Wade Christofferson

[ZealouslyStriving]

Word is circulating that one of Pres. Christofferson's other brothers has been arrested for CSA. 

Wade S Christofferson Mormon sex abuse case - FLOODLIT https://share.google/sQL56t7gGMq1VX1E2

 

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Word is circulating that one of Pres. Christofferson's other brothers has been arrested for CSA. 

Wade S Christofferson Mormon sex abuse case - FLOODLIT https://share.google/sQL56t7gGMq1VX1E2

 

If it's true then I'm glad he has been arrested and I'm happy that the victims will be able to seek justice.  I am heartbroken (for the victims of course) for his family because I can't even imagine having a parent/child/sibling accused of something so evil and vile.

Is this the brother that is gay or does he have more than one brother?

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If it's true then I'm glad he has been arrested and I'm happy that the victims will be able to seek justice.  I am heartbroken (for the victims of course) for his family because I can't even imagine having a parent/child/sibling accused of something so evil and vile.

Is this the brother that is gay or does he have more than one brother?

It's a different brother. 

Seems it happened in the 1990's. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It's a different brother. 

Seems it happened in the 1990's. 

I forgot to add that if he's innocent then I hope they can prove that quickly.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Word is circulating that one of Pres. Christofferson's other brothers has been arrested for CSA. 

Wade S Christofferson Mormon sex abuse case - FLOODLIT https://share.google/sQL56t7gGMq1VX1E2

 

Quote

Floodlit has received three reports from separate individuals who said they believed the Mormon church disfellowshipped or excommunicated Christofferson sometime between 1995 and the early 2000s.

Quote

 

According to records obtained by Floodlit, LDS church officials assigned Christofferson to work in at least five ward and stake leadership positions after the alleged church discipline:

• 2006 to 2011: 2nd counselor in bishopric, Columbus Young Single Adults (YSA) 2nd Ward, Columbus Ohio Stake
• 2016 to 2019: 1st counselor in bishopric, two different bishoprics, Dublin 1st Ward, Columbus Ohio North Stake
• 2019 to 2023: ward clerk, Dublin 1st Ward, Columbus Ohio North Stake
• September 2023 to November 2025: 2nd counselor in stake Sunday school presidency, Columbus Ohio North Stake

In all, Floodlit is aware of at least seven alleged victims of child sexual abuse by Wade Christofferson. There are at least two alleged victims in the current pending criminal case; we’ve communicated with two other people who said Christofferson abused them; and we’ve communicated with a person who said Christofferson abused three children the person knew.

This complicates things if church leadership knew about it (assuming for this part of the discussion it is true).  The disfellowship/excommunication could be for something else.

Edited November 22, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

It feels odd that no news outlet is on it yet. I guess Floodlit didn’t do a press release, which is wise, imo, unless they did it for each case. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

This complicates things if church leadership knew about it (assuming for this part of the discussion it is true).  The disfellowship/excommunication could be for something else.

It appears, in my laymen's analysis, by reading between the lines, and how it was reported to have been handled, that this was a family situation, and his wife didn't want to pursue legal action.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Unpopular opinion incoming:

Before we condemn Bro. Christofferson, we must keep in mind that by information currently available this happened 30 years ago and there doesn't appear to be any subsequent offenses.

Also, it appears he went through the repentance process and was rebaptized and had his Temple blessing restored.

Also, we can't come down too hard on the Church, this happened 30 years ago before any type of mandatory reporting laws and it appears the people involved didn't decide to pursue legal action at that time.

Too often we try to make complicated situations simple.

🫣

 

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Unpopular opinion incoming:

Before we condemn Bro. Christofferson, we must keep in mind that by information currently available this happened 30 years ago and there doesn't appear to be any subsequent offenses.

Also, it appears he went through the repentance process and was rebaptized and had his Temple blessing restored.

Also, we can't come down too hard on the Church, this happened 30 years ago before any type of mandatory reporting laws and it appears the people involved didn't decide to pursue legal action at that time.

Too often we try to make complicated situations simple.

🫣

 

If he was excommunicated for sexual crimes against children, I don't how he could have been re baptized without confession to authorities.  Restitution is part of the repentance process. 

Plus, he should never ever have a calling that puts him in contact with children.  As a bishop's counselor and a ward clerk, he would have been in violation of church policy. Those are the kinds of sins that are supposed to stay on someone's membership record for the rest of their lives, even if they have been rebaptized, right?

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If he was excommunicated for sexual crimes against children, I don't how he could have been re baptized without confession to authorities.  Restitution is part of the repentance process. 

Plus, he should never ever have a calling that puts him in contact with children.  As a bishop's counselor and a ward clerk, he would have been in violation of church policy. Those are the kinds of sins that are supposed to stay on someone's membership record for the rest of their lives, even if they have been rebaptized, right?

I don't know when they started annotating records.

