Should Elder Uchtdorf step down?

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

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?

Sure, but you still have to enter your name, address, and (I think), occupation. I haven't since 2012, so I don't recall specifically. 

The articles say that it also listed the occupation as "retired." 

Even from a phone, you have to identify yourself as the donor. Putting someone else down (even if you're using his payment account), violates the spirit and letter of that law. 

Edited March 17, 2021 by rongo

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Rivers said:

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

Or honesty.  

[Rain]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Sure, but you still have to enter your name, address, and (I think), occupation. I haven't since 2012, so I don't recall specifically. 

The articles say that it also listed the occupation as "retired." 

Even from a phone, you have to identify yourself as the donor. Putting someone else down (even if you're using his payment account), violates the spirit and letter of that law. 

What I am getting from this article seems to suggest you wouldn't need to put your name.  There is a limit of $50 per month mention, but the article is from 2012.  https://www.tatango.com/blog/political-campaign-text-message-donations-what-you-need-to-know/

The retired part would fit his wife too.  Or a sibling if he has one.  

I'm not making judgments here that he did or didn't do it. I'm just trying to see if there are other possibilities before calling him a liar or family members as doing something illegal.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

What I am getting from this article seems to suggest you wouldn't need to put your name.  There is a limit of $50 per month mention, but the article is from 2012.  https://www.tatango.com/blog/political-campaign-text-message-donations-what-you-need-to-know/

The retired part would fit his wife too.  Or a sibling if he has one.  

I'm not making judgments here that he did or didn't do it. I'm just trying to see if there are other possibilities before calling him a liar or family members as doing something illegal.

I would be shocked if donors can donate anonymously. Imagine the "dark money" donations and laundering that would open everything up to. 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Using the "online account which is shared by my family and associated with my name" blows this up.

No it doesn't. Elder Uchtdorf's niece isn't a public figure just because she happened to make a donation via a family account. 

The only reason why this story is even remotely newsworthy (and I'm using that term kind of loosely here) is because Elder Uchtdorf himself is a public figure. 

 

Quote

Whatever account he's referring to, it must be some sort of payment account (PayPal, Venmo, Wells Fargo, etc.).

Obviously. 

 

Quote

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.

As someone who spent a good portion of last year programming software to generate ACH addenda records, I have a vague idea of how to the process of remitting payment over teh Internets works. 

 

Quote

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 doesn't actually appear to be the case.

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

Quote

While it appears Uchtdorf may have breached a church rule, he did not break the law, according to an election expert.

“These would not be illegal contributions unless the donor was intentionally trying to hide their actual identity, which seems not to be the case here,” said Matthew Sanderson, an election law attorney based in Washington. “I would not expect anything to come of this, particularly because the donation amounts are small and because this circumstance of shared family accounts has become more commonplace in the era of small online political donations.”

Sanderson said the “likely resolution will be limited to the recipient campaigns filing amendments to their public disclosure reports to reflect the real donor’s identity.”

 

Quote

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'm not an expert on the case you are referring to here, but a cursory google search seems to indicate to me that (1) he didn't actually go to jail, though he did plead guilty to a felony and was on probation for a bit; and (2) the kind of election fraud he engaged in - paying other people to donate tens of thousands of dollars in order to get around election contribution limits - has nothing to do with Elder Uchtdorf. At all. 

 

Quote

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. 

I'm speaking about privacy in terms of the difference between public and private figures. Elder Uchtdorf is a public figure, so there may be legitimate public interest in his activities. But his wife, children, nieces / nephews, grandchildren, etc. - not so much. 

Now, if you're strictly speaking about federal election law, then sure; the law requires the public disclosure of significant donations (i.e., amounts over $200). Of which, it seems that 6 of the 13 donations in question would qualify. 

So, somewhere down the line when the recipient campaigns amend their disclosure reports and we finally learn that his wife, or kids, or whoever actually submitted the donation, then maybe our hyper-partisan members will finally be able to sleep at night.

 

Edited March 17, 2021 by Amulek

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Quite so. As a public figure himself, Elder Uchtdorf is potentially subject to more scrutiny than the average person. But that scrutiny has its limits, and that's especially so once you start talking about his family and extended family. The public doesn't have the same sort of interest in knowing what his in-laws, kids, grandkids, etc. are doing. 

 

[ttribe]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

Or honesty.  

Are you attempting to imply Elder Uchtdorf was dishonest?  If so, I can assure you that if a critic had made that comment they would be getting blown up by certain apologists around here by now.

Edited March 17, 2021 by ttribe

[Amulek]

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

Putting someone else down (even if you're using his payment account), violates the spirit and letter of that law. 

I'll be sure to tell that to my wife next time she pays the bills.

 

[Amulek]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

I would be shocked if donors can donate anonymously.

There's a limit, but it is allowed:

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/#:~:text=%2450 limit on anonymous contributions,federal election%2C campaign or candidate.

 

[Rain]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I'll be sure to tell that to my wife next time she pays the bills.

