The LDS Church has a one-of-a-kind system for tracking abusers. Does it work?
Source: The LDS Church has a one-of-a-kind system for tracking abusers. Does it work? Publisher: The Salt Lake Tribune | Author: By Tamarra Kemsley | May 27, 2026, 5:00 a.m. | Updated: 11:11 a.m. Published: May 27, 2026 | Archived: June 2, 2026
Step one for any Latter-day Saint leader learning about abuse in his congregation is, per church policy, to call the faith’s internal help line, an approach that has come under fire in recent years.
Less talked about is its one-of-a-kind system for tracking members with a history of threatening behavior so as to prevent them from serving in certain volunteer assignments, such as a Young Men leader or head of youth activities.
Described by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a “vital” part of its efforts to protect churchgoers, the process is housed in the faith’s software for local leaders, which maintains membership records on each of the global faith’s nearly 18 million adherents.
“I can’t think of any other religious institution that keeps records on its members like the LDS Church does,” said Pensacola, Florida, attorney J. Christopher Klotz, who has brought cases of sexual abuse against a range of faith organizations, including the Utah-based church. “The closest thing I can think of is the military.”
Within this system, male bishops and stake (regional) presidents are able to flag, after obtaining church headquarters’ approval, those who confess to or are convicted of abuse, marking their membership record with a digital scarlet letter known as an annotation. (In some cases, depending on leaders’ judgment, credible accusations may also trigger this note.)
In a statement, church spokesperson Doug Andersen explained that “annotations to membership records are vital administrative tools that help local leaders protect their congregations — especially children and youth — from those with a history of serious misconduct or predatory behavior.”
But exactly how they function and how effective they are at fulfilling this critical mission remain largely a mystery to the average member, who lacks access to this database.
Get Mormon Land newsletter. Explore the news and culture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints every Thursday.
Interviews with four former bishops living throughout the country, including Utah, plus a fifth in Canada, offered a look behind the bureaucratic curtain.
Nearly all had experience serving in a stake presidency or as stake presidents and asked not to be named because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
Together they described a system that, while effective at times, remained vulnerable to user error — a result of its emphasis on limiting the flow of information to male leaders who lack formal training. Several explained that they were left to navigate complex, sensitive and individualized scenarios with only a handbook as their guide.
It’s a concern echoed by experts on reporting and preventing abuse, who stressed the importance of broad knowledge of threats to ensure the safety of all.
“Internal systems protect internal systems,” said Virginia’s Robert Peters, a former prosecutor who now works helping clergy respond to reports of abuse. “That’s just their nature.”
About the church’s vast database on members
Starting at infancy for those born into the church and baptism for converts, the global faith maintains a record of all its members that follows them as they move from one congregation to another.
Birth, baptism and marriage dates, names and birthdates of children, contact information — these details are contained in these digital dossiers, accessible to bishops and their clerks all the way up to the church president.
If Latter-day Saints resign their membership or lose it for disciplinary reasons, their records are so noted but remain in the system. This is true even as they cease to be counted as part of the fold.
The result is a massive database positioned to identify known or, in some instances, credibly accused abusers.
If, say, a man loses his membership for harming a minor and seeks to join the church on the other side of the world, the record’s software will recognize him and alert the bishop in his new area.
Peters spent years prosecuting child abuse in West Virginia before joining the nonprofit Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment, or GRACE, where he is the director of institutional response.
(GRACE) A former prosecutor, Robert Peters now works helping pastors respond to and prevent abuse in their congregations.
Peters described the Latter-day Saints’ internal tracking system as a strength missing in many other faith contexts.
“There is a huge risk, especially in Protestant communities,” he said, “that a disclosure comes out in a church and \[the accused\] goes across state lines, or maybe even to the church across town, or they start their own church, and there’s really no way, absent some really significant due diligence, for future congregations to have advance warning of the risk they pose to children.”
In scenarios such as those, an internal records system like the church’s would, Peters said, “have value.”
‘A literal red flag’
(The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) Policies on annotations are spelled out in the church’s General Handbook.
According to the church’s General Handbook, annotations should be added when a person admits to, or is found guilty of or liable in court for, any of the following:
• Incest.