As for confession to legal authorities I don't know that it has been deemed necessary in all cases. I think if it's a family matter the spouse has had lots of say as to legal action/reporting.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I don't know when they started annotating records.

As for confession to legal authorities I don't know that it has been deemed necessary in all cases. I think if it's a family matter the spouse has had lots of say as to legal action/reporting.

Wouldn't it be insane if someone could repent from stealing while allowed to keep what they stole?  To me it seems equally crazy if someone could repent from sexually abusing children without getting the law involved.  But different people have different ideas I guess.

It would be a shame if a person who was not harmed had the final say on what restitution looks like.  I would not want to be that wife and mother if she was the reason this man was allowed to go about his life with no consequences for the harm he did.  

[Calm]

 

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I don't know when they started annotating records.

As for confession to legal authorities I don't know that it has been deemed necessary in all cases. I think if it's a family matter the spouse has had lots of say as to legal action/reporting.

Pretty sure it was before the 90s.  (Added:  I was wrong here and it was mid 90s for the hotline) They started the bishop hotline in the early 90s iirc, so they were keeping centralized records to my understanding.  Doesn’t ensure the bishop followed correct procedure, but if he was excommunicated for abuse of any sort, isn’t that record sent to SL and filed to be on record for rebaptism?  And they track that as rebaptisms are limited to a certain number iirc.

I am pretty sure I heard of annotations of records for homosexual behaviour preventing any calling working with youth even if such behaviour was with adults prior to the 90s, but will try and doublecheck.  They have not allowed anyone who stole money from the Church to get a calling dealing with church finances for a long time iirc, so again, the record option seems to have been there.

I would need to know what the victims wanted at that time to know if I need to consider the lack of legal reporting as I mostly accept their right to decide unless there is obvious danger to others.  Mandatory reporting was not yet in place and we don’t know if the alleged excommunication was solely from confession or not, do we?

My issue with the Church would be putting anyone in any leadership or calling that conveys authority or requires contact with children if there was knowledge of prior abuse of children even if there was certainty of repentance….especially after 2000 because of greater knowledge of sexual abuse (there are many who only abuse within their own family or during one time period or even just once, but multiple victims significantly raises the likelihood of reoffending as would outside the family iirc).

Edited November 23, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

Pretty sure it was before the 90s.  They started the bishop hotline in the early 90s, so they were keeping centralized records to my understanding.

I am pretty sure I heard of annotations of records for homosexual behaviour preventing any calling working with youth even if such behaviour was with adults prior to the 90s, but will try and doublecheck.

I would need to know what the victims wanted at that time to know if I need to consider the lack of legal reporting as I mostly accept their right to decide unless there is obvious danger to others.

My issue with the Church would be putting anyone in any leadership or calling that conveys authority or requires contact with children if there was knowledge of abuse of children.  

I'm not saying it's right, but maybe, if I am correct about the circumstances, they felt that since it was a family situation that he wasn't a danger to others?

[Calm]

Google says annotation of records for sexual abuse started in 1995.  Hotline started then too, could have sworn it was earlier.  My bad.

This raises the possibility even if the excommunication occurred shortly after those were instituted, the bishop still might have thought it was up to his discretion since training wasn’t as much as now…and even now I am guessing there are men who think they know better than the Church and might not have records annotated.  Hopefully very few.  I am wondering how if the excommunication was for that reason, why it didn’t get flagged by SL when he applied for rebaptism.

I wonder if the dates are wrong and it was a year or two earlier or if it was just disfellowship.

Edited November 22, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'm not saying it's right, but maybe, if I am correct about the circumstances, they felt that since it was a family situation that he wasn't a danger to others?

They would not be the first or the last.  And statistically it is less likely, but not nonexistent.

Edited November 22, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

f I am correct about the circumstances, they felt that since it was a family situation that he wasn't a danger to others?

What is leading you to think this is likely?  Not seeing the implication in the FL info

Edited November 22, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

Given the number of victims Floodlit mentions as well as commentary elsewhere I am not going to link to (which may be false reports as they are mostly anonymous…though some claim to be from the same ward during the time period and are connecting up apparently), it does not appear if this is true that it was limited to family. The question is then were non family victims known at the time (assuming if true he abused family).

It’s a fed investigation. 
 

He is currently living in Ohio, but turned himself in at Salt Lake.  Unsurprisingly there is speculation as to why and they are thinking conspiracy, LDS hoping to apply pressure, etc …which is why it’s not in the news as well.

I suspect the Trib at least will have something to say if the booking does not turn out to be someone else with the same name, which seems unlikely….and I will be surprised if KSL and DN do not if anyone else reports it even if they won’t be first. 

Edited November 23, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Given the number of victims Floodlit mentions as well as commentary elsewhere I am not going to link to (which may be false reports as they are mostly anonymous…though some claim to be from the same ward during the time period and are connecting up apparently), it does not appear if this is true that it was limited to family. The question is then were non family victims known at the time (assuming if true he abused family).

