LDS Church buys the silence of another 100 sex abuse victims

[I Have Questions]

The fact that they doggedly keep doing something that's causing them to lose so much money is a head-scratcher.

Yes. Not to mention that they doggedly refuse to take the steps necessary to prevent a continuation of these levels of risks to their members' kids. In fact, they doggedly continue with procedures that aid perpetrators. It’s as if they want kids to be harmed.

[Philo Sofee]

The fact that they doggedly keep doing something that's causing them to lose so much money is a head-scratcher.

Yes. Not to mention that they doggedly refuse to take the steps necessary to prevent a continuation of these levels of risks to their members' kids. In fact, they doggedly continue with procedures that aid perpetrators. It’s as if they want kids to be harmed.

Money is vastly more important to them than mere kids for the time being. If a few are sinned against, let God heal em, we got money ta make and by gawd we're focused on that.

[MG 2.0]

The financial aspect alone should convince the church to quit doing one-on-one Bishop's interviews with minors.

It hasn’t made a difference at all. For every sex abuse lawsuit filed against the church there are several hundred that are settled confidentially, pre-litigation — at mediation or arbitration. The vast majority of sexual abuse claims against the church are settled without seeing the light of day.

At any given time the church is dealing with thousands of sexual abuse claims. It never ends and the church never learns.

Evidence of this? You may know something I don't know.

Then there is this:

Prompt: At any given time the LDS church is dealing with thousands of sexual abuse claims. Is this actually true?

The claim that "at any given time the LDS Church is dealing with thousands of sexual abuse claims" is not supported by current evidence, but there are significant numbers of allegations and lawsuits.

Current Scope of Sexual Abuse Claims Against the LDS Church
Active Lawsuits: As of early 2025, there are reports of nearly 100 lawsuits filed in California alone, with at least 50 additional lawsuits pending in U.S. District Courts across the country, covering incidents from 1968 to 2023. Efforts to consolidate more than 50 federal lawsuits into a single proceeding were declined by a federal panel due to the varied nature of the cases.

Total Accused Individuals: FLOODLIT.org reports that, as of April 2025, 4,067 LDS Church members have been accused of sex crimes, with 610 convicted offenders and 161 former leaders among them. This figure represents accusations over many years, not active cases at one time.

Settlements and Patterns: The LDS Church has paid settlements in at least 27 cases, with some settlements reaching tens of millions of dollars. There are also allegations of institutional secrecy and inadequate responses to abuse claims.

Context and Clarification
The number of active lawsuits or claims at any one time appears to be in the low hundreds, not thousands.

The larger figure of thousands refers to the cumulative number of individuals accused or the total number of allegations spanning decades, not simultaneous legal actions.

The Church faces ongoing scrutiny for its handling of abuse allegations, including accusations of cover-ups and failure to report abuse to authorities.

Summary Table
Metric Approximate Number (2025)
Active/pending lawsuits in U.S. courts ~150 (not thousands)
Total individuals accused (historically) 4,067
Convicted offenders (historically) 610
Settlements paid (cases) 27+
Conclusion:
While the LDS Church is currently dealing with a substantial number of sexual abuse claims and lawsuits, the assertion that it is handling "thousands" of such claims at any given time is not accurate. The actual number of active cases is in the hundreds, with thousands representing the cumulative total of allegations over many years.
Perplexity A.I.

Are you a little off?

Regards,
MG

[Moksha]

Are you a little off?

Regards,
MG

MG, have you heard about Kirton McConkie's instructions not to blab for reporting bishops and victims?

[Marcus]

Getting back to Toon's post, he made a great point:

Federal law prohibits the enforcement of NDAs that were entered into prior to the act. Some states go further. For example, Californian law prohibits the enforcement of most regardless of when they were entered into, and that prohibition is not limited to assault or harassment in the workplace.

I agree that this can tie the hands of survivors who may otherwise have been willing to enter into an NDA for additional consideration. The public policy, however, is to prohibit repeat conduct that could have been avoided had there been some disclosure.

It would be interesting to see how many nda agreements the LDS church has insisted upon opened the door for further abuse. We're seeing case after case after case, recently, where silence has allowed abuse to continue, it's highly likely the LDS church's insistence on using ndas has added to this problem.

[I Have Questions]

Anyway, back to the actual topic of the thread…

Getting back to Toon's post, he made a great point:

Federal law prohibits the enforcement of NDAs that were entered into prior to the act. Some states go further. For example, Californian law prohibits the enforcement of most regardless of when they were entered into, and that prohibition is not limited to assault or harassment in the workplace.

I agree that this can tie the hands of survivors who may otherwise have been willing to enter into an NDA for additional consideration. The public policy, however, is to prohibit repeat conduct that could have been avoided had there been some disclosure.

