Should Elder Uchtdorf step down?

[Calm]

15 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Why does that make you upset?

I missed this the first time around.  

I am not upset.

 You are not calling me or anyone else names that I recall and while I believe you are misunderstanding my points in part because you see me as seeing things negative in this case and not how I actually approach most things in the world (which is more on a good, better, best scale of judgment coupled with a perhaps overly keen awareness of the law of unintended consequences and the frequency of miscommunication), you are being civil in your comments.
 

Rather I am trying to inform you about my own experiences and  have others share their experiences to encourage you in your sincere and generous efforts to help to take the time before you compliment someone to see if that is what they really or if they need something else.  Listening to someone, really listening and not just hearing enough to give you something to do, something to fix for them.  Given the the support given my posts by others, it appears my views are similar to many others here, especially among the women.  Since your intent is to help women, it makes sense to pay attention to what they think is important.
 

I think it is unfortunate, a missed golden opportunity when someone desires to help someone, finds a problem that needs fixing, jumps in and does a great job...but there was a greater need there that got ignored out of ignorance.  
 

Think of someone eagerly stopping by a car that had just pulled over on the side of a very empty stretch of road with a flat tire and without saying a thing gets to work changing it.  The owner thanks him for his willingness and begins to say “but I don’t need the tire changed...”.  The Good Samaritan won’t have it, he is there to help and he insists the owner goes sits over there under the cool tree while he finishes up.  The owner sighs and reluctantly agrees, still thanking him, saying he will wait to speak to him when he is done.  The Samaritan knows that means the owner is going to try and pay him for his work, so when he is done, he quickly drives off in his own car before the owner realizes his intention so there will be no embarrassing gushing of thanks and arguments over cash.  He feels great because he knows he has made someone’s life easier (and he has) and for no reward besides another’s happiness.  Back at the car at the side of the road, the owner sighs and kicks himself for not being insistent the man listen to him say “I don’t need the tire changed as much as I need help getting some gas, could you drive down to the gas station while I change the tire?” and instead thinking he would at least be able to get a ride to the station and walk back with a gallon of gas after the tire was fixed, after all it was nice not having to hassle with the tire.  Good was done that day, but it could have been better (listen after his choice of service was done to hear what the owner wanted to say), or even best (listen right at the beginning and by doing so, find there were two problems that needed fixing and that could be easily with his help).
 

 I know a lot of men and women who really struggle when seeing others in pain and their strongest impulse is to jump in and ease that pain immediately...and doesn’t almost everyone dream of someone taking care of them in their hard times without needing to be told what to do.  There is great appeal in being someone’s hero.  But that isn’t generally what the sufferers need the most.  What everyone who is capable of learning and not in a frozen state of severe depression or in the numbed stage of grief or other significant mental disturbance really needs is not someone who takes their problems away for them, but someone who stands by and gives support and help so their loved one, friend, or even the stranger becoming a friend is able to take their own steps to solving their own problem....the Gospel way of helping (our welfare system is meant to help people improve their ability to improve their lives, not become their caregiver).

 And what a gift that greater capability can be because eventually the rescuers must always leave (may even be through sudden, unable to prepare for death as happened with a relative who was the ultimate bighearted rescuer who was there all his life saving his children, the women in the ward on their own, the teenage boys without dads, senior couples not in the best of health, relatives that were about to lose their home and more, some of his current efforts ended up in shock and adrift and unable to fill the gap he left on their own).  There is a huge difference between leaving behind someone who has grown dependent on you to be happy, safe, feeling confident so that when you are not there they may lose those treasures and leaving behind someone who has grown in strength and experience and knows more of how to face their problems on their own because for a time they had the support they actually needed to grow and not just temporary, even if kindly meant, quick fixes.

Edited March 17, 2021 by Calm

[Lofty]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not every instance of idle curiosity merits being gratified — especially where a non-governmental entity like the Church or an individual leader therein or his family are concerned. 
 

And I say that as a retired-but-still-curious journalist. 😉 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Lofty said:

 

I don’t know what you’re getting at with this, so I’m going to ignore it until some sort of clear explanation is forthcoming. 

[Calm]

If you check those hits, chances are there is a small percentage of valid hits.
 

I got a total of four pages (39 hits) and the last ten or 11 were from prior to this week and only had Elder Utchdorf’s name, not donation, or oversight.

I don’t think as many people are talking about it as you think.