It’s a fed investigation. 
 

He is currently living in Ohio, but turned himself in at Salt Lake.  Unsurprisingly there is speculation as to why and they are thinking conspiracy, LDS hoping to apply pressure, etc …which is why it’s not in the news as well.

I suspect the Trib at least will have something to say if the booking does not turn out to be someone else with the same name, which seems unlikely….and I will be surprised if KSL and DN do not if anyone else reports it even if they won’t be first. 

If the Feds are involved, it means there was something involving crossing state lines, p*rn, or something.

[Calm]

Just want to mention I do not have an automatic problem with the publication of alleged abuse cases.  I have had concerns in the past about Floodlit including less credible or documented cases without disclaimers, such as for repressed memory cases*** (I remember Satanic Panic cases being on it, but am less sure after reading Smac’s post) and of course I am concerned with it contributing to making it appear abuse is more common in the Church, is likely to be covered up by leaders, or whatever.  I haven’t looked at it lately to see if it’s better at reporting credibility issues.

Two years ago, someone from Floodlit came on the board and some potential and actual (iirc, haven’t reread the full conversation yet) issues were discussed.

starts a little earlier, but here they were responding to concerns:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75009-4th-update-on-arizona-abuse-case/page/2/#findComment-1210129651

Quote

If an accusation/allegation appears in a public court document, a police probable cause affidavit or other similar statement from law enforcement, a sheriff's office press release, or a reputable mainstream news publication, we generally will include it in our database, even if the accused is deceased. We consider each instance carefully because there's sometimes gray area. What makes a news publication reputable, for example? So we try to take into account what would make the accusation credible and relevant to the public interest.

So if someone goes on let's say, this forum, or the reddit exmormon sub, or makes an anonymous tiktok video, and they simply say so-and-so abused me - we will typically only include the accused in our database if the accusation generates public discussion in multiple locations beyond the original source. When there's a lot of public conversation occurring about an accusation, we tend to include the accused in our database because we're trying to provide an accurate picture of instances of public accusations, so we can help people see how the LDS church responds to those allegations, and what results from them.

They included enough accusations at the time that were problematic in my view that we do need to exercise caution.  I don’t believe they vet those claiming to be sources, including accepting anonymous claims, but could be wrong on that.  They do make a solid effort, imo, to dig out court documents, but not having them won’t stop a posting unless it’s changed.

Smac, unsurprisingly, goes into a detailed analysis a few posts later than the link.

The Floodlit person defending their including those exonerated or simply accused without evidence and other concerns…

Quote

FLOODLIT's purpose is to help people learn about instances in which LDS church members were accused of committing sex crimes, or accused of failing to prevent or respond to sex crimes or allegations of sex crimes. Maybe the accused were guilty, maybe they weren't ... maybe the church was portrayed accurately, maybe it wasn't ... it's not FLOODLIT's goal to make those determinations. It's our goal to make it easier for people to follow these stories and get accurate information about them.

Someone noted that cases of exmembers who were accused of abuse after they had ceased to be members were still included, not just LDS.  How that relates to church accountability in these cases is a mystery.

***there is no mention on the website where it quotes articles in the one well known case that it involved alleged recovered memories and the therapist got her license pulled because of improper methods (leading the kids etc), that investigators found no physical evidence, etc; nothing except it was dismissed because of statute of limitations.  Looks like some of my concerns are still valid.

added:  there is no mention on the Joseph Bishop case of the massive credibility issues of Denson.  I don’t see how this type of database holds the Church to account in any accurate way.  It does make it easier to perform research, but I wonder how easy it is to weed out the less credible and/or focused on the more credible, relevant to church accountability issues cases.

Edited November 23, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

I’ve also seen a bunch of people online claiming to be additional victims or that they had heard about the abuse. Could be false though. Also one distasteful exchange about which of his brothers are worse. Ewwww….

Also wondering why this is a federal crime. The most likely reason for that would be that porn is involved.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Also one distasteful exchange about which of his brothers are worse. Ewwww….

Was this among those claiming the Church would see homosexuality as worse or among those claiming to be faithful members expressing their own opinion?

[ZealouslyStriving]

Starting to find it odd that the Trib hasn't run with this yet.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Starting to find it odd that the Trib hasn't run with this yet.

Same here.  

[webbles]

Looks like there are news reports now.

KSL - https://www.ksl.com/article/51410662/ohio-man-arrested-in-utah-on-child-sex-abuse-charges

FBI - https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdoh/pr/dublin-man-arrested-utah-federal-child-exploitation-charges

[rpn]

New offenses in the midwest, apparently arrested upon arrival in SLC over the weekend and now returned/returning to the state where the offenses occurred.  What a shame he didn't learn his lesson 20 years or so, instead of continuing or returning to what sounds like multiple new wrongful behaviors.  

Edited November 26, 2025 by rpn