The Mormon Church Lawsuits: Is Abuse Being Covered Up?

The Case Everyone Cites: Arizona

In 2022, the Associated Press published an investigation built around a horrifying case from Bisbee, Arizona. A member named Paul Adams confessed to his bishop, John Herrod, that he had abused his young daughter. The bishop called the Church's abuse help line. The abuse continued for years, ending only when Homeland Security agents — acting on a tip traced from New Zealand, with no help from the Church — arrested Adams in 2017. He died by suicide in custody. His children sued the Church in 2021. The AP's frame: the help line is a system for diverting abuse away from police.

Here is the timeline the courts saw — much of it drawn from the Church's August 17, 2022 statement and the court record — that most coverage compressed or skipped:

Then the courts spoke. In 2023, Cochise County Superior Court dismissed the case, ruling the clergy-penitent privilege excused the bishops from Arizona's mandatory reporting law. The Arizona Supreme Court had already sided with the Church on the privilege's scope. In July 2025, an appeals court revived the case on a technical question: whether Adams waived the privilege by repeating his confession with his wife present and at a disciplinary hearing. Then, on July 30, 2026, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled unanimously — and reversed that revival. The court held that the clergy-penitent privilege is a testimonial privilege, separate from the reporting statute's exemption, and that the exemption turns on the clergy's own religious determination of what counts as a confidential communication — a determination courts cannot second-guess. Be precise about what that is: a unanimous ruling from the state's highest court about who decides, not a merits verdict on the children's claims, which return to the lower courts on remand. But it caps a six-year arc in which every level of Arizona's judiciary has now examined these bishops' conduct — and the state's highest court has twice declined to find they violated the law.

The court record also preserves what the headlines skipped: what Bishop Herrod did after the confession. Adams was a U.S. Border Patrol officer — a federal law-enforcement professional who understood exactly what the privilege protected when he chose to confess. Herrod engineered a second confession with Adams's wife, Leizza, present, so the one person best positioned to protect the children would know. He counseled Adams to move out and never be alone with his daughters; Leizza testified she agreed to enforce it, and Herrod testified he followed up with her repeatedly — she assured him no further abuse was occurring. In 2025, Arizona's Court of Appeals examined the claim that the bishop knew abuse was ongoing and rejected it flatly: the record, the court wrote, does not support it. The protection plan failed because the person inside the home dismantled it — not because no one built one. We will keep updating as the remanded case proceeds. For the full legal machinery behind this ruling — and the Oregon lawsuit that attacked the Church from the opposite direction — see our standalone explainer: The Mormon Church and Clergy-Penitent Privilege: Sued Both Ways.

The Biggest Test the Cover-Up Claim Ever Faced

Here's the moment almost nobody covered. In early 2025, attorneys representing dozens of federal plaintiffs asked the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate roughly fifty abuse lawsuits against the Church into a single national case. Their theory was the cover-up claim in its purest form: a nationwide policy of concealment, run through the help line, uniform enough to try as one scheme.

Consolidation is exactly what federal courts grant when uniform institutional conduct plausibly ties cases together — it's how the Uber assault litigation and countless corporate MDLs proceed. So this was the claim's best shot: one panel, every case, the whole theory on the table.

On April 3, 2025, the panel said no. It ruled that "centralization is not necessary" — because the cases were too varied to be one thing: perpetrators ranging from congregants to missionaries to family members, allegations spanning five decades, and church policies that changed repeatedly across that span. Read that reasoning again. The panel was asked to treat these lawsuits as a single national scheme, and what it found instead was the opposite of uniformity — the exact quality a scheme requires.

Be precise about what this is: a procedural ruling on consolidation, not a merits verdict. No one was acquitted of anything on April 3. But that's also why it cuts so deep — consolidation was denied because the factual pattern the cover-up theory predicts is not what the record contains. The plaintiffs' own vehicle for proving one national scheme couldn't get out of the garage.

The Real Battlefield: 33 States

Mandatory reporting and clergy-penitent privilege are two different legal questions, and conflating them is where most misleading coverage starts. Per the AP's own reporting, 33 states maintain a clergy-penitent exemption; the federal Child Welfare Information Gateway tracks the state-by-state detail. These laws protect Catholic confession, Protestant pastoral counseling, and Latter-day Saint confession alike.

What does current Church policy say inside that legal patchwork? The General Handbook and the Church's published abuse resources instruct leaders to fulfill all legal reporting duties, to never disregard a report of abuse, and to never counsel a person not to report criminal activity. The help line's published purposes include reporting directly to authorities — regardless of legal exemptions — whenever a child is in imminent danger. Whether practice matched policy is exactly what each case above tests; the policy itself is the opposite of a concealment directive.

What Would a Real Cover-Up Require?

"Cover-up" is a systemic claim. Systemic claims require systemic proof. Here is the checklist — and what a national investigation with subpoena-powered litigation behind it has actually produced:

Not Found – A directive instructing leaders to conceal abuse or obstruct reporting. Published policy states the opposite.

Not Found – A documented cross-jurisdiction pattern of suppressed reports. The AP's evidence base — including 12,000 pages of sealed West Virginia records — yielded individual disputed cases, not a pattern finding by any court.

Not Found – A court ruling, anywhere, that the Church operated a concealment system.

Found – Specific failures and disputed conduct in individual cases (Jensen; the Goodrich settlement terms), documented above.

Found – A genuine transparency gap: no independently audited data on help-line calls and outcomes, from the Church or anyone else. Data Gap

Sources