This internal “Protocol for Abuse Help Line Calls” document reveals a deeply troubling reality about how the LDS Church handles sexual abuse cases—one that stands in stark contrast to its public claims that the Abuse Help Line exists solely to protect children and “has nothing to do with cover-up”.
The Help Line
The Abuse Hotline for Bishops was established in 1995.
In 1995, the Kirton McConkie law firm established the Church’s abuse hotline. It currently defends it in lawsuits alleging sexual abuse. While the law firm is not technically a part of the Mormon Church, it has played an essential role in helping it navigate potential lawsuits for decades, providing policy advice and serving as its legislative advocate. The Church is the law firm’s largest client.
However, the law firm’s role extends further. Vice reports that when calls come in, they are answered inside the Church’s Family Services agency and then transferred to Kirton McConkie. This prevents callers from being immediately connected with law enforcement who may then act on the reports.
Why the Mormon Church Abuse Hotline Hasn’t Helped Victims
https://www.hurley-law.com/chicago-injury-lawyers/why-the-mormon-church-abuse-hotline-hasnt-helped-victims/
The Protocol for Abuse Help Line Calls
The Protocol document is hosted at MormonLeaks, and while it has no publication date, it has a handwritten date of 1999, so the document is at least that old. It may have been updated since, but within a few years of the hotline being established, this was the protocol. It shows the intent of establishing the helpline and its function.
Here is the text from the document:
Protocol for Abuse Help Line Calls
Tell Priesthood Leader that no identifying information should be given. Use First Names only.
High Risk Cases
If any of the following questions are answered “Yes”, Immediately transfar the call to legal counsel (see phone number below). It is important to have legal counsel involved in the discussions between priesthood leaders and Abuse Help Line Personnel in order to preserve the confidentiality of the Information.
1. Does your call concern child sexual abuse which may have cocurred on Church property?
2. Does your call concem child sexual abuse which may have occurred at a Church-sponsored actaity? (Church, Seminary, Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, etc.)
3. Does your call concem child sexual abuse by a Church leader or youth leader who used their Church position to accomplish the abuse? (Nursery leader abusing children in nursery, a seminary teacher abusing seminary students, a youth lezder abusing his/her youth, a missionary (see below), etc.)
4. Does your call concem an alleged perpatrator employed by the Church?
5. Are you aware of previous child sexual abuse or tondency toward sexual Abuse by the alleged perpetrater?
6. Does your call concerm an alleged perpetrator who is currently a missionary (even if the abuse occurred prior to his or her mission)? If “Yes”, transfer this coll to Bob Blattner or Richard Black (see phone numbers below).
Reporting Issues
After the Abuse Help Line worker has obtained all of the facts and background information, he or she should determine whether or not the incident of child abuse has already been reported to child protection or law enforcement authorities. If not, Abuse Help Line workers should instruct priesthood leaders to encourage an interested person to report the abuse. Individuals who may report include the victim, the perpetrator, or other third parties who know about the abuse (neighbors, paents of victim, spouse or family of the perptrator, etc.)
If a priesthood leader recommends that a perpetrator report the abuse to civil authorities, he should also recommend to the perpetrator that he or she should consider obtaining legal counsel.
If the sexual abuse has been or will be reported immediately to civil authorities by a person other than the priesthood leader and does not fall within the above guidelincs, no transfer to legal counsel is necessary. A call should be transferred to legal counsel when it appears that the abuse will not be reported to civil authorities unless it is reported by the priesthood leader or it fals within the above guidelines for high rish cases.
Abuse Help Line personnel should never advise a priesthood leader to report abuse. Counsel of this nature should come only from legal counsel.
1999 Protocol for Abuse Help Line Calls: Internal checklist used by employees of the Mormon Church who field incoming phone calls from Bishops and other local leaders when confronted with situations involving sex abuse. MormonLeaks, October 2, 2018 (replacing all caps with bold)
https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=File:1999-PROTOCOL_FOR_ABUSE_HELP_LINE_CALLS.pdf
An analysis of the document shows patterns of behavior and instruction that are more aligned with institutional risk management than child protection.
Anonymity Directive
Tell Priesthood Leader that no identifying information should be given. Use First Names only.
1999 Protocol for Abuse Help Line Calls: Internal checklist used by employees of the Mormon Church who field incoming phone calls from Bishops and other local leaders when confronted with situations involving sex abuse. MormonLeaks, October 2, 2018 (replacing all caps with bold)
https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=File:1999-PROTOCOL_FOR_ABUSE_HELP_LINE_CALLS.pdf
This instruction sets the tone for secrecy. Even before facts are gathered, there’s a clear directive to avoid traceability and documentation. While this may be framed as protecting privacy, in the context of abuse reporting, it hampers transparency and accountability.
