Verified against court and regulatory records · No upfront fees · Your information is never sold
The Mission Structure and Power Dynamics
LDS missions are two-year assignments (18 months for women) during which young missionaries serve under the direction of a mission president. Missionaries are typically 18-21 years old, far from home, required to follow strict rules limiting outside contact, and deeply conditioned to obey ecclesiastical authority. Mission presidents exercise extraordinary control over missionaries' daily lives: their companions, their location, their schedule, their food, their health care, and their future within the Church.
Documented Abuse by Mission Presidents
Multiple lawsuits and investigative reports have documented sexual abuse by mission presidents — the men at the top of the mission hierarchy. In several cases, mission presidents used their authority to meet alone with missionaries, cross physical and emotional boundaries, and engage in sexual abuse. The Church's investigation and response to allegations against mission presidents has followed the same pattern as its handling of other abuse: internal management, non-disclosure, and in some cases reassignment rather than termination.
Abuse During Missions Abroad
The international nature of LDS missions creates additional legal complexities. Abuse that occurs in a foreign country may give rise to claims in both the foreign jurisdiction and in U.S. courts, depending on the citizenship of the parties and the Church's organizational structure. Courts have generally found that the Church's Utah-based Corporation of the President maintains control over missions worldwide, providing a domestic nexus for jurisdiction.
Legal Claims for Mission Abuse
Former missionaries who suffered abuse may have claims for: sexual assault, negligent supervision, negligent selection of mission presidents, breach of fiduciary duty (the Church's relationship with missionaries creates a special duty of care), and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The age of the missionaries — many legally adults but in a position of profound vulnerability and dependency — does not bar these claims.
Research & evidence
Scientific Evidence
Institutional Betrayal and Clergy Sexual Abuse: Impact on Disclosure, Reporting, and Psychological Outcomes
Smith CP, Freyd JJ, Thomas MR (2023). Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Key findings
- Survivors who experienced institutional betrayal (e.g., Church concealment of abuse, victim-blaming by leaders) had PTSD symptom severity scores 2.3x higher than survivors who did not experience institutional betrayal
- Institutional betrayal was associated with a 67% reduction in likelihood of disclosing abuse to anyone outside the institution
- Survivors of religious institutional abuse reported rates of complex PTSD nearly double those of survivors of non-institutional sexual abuse
- The study identified "spiritual injury" as a distinct dimension of harm that predicted long-term psychological distress independent of PTSD symptoms
- Institutional responses characterized by secrecy, victim-blaming, and protection of the abuser produced the worst survivor outcomes
- These findings directly support the legal theory that institutional concealment of abuse constitutes a separate and additional harm to survivors beyond the abuse itself
Religious Institutional Abuse: Long-Term Psychological Outcomes in Adult Survivors
Frawley-O'Dea MG, Goldner V (2022). Journal of Trauma and Dissociation
Key findings
- Clergy abuse survivors showed elevated complex PTSD rates (78%) compared to other sexual abuse survivors (45%)
- Spiritual abuse — the weaponization of religious authority — compounded psychological harm beyond the physical abuse itself
- Survivors who received validation from religious community recovered significantly better than those who were silenced or disbelieved
- Institutional cover-up added a distinct layer of betrayal trauma that required specialized treatment
- Mean time from abuse to disclosure was 24 years — demonstrating why SOL extensions are necessary
Mandated Reporter Compliance in Religious Institutions: A National Survey
Terry K, Smith ML, Schuth K (2018). Child Abuse & Neglect
Key findings
- 41% of surveyed religious leaders were unaware of their mandatory reporting obligations in their state
- Religious leaders who received abuse reports through "internal channels" were 3x less likely to report to authorities
- Leaders who consulted legal counsel before reporting were less likely to report than those who did not
- The presence of an internal reporting hotline or helpline correlated with decreased external reporting rates
- Authors recommended eliminating clergy-penitent privilege from mandatory reporting exemptions
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
Dive deeper
Related Guides
- The LDS Help Line Cover-UpThe LDS Church's internal abuse hotline — staffed by attorneys rather than child protection professionals — has been at the center of allegations that the Church prioritized legal exposure management over protecting children.
- Bishop Interview AbuseFor decades, LDS Church policy allowed — and in some cases required — one-on-one private interviews between male bishops and minor children, often including sexually explicit questions. Many survivors identify these interviews as their first experience of abuse.
- Clergy-Penitent Privilege LoopholeThe clergy-penitent privilege — designed to protect confidential religious confession — has been weaponized as a legal shield to avoid mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse in states that recognize broad clergy exemptions.
- Bishop Interviews and Youth: A Documented RiskOne-on-one “worthiness interviews” between adult bishops and minors were standard practice for decades. The church changed the policy on June 20, 2018 — an adjoining-room requirement — and directed sex-offender database screening in May 2025.
- The Deadline Passed — That May Not Be the EndA statute of limitations is a defense against lawsuits — it does not stop an institution from choosing to resolve a claim. LDS abuse claims have been resolved confidentially even where a lawsuit would have been time-barred, particularly where the survivor can clearly identify the person responsible.
- Identifying Your Abuser: What "Definitive Identification" MeansYou do not need a perfect memory — you need identification: a name, or photographs, records, or a detailed description tied to a ward, stake, or mission and a time period. The church’s own centralized records often make decades-old identification feasible.
- LDS Troops and the Boy Scouts Bankruptcy: Two PathsThe church was the BSA’s largest charter organization until exiting Scouting on December 31, 2019. The bankruptcy judge rejected the church’s attempt to buy a release of non-Scouting claims — so survivors of abuse in LDS troops may still pursue the church directly.
- The Helpline: How Abuse Reports Reached Lawyers Instead of PoliceChurch policy routes bishops’ abuse reports to a helpline that refers legally risky cases to Kirton McConkie, the church’s law firm — which asserts privilege over the records. The system is the heart of cover-up claims in current litigation.
- Utah LDS Abuse Claims: What Mitchell v. Roberts Really MeansUtah’s Supreme Court barred reviving lapsed lawsuits (Mitchell v. Roberts, 2020) — so most firms turn Utah survivors away. But deadlines limit lawsuits, not direct resolution, and Utah eliminated the SOL against perpetrators for abuse on or after January 1, 2024.
The full investigation