Please read this article. It's from the AP news. https://apnews.com/article/sex-abuse-catholic-church-mormon-5d78129a2fe666159a22ce71323f6da3

I made no comment about the arizona case. Which you seem to think that abuse in the church is limited to a single case. It isn't, just read about the LDS church boy scout settlement. I've made comments about the LDS church as a system and not a single incident.

The AP News article describes the positions the LDS church as taken with HB90. It includes quotes from a written response received from the LDS organization describing confessions as "sacred." Pointing to a single congressman, or pointing to a single case doesn't help here.

Nor does pointing to the LDS stances on abuse. It's not helpful. Every company can produce a legal document on sexual harassment policies. It doesn't prevent it. It's their actions around how they handle it. That's how we can judge them.

Now you have produced some good examples of how they have handled it. And I have produced some examples of how they are currently advocating against mandatory reporting from clergy.

You'd think they'd defer to the best case scenario for the vicitms involved EVERYWHERE. But it's obvious that is not the case.

You know what would be uplifting news? The LDS church announcing that they will stop lobbying for clergy confidentiality to protect untrained men from making horrible decisions when it comes to protecting women and children from sexual assault.

Yes you read that right. The LDS church does not train their clergy (they’re volunteers) on dealing with sexual assault. They direct the leaders to call a hot line run by their law firm. All call records are deleted. The hot line then looks up whether they are required to report the incident to authorities or not. They essentially protect abusers so they can save face.

So instead of judging the church by the least of its members, let’s judge about how the corporation behaves.

From the article:

The church’s remarks come after the act’s sponsors added an amendment to the House-passed bill exempting religious organizations, including faith-based universities, from providing “services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.” Neither could the act be used to alter the tax-exempt status of any organization.

They get to maintain their exclusionary practices. They are only supportive because they’re not having to get a bunch of lawsuits thrown their way.