Should Elder Uchtdorf step down?

[Tacenda]

If he was to step down, however that works, I see it to be a testimony crusher. Since our testimonies are very fragile, in all my years of being a member I had to be told to make sure and not lose it and work on it. But ironclad ones will be fine. 

[Kenngo1969]

36 minutes ago, juliann said:

Why do you care? He fixed it. 

Because at least one person thinks that the oversight (or lack thereof) by Elder Uchtdorf is grounds for stripping him of his office.  I think, and I think most people would think, that such a step is totally unreasonable and unwarranted, but that doesn't change the fact that the person who holds the opinion thinks that such a drastic step is, in fact, reasonable or that it would be warranted.  I cannot and will not speak for the opening poster, but perhaps he wanted to find out whether such a seemingly-extreme view is, in fact, widespread.

[carbon dioxide]

Do they have citizenship?  If they do then I don't see this to be a problem. 

[The Nehor]

3 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. 

You can tell ‘your dad’ that I disagree. Hopefully he will be hurt to find out that a person on the internet disagrees with him.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Do they have citizenship?  If they do then I don't see this to be a problem. 

It turn out he does have legal residency but if you look at the file and some of the documents he used.......oh, it is the ...............oh no...........

SHORT FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!!!!!

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by The Nehor

[halconero]

No, he shouldn’t step down. The policy makes sense, but this is really a nothingburger.

I doubt it was his kids trying to log a donation under his name as some sort of political statement. The most parsimonious explanation is shared online banking with his wife, who isn’t under the same policy constraint. Some couples maintain joint accounts, others maintain separate, some keep it under one spouse’s name.

[halconero]

19 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Do they have citizenship?  If they do then I don't see this to be a problem. 

Pretty sure American permanent residents (green card holders) can donate to political parties or candidates.

[The Nehor]

Just now, halconero said:

No, he shouldn’t step down. The policy makes sense, but this is really a nothingburger.

I doubt it was his kids trying to log a donation under his name as some sort of political statement. The most parsimonious explanation is shared online banking with his wife, who isn’t under the same policy constraint. Some couples maintain joint accounts, others maintain separate, some keep it under one spouse’s name.

Or there is some kind of joint family charitable trust set up or something similar that members of the larger family contribute to and donate from.

[halconero]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Or there is some kind of joint family charitable trust set up or something similar that members of the larger family contribute to and donate from.

Entirely possible, if not as parsimonious (imo). I also can’t bring myself to feel strongly about my opinion specifically or this topic in general, so I’m fine with who or whatever occurred.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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

I think we should keep it if only to keep some people from dividing the apostles between the “good ones” and “those other ones” as some would inevitably do. In darker areas of the internet I have already seen people going nuts over it, assuring people they have inside information on how other apostles voted, and are deeply indignant about “a German” daring to do such a thing. One thing I have to look forward to is that even if (as I suspect)  I do turn out to be one of the tares at the last day I will be able to have a good laugh at some of the people burning with me.

[theplains]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

If he was to step down, however that works, I see it to be a testimony crusher. Since our testimonies are very fragile, in all my years of being a member I had to be told to make sure and not lose it and work on it. But ironclad ones will be fine. 

Is there a sin or sins committed by a member of your church that would crush your testimony?

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, theplains said:

Is there a sin or sins committed by a member of your church that would crush your testimony?

Yes, Joseph's polygamy, sadly. But what I was trying to say is that if the church made Uchtdorf step down, that may cause someone's testimony to struggle or collapse. Happens all the time. 

Edited March 13, 2021 by Tacenda

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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.

 

Well, I was being a bit facetious, but it does make me happy that there may be some more moderate-leaning people at the top, even if it’s “just” the wife of an apostle. Of course, we don’t know if it was her, either. I really think it is much ado about nothing, and no, he should not step down. 

Edited March 13, 2021 by Peacefully

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours 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. 

It would make more sense to me that it was his wife doing the donating rather than another member of the family. A lot of wives use their husbands’ names for things of this nature just to keep household accounting simpler. My guess is she didn’t realize this was violating any Church policy, and he understandably didn’t want to throw her under the bus by identifying her publicly.  

