Uh Oh...an Apostle had a political preference

[JLHPROF]

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4515389-155/mormon-apostle-violates-church-policy-by
 

• Campaign-disclosure records for candidate Richard Nelson show a $250 contribution on Oct. 17 from Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the second-highest governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  The relatively small donation does not violate any state election laws, and Christofferson is free as an individual to support and contribute to political campaigns.
  But an internal church policy, updated in 2011, instructs full-time ecclesiastical leaders to avoid political involvement, including campaign donations.

What do you think?  Should the Church be able to say that the GA's aren't allowed to make personal donations to political issues?
Apparently the policy in question states:

• "General authorities and general officers of the church and their spouses and other ecclesiastical leaders serving full-time should not personally participate in political campaigns," the policy states, "including promoting candidates, fundraising, speaking in behalf of or otherwise endorsing candidates, and making financial contributions."

Separation of Church and State matters (sort of) but this was personal.  I think the policy might be a bit strict.

 

Edited October 27, 2016 by JLHPROF

[The Nehor]

I think it is good policy. Kind of silly to use on what are often non-partisan campaigns but probably better to leave it out to be safe. Legally there is no problem with "Church and State". If apostles chose to run for office it wouldn't be a legal problem but Apostles and GAs agree not to barring First Presidency approval.

[Duncan]

I don't think it's wise but I doubt it's a crime or anything so what are they going to do to him? probably just remind him not to do that in the future and move on with life

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'm always disappointed in the Salt Lake Tribune. That's not even a newsworthy article. What's newsworthy is that the Oregon militia crazy Mormon protesters the Bundys were just found not guilty by a jury.

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I'm always disappointed in the Salt Lake Tribune. That's not even a newsworthy article. What's newsworthy is that the Oregon militia crazy Mormon protesters the Bundys were just found not guilty by a jury.

Yeah, just started a post about in the News section. Incredibly sad that juries are now excusing domestic terrorism.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4515389-155/mormon-apostle-violates-church-policy-by
 

• Campaign-disclosure records for candidate Richard Nelson show a $250 contribution on Oct. 17 from Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the second-highest governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  The relatively small donation does not violate any state election laws, and Christofferson is free as an individual to support and contribute to political campaigns.
  But an internal church policy, updated in 2011, instructs full-time ecclesiastical leaders to avoid political involvement, including campaign donations.

What do you think?  Should the Church be able to say that the GA's aren't allowed to make personal donations to political issues?
Apparently the policy in question states:

• "General authorities and general officers of the church and their spouses and other ecclesiastical leaders serving full-time should not personally participate in political campaigns," the policy states, "including promoting candidates, fundraising, speaking in behalf of or otherwise endorsing candidates, and making financial contributions."

Separation of Church and State matters (sort of) but this was personal.  I think the policy might be a bit strict.

I think it's a good policy and the "should" leaves it in the individual's judgement as to whether he is prepared to deal with the consequences of his decision to participate or not.

[PeterPear]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I'm always disappointed in the Salt Lake Tribune. That's not even a newsworthy article. What's newsworthy is that the Oregon militia crazy Mormon protesters the Bundys were just found not guilty by a jury.

Because you don't care about the Sixth Amendment.

[VideoGameJunkie]

24 minutes ago, PeterPear said:

Because you don't care about the Sixth Amendment.

I haven't even memorized all the amendments.

[oremites]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Incredibly sad that juries are now excusing domestic terrorism.  

I don't mean to sound like I'm attacking you personally, The Nehor, but you've hit on a pet peeve of mine, so I apologize in advance.  I do enjoy your posts.

This jury sat through hours and hours of testimony and knows a lot more about this whole situation than you or I do.  I'm always annoyed that people who've read a couple of news articles think they know more about the situation than a jury who's heard all the evidence.  Juries aren't perfect.  Maybe they excused domestic terrorism or maybe they didn't.  Maybe you should look at this verdict and consider the possibility that you don't know as much about what happened as you think you do.

