Containing 5,717 Articles Spanning 332 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Online Since January 1, 2005
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"D. TODD CHRISTOFFERSON".
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
D. TODD CHRISTOFFERSON
D. Todd Christofferson. A white Attorney from Utah recently called as an Apostle of the Mormon Church.
| Does it surprise anyone that the Mormon Cult brought in another successful, white, rich attorney from Utah to join the ranks of the rest of the white and delightsome Apostles?
He is originally from around Rexburg, Idaho. In the fall of 1973, I interviewed Christopherson for a newspaper article in the Ricks paper. At the time, Christopherson was Judge John Sirica's law clerk. Sirica was the judge who ordered Nixon to turn over the White House tapes, an order that was eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and that ultimately led to Nixon's resignation. As Sirica's law clerk, Christopherson helped work on the order that brought down Nixon and was one of the few people in the country who had actually listened to the most damning portions of the White House tape.
From the Mormon owned Deseret News:
D. Todd Christofferson was called as the LDS Church's newest apostle on Saturday, the same day church members sustained the new First Presidency
Before serving the church in a full-time capacity, Christofferson worked as a lawyer. He was an associate general counsel of NationsBank Corp. (now Bank of America) in Charlotte. N.C., and practiced law in Washington D.C., Tennessee and North Carolina.
Sorry Elder Black-Skinned, Not-So-Delightsome and Not-So-Rich, you'll have to live in the ghetto a little longer. The Mormon God may have said you could have the Priesthood, but sorry, the leadership is only for Whitey.
Here is an exceprt from one of Christofferson's talks:
Years ago, when my brothers and I were boys, our mother had radical cancer surgery. She came very close to death. Much of the tissue in her neck and shoulder had to be removed, and for a long time it was very painful for her to use her right arm.
No sense to help this woman do the ironing. No, that is a woman's job. Way to go Todd.
His niece made a post about it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/...
One morning about a year after the surgery, my father took Mother to an appliance store and asked the manager to show her how to use a machine he had for ironing clothes. The machine was called an Ironrite. It was operated from a chair by pressing pedals with one's knees to lower a padded roller against a heated metal surface and turn the roller, feeding in shirts, pants, dresses, and other articles. You can see that this would make ironing (of which there was a great deal in our family of five boys) much easier, especially for a woman with limited use of her arm. Mother was shocked when Dad told the manager they would buy the machine and then paid cash for it. Despite my father's good income as a veterinarian, Mother's surgery and medications had left them in a difficult financial situation.
On the way home, my mother was upset: "How can we afford it? Where did the money come from? How will we get along now?" Finally Dad told her that he had gone without lunches for nearly a year to save enough money. "Now when you iron," he said, "you won't have to stop and go into the bedroom and cry until the pain in your arm stops." She didn't know he knew about that. I was not aware of my father's sacrifice and act of love for my mother at the time, but now that I know, I say to myself, "There is a man."
I am actually very excited about the confirmation of my mom's cousin Todd (as everyone calls him) as the most recent member of the twelve apostles in the LDS church. I was raised in Utah by my liberal mother and openly gay father (yes, they are divorced). I am a proud liberal and even though it was difficult being raised in Utah, my entire family is thrilled that Todd is now a General Authority. One of the (many) people in my life who speak very highly of him is my father who struggled for years to come out of the closet. You see, Todd has a gay son and my dad found comfort in talking openly with Todd several times about his own conflicts with the church. Todd never judged my dad and always gave him words of encouragement and hope (especially when it came to the church's view of homosexuality). Todd loves his own son very much and I hope that someday the church will come to accept that a person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with personal choice. Maybe Todd's appointment will open doors to "enlightening" the LDS view. I have met Todd several times and he is a genuinely nice, loving, sincere person. I get frustrated with those who paint him as "just another rich, white lawyer" when they know absolutely nothing about him. Ok, I just needed to get that off my chest.... Thanks.
