Overstating What the Bishops Knew
It's fair to ask what leaders could have done more to protect children against an abusive father. It's not fair to pretend they were fully conscious of ongoing sexual abuse - while refusing to act.
Even after an Arizona judge dismissed the case, national reporting persists in magnifying a damning and incendiary distortion about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
It’s common in serious conflicts for one or both parties to insist that the other side knew far more than they actually did about a sticky situation, especially if that makes the opponent seem an unfeeling monstrosity.
In my view, this seems very much to have happened from the beginning of this tragic abuse case in Arizona - starting with journalist Michael Rezendes’ own accusatory reporting on the case – “Seven Years of Sex Abuse: How Mormon Officials Let It Happen.” In this surprisingly sensationalist AP investigation, the writer not only alleged a shadowy conspiracy among Church hierarchy to cover up all kinds of abuse - but claimed, contrary to a great deal of documented evidence, that bishops involved were aware of ongoing abuse.
I wrote about this last August for Public Square Magazine. After seeing these same glaring allegations promoted even after the case was dismissed by an Arizona judge, it feels important to highlight the discrepancy again - while adding additional illustration and context.
Were the bishops aware of any current abuse? Multiple times, Rezendes and his colleagues collaborating on that original article insinuated that Latter-day Saint bishops were aware of sexual abuse currently and actively happening in the home. For instance, the report uses present tense verbs like:
“MJ was a tiny, black-haired girl, just 5 years old when her father admitted to his bishop that he was sexually abusing her.”1
“One victim was 5 when her father told his bishop that he was sexually abusing her.”
If that were true, then church policy would have not only allowed but actively insisted upon then-Bishop Herrod reporting to authorities immediately. As writer Tad Walch summarized at the time, “Latter-day Saint leaders are instructed to report a confession of child abuse immediately if a report would ‘prevent life-threatening harm or serious injury and there is not time to seek guidance’ from the Church’s abuse helpline.”
This kind of imminent danger is a clear exception to calling the helpline in the official handbook for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which specifies, “In such cases, the duty to protect others is more important than the duty of confidentiality. Leaders should contact civil authorities immediately.”
Yet the basic question remains: Did either of these Bishops witness signs of current abuse happening in their interactions with the family? In a sworn deposition, John Herrod said the following about his prior experience with the perpetrator:
In late 2011, within the privacy of the Bishop’s office, Paul Adams made a confidential confession to me in my role as Bishop. What Paul Adams confessed to me was a one-time incident that had not reoccurred. I never observed Paul Adams abusing or behaving inappropriately in any way toward his children, nor did I see any physical indications or visible signs that he was abusing them.
[Further details from the case suggest the confession from Adams was limited and ambiguous enough - a common temptation in any instance of serious confession - that the bishop did not “know to what extent the law was broken at the time.”] This lack of awareness was later confirmed in an interview with the bishop conducted by federal agent Robert Edwards, who asked the former religious leader, “I just wanted to get the record straight … did you have any belief that Paul was doing anything like this? Did you have any signs? Was there anything weird that stood out to you, maybe while he was in the congregation? In church? Anything anybody spoke to you about?”
Herrod responded: “No” - aside from, he remarked, “what may have passed between him and I confidentially as a Bishop” [referring to the limited confession above]. Herrod then reiterated: “There was nothing. I mean, you know, people would say, ‘He’s kind of weird … I wonder what he’s doing,’ but there were no accusations or anything else.”
Edwards continued to inquire: “Okay. So—so nobody ever—you know, none of the other individuals in the Church came and said they had seen something.”
Herrod: “No. No.”
Edwards: “The kids never confided in you.”
Herrod: “No.”
Edwards: “Or any of the Sunday school teachers or anything like that.”
Herrod: “No.”
Edwards: “That you were aware of?”
Herrod: “No.”
Since there were no indications of current abuse (which would have prompted more immediate action to contact law enforcement), Bishop Herrod subsequently made the appropriate call to the church helpline staffed by experts in mental health and legal reporting requirements, which has been the focus of so much public discussion.
When there was a change in leadership in the congregation, Bishop Herrod passed along what he understood of this past incident. Was the second Bishop Kim Mauzy aware of anything more?
It’s true that one of the children participating in the lawsuit later filed a statement that she had told this same Bishop Mauzy that she was scared to go home. If that took place, it’s fair to ask why the bishop didn’t look into the situation further.
Yet according to the Bishop’s own testimony, he didn’t recall seeing any physical evidence of ongoing abuse. He has likewise stated under oath, “I never observed Paul Adams abusing or behaving inappropriately in any way toward his children, nor did I see any physical indications or visible signs that he was abusing them.”