Legally High-Risk Cases
The checklist identifies “high-risk cases”—not in terms of risk to the child or potential ongoing abuse, but rather risk to the church:
- Abuse on church property
- Abuse at a church-sponsored activity
- Abuse by a church leader or employee
- Abuse by a missionary
These scenarios don’t necessarily increase danger to a child—they increase legal exposure for the church. The document explicitly states that legal counsel should be involved to “preserve the confidentiality of the information.” This suggests the primary concern is limiting legal liability, not ensuring swift justice or safety.
Clergy-Penitent Privilege vs Attorney-Client Privilege
Clergy-penitent privilege (also called Priest-penitent privilege) is a legal protection that allows clergy members to keep certain communications confidential, typically those made in confidence during spiritual counseling or confession. The purpose of this privilege is to encourage open and honest spiritual guidance, particularly in sensitive matters like confession of wrongdoing. Importantly, clergy-penitent privilege belongs to the person confessing, not to the clergy or the church itself. In many states, this privilege permits but does not require clergy to withhold such information. This means bishops and other ecclesiastical leaders may choose to report abuse if they believe it is in the best interest of the victim, even if the information was obtained in confidence.
The LDS Church, however, introduces a different layer of privilege through its abuse helpline policy: attorney-client privilege. As seen in the internal abuse helpline protocol, in any high-risk situation, particularly those involving potential institutional liability, helpline workers are instructed to immediately involve legal counsel. The document plainly states that this is done “to preserve the confidentiality of the information,” invoking the stronger protections of attorney-client privilege. Unlike clergy-penitent privilege, attorney-client privilege belongs to the church as the client, and once the attorney is involved, bishops are no longer free to report without church legal approval. This tactic goes beyond spiritual confidentiality and crosses into corporate legal defense, turning a religious helpline into a legal firewall. By shifting the privilege from the penitent to the institution, the church gains greater control over the narrative and the ability to suppress information, effectively silencing victims and prioritizing liability management over moral responsibility.
Discouragement of Reporting
Abuse Help Line personnel should never advise a priesthood leader to report abuse. Counsel of this nature should come only from legal counsel.
1999 Protocol for Abuse Help Line Calls: Internal checklist used by employees of the Mormon Church who field incoming phone calls from Bishops and other local leaders when confronted with situations involving sex abuse. MormonLeaks, October 2, 2018 (replacing all caps with bold)
https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=File:1999-PROTOCOL_FOR_ABUSE_HELP_LINE_CALLS.pdf
This is perhaps the most revealing and damning statement. It directly contradicts the church’s public assertion that the helpline exists to protect children. If Help Line staff are forbidden from advising bishops to report abuse, how can the line possibly be considered a tool for child protection?
Moreover, while Arizona law (as discussed in past related cases) permits clergy to report and even protects them legally if they do, this internal policy prioritizes legal strategy over moral obligation.
“Encouraging” Others to Report
Rather than advising bishops to take action, they are told to encourage someone else—the victim, the perpetrator, a third party—to report. This is a deflection tactic that reduces the church’s liability while placing the burden of action on others, even in cases where victims are children and the alleged perpetrators are trusted church leaders.
The church’s internal abuse protocol does not support its public narrative. It reveals an organization more concerned with legal exposure and institutional protection than with the safety of vulnerable members. The helpline is clearly structured as a legal filter, not a support system for victims or even for bishops seeking clarity on how to do the right thing.
The fact that bishops are discouraged from reporting, that only legal counsel can approve such decisions, and that key risk factors are all related to potential lawsuits, shows that this is not a victim-centered system.
If the helpline truly had “everything to do with protecting children,” the first instruction would be: “Report to law enforcement immediately.” Instead, the instruction is: “Don’t give us names or report the abuse.”
This internal document strongly supports investigative reporters, defense attorneys, and any other critics who say the helpline is a mechanism of cover-up, and directly undermines the church’s claim to moral or spiritual superiority in handling abuse cases.
If you or someone you know has been affected by abuse in a religious context, you are not alone. Your story matters. Consider sharing your journey at wasmormon.org to help shed light on these harmful practices and protect others through awareness and community.
More reading:
- Mormon Abuse Helpline
- Believe Absurdities, Commit Atrocities
- Sam Young Was a Mormon, an Ex-Mormon Profile Spotlight
- https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=File:1999-PROTOCOL_FOR_ABUSE_HELP_LINE_CALLS.pdf
- https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/the-secrets-of-nzs-mormon-church-revealed-new-podcast-heavens-helpline/JNYLH3H2ZNBCPA7BQGD673T43Q/
- The Mormon Church Abuse Hot Line with Attorney Tim Kosnoff | Ep. 1639
- A Thoughtful Faith Podcast Episode 258: Taking the Mormons to Court: Defending Sexual Abuse Victims against the LDS Church: Tim Kosnoff