Should Elder Uchtdorf step down?

[rongo]

My dad thinks he should, because "he wasn't supposed to donate to campaigns, and he knew he wasn't supposed to, since 2011." I didn't know about this policy, and separate from the policy, my personal view is that apostles should be able to donate to whatever they want to, and it's none of our business. 

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/3/12/22326401/elder-dieter-uchtdorf-clarifies-family-campaign-donations-during-elections

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/03/12/family-dieter-uchtdorf/

I think that resigning is too harsh and unwarranted, but I do wonder what, if anything, he or the Church will say about this beyond the apology already reported in the news. I don't think it will be mentioned or brought up at all, personally.

What are others' thoughts on this? 

[Bob Crockett]

I would not cite my Dad as any kind of authority. 

[teddyaware]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

My dad thinks he should, because "he wasn't supposed to donate to campaigns, and he knew he wasn't supposed to, since 2011." I didn't know about this policy, and separate from the policy, my personal view is that apostles should be able to donate to whatever they want to, and it's none of our business. 

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/3/12/22326401/elder-dieter-uchtdorf-clarifies-family-campaign-donations-during-elections

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/03/12/family-dieter-uchtdorf/

I think that resigning is too harsh and unwarranted, but I do wonder what, if anything, he or the Church will say about this beyond the apology already reported in the news. I don't think it will be mentioned or brought up at all, personally.

What are others' thoughts on this? 

Is it not true that it wasn’t Elder Uchtdorf who made the donations because, at least according to Elder Uchtdorf’s own official statement, it was someone in his family who made the donation, not him in particular.  

[rongo]

20 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I would not cite my Dad as any kind of authority. 

I wasn't. 

I was merely mentioning what he thought, as a prelude to sharing what I think (and how it differed). 

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Is it not true that it wasn’t Elder Uchtdorf who made the donations because, at least according to Elder Uchtdorf’s own official statement, it was someone in his family who made the donation, not him in particular.  

I don't think we know who actually made the donations, but it was under his name, using his account. Which is weird in itself. Why would a child or grandchild or whoever use his account and name?

ETA: And isn't donating under someone else's name and with their account in violation of FEC transparency rules? Isn't that the purpose for those laws --- to ensure that people aren't "laundering" donations beyond the maximum under other people's names (or to keep their donations secret from public transparency laws)?

Edited March 13, 2021 by rongo

[JLHPROF]

Somehow I'm not surprised to learn he is a Democrat. 

It's interesting how political leanings impact how we see the gospel.  Or perhaps the reverse is true and politics are influenced by our religious/moral code.

[Kenngo1969]

I have not studied Federal Election Commission laws, rules, and regulations in depth, but it wouldn't surprise me if they are similar to the rules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association in the sense that it's rather easy to violate them inadvertently: "On March 30, 1961, at 2:32:26 p.m., Coach Smith violated NCAA Regulation 38.1.7.5.a.II.(A).(xiv) (Subsection 30) when he gave one of his athletes a candy bar ..."

Being released, or being asked to or being forced to step down?  That seems way too harsh.  All missteps (if that's what they are or what this is) aren't created equal.  It's not as though Elder Uchtdorf was sleeping with his secretary.  I'm sure, considering whom he (or his family member(s)) has/have donated to, that there is a fair amount about which I might disagree with Elder Uchtdorf, or with his family member(s).  That said, if I ever met him, I would give him a hug and say, "Oh, meiner lieber bruder!"

Edited March 13, 2021 by Kenngo1969
God rid of a double negative so it ain't no problem no more! ;-D

[juliann]

59 minutes ago, rongo said:

My dad thinks he should, because "he wasn't supposed to donate to campaigns, and he knew he wasn't supposed to, since 2011." I didn't know about this policy, and separate from the policy, my personal view is that apostles should be able to donate to whatever they want to, and it's none of our business. 

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/3/12/22326401/elder-dieter-uchtdorf-clarifies-family-campaign-donations-during-elections

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/03/12/family-dieter-uchtdorf/

I think that resigning is too harsh and unwarranted, but I do wonder what, if anything, he or the Church will say about this beyond the apology already reported in the news. I don't think it will be mentioned or brought up at all, personally.

What are others' thoughts on this? 

That he gave an explanation, it was satisfactory, it doesn't matter, and I'll bet your dad is a republican.

[Duncan]

My guess is 99% of the Church doesn't know and they don't care who he gave money to if they did know-I just don't see US campaign funding a hot topic to a member of the Church in Singapore or in the Ukraine

Edited March 13, 2021 by Duncan

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I would not cite my Dad as any kind of authority. 

I'll bet my dad could beat up your dad!  I'll bet my dad could beat up your dad and Rongo's dad.

What?

Where did that come from?

Sorry!

Carry on!

[teddyaware]

48 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think we know who actually made the donations, but it was under his name, using his account. Which is weird in itself. Why would a child or grandchild or whoever use his account and name?

ETA: And isn't donating under someone else's name and with their account in violation of FEC transparency rules? Isn't that the purpose for those laws --- to ensure that people aren't "laundering" donations beyond the maximum under other people's names (or to keep their donations secret from public transparency laws)?

As I understand it, Elder Uchtdorf says there is some sort of common account in the family that’s technically in his name but that another member of his family (I’m guessing it’s his wife) actually made the donations. It also must be said that it’s hard to believe Elder Uchtdorf would risk his standing in the Church, by violating a strict Church policy, for an inconsequential political donation of a measly couple of hundred bucks.