• Sexual abuse of a child or youth, sexual exploitation of a child or youth, or serious physical or emotional abuse of a child or youth.
• Involvement with child pornography.
• Plural marriage.
• Adult sexual predatory behavior.
• Embezzling church funds, stealing church property or church welfare abuse.
• Threatening behavior (such as sexual, violent or financial) or conduct that harms the church.
• Transitioning away from one’s assigned sex at birth.
According to the former bishops interviewed, a stake president, responsible for overseeing a cluster of congregations, typically initiates the process of annotating a member’s record, though bishops can do so as well. In nearly all cases, this occurs only after a church disciplinary council.
The church’s website states that “the large majority” of these councils occur on the congregational level and include the ward’s bishop and his two counselors and, where possible, the individual in question. They may seek a victim’s written statement, if they believe “it would be helpful.” The women’s Relief Society president may participate if the member requests her presence.
A similar process may be conducted at a stake level and include the stake president, his counselors and, in some cases, the high council — a combined group of 15 men.
At the end, the bishop or the stake president notes the council’s decision and uploads any relevant files in the church’s software. All of this information is then reviewed by the Office of the First Presidency. These three men, made up of the church president, currently Dallin H. Oaks, and his two counselors, are responsible for finalizing that decision.
(The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) The current First Presidency — Henry B. Eyring, Dallin H. Oaks and D. Todd Christofferson — is responsible for final decisions in the case of annotation additions and removals to individual membership records.
In the case of membership withdrawal (previously known as excommunication) or restriction, an annotation appears on the membership record in the form of “a literal red flag,” said one of the former bishops.
“It’s very hard to miss,” said the man, who recently finished a 10-year stint as a stake president in the South.
So is, he said, the additional note in cases of annotations made for child abuse, warning that the member should not work with children.
Guardrails for bishops and stake presidents
(The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) Bishops and stake presidents are largely responsible for beginning the annotation process.
If a lay bishop somehow misses the icon and note, the church’s software for leaders will prevent him from selecting members with an annotation if he attempts to input them for certain volunteer tasks, such as youth leader — that is, if he or his clerk takes the time to input the assignment digitally in the first place.
Another way the system is designed to protect children concerns the limitations put on leaders when determining the outcome of a disciplinary council.
Church policy states that councils cannot opt, in the case of those deemed guilty of abuse, to merely “informally restrict” the person’s membership — a designation that could include, depending on what a leader decides, a prohibition on offering prayers and sermons or holding volunteer assignments. Informal restrictions are not noted on membership records.
In instances of abuse, the handbook — and the church’s software — instead requires either “formal” membership restriction, barring the individual from volunteer assignments, or total membership removal. Both are noted on records.
It’s a good thing, too, said Kate Lyn Whitaker, a self-identified former church employee. Whitaker appeared on a 2025 “Mormon Stories” podcast to talk about her experience working at headquarters adding and removing annotations in the church’s software after the First Presidency had made its final decision in individual cases.
While there, she said, she and her co-workers received “really frustrating” calls from bishops and stake presidents about a supposed glitch in the software while trying to complete the online forms required after a disciplinary council. These leaders, she said, would complain that the system was preventing them from selecting membership restriction for those noted in the form as having abused children.
(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) The Church Office Building, where much of the administration work of the global faith is carried out.
“And we would say, ‘No, it’s not a glitch. It’s that you literally cannot have the outcome be” anything other than formal membership restriction or withdrawal, Whitaker said.
Sometimes the leaders would push back, she said, arguing withdrawal seemed too harsh.
In these cases, Whitaker said, the system would overrule them.
A third safety feature within the software is the ability to place a move restriction on individual membership records, a signal to future leaders to call the bishop who put it there for more information about the member.
‘Pretty much a judgment call’
The church’s handbook states that leaders can annotate a record without a formal disciplinary process, but most of those interviewed did not seem to be aware of this.
There are benefits to tethering the addition of an annotation to this formal disciplinary process, starting with giving members in question an opportunity to speak on their own behalf.
However, there are risks, too, said Christopher Jenkins, who served as a bishop in Walla Walla, Washington, from 2019 to 2023.