She then corrects her post:
Todd's brother is gay NOT his son. I am sorry for posting incorrect information.
| I originally posted this back on May 28, 2006. But in honor of the subject being "called" as a new "apostle" today in the LDS church, I thought I'd resurrect it and post it anew. I wonder if the opinions he expressed in the article will now take on additional heft among the members? Are words spoken prior to one's call given apostolic authori-tay?
If Jesus were to walk into an LDS church meeting today, how would He be received? If the latest article in a church magazine on the subject of dress and grooming is any indication, Jesus very likely would be asked to leave. Why? Well, let’s start with hair: in all the pictures I have seen of Jesus, He has long hair. And, typically, He is shown wearing open-toed shoes. According to an LDS church General Authority, such things are offensive to God.
In the June issue of the New Era, the LDS Church’s official magazine aimed at adolescents, Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Presidency of the Seventy (the governing council just below the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and First Presidency in the church’s hierarchical ecclesiastical structure) reprised a talk he gave to young people in 2004 titled “A Sense of the Sacred.” This issue is not yet available online at the church’s web site.
Here are the lowlights of the article with my comments on the same:
A Sense of the Sacred
Awhile back a young woman from another state in the United States came to live with some of her relatives for a few weeks. On her first Sunday she came to church dressed in a simple, nice blouse and knee-length skirt set off with a light, button-up sweater. She wore hose and dress shoes, and her hair was combed simply but with care. Her overall appearance created an impression of youthful grace. Unfortunately, she immediately felt out of place. It seemed like all the other young women her age or near her age were dressed in casual skirts, some rather distant from the knee; tight T-shirt-like tops that barely met the top of their skirts at the waist; no socks or stockings; and clunky sneakers or flip-flops. One would have hoped that seeing the new girl, the other girls would have realized how inappropriate their manner of dress was for a chapel and for the Sabbath day and immediately changed for the better. Sad to say, however, they did not, and it was the visitor who, in order to fit in, adopted the fashion of her host ward. This example illustrates one of my concerns.
So, the standard is now knee-length skirts. Are you saying, Todd, that the Lord is offended by young women wearing skirts that do not fall to the knee or lower? I had never pictured the God of the Universe looking down from his throne on the planet nearest the star Kolob with a measuring tape in hand to determine with exactness the length of skirt his young female worshippers were wearing.
And are only “light” sweaters with buttons acceptable to the Lord? Or can a young woman wear a heavy sweater without buttons? Todd, you imply that young women who fail to wear hose to church are dressed inappropriately. This seems a strange requirement to me, as the wearing of hosiery is often designed to accentuate the attractiveness of a woman’s leg for the pleasure of men. For this reason, strippers and prostitutes often wear pantyhose as a means of eliciting a sexual response in their male customers. Todd, I am sure this is not your motivation for encouraging teen girls to wear stockings or pantyhose to church. I do have another question for you on this subject, though: is it better for a young woman to wear fishnet stockings or attend church barelegged?
Years ago my ward in Tennessee used a high school for Church services on Sundays while our chapel, which had been damaged by a tornado, was being repaired. A congregation of another faith used the same high school for their worship services while their new chapel was being constructed. I was shocked to see what the people of this other congregation wore to church. There was not a suit or a tie among the men. They appeared to have come from or to be on their way to the golf course. It was hard to spot a woman wearing a dress or anything other than very casual pants or even shorts. Had I not known that they were coming to the school for church meetings, I would have assumed that there was some sort of sporting event taking place.
