Brother of LDS apostle (Christofferson) charged with attempting to sexually exploit children in Utah and Ohio

[malkie]

According to Floodlit’s timeline, Christofferson was excommunicated sometime in 1996 and rebaptized sometime in 1997. Assuming that to be accurate, the church’s 1989 General Handbook of Instructions was the governing handbook at that time. The 1989 handbook provided that First Presidency approval for a change to a person’s membership status was required in six cases:

1. murder;
2. incest (defined elsewhere in the handbook to mean “sexual relations between a parent and a natural, adopted, or foster child or stepchild”; the handbook noted that grandparents were considered the same as parents);
3. advocating or teaching the doctrines of apostate sects that practice plural marriage, or affiliation with such groups;
4. commission of a serious transgression while serving in a prominent church position (defined elsewhere in the handbook to include the positions of regional representative; stake, mission, or district president; patriarch; or bishop);
5. an elective transsexual operation;
6. embezzlement of church funds in substantial amounts (p. 10-11).

It should be noted that the handbook did not list child abuse apart from incest as a reason requiring a disciplinary council or a reason where a council could be necessary.

The 1998 Church Handbook of Instructions provided that First Presidency approval was required before a person could be restored to full fellowship or readmitted by baptism in seven cases:

1. murder;
2. incest;
3. sexual offense against or serious physical abuse of a child by an adult;
4. apostasy;
5. committing a serious transgression while holding a prominent church position;
6. an elective transsexual operation;
7. embezzlement of church funds or property (p. 105).

The 1998 handbook also provided that a church disciplinary council was mandatory in cases of child abuse, which it defined as “a sexual offense against or serious physical abuse of a child” (p. 95).

Note: the church’s online history catalog provides digital copies of the handbooks.

If all of this is correct it apparently absolves the first presidency? Am I reading that correctly?

What did the first presidency know, and when did they know it? They may not have explicitly signed off on it, but are they likely to have known?

[Res Ipsa]

The author wasn’t able to learn the date of the re-baptism, so it’s not clear as to which specific individuals signed off? Do we know when the first presidency sign off was instituted? Things that are obvious to us may not meet journalistic standards.

”By Common Consent” reports that they started insisting on it in the mid 1980’s…

In January 1985 a revision of the section “The Church Judicial System” was sent to church leaders. Once again there was a subtle but substantive change in the policy: “After excommunication, such a person is not eligible again for baptism unless approved by the First Presidency.”

It has been reported that Wade Christofferson was excommunicated in the 1990’s, so his re-baptism falls after the date First Presidency approval was instituted. And that he was serving in callings by 2006. So it was likely Hinckley, Monson, and Faust signed off on it. Todd Christofferson was made an Apostle in 2008.

Thanks.

[I Have Questions]

Floodlit quoting the Chicago Times piece

It was not until around 2020 that President Christofferson first learned of — through family disclosure — some of his brother’s history of abuse from thirty years earlier; he respected the adult victims’ wishes not to involve law enforcement at that time.

After finding out about his brother's sexual abuse of minors in the family, what did Todd (an Apostle) do to protect other potential victims within the family and within the Church? It would seem people within the family knew about it, but others did not. The continued covering up (of which Todd was apart from 2020 onwards) led to more victims. Todd, by his inaction, has facilitated a child abuser within his own family. In what basis do members think he’s got their best interests at heart when he hasn’t even got his own family’s children’s best interests at heart? When, as an Apostle, he went to the Lord to ask for guidance on the matter, is Todd going to say the Lord told him to do nothing?

Todd, how do you sleep at night knowing that you’ve facilitated a child abuser to commit more offences? How do you stand at a pulpit with a straight face telling other people how to live their lives?

[Tom]

If all of this is correct it apparently absolves the first presidency? Am I reading that correctly?

What did the first presidency know, and when did they know it? They may not have explicitly signed off on it, but are they likely to have known?

Although the First Presidency may not have been involved in the decision to rebaptize Christofferson, the First Presidency in 1997 had to approve the restoration of Christofferson’s priesthood and temple blessings.