Edited March 13, 2021 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

That he gave an explanation, it was satisfactory, it doesn't matter, and I'll bet your dad is a republican.

Like him even more which was a lot!

[CA Steve]

I think a more important question is, has Elder Uchtdorf dammed himself by committing the unpardonable sin of denying the spirt of the Holy Republicanism?

[Peacefully]

I knew there was a reason I liked him so much. 

Edited March 13, 2021 by Peacefully

[Bob Crockett]

32 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'll bet my dad could beat up your dad!  I'll bet my dad could beat up your dad and Rongo's dad.

What?

Where did that come from?

Sorry!

Carry on!

It just goes to show that many posters will use the fiction of quoting someone else to make a point they are fearful of making themselves. 

[rongo]

38 minutes ago, juliann said:

That he gave an explanation, it was satisfactory, it doesn't matter . . .

If this policy has been around since 2011, why does Elder Uchtdorf have any political donation account at all? When was it opened? And why did family members donate through it under his name?

One of the articles quoted a D.C. attorney who said that he/they will probably have to file an amended transparency report identifying the actual donors, if it was someone else. I still think that the idea of kids or grandkids filing under his name is weird. That would only cause questions, and why not do it under your own name, anyway? I've donated before, and there has never been any publicity, but then I'm a nobody (as are his children and grandchildren). 

I'm wondering why extended family would even want to donate under their famous, prominent relative's name? That's weird. 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

My dad thinks he should, because "he wasn't supposed to donate to campaigns, and he knew he wasn't supposed to, since 2011." I didn't know about this policy, and separate from the policy, my personal view is that apostles should be able to donate to whatever they want to, and it's none of our business. 

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/3/12/22326401/elder-dieter-uchtdorf-clarifies-family-campaign-donations-during-elections

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/03/12/family-dieter-uchtdorf/

I think that resigning is too harsh and unwarranted, but I do wonder what, if anything, he or the Church will say about this beyond the apology already reported in the news. I don't think it will be mentioned or brought up at all, personally.

What are others' thoughts on this? 

Don't care in the slightest.

Joseph Smith ran for President for crying out loud. I'm not going to bat an eye at someone merely donating to a campaign.

 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

Don't care in the slightest.

Joseph Smith ran for President for crying out loud. I'm not going to bat an eye at someone merely donating to a campaign.

Should the Church have this 2011 policy, then? Should the Church get rid of it?

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

If this policy has been around since 2011, why does Elder Uchtdorf have any political donation account at all? When was it opened? And why did family members donate through it under his name?

One of the articles quoted a D.C. attorney who said that he/they will probably have to file an amended transparency report identifying the actual donors, if it was someone else. I still think that the idea of kids or grandkids filing under his name is weird. That would only cause questions, and why not do it under your own name, anyway? I've donated before, and there has never been any publicity, but then I'm a nobody (as are his children and grandchildren). 

I'm wondering why extended family would even want to donate under their famous, prominent relative's name? That's weird. 

Why do you care? He fixed it. 

[teddyaware]

12 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I knew there was a reason I liked him so much. 

I know families in the Church where the husband and the wife have different political philosophies and support different political parties. I also know families in the Church where the mother and father share the same political philosophy while one or more of their children are on opposite sides of the political fence. It appears you and others here are hastily jumping to conclusions.

 

[teddyaware]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

If this policy has been around since 2011, why does Elder Uchtdorf have any political donation account at all? When was it opened? And why did family members donate through it under his name?

One of the articles quoted a D.C. attorney who said that he/they will probably have to file an amended transparency report identifying the actual donors, if it was someone else. I still think that the idea of kids or grandkids filing under his name is weird. That would only cause questions, and why not do it under your own name, anyway? I've donated before, and there has never been any publicity, but then I'm a nobody (as are his children and grandchildren). 

I'm wondering why extended family would even want to donate under their famous, prominent relative's name? That's weird. 

In all likelihood, he’s cryptically referring to his wife in order to spare her any embarrassment. Expanding the list of potential suspects takes some of the investigative heat off of her.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

My dad thinks he should, because "he wasn't supposed to donate to campaigns, and he knew he wasn't supposed to, since 2011." I didn't know about this policy, and separate from the policy, my personal view is that apostles should be able to donate to whatever they want to, and it's none of our business. 

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/3/12/22326401/elder-dieter-uchtdorf-clarifies-family-campaign-donations-during-elections

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/03/12/family-dieter-uchtdorf/

I think that resigning is too harsh and unwarranted, but I do wonder what, if anything, he or the Church will say about this beyond the apology already reported in the news. I don't think it will be mentioned or brought up at all, personally.

What are others' thoughts on this? 

I think it's a good policy too and have no problem with this kind of oversight.

I wonder if the odd amount due to the conversion from the Ruble? 😁

[Kenngo1969]

39 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

It just goes to show that many posters will use the fiction of quoting someone else to make a point they are fearful of making themselves. 

If you wish to get all up in arms about a post that, clearly, was tongue-in-cheek, that's your prerogative.  I'll leave you to it.  Good day.

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

Should the Church have this 2011 policy, then? Should the Church get rid of it?

I think it's still a good policy though it may have gone unattended* until now. They can still vote.

* after 5 years, I still have to review the Church Finances video every 6 months, and I wouldn't wish that on any GA 😁

[Bob Crockett]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If you wish to get all up in arms about a post that, clearly, was tongue-in-cheek, that's your prerogative.  I'll leave you to it.  Good day.

I'm not referring to you.