So, let me get this straight, Todd. You want to dictate to people of other faiths how they should dress for their services as well as dictate to young people how they should dress for ours? And you think that one reason people of other faiths should dress the way Latter-day Saints do is so that you, as an observer, won’t be confused about whether they are going to church or a sporting event? Your “shock” at seeing how people dress for their worship activities reminds me of some folks I have read about in the scriptures: “And it came to pass that after much labor among them, they began to have success among the poor class of people; for behold, they were cast out of the synagogues because of the coarseness of their apparel–therefore they were not permitted to enter their synagogues to worship God, being esteemed as filthiness; therefore they were poor; yea, they were esteemed by their brethren as dross.” Alma 32:2-3. Congratulations, Todd, you have much in common with people from the Book of Mormon, even the Zoramites! Oh, and why do you capitalize the word “Church” when referring to the LDS church but not when referring to other “churches”? Is that a subtle arrogance manifesting itself?
It offends God when we come into His house, especially on His holy day, not groomed and dressed in the most careful and modest manner that our circumstances permit. Where a member from the hills of Peru must cross a river to get to church, the Lord surely will not be offended by the stain of muddy water on his white shirt. But how can God not be pained at the sight of one who, with all the clothes he needs and more and with easy access to the chapel, nevertheless appears in church in rumpled cargo pants and a T-shirt?
Well, it’s nice to know there is a “Peruvian Hillbilly Exception” to the Lord’s dress and grooming standards. Of course, curses on the Peruvian hillbilly who wears a blue shirt to church–that would, I am sure, offend the Lord’s tender sensibilities. So, God is not only offended but “pained” by: flipflops, clunky sneakers, skirts a half-inch above the knee, shirts that only barely meet the top of a skirt, colored shirts, bare legs on women, cargo pants, and men who don’t wear neck ties.
Some say dress and hair don’t matter–they say that it’s what’s inside that counts.
Yes, Todd, “some” do say that. Who are some of these “some”? Here’s one: “But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7. Last time I checked, that was a Seminary Scripture Mastery scripture. I guess it’s a good thing the Lord did not need to rely on you, Todd, to find the man who would become King of Israel. In a Messianic prophecy, Isaiah said the Lord “shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth.” Isaiah 11:3-4. And Jesus said “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” John 7:24. Todd, the Jesus I read about in both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon seems to be foreign to the Jesus you claim is “offended” and “pained” by peoplecoming to worship Him however they are dressed. As Hugh Nibley, Mormon apologist extraordinaire, put it: “The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism.” Approaching Zion at 54.
[T]hose who do not appreciate holy things will lose them. Absent a feeling of reverence, they will grow increasingly casual in attitude and conduct. They will drift from the moorings that their covenants with God could provide. Their feelings of accountability to God will diminish and then be forgotten. Thereafter, they will care only about their own comfort and satisfying their uncontrolled appetites. Finally, they will come to despise sacred things, even God, and then they will despise themselves. . . . Rather than letting your life drift into carelessness, may it be one of increasing exactness in obedience.
This is really an astonishing series of pronouncements, Todd. But perhaps I should not be surprised. You are merely following the GA formula for talks: tell a fanciful story or two that fits perfectly into the point you want to make, pronounce some guilt-inducing new requirement for the membership to worry about, induce fear with a parade of horribles that allegedly will follow failure to adhere to the new requirements, and close with a plea for greater obedience to the counsel of the Brethren. But I must say this is really off the charts. We are supposed to believe that the slide down the slippery slope begins with wearing flipflops to church or, for men, wearing a blue dress shirt instead of a white. From there, the descent into perdition and a state of self-loathing is sure to follow. The ridiculousness of these assertions to me is so obvious as to need no elaboration. But your audience, Todd, consists primarily of unsophisticated young people who have been indoctrinated their whole lives to “follow the Brethren” unquestioningly. So, your statements, while laughable to someone like me who can easily shrug them off, are irresponsible and dangerous to the impressionable young people who read the New Era. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for your fearmongering in the name of God. While you may be “concerned” about the length of skirts young women wear on Sunday, I am concerned about the harmful effects your despicable remarks may have on those same young people. That you are in a position of authority in a church that claims to be run by Jesus Christ Himself, and that you apparently have the blessing of those in the highest governing councils to peddle your nonsense, is enough to induce nausea.
| Did anyone hear Christofferson's talk? He said the "new and everlasting covenant" is the whole gospel.