During his tenure, he met with a woman in her late 20s who, he said, confessed to having sex with a 14-year-old boy who was not part of the faith. As soon as she informed him, however, she disappeared. Without a way to contact her, he wasn’t able to hold a disciplinary council. The thought to annotate her record without one never occurred to him.
“Nobody,” he said, “gave me any instructions on what to do.”
Jenkins said he has since reached out to the bishop of the ward where he believes her record resides in an effort to alert him.
But what about times the offender doesn’t confess? What if the accusation is brought forward by the alleged victim or an individual is charged but not convicted?
In instances like these, the decision of whether to annotate is, the former stake president from the South said, “pretty much a judgment call.”
He said he dealt with multiple instances in which he learned of reports of minors who had abused siblings.
“I didn’t have any proof or anything written,” he said, but he felt the information called for action. He flagged the individuals’ records as a “preventive measure” even before talk of any kind of disciplinary council.
The First Presidency, he said, approved the annotations.
In contrast, the former Utah bishop expressed his frustration with watching leaders wait on slow-moving courts to resolve a case before holding a disciplinary council and annotating a person’s record after a member was charged with abuse of minors.
Asked if he ever received formal training on the annotation process, he said no.
Missing information
Tracking known abusers is good, said GRACE’s Robert Peters. Preventing them from causing further harm, however, is the real goal. And that requires local leaders to have detailed information on past offenses, including the age range and number of victims, the severity of the offense, where it took place and over what time frame.
“This information is a vital defense,” said Peters, who has also developed and delivered trainings for the nonprofit Zero Abuse Project.
These details were also frequently missing, the former bishops said, when they sought them about members with annotations.
The former Utah bishop said he had a member with an annotation move into his ward. When he requested additional information, he said he received a report from headquarters stating the individual had engaged in “predatory” behavior toward adult women — but offered little else.
A similar case played out in Walla Walla, said Jenkins. The physician inherited a member with an annotation, which the outgoing bishop informed him was put there due to child sex abuse.
Had the previous leader not told him the reason, he said, he wouldn’t have known the cause.
“By my recollection,” he said, “that was how I got the information.”
Not included in that verbal report, he said, were any details about the offense.
Informing fellow congregants
Arming faith leaders with the facts, Peters said, is only the first step for a church serious about preventing further harm.
“Initial grooming,” he explained, “can happen in a matter of seconds.”
For this reason, Peters said, it’s necessary for leaders to be transparent with the congregation regarding known risks, particularly parents in the case of child abuse.
According to the church’s handbook, leaders can share the decision to restrict or withdraw a person’s membership with “those who need to know.”
For instance, it reads, “If a person’s predatory tendencies put others at risk, the bishop or stake president may give warnings to help protect others.”
That is, with one caveat.
“He does not reveal confidential information,” it states, “and does not speculate.”
Meanwhile, the women who helm the organizations for women, teenage girls and young children do not have independent access to view annotations and are generally not a part of disciplinary councils. Instead, they rely on their male counterparts to assess and inform them of possible risk to congregants for whom they have responsibility.
According to Peters, informing a congregation “doesn’t mean all details need to be disclosed.” After all, he explained, “the goal here is not to create hysteria.”
Instead, like bishops, churchgoers should know who might be a potential target and the type of offenses committed in the past. Leaving the responsibility to a single man or a handful of people to protect the entire flock, he cautioned, inevitably leads to lapses.
“And when we’re talking about child sexual offenses,” Peters said, “these are individuals who are typically actively looking for those opportunities.”
Abusers, he said, require “a trained, knowledgeable chaperone” when interacting with others at church and church-sponsored activities — a role no bishop can play at all times.
Other potential pitfalls, described by the former bishops, of keeping congregants in the dark include a leader withholding information about an abuse case from church headquarters, believing the individual had repented and no longer represented a threat. Perhaps the leader is friends with the accused or confessor and fears tarnishing the person’s reputation with membership removal. Or new information about an old case emerges and never gets entered into the system.
Removing an annotation
When it comes to removing an annotation, the decision ultimately rests in the hands of the church’s three most powerful men, the First Presidency, who act on requests from bishops and stake presidents.
“An application to remove an annotation,” the church’s spokesperson said, “is handled on a rigorous case-by-case basis with expert guidance.”
