provoman Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 17 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. When I read your post, I could hear the words of Wilford Woodruff "The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice [of partisan politics by the Lords representatives on the earth]...,
oremites Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: I have read the specific charges and could put aside my dislike to tell that they, in fact, are guilty of those specific charges. Fair enough. It's just too bad you couldn't have been on the jury to correct this travesty of justice. Maybe next time.
thesometimesaint Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 13 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: But where's the problem in that? would it affect the churchs tax exempt status? Doubtful but it is better to not try to test it.
PeterPear Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 4 hours ago, The Nehor said: I have read the specific charges and could put aside my dislike to tell that they, in fact, are guilty of those specific charges. What's wrong Nehor? Have you never heard of Jury Nullification - which allows a jury to disagree with the law itself? Using your logic claiming someone is gulilty based on "charges" you would have to claim Christ and Joseph Smith were the biggest scoundrels since Lucifer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification Except in the case of the Bundys, Jury Instructions, not Jury Nullification freed the Bundys. http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/10/28/clear-jury-instructions-jury-nullification-freed-bundy-7/
ksfisher Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: Yeah, but I want reporters watchdogging campaigns. I doubt they were looking specifically for a church connection. I was thinking about how boring reading through something like that would be and how I would only do it if someone was paying me. 1
rongo Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 4 hours ago, Jeanne said: I don't think he did anything wrong here..if it had been monies donated from a church coffers that would be different. I'm waiting for internal/external critics to complain that, since Elder Christofferson receives a stipend from the Church, the $250 was money from Church coffers.
Jeanne Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 2 minutes ago, rongo said: I'm waiting for internal/external critics to complain that, since Elder Christofferson receives a stipend from the Church, the $250 was money from Church coffers. I doubt that. Still his money. Some of us critics are almost fair. 1
The Nehor Posted October 28, 2016 Posted October 28, 2016 2 hours ago, PeterPear said: What's wrong Nehor? Have you never heard of Jury Nullification - which allows a jury to disagree with the law itself? Using your logic claiming someone is gulilty based on "charges" you would have to claim Christ and Joseph Smith were the biggest scoundrels since Lucifer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification Except in the case of the Bundys, Jury Instructions, not Jury Nullification freed the Bundys. http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/10/28/clear-jury-instructions-jury-nullification-freed-bundy-7/ I have heard of it. I do not trust it much to be honest. As a tool it can be used to battle injustice in some cases but the potential for abuse is very high.
The Nehor Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 Another point is to get this jury they had to find impartial people in the area who knew nothing of the occupation. I think Wilder describes them best:
Calm Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 The post playingof the video videos include a less than appropriate shot. You might want to use and doublecheck another link.
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 I just heard one of the female leaders of the church was at a Pence rally. Can anyone verify which leader this was and if it was true?
rchorse Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 4 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: I just heard one of the female leaders of the church was at a Pence rally. Can anyone verify which leader this was and if it was true? It was Julie Beck, a former church leader.
Recommended Posts