His point is probably this:
The Mormon Doctrine And Covenants Section 132 covers the "New And Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, which is Plurality Of Wives and includes all the temple covenants which cover the whole Gospel. Plurality of wives is part of the eternal reward for the Plan of Salvation. He is correct on that score!
My guess is that most people who are temple married have no idea they married into plurality of wives.
They don't put the temple sealing (New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage) with DandC 132 !
Here it is.
Oh. That's right. It pretty much is, isn't it. The ULTIMATE goal is to be sealed in the temple under the New and Everlasting Covenant. Except we were DUPED and not told we were making a covenant of plural marriage.
Look at the FLDS folks. They're living exactly how Joseph Smith and Brigham Young set things up, and it all revolves around polygamy. Yep, that's the gospel.
| Along with Elder Uchtdorf's move towards more transparency in regards to issues of faith and doubt we also have this recent address given at BYU Idaho by Elder Christofferson in reference to the Prophet Joseph Smith.
I don't know of a single hard-core TBM who is really interested in the truth about what Joseph Smith did, and what kind of a man he is. Certainly not amongst my relations.
In fact, if the subject ever comes up, and I mention any of the dozens of "uncomfortable" facts about Joseph Smith that are more than adequately backed up by evidence, they usually announce they don't wish to continue the conversation and bail out.
In more military parlance, I'd say as soon as "uncomfortable" facts about Joseph Smith come up, they pop smoke. They choose to be non-participants. But you'd better believe they lap up all the hagiographic depictions of Joseph.
I actually watched that entire Todd Christofferson talk. I wasn't impressed. The issue isn't whether anyone in Jerusalem ever had a steel tool back in the ~600BC time period. The issue is whether anyone in the Americas was producing steel swords and other implements during that and later time periods. And so far it looks like no, they weren't.
I don't think Elder Christofferson intends to actuall approach Joseph Smith and his history with an open mind, and an honest desire to know what really happened. He's more than satisfied with the glorification of Joseph Smith served up by the church he helps lead. That's his story, and he's sticking with it.
And that doesn't impress me at all. Not one bit.
| just got picked up by the AP.
MORMON LEADER: ESSENTIAL TO HAVE WOMEN AT HOME
The ongoing debate about the limited role of women within the Mormon faith came to the forefront Saturday afternoon during a speech from D. Todd Christofferson, a member of Quorum of the Twelve. He said having women at home remains an essential part of society, saying that the "moral force" of women that kept societies on the righteous track for generations.
Way to go dude! You just set things back for everyone. I had high hopes for you on gay issues but you are way off. Your clinginess to rigid gender roles just set us back.
He criticized feminist thinkers who view "homemaking with outright contempt," and he cautioned against blurring feminine and masculine differences.
"In blurring feminine and masculine differences, we lose the distinct, complementary gifts of men and women that together produce a greater whole," Christofferson said.
He later implored women to dress modestly, and be good and virtuous. "We have enough women of fame and fortune; we need more women of faith," he said repeating what a former high-ranking woman in the church said.
| Money quote:
Church editors had suggested to the apostle that "referencing `some feminist thinkers' would inevitably be read by many as `all feminist thinkers,' " Todd explained in a statement. "Elder Christofferson agreed and has simply clarified his intent."
I love how anonymous "church editors" have veto power over "inspired" prophetic utterances. Isn't it marvelous?
On the substance of what Christofferson said: why do Mormon leaders so often resort to the rhetorical device of "some people say [insert ridiculous statement that almost no one actually says]" in their talks? Here it's a strawman argument supposedly made by "feminist thinkers" that homemaking is exploitative.
How to navigate:
- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
|Donate to help keep the MormonCurtain and Mormon Resignation websites up and running! |
Note: Dontations are done via my AvoBase, LLC. PayPal Business Account.
|Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated. |
Website © 2005-2016
Compiled With: Caligra 1.119