Edited March 17, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Yes thank you. Are you ok with me giving you compliments like I did on the other thread? 

Yes, they weren't compliments that I've been referring to. 

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Oh my gosh. Oh my gosh oh my gosh, really?  I read tacendas post just 30 seconds ago and was like, alright, this whole situation has calmed down, great post tacenda, Thank you. But, then I get to this one and kaboom!!!  Where I come from, offering someone the last word means giving them a chance to define how the heated conversation will end in their opinion and then dropping it. It was me bowing out and giving her the opportunity to define how the conversation will end. Gee whiz, I was doing exactly what she was telling me to do, to stop talking and listen!! And somehow you saw that as patronising? I didnt understand what Scott meant till now, it's almost as if I'm wearing a meat necklace around my neck. 😉

I can only tell you how it sounded to me and a “winky” face doesn’t make your agreement with the “jackals” comment ok. I will continue to call things as I see them. 
 

If you read Calm’s posts, they are very insightful, and one can learn why not everyone is comfortable with being complimented by strangers. Especially a young girl being complimented by grown men who they my not know well. You know your daughter, of course, and it sounds like she handled it well. On the other hand, the same thing might trigger someone who was sexually abused as a child. One way of doing things does not fit all. 
 

 

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Oh! They’re starting to gather again. AtlanticMike, where are you, man?

You can play off your “jackals” comment as tongue in cheek, but you don’t get to decide how people respond to it. 

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Questioned my maturity level for a post made in jest. 
 

I’m actually taking note of the up votes her post has already garnered. And a couple of earlier posts from others implying that I am jealous of Elder Uchtdorf. 
 

What was it the standup comedian said? “Tough crowd.”

What is the purpose of counting votes? For the record, it didn’t occur to me that you might be jealous of President Uchtdorf. I tend to agree with you that making comments comparing the physical attractiveness of our leaders is not appropriate. 

[AtlanticMike]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not upset

Oh my gosh, I thought we were done 🤣. But that's ok, I read your post and understand your trying to clarify certain things from yesterday and it was a great post today, so thank you. I'm going to keep it brief because I'm gluing down a flat roof today and I my guys will throw me off the roof If I stand around and type on my phone. 

    

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Rather I am trying to inform you about my own experiences and  have others share their experiences to encourage you in your sincere and generous efforts to help to take the time before you compliment someone to see if that is what they really or if they need something else.

I dont just compliment people, I help people everyday without giving compliments, I understand what your saying, I think. I'm not dismissing your feelings of vulnerability when a man approaches you or catcalls you, I never brought that up yesterday, you guys did, I was talking about giving compliments and being nice to people. 

    I live with women 24/7, i cant get away from estrogen, when I'm home and want to talk to someone with testosterone I have to go outside and talk to my rooster Frank, he's  a good listener🤣. I've prepared my daughters for the world, and understand how "some" men are jerks to women, I'm not dismissing what your talking about. My girls have mace for the exact reason you and others on here are talking about. They know how to shoot and will ventilate any man who tries to hurt our family with no problem, I get it, I'm not naive. When I go surfing on the weekends my wife will sit on the beach and constantly get hit on while I'm watching it from my board. Funny story, during the day I remove my wedding ring because I dont want to get something caught on it while I'm working,  that's a good way to lose a finger or have it severely mangled. Well, I meet my wife at Sam's club after work one day and after shopping I get in line with my cart and a minute or so later my wife gets in line  with her cart and two kids that are acting crazy. The whole time the cashier is hitting on me, so much so, I was thinking, damn, how has this women not been fired from this job yet? I'm just smiling and talking to her and when she's done ringing me up I push my cart up and she looks confused, like I'm trying to leave without paying. So I say, oh, sorry, this is only half, we need to scan my wife's cart so I can pay for it all🤣. Her eyes get really big and you could tell she thought her career was about to end. But we calmed her down by laughing about it and assuring her it wasn't a big deal. I told you this because I, plus every Male on here understands we have the luxury of being able to laugh that type of advancement off because of our size. For most men it's not a second thought, there's no fear in it for us. 

     

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Since your intent is to help women, it makes sense to pay attention to what they think is important.