[JAHS]

LDS apostle apologizes for making political donation

"A high-ranking LDS church leader is apologizing for violating church policy on political neutrality.
Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, donated $250 to the campaign of Richard Nelson for the Utah State School Board.
But that violated an internal church policy which instructs full-time ecclesiastical leaders to avoid political involvement -- including contributions.
Christofferson acknowledged the violation, telling 2News media partner The Salt Lake Tribune, “Perhaps because the school board race is nonpartisan, the direction regarding no personal political involvement by general authorities did not cross my mind, but in any case, it was my oversight.”

[VideoGameJunkie]

Why does the church have a rule against its apostles making political donations? 

[JAHS]

33 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Why does the church have a rule against its apostles making political donations? 

If it could be kept private I don't think they would have the rule. Any high ranking church official giving donations to a candidate might be seen by outsiders(and members) as the church  endorsing a candidate even though it's really just one private individual. 

Edited October 28, 2016 by JAHS

[VideoGameJunkie]

20 minutes ago, JAHS said:

If it could be kept private I don't think they would have the rule. Any high ranking church official giving donations to a candidate might be seen by outsiders(and members) as the church  endorsing a candidate even though it's really just one private individual. 

But where's the problem in that? would it affect the churchs tax exempt status?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Because you don't care about the Sixth Amendment.

I support the right to a jury trial. I also reserve the right to believe certain specific juries made a stupid wrongheaded decision.

1 hour ago, oremites said:

I don't mean to sound like I'm attacking you personally, The Nehor, but you've hit on a pet peeve of mine, so I apologize in advance.  I do enjoy your posts.

This jury sat through hours and hours of testimony and knows a lot more about this whole situation than you or I do.  I'm always annoyed that people who've read a couple of news articles think they know more about the situation than a jury who's heard all the evidence.  Juries aren't perfect.  Maybe they excused domestic terrorism or maybe they didn't.  Maybe you should look at this verdict and consider the possibility that you don't know as much about what happened as you think you do.

While this was going on I turned on the audio and sometimes the video these yahoos put out during the occupation. It was surreal and sometimes comic theater. I even put the audio on at work when I could. I have listened to over 24 hours of their planning, whining, whinging, false ideas about how things work, 'plans for defense' (and they were sad and stupid too), etc. Yes, they were terrorists. They were blubbering, feeble-minded, pathetic terrorists but I actually expect that describes most terrorists in general. The damage they did was unnecessary for a protest and excessive even for an 'occupation'. They sounded like children playing at being soldiers. They brought lots of guns and ammo but little food (they were asking for people to drop off food very quickly after it started). They wrecked the land, destroyed the property of others, and put back multiple federal wildlife projects by years. They sought to use force and the threat of violence to force political change. That is what terrorists are.

I stand by my opinion that the jury was composed of numbskulls.

[The Nehor]

53 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Why does the church have a rule against its apostles making political donations? 

Perception mostly. The problem is that say six apostles donated to a campaign. Some members might take that to mean that is the candidate they should vote for. What if they contribute to opposite sides of a campaign? Would some imagine dissension? If we could trust members to believe that church leaders say what they mean when they talk about political neutrality it wouldn't be a problem. Yet we have posters here who insist certain candidates and parties are favored by God despite what they say about political neutrality.

[JAHS]

31 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

But where's the problem in that? would it affect the churchs tax exempt status?

Not really; only if an announcement was made by the first presidency that the church endorses a certain candidate. But even one church leader announcing his endorsement for a candidate is fodder for the critics who think the church should lose tax exempt status.

[oremites]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

... That is what terrorists are.

I stand by my opinion that the jury was composed of numbskulls.

Everything you say might very well be true.  Are you aware of the specific charges they were tried on and found not guilty of?  If you were on a jury, do you think that you could put aside your personal dislike for a defendant to be able to judge fairly on what they are actually charged with and not on whatever else you think they've done?  Or do you believe that people whose politics and methods you disagree with should just be locked up on general principle?

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4515389-155/mormon-apostle-violates-church-policy-by
 

• Campaign-disclosure records for candidate Richard Nelson show a $250 contribution on Oct. 17 from Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the second-highest governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  The relatively small donation does not violate any state election laws, and Christofferson is free as an individual to support and contribute to political campaigns.
  But an internal church policy, updated in 2011, instructs full-time ecclesiastical leaders to avoid political involvement, including campaign donations.