Were the bishops aware of any continuing abuse? More than simply alleging an awareness of present abuse by these bishops, the AP report strongly conveys the impression that these leaders were also aware the abuse was continuing. That begins with the attention-grabbing title “Seven years of sex abuse: How Mormon officials let it happen” and continues throughout in statements like these:
“In 2012, when Herrod rotated out of his position as bishop of the Bisbee ward—a Mormon jurisdiction similar to a Catholic parish—he told incoming Bishop Robert “Kim” Mauzy about the abuse in the Adams household. Instead of rescuing MJ by reporting the abuse to authorities, Mauzy also kept the information within the Church.”
“The abuse went on for seven more years even though Mormon church leaders used a so-called helpline to report accusations of her abuse.”
Yet not only did both bishops deny being aware of any current abuse, they also stated under oath that they did not become aware of any more incidents during their counseling. Other than that single past incident, they each attested only learning about the full extent of the abuse at the time of Paul’s arrest years later:
John Herrod: “I did not learn that Paul had abused his children after his confidential confession to me or about the extensiveness of the abuse and other illegal conduct until Paul was arrested in 2017 and news reports concerning the extent of the abuse were released.”
Kim Mauzy: “I did not know that Paul Adams was abusing his children while I was Bishop until he was arrested in 2017. The communications with me were about a past one-time incident (and other conduct by Paul Adams that gave rise to his excommunication). I did not know until Paul Adams was arrested in 2017 that he had abused Plaintiffs John Doe or Jane Doe II. I did not know until he was arrested that he had viewed or disseminated child pornography, including videos of his own children.”
In striking contrast with these statements, the AP news article alleges that church leaders were not only aware of the abuse but somehow okay with it. As Rezendes writes, “church officials, from the bishops in the Bisbee ward to officials in Salt Lake City, tolerated abuse in the Adams family for years.”
Each time graphic and heart-wrenching descriptions of abuse are made in the AP article, readers are left with the impression the Church was not only aware of the horror but not all that concerned with it. For instance, Rezendes has this to say about the Church’s feelings towards the harrowing experience of one victim having her own assault recorded for others to witness:
That video represented nine minutes and 14 seconds in seven years of continual and unnecessary trauma for MJ—and a lifetime of abuse for her tiny sister—while Bishops Herrod and Mauzy and church representatives in Salt Lake City stood by.
Standing by and tolerating abuse, of course, relies upon an awareness that it is presently happening or continuing. While the journalist did cite pushback from the Church that “Herrod did not know that Adams was continuing to sexually assault his daughter after learning of the abuse in a single counseling session,” he immediately goes on to raise doubt about that in the subsequent paragraph:
But in the recorded interview with the agent obtained by the AP, Herrod said he asked Leizza Adams in multiple sessions if the abuse was ongoing and asked her, “What are we going to do to stop it?” “At least for a period of time, I assumed they had stopped things, but—and then I never asked if they picked up again.”
How are we to make sense of this discrepancy? This is where the full interview transcript is so essential compared with edited soundbites. Check out the full statement from John Herrod: “We discussed probably what went on the one time. And then, from then on, it would have been, ‘okay, what are we doing to stop it? Is it still going on?’”
If that first sentence is left off, it’s easy for any reader to assume the bishop is referring to ongoing abuse. But as the context makes clear, he’s not—he’s referring to “the one time.” Likewise, if you leave off the uncertainty reflected in the last sentence (“Is it still going on?”), it’s easy to mistakenly assume the bishop is referring to current abuse that he knows is going on.
Neither sentence shows up in the AP article—a critical editorial decision that turns out to be essential to Rezendes unfolding the damning story he ultimately does.
What else do the court documents reveal? While the complete interview transcripts do confirm an ongoing conversation between John and Leizza, they do not offer any proof that this discussion was anything more than a bishop ministering to a survivor of something hard in the past (while repeatedly trying to encourage her to report this prior incident). This includes the kind of routine health check-ins any doctor might do (John was her personal physician as well).
It’s fair to ask and wonder why the bishops didn’t probe more, and follow-up enough to know for sure whether the abuse was continuing. That’s something you would have hoped both leaders would have done, like anyone who becomes aware of any instance of prior abuse.
And if it’s true that one of the children shared fear about returning home, that would have been a crucial prompt to probe much more. Nonetheless, the fact remains that it’s simply not common knowledge among most people – including lay leadership - the extent to which a single instance of misconduct can point towards a much larger and extensive pattern. And in this case, the lack of adequate follow-up may speak to the ambiguous nature of what Adams apparently first confessed to as well, along with what appears to be a sharply decreasing frequency of contact with church leaders the longer time went on.2
It’s important to note that Rezendes wasn’t alone in misrepresenting what the bishops had said. Four different times in Agent Edwards’ interview about the matter, we see evidence that he likewise was misunderstanding their words in an important way:
When asked, “Did Bishop Herrod know of any actual misconduct between Paul Adams and his children?” the agent’s answer included: “During one these sessions, Paul Adams admitted to that he had been sexually assaulting his oldest daughter.”