I do, everyday. But something's you dont need to ask about. Again for example I'll bring this up one more time. A month ago I was reading a post from Tacenda and I could tell she really missed the beach, atleast thats what it seemed like to me. So I ran down to the beach and wrote her name and sent a picture. I dont know Tacenda, never met her, probably will never meet her or her husband. But, it seemed like a nice thing to do. There was a chance she would like what I did but there was a chance she wouldn't and consider it just plane weird and gross. I took a chance to uplift her spirit and it worked,  atleast that's what she's told me. Are you saying I should stop being spontaneous and ask a women before I do anything I see would be a kind gesture? If so, I dont understand that. Life needs a little spice in it.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I lnow a lot of men and women who really struggle when seeing others in pain and their strongest impulse is to jump in and ease that pain immediately...and doesn’t almost everyone dream of someone taking care of them in their hard times without needing to be told what to do.  There is great appeal in being someone’s hero.  But that isn’t generally what the sufferers need the most.  What everyone who is capable of learning and not in a frozen state of severe depression or in the numbed stage of grief or other significant mental disturbance really needs is not someone who takes their problems away for them, but someone who stands by and gives support and help so their loved one, friend, or even the stranger becoming a friend is able to take their own steps to solving their own problem....the Gospel way of helping (our welfare system is meant to help people improve their ability to improve their lives, not become their caregiver).

I understand what your saying but where I disagree is we can get to a point in life, if we're not careful, that no one is willing to be a hero, that should be frightening to a lot of people. People should want more heros not less. 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And what a gift that greater capability can be because eventually the rescuers must always leave (may even be through sudden, unable to prepare for death as happened with a relative who was the ultimate bighearted rescuer who was there all his life saving his children, the women in the ward on their own, the teenage boys without dads, senior couples not in the best of health, relatives that were about to lose their home and more, some of his current efforts ended up in shock and adrift and unable to fill the gap he left on their own).  There is a huge difference between leaving behind someone who has grown dependent on you to be happy, safe, feeling confident so that when you are not there they may lose those treasures and leaving behind someone who has grown in strength and experience and knows more of how to face their problems on their own because for a time they had the support they actually needed to grow and not just temporary, even if kindly meant, quick fixes.

Yes, life is tuff, I agree.  I'm going to make some money now, talk to you later .

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, Lofty said:

I'm not troubled about the "family" donations, or even the so-called oversight on Elder Uchtdorf's part.

They why put the word family in quotes and refer to it as a "so-called" oversight? Do you think his explanation for the donations is a lie?

 

Quote

I am concerned that His explanation is less than forthcoming, and sounds like he has something to hide, or someone to protect.

Do you think one shouldn't protect his own family? 

 

Quote

He is a public figure and should understand his oversight triggers journalistic scrutiny as well as head scratching among the Church membership.

Meh. I'm not seeing too much in the way of head scratching.

I don't think most members have even heard about it.

And from what I have seen in this thread (which may or may not be representative, obviously), it doesn't seem like most members care either. 

 

Quote

Why leave us wondering?

Because if it wasn't him, as he has indicated, then it really isn't any of your business. 

Elder Uchtdorf may be a public figure, but that doesn't make everyone he's related to a public figure as well. 

They deserve their privacy. 

 

Quote

Just tell us who made the donations;

He did. Someone in his family. 

Why do you care who, specifically, in his family made the donations? What difference could that possibly make in your life?

 

Quote

(E)xplain the need for an online family account with your name on it, and trust us to make our own evaluation of the facts.

People set up family accounts for all sorts of things: cell phone plans, music streaming services, and yes, even for things like banking and charitable giving. 

Again, why do you care what someone in his family did?

I mean, if I were an Apostle and it was discovered that someone in my family used my Netflix account to watch an R-rated movie, what business is that of yours?

Does having a mom who likes John Wick somehow invalidate my priesthood keys?

 

Quote

We can handle the truth, if it is the whole truth.

You seem to keep insinuating that Elder Uchtdorf is lying. Do you have any reason to believe that is the case? 

 

Quote

Attempts to cover up the truth reveal much more about a person's character than the initial "oversight" that was uncovered.

What "truth" do you think is being covered up, exactly?

 

Quote

This raises serious questions in my mind about openness, candor, and transparency on the part of Elder Uchtdorf.

Really? Then you must not have had a very good opinion of him to begin with, because as far as I can see this whole story is pretty much a nothingburger. 

 

Quote

Nixon fell from the Presidency not because of the Plumbers' illegal break in, but from using his office to try and cover it all up.