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It would make more sense to me that it was his wife doing the donating rather than another member of the family. A lot of wives use their husbands’ names for things of this nature just to keep household accounting simpler. My guess is she didn’t realize this was violating any Church policy, and he understandably didn’t want to throw her under the bus by identifying her publicly.  

100%!!!

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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

Maybe not but look at his influence through the years!! Heck I still wear my Davy Crockett fake coonskin cap as often as I can, even though the tail is getting a little funky!

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

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.

Or a few million . 😉🤨

[Calm]

Thinking he should step down for what amounts to a completely unknown until now and soon to be forgotten support of $2000 or so is a massive overreaction imo.  Someone imo is too obsessed with politics and American political parties.  

As far as confusion of who bought it, his explanation is perfectly reasonable to me. I buy things online all the time using my husband’s Amazon, PayPal, and other accounts. It is easier than going through the process of setting up my own. On occasion he uses an account I set up (donated to FAIR for example).  The dog’s bills are listed under my name and they ask for me to make reports of tests as I used to take her to the vet, though he is the one doing it now.  On other occasions I will tell my kids to use our accounts to buy their own gifts or when making a family purchase so I don’t have to reimburse them.  Only on our bank accounts, mortgages, taxes do we list both our names. 
 

Since my husband doesn’t closely track each purchase, I can easily surprise him even though he is the one who tracks spending and pays the bills.  I used to, but we would have been divorced by now if I continued because he never gave me receipts which caused budgeting and balancing to give me nightmares.  So who knows, maybe it is his wife or a child now or an accountant that does the bookkeeping/budgeting/money tracking for the family. He has a heavy schedule and might not have the time or might even hate accounting. He may have never even seen a record of the donation because of that and wasn’t told because it wasn’t thought necessary as it wasn’t him who was donating.  

I think it was most likely his wife and he used “family” as he wanted to spare her the negative attention (I can see her FB flooded with hate and love mail from extremists) as well as create distance between himself and the donation so as to not give the sense he personally supported such in order to abide as much as possible to the policy.

Gone should be the days when women had to account to their husbands if they wanted to buy anything.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Well, I was being a bit facetious, but it does make me happy that there may be some more moderate-leaning people at the top, even if it’s “just” the wife of an apostle. Of course, we don’t know if it was her, either. I really think it is much ado about nothing, and no, he should not step down. 

I like the idea of variety myself and wish that differences of opinion on how best to govern could be made public to show different perspectives are reasonable even in a community aiming for unity. 
 

I don’t think given how obsessed some are with politics, a particular party should be seen as the “apostles’ party”.   The policy is wise not because it is immoral for apostles to donate to political parties and causes, but because others will react to such donations inappropriately.  The policy is about helping one’s neighbors be more gospel centered, not avoiding sin. 

[gopher]

Don't you think the outrage would be much more vocal and angry if it turned out he donated money to the other guy?

[Hamba Tuhan]

I think the opinion of the One Who actually called Elder Uchtdorf to be an apostle is the only one that matters, and He is unlikely to participate on this forum. 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, Joseph's polygamy, sadly. But what I was trying to say is that if the church made Uchtdorf step down, that may cause someone's testimony to struggle or collapse. Happens all the time. 

I'm still not sure why Joseph's polygamy troubled you more than the six polygamous prophets that followed him or the eternal polygamous sealings by several prophets after that.

Why was Joseph's more an issue than John Taylor's, Wilford Woodruff's, or Heber J. Grant's?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

Is there a sin or sins committed by a member of your church that would crush your testimony?

Considering only members of the Church (or its equivalents in other dispensations) are capable of the unforgivable sin I am not sure why someone sinning should break my testimony. I am betting someone in the Church has committed virtually every sin on the record and may have even invented some new ones such as the one portrayed in this clip:

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

Don't you think the outrage would be much more vocal and angry if it turned out he donated money to the other guy?

I would be confused but not angry.

33 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think the opinion of the One Who actually called Elder Uchtdorf to be an apostle is the only one that matters, and He is unlikely to participate on this forum. 

Unlikely but not at all impossible.

[rpn]

You don't resign from apostleship.   Once you're called you're that until you get honorably released by death.

And it wasn't Elder Uchtdorf (I'm betting that it was his kids or grandkids, hopefully ones born  in the US or a citizen because if not they are foreign nationals they would be breaking federal election laws by contributing: his wife would have known not to do it too).