It would be interesting to see how many nda agreements the LDS church has insisted upon opened the door for further abuse. We're seeing case after case after case, recently, where silence has allowed abuse to continue, it's highly likely the LDS church's insistence on using ndas has added to this problem.

[Dr. Shades]

Yes. Not to mention that they doggedly refuse to take the steps necessary to prevent a continuation of these levels of risks to their members' kids. In fact, they doggedly continue with procedures that aid perpetrators. It’s as if they want kids to be harmed.

Money is vastly more important to them than mere kids for the time being. If a few are sinned against, let God heal 'em, we got money ta make and by gawd we're focused on that.

We all know that the church hires lawyers and big businessmen for its quorum of twelve apostles. That being the case, it's surprising how blind they are to everything "long-term." To the point, by ignoring abused children, aren't they essentially guaranteeing that the child will leave the church and thus deprive the church of a lifetime of tithing? Especially when we consider that a perpetrator nearly always has more than one victim?

On the other hand, perhaps their reasoning is that by protecting the perpetrator, they prevent the story from getting out, thus ensuring that converts, uh, convert who would otherwise refrain from converting due to the scandal. . . and, by their calculations, this generates more net tithing than the individual children would.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[I Have Questions]

Money is vastly more important to them than mere kids for the time being. If a few are sinned against, let God heal 'em, we got money ta make and by gawd we're focused on that.

We all know that the church hires lawyers and big businessmen for its quorum of twelve apostles. That being the case, it's surprising how blind they are to everything "long-term." To the point, by ignoring abused children, aren't they essentially guaranteeing that the child will leave the church and thus deprive the church of a lifetime of tithing? Especially when we consider that a perpetrator nearly always has more than one victim?

On the other hand, perhaps their reasoning is that by protecting the perpetrator, they prevent the story from getting out, thus ensuring that converts, uh, convert who would otherwise refrain from converting due to the scandal. . . and, by their calculations, this generates more net tithing than the individual children would.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Attempting to protect the name of the Church takes precedence over protecting the members of the Church. They will spend $billions on cover ups and pay offs to keep the stories out of the press, but spend two parts of squat-all in time and resources to try and prevent sexual predators using Church positions and connections to find and groom victims.

It’s as if they think that refusing to accept that the spirit of discernment is utterly flawed, means that the spirit of discernment isn’t utterly flawed, therefore the Church is true. They might be lawyers and big business men, but they are fully, and irrevocably, Church-blind. It’s how they got the gig in the first place.

[Dr. Shades]

Attempting to protect the name of the Church takes precedence over protecting the members of the Church. They will spend $billions on cover ups and pay offs to keep the stories out of the press, but spend two parts of squat-all in time and resources to try and prevent sexual predators using Church positions and connections to find and groom victims.

It’s as if they think that refusing to accept that the spirit of discernment is utterly flawed, means that the spirit of discernment isn’t utterly flawed, therefore the Church is true. They might be lawyers and big business men, but they are fully, and irrevocably, Church-blind. It’s how they got the gig in the first place.

So, in your opinion, maintaining the illusion takes precedence over making money (in their minds)?

Because if that's really the case, then I struggle to understand why they would drop all the programs that made the church a community, and why they'd risk losing ever more members due to added burdens like firing all the custodians. . . because losing members destroys the illusion, too.

[Chap]

Attempting to protect the name of the Church takes precedence over protecting the members of the Church. They will spend $billions on cover ups and pay offs to keep the stories out of the press, but spend two parts of squat-all in time and resources to try and prevent sexual predators using Church positions and connections to find and groom victims.

It’s as if they think that refusing to accept that the spirit of discernment is utterly flawed, means that the spirit of discernment isn’t utterly flawed, therefore the Church is true. They might be lawyers and big business men, but they are fully, and irrevocably, Church-blind. It’s how they got the gig in the first place.

So, in your opinion, maintaining the illusion takes precedence over making money (in their minds)?

Because if that's really the case, then I struggle to understand why they would drop all the programs that made the church a community, and why they'd risk losing ever more members due to added burdens like firing all the custodians. . . because losing members destroys the illusion, too.

Perhaps the Church is not really run by thoughtful people? The top money people think that their only object is to maximise revenue from existing members, so they save salaries by firing custodians (members can do the cleaning) and cutting down on all social activities. The top religion people don't get asked to clean the toilets, and they have plenty of fun together, so they think all is well so long as they get to enjoy being admired and deferred to, and don't ask themselves whether growing the church (or stopping it shrinking) might involve giving the members a bit more than yet another conference address full of banalities.