I hate to break it to you, but obstruction of justice is an actual crime.

Failing to satisfy your personal desire to learn about the political leanings of individual members of the Uchtdorf family is...I honestly don't know what, but I guess it's something you'll just have to learn how to live with. 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2021 by Amulek

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

You can play off your “jackals” comment as tongue in cheek, but you don’t get to decide how people respond to it. 

I think expressed intent is at least as (and, I would argue, more) important than perception. A mature approach entails consideration of intent and letting it temper and inform one’s chosen response or reaction.  

Edited March 17, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

What is the purpose of counting votes? For the record, it didn’t occur to me that you might be jealous of President Uchtdorf. I tend to agree with you that making comments comparing the physical attractiveness of our leaders is not appropriate. 

I’ve gotten the sense of being ganged up on. 
 

I’m glad to know that you don’t join in the insinuation that I’m jealous of President Uchtdorf and that you agree with me about the impropriety of commenting on the physical attractiveness (or comparative lack thereof) of Church leaders, but I haven’t known that until this moment. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Gee, this thread started rough but has only devolved from there  

[Peacefully]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve gotten the sense of being ganged up on. 
 

I’m glad to know that you don’t join in the insinuation that I’m jealous of President Uchtdorf and that you agree with me about the impropriety of commenting on the physical attractiveness (or comparative lack thereof) of Church leaders, but I haven’t known that until this moment. 

I didn’t want to “gang up” on Mustardseed for an off-the-cuff remark that was taken too seriously. But holding her to a different standard than yourself seems to be unfair.

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Amulek said:

They why put the word family in quotes and refer to it as a "so-called" oversight? Do you think his explanation for the donations is a lie?

 

Do you think one shouldn't protect his own family? 

 

Meh. I'm not seeing too much in the way of head scratching.

I don't think most members have even heard about it.

And from what I have seen in this thread (which may or may not be representative, obviously), it doesn't seem like most members care either. 

 

Because if it wasn't him, as he has indicated, then it really isn't any of your business. 

Elder Uchtdorf may be a public figure, but that doesn't make everyone he's related to a public figure as well. 

They deserve their privacy. 

 

He did. Someone in his family. 

Why do you care who, specifically, in his family made the donations? What difference could that possibly make in your life?

 

People set up family accounts for all sorts of things: cell phone plans, music streaming services, and yes, even for things like banking and charitable giving. 

Again, why do you care what someone in his family did?

I mean, if I were an Apostle and it was discovered that someone in my family used my Netflix account to watch an R-rated movie, what business is that of yours?

Does having a mom who likes John Wick somehow invalidate my priesthood keys?

 

You seem to keep insinuating that Elder Uchtdorf is lying. Do you have any reason to believe that is the case? 

 

What "truth" do you think is being covered up, exactly?

 

Really? Then you must not have had a very good opinion of him to begin with, because as far as I can see this whole story is pretty much a nothingburger. 

 

I hate to break it to you, but obstruction of justice is an actual crime.

Failing to satisfy your personal desire to learn about the political leanings of individual members of the Uchtdorf family is...I honestly don't know what, but I guess it's something you'll just have to learn how to live with. 

 

 

Even if a lot of people WERE talking about it, that doesn’t necessarily make his private family affairs any of their business. 
 

In journalism, we used to talk (sometimes rather sanctimoniously) about the “public’s right to know.” What some fail to realize is that right is not absolute. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I didn’t want to “gang up” on Mustardseed for an off-the-cuff remark that was taken too seriously. But holding her to a different standard than yourself seems to be unfair.

I don’t understand what you mean by this. But I’ve pretty much lost interest in this matter, so you needn’t explain. 

[rongo]

Back to the OP, I think the doublespeak/doublethink on the part of many is interesting. That is: multiple people have said at the same time that a) it wasn't Uchtdorf, it was members of his extended family, and b) it's awesome that this shows his political leanings. Well, which is it?

Here's a sampling from this thread. This is multiplied in spades in the comments sections of the articles.

---

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

Like him even more which was a lot!

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

It does make me happy that there may be some more moderate-leaning people at the top

I love the revelation that he supported Biden, not because I supported Biden ( I did not, nor Trump) but because this will help break the monolithic hold of appearances that the Republican party is the de facto party of the LDS Church.  I'm actually pretty excited that this will be the impetus of the largest political demographic shift within the Church since ETB supported the KKK... I mean the Birch Society. 