One of the former bishops interviewed, a man from California, described helping with two removals, one for a woman who had an abortion, the other for a woman who had been convicted for physical abuse involving a minor. Both episodes had taken place about a decade before.
In the abuse case, he said, the removal required months of back-and-forth with the Office of the First Presidency, providing more details and legal documents.
“She had worked through the whole process from a criminal standpoint and the state was satisfied,” he said. “So really it became a question of: Is the church satisfied?”
The answer, in the end, was yes.
(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) The church’s annotation system means the primary responsibility for preventing further harm by a known abuser in the pews of his congregation falls on bishops.
Another example, one provided by the stake president from the South, involved an annotation that was the result of child sex abuse committed four decades before.
Given the amount of time that had passed without any reports of a new offense, he said, he felt it was appropriate to expunge the man’s record. He submitted a request to the Office of the First Presidency saying as much. Shortly afterward, the little red flag disappeared.
He emphasized, however, that such removals are rare. Being rebaptized and having one’s temple blessings — and, for men, priesthood — restored do not on their own expunge a person’s annotation.
“The church will let a member return and repent,” he said, “but the annotation usually remains.”
Meanwhile, the church instructs leaders to give victims and alleged victims a chance to weigh in whenever possible when deciding whether to readmit members booted for abuse.
“I know there’s some concern that revictimizes the abused,” the former stake president said. “But from my perspective, it’s giving them a chance to say how this affected them. And if a child or a spouse or whomever is still feeling very much aggrieved, they can say so, and that gets strong consideration.”
One of the former bishops interviewed, who currently lives in Canada, recalled a man in his congregation who had tried to be readmitted and have his annotation removed after losing his membership for abusing his daughter.
The stake president, he said, decided not to seek removal.
“The stake president that I served with was incredibly diligent, a wonderful man — very thorough, very detailed,” he said, explaining the victim’s statement had been key to the final decision.
‘False confidence’
This former bishop lamented what he saw as a lack of “standardized training” as a fundamental flaw to the annotation system and its ability to prevent abuse.
“Do leaders, all of them, know the process?” he speculated. “Probably not. Do they follow all the policies? Probably not.”
Instead, he said, he hoped to see the church partner with an outside group to professionalize a process whose current implementation often comes down to “leadership roulette.”
GRACE’s Peters seconded this point.
“The incentives for internal systems are not necessarily the safety of vulnerable individuals,” he said, “especially those who aren’t within the leadership structure.”
Case in point: The Salt Lake Tribune spoke with several individuals who attended a congregation with Wade Christofferson in the 1990s. During this time, at least one person came forward and accused him of sexually abusing her a few years before when she was in about eighth grade.
The leaders in their Chicago suburb withdrew Christofferson’s membership but never informed the congregation as to the reason. Within that vacuum of information, interviewees said, a rumor spread — one absent allegations of threats to children.
Asked previously by The Tribune why the congregation was not informed, a church spokesperson pinned the decision on “church policy and Illinois law at the time.”
Christine Bartholomew, who teaches at University of Buffalo’s law school, has done extensive research into laws impacting what clergy are compelled to say in court. No state or federal laws exist today, she said, that would prevent a faith leader from informing a congregation of an individual’s threatening behavior — even if that information was obtained in a confession.
(University of Buffalo School of Law) Legal scholar Christine Bartholomew is emphatic — no laws exist preventing clergy from informing congregants of reports of abuse.
Christofferson later moved to Ohio, where he served as a counselor in a bishopric for a young single adult congregation. A former member of that unit said he was never informed of Christofferson’s past.
Last November, Christofferson, the brother of a high-ranking apostle, was charged with attempting to sexually exploit a Utah child.
In the most recent statement, the church’s spokesperson defined the annotations as one of its “many other child abuse prevention efforts” through which the faith “seeks to fulfill its unwavering commitment to protect the innocent.”
Bartholomew said she believes that commitment is real.
“There’s sincerity by many of those involved,” she said, “especially on the local level.”
But the idea, she continued, that abuse can be contained through internal investigations by men using internally housed, often limited information shared in “cryptic or incomplete” ways has already been tried — by Catholics.
“These are steps in the right direction,” Bartholomew said. “But if they’re not executed well, they’re going to give them false confidence that they’re addressing a problem when they’re not.”
Write a comment