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

[Madison54]

Here is a good overview of this posted by "LDS Abuse" on X who is doing an excellent job of updating this case....

I think the term “church officials” is a little misleading. This is the process for removing an annotation on a members church record.

According to Handbook 1 section 6.13.4 (at the very end) an annotation can only be removed with First Presidency approval at the request of the stake president.

So it was the three man First Presidency, the highest leadership body of the church, that knowingly removed this annotation from his record. Specifically that would be Hinckley, Monson, and Eyring at that period of time. At the time this annotation was removed, D. Todd Christofferson was President of the Seventy, and was therefore being considered for Apostleship.

Yes, I agree. It's good to actually name those responsible! Thanks for adding this.

[sock puppet]

Here is a good overview of this posted by "LDS Abuse" on X who is doing an excellent job of updating this case....

I think the term “church officials” is a little misleading. This is the process for removing an annotation on a members church record.

According to Handbook 1 section 6.13.4 (at the very end) an annotation can only be removed with First Presidency approval at the request of the stake president.

So it was the three man First Presidency, the highest leadership body of the church, that knowingly removed this annotation from his record. Specifically that would be Hinckley, Monson, and Eyring at that period of time. At the time this annotation was removed, D. Todd Christofferson was President of the Seventy, and was therefore being considered for Apostleship.

But the Lord inspired them, 'cuz the omniscient Lord knew Wade Christofferson wouldn't do it again. After all, D. Todd is his brother's (Wade's) keeper.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I think the term “church officials” is a little misleading. This is the process for removing an annotation on a members church record. So it was the three man First Presidency, the highest leadership body of the church, that knowingly removed this annotation from his record. Specifically that would be Hinckley, Monson, and Eyring at that period of time. At the time this annotation was removed, D. Todd Christofferson was President of the Seventy, and was therefore being considered for Apostleship.

But the Lord inspired them, 'cuz the omniscient Lord knew Wade Christofferson wouldn't do it again. After all, D. Todd is his brother's (Wade's) keeper.

If I didn't know better, I would almost think that these men aren't inspired at all.

[I Have Questions]

Can the removal of the annotation on Wade Christofferson’s Church record, be considered as criminal negligence if it can be shown to have enabled Wade Christofferson to offend? As I understand the criteria for criminal negligence it’s…a failure to be aware of a knowable substantial risk. The responsible individual(s) knew or should have known there was a high risk of a wrongful act, such as an accident, property damage, or injury. Or a significant deviation from a reasonable standard of care: The person or persons failure to acknowledge the knowable risk constitutes a major departure from how a reasonable person would act in the same situation. Especially if the negligent act or omission must be the cause of the resulting harm, injury, or death.

In other words, can the First Presidency and Stake Presidency who requested and facilitated the removal of that annotation be charged with criminal negligence in the event Wade Christofferson confesses or is found guilty?

Separately, I think Church lawyers will be now working hard on throwing money at this to make it go away without ever being heard in court.

[Shulem]

In other words, can the First Presidency and Stake Presidency who requested and facilitated the removal of that annotation be charged with criminal negligence in the event Wade Christofferson confesses or is found guilty?

If this scandal continues to develop then there could be grounds and a call from concerned persons to investigate the Mormon coverup and further determine what happened. Liability and accountability is key. Parents who are negligent in allowing children to possess a firearm can become liable for the disaster that follows. Church leaders who purposely allow known predators who are in remission gain access again to children could be held liable.

Anything can happen. Accusations could ensue and the Church may face it's greatest legal battle since polygamy. We shall see.

Yes, I think the Church should be very worried. They will be investigated. We could see a member of the First Presidency in handcuffs.

[Shulem]

Separately, I think Church lawyers will be now working hard on throwing money at this to make it go away without ever being heard in court.

Public outcry could prevent that. If Christofferson is booked, he would be temporarily relieved of his position in the First Presidency. And, if Oaks croaks during that duration then the remaining apostles would have to form a new First Presidency which would leave Christofferson permanently out of top leadership.

[Shulem]

So it was the three man First Presidency, the highest leadership body of the church, that knowingly removed this annotation from his record. Specifically that would be Hinckley, Monson, and Eyring at that period of time. At the time this annotation was removed, D. Todd Christofferson was President of the Seventy, and was therefore being considered for Apostleship.

And if Christofferson is relieved of duty and Oaks croaks then it remains to be seen whether Eyring is flagged as ineligible for top leadership while under investigation. And if Holland is too frail to take the position, it leaves silver fox (Dieter F. Uchtdorf) to take the reigns.

That would be bittersweet irony. He will change the church like never before!

[I Have Questions]

In other words, can the First Presidency and Stake Presidency who requested and facilitated the removal of that annotation be charged with criminal negligence in the event Wade Christofferson confesses or is found guilty?

If this scandal continues to develop then there could be grounds and a call from concerned persons to investigate the Mormon coverup and further determine what happened. Liability and accountability is key. Parents who are negligent in allowing children to possess a firearm can become liable for the disaster that follows. Church leaders who purposely allow known predators who are in remission gain access again to children could be held liable.

Anything can happen. Accusations could ensue and the Church may face it's greatest legal battle since polygamy. We shall see.

Yes, I think the Church should be very worried. They will be investigated. We could see a member of the First Presidency in handcuffs.

Was Wade Christofferson previously charged with child abuse, which caused the annotation on his record? I know he was excommunicated, but can't see where he has been charged prior to this. If he wasn't, then a number of people have wilfully allowed a known child sexual predator within their Stakes and Wards and unleashed him upon an unsuspecting membership.

Church Leadership has resisted for decades putting in place a system for doing background checks of all people called to serve in positions of responsibility for minors. This situation now shows us exactly why they have resisted. And it isn't because they put the protection of children first and foremost. They've been complicit for decades in protecting and facilitating predators. Wade Christofferson will be the tip of the iceberg.

[Shulem]

Wade Christofferson will be the tip of the iceberg.

Sounds like the ice is beginning to crack and the Mormons are going to pay their dues, finally! The criminally minded leadership of the church is going to get their asses handed to them on a billion dollar platter!

[Res Ipsa]

Can the removal of the annotation on Wade Christofferson’s Church record, be considered as criminal negligence if it can be shown to have enabled Wade Christofferson to offend? As I understand the criteria for criminal negligence it’s…a failure to be aware of a knowable substantial risk. The responsible individual(s) knew or should have known there was a high risk of a wrongful act, such as an accident, property damage, or injury. Or a significant deviation from a reasonable standard of care: The person or persons failure to acknowledge the knowable risk constitutes a major departure from how a reasonable person would act in the same situation. Especially if the negligent act or omission must be the cause of the resulting harm, injury, or death.

In other words, can the First Presidency and Stake Presidency who requested and facilitated the removal of that annotation be charged with criminal negligence in the event Wade Christofferson confesses or is found guilty?

Separately, I think Church lawyers will be now working hard on throwing money at this to make it go away without ever being heard in court.

“Criminal negligence” is not a crime that can be charged. It is one of the mental states that may be required by a statute that defines a crime. Others include intent, knowledge and recklessness. So, you’d have to find a statute that would make removing the annotation a crime under defined circumstances. Nothing springs to mind, but I don’t practice criminal law and I haven’t combed statutes in Utah or Ohio to see what’s there.

In general, criminal liability for someone else’s act falls under the categories of conspiracy to commit a crime and accomplice liability, both of which are defined by statute.