I wonder if his political leanings had anything to do with him not being retained as a counselor in the first presidency.

---

I think everyone knows and believes that he made the donations, but through Orwellian "crimestop" and "doublethink," they are entertaining simultaneously both 2+2=4 and 2+2=5. 

I think that he is lying about this. Have any of you donated to political campaigns? You have to enter your name and address each time. Regardless of whether someone used a joint PayPal, Venmo, or bank account, each of the 13 donations had to purposely give the name as Dieter Uchtdorf at such and such address. It strains credulity that family members (unless under the conspiracy theory stated in this thread that this was sabotage by a disgruntled family member) 13 times put his name as the donor. 

Why lie about it in the terse damage control statement? He wasn't supposed to do it, and he knew it. Knowledge of it would cause issues, not only with neutrality, but with factions and undercurrents (the reason for the 2011 policy). As @Lofty said, and with so many political scandals, not being fully forthcoming at first causes other complications. 

The statement was classic PR. Vague "family" was cited --- not "a family member," but "family," which is vague but implies more than one. Under Clintonian "definition of is" logic, it's a technically true statement if it was him, because he is part of his "family." But, I don't think it was an oversight, and judging from the reaction of many, neither do they. They either are delighted by what it shows about political leanings, or they are bent on it being a "nothing to see here" nothingburger.

So, where do I stand on this? I sustain him and do not think he should step down. I wish he had just said, "Yes, I donated to these campaigns, and this was contrary to the 2011 policy. I won't do it again." 

I think the passive voice, vague, "these donations were made by our family using an online account, which is shared by our family and associated with my name" statement did more harm than good, and raised more questions than it answered. They are savvy, bright people. What grandparents have an online account, "shared by our family and associated with my name" that extended family is free to use for thousands without oversight? It strains credulity. And if he was just trying to spare Harriett from embarrassment --- I still don't think vague, Clintonian PR statements are a good way to have handled it. Spouses are/were also part of the 2011 policy, for good reason. And you can't convince me they were ignorant of this. 

 

[rongo]

53 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Because if it wasn't him, as he has indicated, then it really isn't any of your business. 

Elder Uchtdorf may be a public figure, but that doesn't make everyone he's related to a public figure as well. 

Using the "online account which is shared by my family and associated with my name" blows this up. Whatever account he's referring to, it must be some sort of payment account (PayPal, Venmo, Wells Fargo, etc.). There are no "online accounts" for donating to political campaigns; you enter the required FEC information for each donation. Then, you pay by card or account number. 

If a family member or members repeatedly (13 times) entered the donation as "Dieter Uchtdorf," then that is a violation of the law (straw donors). That's what Dinesh D'Souza went to jail for, and the reason for the law: so that real donors donate under their name. 

I don't think that violating this entitles whoever did it (if it wasn't him) to privacy. If it did, then the floodgates of shadow and straw donors are wide open. 

[Peacefully]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t understand what you mean by this. But I’ve pretty much lost interest in this matter, so you needn’t explain. 

I will explain for anyone else who might be interested. Mustardseed made an off-the-cuff remark with no intended malice, yet you took her to task for it. Then you call the people who don’t agree with you “jackals” but expect us not to take issue with it because it was “tongue-in-cheek”. 

[Rivers]

Just watch.  Elder Uchtdorf’s next talk this upcoming conference will be on forgiveness.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Those who are spun up about Elder Uchtdorf or members of his family being involved in partisan politics should consider the link below. Hoo boy! Katie bar the door! I bet Joe Biden’s Catholic ears were burning after that sermon. 
 

 

You have a weird method of exiting a conversation.

[ttribe]

12 hours ago, Rivers said:

Because of his apparent political affiliation of course. Isn't that what this thread is kind of about?

I guess that must say something about me.  I'm politically conservative but more liberal when it comes to religion.

Are you serious?  So, you no longer value all of his Apostolic teachings because you might not share POLITICAL leanings?

[Rain]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Back to the OP, I think the doublespeak/doublethink on the part of many is interesting. That is: multiple people have said at the same time that a) it wasn't Uchtdorf, it was members of his extended family, and b) it's awesome that this shows his political leanings. Well, which is it?

Here's a sampling from this thread. This is multiplied in spades in the comments sections of the articles.

---

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

Like him even more which was a lot!