When the questioner probed more, “Did the Bishop, aside from actual sexual molestation or assaulting [his daughter], did the Bishop have any further detail about what Paul Adams was doing with [this daughter],” the agent reiterated, “He did. During the counseling session Paul Adams explained to Bishop Herrod that…. he was taking video of [her] orally stimulating Paul Adams. He said that he had taken video of this, and he’s done it numerous times.” [From the bishop’s own statement, this was not something he was aware of—a horrifying detail he only learned about when Paul was arrested].
Agent Edwards later recounted, “the counseling sessions continued with Paul Adams, to which Paul continued to explain that he was sexually assaulting his oldest daughter.”
And he also claimed that Bishop Herrod “was hoping that Leizza Adams would fix the situation, that Leizza Adams would leave the house with the children, thus not letting them being the victim of sexual assault, continued sexual assault.”
How could Agent Edwards reach these conclusions when Bishop Herrod attests to have spoken so plainly otherwise? Was it just an honest misunderstanding of his words—or did he not believe the bishop when he insisted the awareness was far more limited?
Propounding the accusation. Even with the case now dismissed, national media continues to propound this central misunderstanding. In an Associated Press article by Michael Rezendes that was quickly picked up by many other news outlets (including Fox 13-Utah, KUER, the Arizona Republic and the Salt Lake Tribune), the opening two paragraphs amplify this same misunderstanding. Notice the bolded sentence below - all paraphrases from the writer presuming to describe the judge’s words:
An Arizona judge has dismissed a high-profile child sexual abuse lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ruling that church officials who knew that a church member was sexually abusing his daughter had no duty to report the abuse to police or social service agencies because the information was received during a spiritual confession.
In a ruling on Friday, Cochise County Superior Court Judge Timothy Dickerson said the state's clergy-penitent privilege excused two bishops and several other officials with the church, widely known as the Mormon church, from the state's child sex abuse mandatory reporting law because Paul Adams initially disclosed during a confession that he was sexually abusing his daughter.
Yet in the very next paragraph, the journalist cites the actual text from Judge Thomas Dickerson: "Church defendants were not required under the Mandatory Reporting Statute to report the abuse of Jane Doe 1 by her father because their knowledge of the abuse came from confidential communications which fall within the clergy-penitent exception.”
I would challenge anyone to find Judge Dickerson speaking in the actual ruling using language that implies the bishops were aware of current or continuing abuse. But that change in verb tense appears irrelevant not only to a public outraged by the outrageous storyline (bishops aware of a child being raped and doing nothing), but also astonishingly to prominent journalists weaving the story together.
Making a monster. Other commentators have further amplified the allegations. For instance, Laurie Roberts wrote in the Arizona Republic something syndicated with the shocking title, “An Arizona child is raped. The clergy stays silent. Then comes the truly shocking part.”
In the article, Roberts likewise channels Rezendes’s same misinformation:
“Members of the clergy are not required to report a confession that a child is being abused.”
“Paul Adams, of Bisbee, a father of six, admitted during a counseling session with his bishop that he was raping his then-5-year-old daughter.”
What kind of a monstrosity would put its own well-being as an organization ahead of a child being raped?
It would be a despicable organization indeed. This is only one of a range of misrepresentations in Rezendes’ original report on the matter. All of this begs the question, however, if accusations this serious don’t invoke our honest desire to understand the full truth, what hope do we have to transcend any other lesser issue?
Thankfully, at least lawmakers are paying attention to these distinctions. Rep. Stacey Travers, D-Phoenix, introduced a bill this year to require a member of the clergy to report abuse learned about during a confession or confidential communication “if there is a reasonable suspicion to believe that the abuse is ongoing, will continue or may be a threat to other minors.”
Precise wording and language matters when trying to ascertain truth. Journalists and researchers, above all, should understand this.
Let’s hope in an age of collapsing ethics everywhere - including among truth-seeking institutions - we can continue to encourage more people to reach for the full truth, and nothing but the full truth.
Bolded text here and below reflects emphasis added by the author.
Yet the AP article leaves the impression that Paul Adams was “deeply involved” in the Latter-day Saint community in a way that would have given leaders more natural opportunities to witness and be aware of ongoing concerns. While Leizza and her daughters remained actively involved, “prior to and after his limited confession [in 2011],” the Church further confirmed, “Paul rarely attended church or talked to leaders.” That means that between 2011 and 2017—a period of 6 of the 7 years—Church leaders had very little interaction with Paul. That makes sense since Paul reportedly “spent much of his time online looking at porn, often with his children watching, or wandering the house naked or in nothing but his underwear,” which meant his beleaguered wife “assumed most of the child-rearing responsibilities, including getting their six children off to school and chauffeuring them to church and religious instruction on Sundays.”