “aware of no abuse involving his Church service” after 1997. Reports on the plea do not describe the offense as connected to a Church calling.

Wade Christofferson’s brother is D. Todd Christofferson, an apostle and since October 2025 second counselor in the First Presidency. A Church spokesman told the Sun-Times that the apostle “first learned of” “some of his brother’s history of abuse from thirty years earlier” through family disclosure around 2020, and that he “respected the adult victims’ wishes not to involve law enforcement at that time.” The Church says he “did not know about or influence the ecclesiastical decisions regarding his brother’s membership,” and that when he learned of a recent allegation involving a minor he “immediately reported it to legal authorities” (Sun-Times, March 30, 2026). That account comes from the Church itself, not from a court filing. President Christofferson did not speak to the reporter.

As of the Sun-Times’ October 12 report, the Church had not said who approved his return, whether his record carried the annotation, or whether anyone in Ohio was told.

What is true on the other side

• The Church won, and seven of seven justices agreed. The court held that the reporting statute’s clergy exemption applied to the bishops’ decision and that the First Amendment bars courts from reviewing the clergy member’s determination. Arizona’s legislature wrote the clergy exemption, and a 2026 rewrite of the reporting law kept it. The court said its decision turned on the statute and the Constitution rather than public policy or the factual merits of the minors’ claims. The sources reviewed for this page report no criminal charges against the Church or the bishops.
• Confidential confession can bring abusers forward. The Church’s lawyer argues more abuse is learned of where privilege exists. That is Austin’s claim; the sources reviewed for this page do not test it.
• The Church’s written rules say the right things. They say leaders should “fulfill all legal obligations to report” and never counsel a member not to report. Under Church doctrine, the court recites, “abuse cannot be tolerated in any form.”
• The “do nothing” quote is one man’s account. It is Herrod’s recollection of what he was told, reported by the AP. The Church says the AP “has significant flaws in its facts and timeline,” that the bishop “was advised about how to fully comply with Arizona’s reporting laws,” and that the confession was “a limited confession … about a single past incident of abuse of one child.” The Handbook has since added a provision on disclosing to prevent “life-threatening harm or serious injury.”
• Readmission follows a defined process. Under today’s rules readmission requires First Presidency approval. The Church says Wade Christofferson’s 1997 return followed “established disciplinary and confession processes,” and says Todd Christofferson’s reason for not going to police in 2020 was the adult victims’ wishes.

The same room, one layer down: the youth interview

If you grew up in the Church, you remember sitting across from your bishop or one of his counselors. The General Handbook gives the purpose: “The main purpose of meetings with youth is to build faith in Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and help the youth follow Them.” It sets the pace: “The bishop or one of his counselors meets with each youth twice a year.” And it requires a parent: “When a youth meets with a Church leader, a parent or another adult must be present.” The adult “may join the meeting or wait outside the room, depending on the preferences of the member with whom you are meeting.” Leaders “ensure that discussions about moral cleanliness do not encourage curiosity or experimentation.” (Handbook 31.3.1.2, 31.3.1, 31.3.1.1, 31.1.4.) The youth temple recommend questions the First Presidency published in June 2018 include: “Do you live the law of chastity?”

That is the Church’s case at full strength: a parent or another adult is there, and the stated aim is faith. It came after pressure. In 2018 Protect LDS Children, led by former bishop Sam Young, gathered, the Deseret News reports, “more than 22,000 signatures” asking the Church to end one-on-one interviews with children. The Salt Lake Tribune says he objected to “sometimes sexually explicit questions.” A Church spokesperson answered: “We condemn any inappropriate behavior or abuse regardless of where or when it occurs. Local church leaders are provided with instructions regarding youth interviews and are expected to review and follow them.” The June 2018 guidelines followed. In September a Church council excommunicated Young “for conduct contrary to the laws and order of the church,” and its letter said the issue was not his concerns but “your persistent, aggressive effort to persuade others to your point of view by repeatedly and deliberately attacking and publicly opposing the church and its leaders.”

The common rebuttals

“The court ruled for the Church, so there is nothing here.”

The court said its ruling turned “solely on the interpretation of Arizona statutes and the application of federal constitutional principles, rather than public policy or the factual merits of the minor victims’ claims.” A ruling that the statute’s exemption applied is not a ruling that the bishops’ choice was right. The same court said its decision “does not mean that religious institutions enjoy a general immunity from secular laws.” Whether a bishop who is told a child was abused should be free to keep it to himself is the question the ruling left standing.

“The helpline exists to get abuse reported.”

That is the Church’s stated purpose, and the Handbook tells leaders to call it. The Church’s statement says the call is “about how to stop the abuse, care for the victim and ensure compliance with reporting obligations, even in cases when the law provides clergy-penitent privilege or restricts what can be shared from private ecclesiastical conversations.” The Church says the Bisbee bishop “was advised about how to fully comply with Arizona’s reporting laws.” The bishop’s own account, as the AP reported it, is that he was told “You absolutely can do nothing.” Those two accounts have not been tested in court, and the Supreme Court’s opinion does not mention the helpline.

“That was one bad call, not the system.”

The Church’s lawyer, William Maledon, told the AP the bishops “did nothing wrong. They didn’t violate the law, and therefore they can’t be held liable.” That is a statement about legal duty. The description of how the helpline works comes in two parts: Church officials said in sworn statements in a different lawsuit that social workers staff it and destroy call records daily, and the AP reported that calls presenting a risk to the Church are referred to attorneys. The Church says the AP mischaracterized the helpline.

“People can repent. The Church forgives.”

This page does not argue with forgiveness. The question is process, not forgiveness. Who approved a return? Was the record annotated? Was anyone in the new congregation told? As of October 12, the Church had not said.

What this means

What is on the record: Paul Adams told his bishop he had abused his child. Church policy, as the AP put it, was to call the helpline. The bishop says he was told “You absolutely can do nothing”; the Church says he “was advised about how to fully comply with Arizona’s reporting laws,” and says the AP story “has significant flaws in its facts and timeline.” Those two accounts have not been tested in court. The bishops did not report. Adams was arrested after Homeland Security found a video. Church officials said in sworn statements in another lawsuit that the helpline is staffed by social workers who destroy their call records every day; separately, the AP reported that calls presenting a risk to the Church go to its lawyers. In 2026 seven justices agreed that Arizona’s reporting law left the decision to the bishops, and that, absent fraud or collusion for secular purposes, a court cannot inquire whether they applied their own doctrine correctly.

No court has found that the bishops or the Church broke the law. In the Bisbee case, Leizza Adams pleaded guilty, and Paul Adams confessed to law enforcement before he died in jail. The question is what the law, and the Church’s rules, allow: a bishop told that a child was abused could keep it to himself, and in Arizona, absent fraud or collusion for secular purposes, courts may not review that choice.

A second case, from Illinois and Ohio, shows the other end. The Sun-Times reports that a man was excommunicated over allegations of abusing children and then brought back. He moved to Ohio, took a leadership role, and later pleaded guilty to a federal charge of coercion and enticement of a minor. As of October 12 the Church had not said who approved his return. Both cases leave open questions that no court has tested: what the Bisbee bishop was told on the helpline, which the AP and the Church describe differently, and who approved Wade Christofferson’s return. What was said on that call, and who signed off on that return?