Per pages 10-12 to 10-13 of the 1989 General Handbook of Instructions (pp. 110-111 of the PDF):

1. The bishop was required to fill out an application for restoration of priesthood and temple blessings and to interview the applicant to verify the accuracy of answers to the questions and to verify that the applicant was worthy. I assume that the form requested information on the applicant’s misconduct or crimes.
2. The applicant wrote a letter to the stake president with specific information included.
3. The bishop sought a letter from the applicant’s spouse if the applicant was excommunicated for committing a sexual sin while married.
4. The bishop made a recommendation on the form and forwarded it, along with the other documents, to the stake president.
5. The stake president reviewed the information forwarded to him and interviewed the applicant. If he recommended approval, he obtained approval from his counselors. Once the stake president had made sufficient contact with the applicant and, if necessary, the injured persons, to verify that the applicant had told the truth about relationships with others since the excommunication, he added his recommendation to the application form.
6. The stake president forwarded the application form and associated documents to the Office of the First Presidency.
7. If the First Presidency decided to approve the restoration of blessings, they arranged for the applicant to be interviewed by a church officer assigned by the President of the Quorum of the Twelve. (The handbook is silent on the question of which church officers could be assigned to conduct the interview; perhaps a seventy was typically assigned.) if the church officer found the applicant worthy, the applicant’s blessings at the time of the excommunication were restored.

If the protocols were followed, the First Presidency in 1997 must have had some knowledge of Christofferson’s child sexual abuse.

[Rivendale]

Who is responsible for removing the annotation from his record? I assume the first presidency.

[Tom]

Floodlit dates the annotation removal to between approximately 1998 and 2006.

The 1998 handbook provided the following on annotations (p. 129):

Records with Annotations

In areas where the First Presidency has given authorization, an annotation may be placed on the record of a member whose conduct has threatened the well-being of other persons or of the Church. An annotation helps the bishop protect Church members and others from such individuals. When a bishop receives an annotated membership record, he should follow the instructions in the annotation.

Church headquarters will automatically annotate a person's membership record when the stake president or bishop:

1. Submits a Report of Church Disciplinary Action showing that the person was disciplined for incest, sexual offense against or serious physical abuse of a child, plural marriage, an elective transsexual operation, repeated homosexual activities (by adults), or embezzlement of Church funds or property.
2. Submits written notification that the person has been criminally convicted for one of these transgressions.

Church headquarters also will automatically annotate a person's membership record when the stake president and bishop jointly submit written notification that the person has committed one of these transgressions before or after excommunication or name removal. In addition, the stake president and bishop may jointly recommend that a person's membership record be annotated for other conduct that threatens the well-being of other persons or of the Church.

In all cases, annotation of membership records is removed only with First Presidency approval upon request of the stake president.

(emphasis added)

The 2006 Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1’s section on annotation (p. 147) looks to be substantively the same as the 1998 section.

[Gabriel]

Floodlit dates the annotation removal to between approximately 1998 and 2006.

The 1998 handbook provided the following on annotations (p. 129):

Records with Annotations

In areas where the First Presidency has given authorization, an annotation may be placed on the record of a member whose conduct has threatened the well-being of other persons or of the Church. An annotation helps the bishop protect Church members and others from such individuals. When a bishop receives an annotated membership record, he should follow the instructions in the annotation.

Church headquarters will automatically annotate a person's membership record when the stake president or bishop:

1. Submits a Report of Church Disciplinary Action showing that the person was disciplined for incest, sexual offense against or serious physical abuse of a child, plural marriage, an elective transsexual operation, repeated homosexual activities (by adults), or embezzlement of Church funds or property.
2. Submits written notification that the person has been criminally convicted for one of these transgressions.

Church headquarters also will automatically annotate a person's membership record when the stake president and bishop jointly submit written notification that the person has committed one of these transgressions before or after excommunication or name removal. In addition, the stake president and bishop may jointly recommend that a person's membership record be annotated for other conduct that threatens the well-being of other persons or of the Church.

In all cases, annotation of membership records is removed only with First Presidency approval upon request of the stake president.

(emphasis added)

The 2006 Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1’s section on annotation (p. 147) looks to be substantively the same as the 1998 section.

Tom,

If I am reading you aright, from everything we know so far:

Little Brother Wade Christofferson was rebaptized in 1997. According to floodlit.org, Little Brother Wade moved out of state soon after his rebaptism. He moved from Illinois to Ohio. And, the absolute soonest that he would have been able to get his priesthood and temple blessings restored would have been in 1998.

Perhaps it is unrelated, but something else happened in 1998:

In 1998, Big Brother Todd Christofferson was called to the Presidency of the Seventy. What are the odds that the condition of Big Brother’s promotion was to wait until after Little Brother’s “Asterisk” was removed. I don’t think that this is far-fetched. (We have a similar situation where it was alleged that Paydan Bussey’s sex offender status was “expunged” so that his Father Phil could serve as Mission President in Spain.) I know that, technically, per the handbook, Little Brother’s Stake President is the one who was supposed to initiate the process of restoring Wade’s priesthood and temple blessings. But we are talking about the First Presidency here! Is it meet for them in all things to “wait on tables”?!