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

It does make me happy that there may be some more moderate-leaning people at the top

I love the revelation that he supported Biden, not because I supported Biden ( I did not, nor Trump) but because this will help break the monolithic hold of appearances that the Republican party is the de facto party of the LDS Church.  I'm actually pretty excited that this will be the impetus of the largest political demographic shift within the Church since ETB supported the KKK... I mean the Birch Society. 

I wonder if his political leanings had anything to do with him not being retained as a counselor in the first presidency.

---

I think everyone knows and believes that he made the donations, but through Orwellian "crimestop" and "doublethink," they are entertaining simultaneously both 2+2=4 and 2+2=5. 

I think that he is lying about this. Have any of you donated to political campaigns? You have to enter your name and address each time. Regardless of whether someone used a joint PayPal, Venmo, or bank account, each of the 13 donations had to purposely give the name as Dieter Uchtdorf at such and such address. It strains credulity that family members (unless under the conspiracy theory stated in this thread that this was sabotage by a disgruntled family member) 13 times put his name as the donor. 

Why lie about it in the terse damage control statement? He wasn't supposed to do it, and he knew it. Knowledge of it would cause issues, not only with neutrality, but with factions and undercurrents (the reason for the 2011 policy). As @Lofty said, and with so many political scandals, not being fully forthcoming at first causes other complications. 

The statement was classic PR. Vague "family" was cited --- not "a family member," but "family," which is vague but implies more than one. Under Clintonian "definition of is" logic, it's a technically true statement if it was him, because he is part of his "family." But, I don't think it was an oversight, and judging from the reaction of many, neither do they. They either are delighted by what it shows about political leanings, or they are bent on it being a "nothing to see here" nothingburger.

So, where do I stand on this? I sustain him and do not think he should step down. I wish he had just said, "Yes, I donated to these campaigns, and this was contrary to the 2011 policy. I won't do it again." 

I think the passive voice, vague, "these donations were made by our family using an online account, which is shared by our family and associated with my name" statement did more harm than good, and raised more questions than it answered. They are savvy, bright people. What grandparents have an online account, "shared by our family and associated with my name" that extended family is free to use for thousands without oversight? It strains credulity. And if he was just trying to spare Harriett from embarrassment --- I still don't think vague, Clintonian PR statements are a good way to have handled it. Spouses are/were also part of the 2011 policy, for good reason. And you can't convince me they were ignorant of this. 

 

If he actually didn't make those donations what do you think he should have done?

[rongo]

48 minutes ago, Rain said:

If he actually didn't make those donations what do you think he should have done?

Say so, and then say who did it (which would require finding out, of course). I don't think it's "throwing them under the bus" to do this, because he needs to explain exactly how the policy was violated (in this hypothetical, by other people, "using an online account, which is shared by our family and associated with my name.")

Like political PR damage control statements, note that he did not say "I didn't make these 13 donations." He said, "These donations were made by our family using an online account, which is shared by our family and associated with my name." Technically true, if he did make them. 

The statement leads one to wonder, was it more than one "of the family?" Just one other person? His wife? Himself? Which is the purpose of using the passive voice and the vague language. 

Do the "nothingburger" people here really believe that he let untold numbers of kids, grandkids, second and third cousins, etc. use his PayPal or Venmo, with no oversight? Then general authorities are richer than we thought. 

Edited March 17, 2021 by rongo

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

Say so, and then say who did it (which would require finding out, of course). I don't think it's "throwing them under the bus" to do this, because he needs to explain exactly how the policy was violated (in this hypothetical, by other people, "using an online account, which is shared by our family and associated with my name.")

Like political PR damage control statements, note that he did not say "I didn't make these 13 donations." He said, "These donations were made by our family using an online account, which is shared by our family and associated with my name." Technically true, if he did make them. 

The statement leads one to wonder, was it more than one "of the family?" Just one other person? His wife? Himself? Which is the purpose of using the passive voice and the vague language. 

Do the "nothingburger" people here really believe that he let untold numbers of kids, grandkids, second and third cousins, etc. use his PayPal or Venmo? 

Is it possible to make these kind of donations with your phone?  I don't mean using the internet on your phone.  I just know that t-mobile sometimes gives you chances to donate to different causes through your phone somehow. Until a few years ago all of my children were on our plan - it was cheaper. Everything connected with the phone comes up as my name even caller ID sometimes on the other phones. 

So is this a possibility?