What do you think?  Should the Church be able to say that the GA's aren't allowed to make personal donations to political issues?
Apparently the policy in question states:

• "General authorities and general officers of the church and their spouses and other ecclesiastical leaders serving full-time should not personally participate in political campaigns," the policy states, "including promoting candidates, fundraising, speaking in behalf of or otherwise endorsing candidates, and making financial contributions."

Separation of Church and State matters (sort of) but this was personal.  I think the policy might be a bit strict.

 

I think it's a wise policy as politics is such a divisive issue, even among membership. For example, we see that former General RS Pres, Julie Beck prayed at a Pence rally. Some people will lose a level of respect for her based on her political views. It's not totally fair, but it is reality, and it works in the opposite direction as well. Politics and political leaders conjure intense negative emotions, that if I were a church leader, I wouldn't want to be associated with.

Having said that, the Christofferson thing isn't a huge deal but it's still problematic. It may not be partisan per se, but the funds he donated to his friend is still an endorsement. Most people won't care about that, but those running against him are suddenly at a huge disadvantage because they have not been endorsed by a prophet, seer and revelator.

It's best for the church to keep the church out of politics.

[Gray]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/4515389-155/mormon-apostle-violates-church-policy-by
 

• Campaign-disclosure records for candidate Richard Nelson show a $250 contribution on Oct. 17 from Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the second-highest governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  The relatively small donation does not violate any state election laws, and Christofferson is free as an individual to support and contribute to political campaigns.
  But an internal church policy, updated in 2011, instructs full-time ecclesiastical leaders to avoid political involvement, including campaign donations.

What do you think?  Should the Church be able to say that the GA's aren't allowed to make personal donations to political issues?
Apparently the policy in question states:

• "General authorities and general officers of the church and their spouses and other ecclesiastical leaders serving full-time should not personally participate in political campaigns," the policy states, "including promoting candidates, fundraising, speaking in behalf of or otherwise endorsing candidates, and making financial contributions."

Separation of Church and State matters (sort of) but this was personal.  I think the policy might be a bit strict.

 

I think it's a wise policy to not allow general authorities to donate to political campaigns. However, I also don't think this is a big deal and Elder Christofferson shouldn't be judged harshly for breaking that policy. 

Edited October 28, 2016 by Gray

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, oremites said:

Everything you say might very well be true.  Are you aware of the specific charges they were tried on and found not guilty of?  If you were on a jury, do you think that you could put aside your personal dislike for a defendant to be able to judge fairly on what they are actually charged with and not on whatever else you think they've done?  Or do you believe that people whose politics and methods you disagree with should just be locked up on general principle?

I have read the specific charges and could put aside my dislike to tell that they, in fact, are guilty of those specific charges.

[ksfisher]

I don't think that Elder Christofferson's $250 is really going to make any difference in a school board election.  It's such a small amount of money that really not much could come of it.

On the other hand, having the Tribune publish that Elder Christofferson made the donation would seem amount to a tacit endorsement of the candidate by one of the apostles.  

The donation really does nothing.  Having the Tribune publish the story may win the guy the election.  Ironic.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think that Elder Christofferson's $250 is really going to make any difference in a school board election.  It's such a small amount of money that really not much could come of it.

On the other hand, having the Tribune publish that Elder Christofferson made the donation would seem amount to a tacit endorsement of the candidate by one of the apostles.  

The donation really does nothing.  Having the Tribune publish the story may win the guy the election.  Ironic.

Good point! Of course donations are public so it could have been known, but who was looking? The other risk, though I don't think it happened in this case, would be for the candidate to tout the donation from the apostle as an endorsement.

[Jeanne]

I don't think he did anything wrong here..if it had been monies donated from a church coffers that would be different. 

[ksfisher]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 Of course donations are public so it could have been known, but who was looking?

Apparently only the employee the Tribune paid to look over the lists. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, ksfisher said:

Apparently only the employee the Tribune paid to look over the lists. 

Yeah, but I want reporters watchdogging campaigns. I doubt they were looking specifically for a church connection.