Here is floodlit’s timing of events:

1997: Wade Christofferson is rebaptized in Illinois, “following established disciplinary and confession processes,” per a 2026 church spokesman.
Approximately mid-1997: Wade Christofferson moves from Crystal Lake, Illinois to Dublin, Ohio and begins attending the Dublin Ward, later renamed the Dublin 1st Ward, in the Columbus Ohio Stake.
1998: Wade’s brother Todd Christofferson becomes a president in the Mormon church’s Presidency of the Seventy.

In 1997 -- 1998, the members of the First Presidency were Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson, and James E. Faust. The Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve was Boyd K. Packer. He was an acting president because his senior, Thomas S. Monson, was serving in the First Presidency. This had been the case since 1994.

Per the 1989 Handbook, Boyd K. Packer, as Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve, would have been the one to take care of all the nuts and bolts in removing Wade’s "Asterisk".

[Rivendale]

It appears that if the policies were followed we know exactly who helped propagate CSA. To initiate any type of lawsuit whether criminal or civil lies with the victims' families? And if nothing arises we can assume that either the church put their finger on the scale with families or the families felt justice was done?

[Tom]

If I am reading you aright, from everything we know so far:

Little Brother Wade Christofferson was rebaptized in 1997. According to floodlit.org, Little Brother Wade moved out of state soon after his rebaptism. He moved from Illinois to Ohio. And, the absolute soonest that he would have been able to get his priesthood and temple blessings restored would have been in 1998.

Yes, that seems right. I do wonder, however, if family members of general authorities are treated differently.

Perhaps it is unrelated, but something else happened in 1998:

In 1998, Big Brother Todd Christofferson was called to the Presidency of the Seventy. What are the odds that the condition of Big Brother’s promotion was to wait until after Little Brother’s “Asterisk” was removed. I don’t think that this is far-fetched. (We have a similar situation where it was alleged that Paydan Bussey’s sex offender status was “expunged” so that his Father Phil could serve as Mission President in Spain.)

I’m not familiar with that matter. (I attempted to download a copy of a civil complaint related to that case, but I balked at Floodlit’s request for my mailing address. My spring home on the upper east side of Ophir doesn’t have a postal address.) Could I trouble you to elaborate on the reason or reasons that the annotation would hold up D. Todd’s promotion?

I know that, technically, per the handbook, Little Brother’s Stake President is the one who was supposed to initiate the process of restoring Wade’s priesthood and temple blessings. But we are talking about the First Presidency here! Is it meet for them in all things to “wait on tables”?!

It’s possible. I have a vague memory of reading about a general authority reaching out to a local leader to not-so-subtly press for the rebaptism of a certain excommunicated member.

Here is floodlit’s timing of events:

1997: Wade Christofferson is rebaptized in Illinois, “following established disciplinary and confession processes,” per a 2026 church spokesman.
Approximately mid-1997: Wade Christofferson moves from Crystal Lake, Illinois to Dublin, Ohio and begins attending the Dublin Ward, later renamed the Dublin 1st Ward, in the Columbus Ohio Stake.
1998: Wade’s brother Todd Christofferson becomes a president in the Mormon church’s Presidency of the Seventy.

In 1997 -- 1998, the members of the First Presidency were Gordon B. Hinckley, Thomas S. Monson, and James E. Faust. The Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve was Boyd K. Packer. He was an acting president because his senior, Thomas S. Monson, was serving in the First Presidency. This had been the case since 1994.

Per the 1989 Handbook, Boyd K. Packer, as Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve, would have been the one to take care of all the nuts and bolts in removing Wade’s "Asterisk".

I understood that the president of the twelve assigned other church officers (e.g., D. Todd Christofferson?) to interview candidates for restoration of blessings, but I don’t know whether the president is involved in removal of annotations.

[Dwight]

Something more troubling I saw someone comment, if we take the church’s statement at face value that Wade got no special help from his familial relation. It just goes to show the church will happily rebaptize and remove the annotation for any old child sex abuser.

So what’s worse special treatment for one, or a general policy of child sex abusers can easily get back into a position to abuse more children?

This is a bit like the church digging up records to contradict Beau Oyler’s claim, records they have sworn to the court do not exist as a matter of practice and policy.