 

Those bills are getting harder and harder to pay.  I have been grateful to have my husband at home this last year so I can get his permission to let me do the talking - even when the company has written permission from him for me to do so!

[Amulek]

12 minutes ago, Rain said:

Those bills are getting harder and harder to pay.  I have been grateful to have my husband at home this last year so I can get his permission to let me do the talking - even when the company has written permission from him for me to do so!

Sounds like hospital bills or maybe some other finance thing that triggers extra privacy rules. Those can definitely be a hassle. 

My wife was on bedrest when we bought our home, and I had to sign all of the documents for myself and then for her as her attorney-in-fact. It was a major pain.

The point I was making though was that my wife regularly represents herself as me when paying bills online. So when it comes time to pay for the cars, or the utility bill, etc. those are all accounts that are in my name alone. Is she breaking some 'spirit of the law' when she goes online and pays them out of our shared account? Obviously not. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour 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, with no oversight? Then general authorities are richer than we thought. 

He doesn't need to explain anything. He's not a politician sucking up to the masses for votes.

You can either believe what he's already said or you can claim he's a liar. Either way, it won't really affect him. To me it sounds like conservative politics is trying to cancel Uchtdorf. It's both sad and funny...and pathetic.

[MustardSeed]

4 hours 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.

Oh hey, if Scott was genuinely offended by my comment, I repeat my genuine apology.

Part of me thinks it was just an opportunity to create an argument but hey whenever I'm in the mood for a bit of drama, I come here because I quit Facebook last year.  I guess I deserve what I pursue.  Additionally, it seems my comment that the good Elder was a handsome person has turned into quite a love fest.  

You are welcome.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

Since I'm one of the nothingburger people here, I'll share a couple of quick thoughts:

Assuming previously leaked documents are accurate, Apostles receive an annual living stipend somewhere in the six-figure range. That's in addition to anything they may have from retirement having worked their entire careers in the public sector. So yes, they may have a fair amount of money laying around.

That being said, keep in mind that we're not talking about donating untold thousands of dollars in cryptocurrency to a super-PAC or anything. We're talking about cumulative donations which, over time, amount to less than the cost of a Macbook Pro. 

And as for oversight, I'm sorry, but I can truthfully say that I've honestly got no idea how my money my wife spent at Target last year. I trust her to spend within our means, but I don't go through and balance the books or review her spending habits - though we do have a conspicuous number of wreaths. 

I wouldn't be surprised if Elder Uchtdorf is the same way. It's a very laid-back - dare I say, German - way of doing things. There's nothing to be bothered about until there's a problem that needs to be addressed. And that's exactly what he as done. 

I honestly do not see why some people are so bothered by this. 

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

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.")

We don’t know what kind of attention his family members get at this point. He has a very unusual last name and any member or ex-member is likely to be able to easily find out if someone is his family member or not.  There may already be security issues and requirements that he needs to abide by for the sake of his family. 
 

It is a crazy world and given how lives have been destroyed by cyber bullying, anyone with a hint of celebrity attention should be very careful, imo.   

I have even known one woman back in the 80’s who was convinced she was going to marry a certain apostle (she was actually acquainted with many through her charity work) who ended up having severe mental issues and was a danger to herself.  I don’t remember if she threatened his wife (I knew her through a relative that was a good friend with her), but there was some definite weirdness there.  She had a very traumatic life and her charity dealt with a group that were struggling to survive in many ways (I don’t mean as an institution, but not to be killed), so the stress she was under was massive.  Perhaps her fantasy helped her cope, as she was a very capable and fantastic woman otherwise, until it didn’t.

It is extremely arrogant Imo when you have no clue what life is like for those near and dear to Elder Utchdorf to insist there is no issue to him handing out that info to the public.  I got death threats and I only was a moderator on a religious slanted message board (not this one, ZLMB which was a predecessor to this one).  I pity anyone connected to a celebrity/public figure these days

Edited March 17, 2021 by Calm

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

So, somewhere down the line when the recipient campaigns amend their disclosure reports and we finally learn that his wife, or kids, or whoever actually submitted the donation, then maybe our hyper-partisan members will finally be able to sleep at night.

I'm wondering what, if anything, would change for the "nothingburger" people if amended reports disclose that the 13 donations were from Uchtdorf?

If they disclose that they indeed came from one or more family members, but not him, then obviously my read on this will have been very wrong. 

But the (understandable --- I think most of us have "panic lied" before) hypothetical dishonesty wouldn't appear to bother most here. 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm wondering what, if anything, would change for the "nothingburger" people if amended reports disclose that the 13 donations were from Uchtdorf?

If they disclose that they indeed came from one or more family members, but not him, then obviously my read on this will have been very wrong. 

But the (understandable --- I think most of us have "panic lied" before) hypothetical dishonesty wouldn't appear to bother most here. 

Hypothetical dishonesty is the worst kind

If a church leader is dishonest it would be troubling, but also not the first time. Not by a long shot.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

But the (understandable --- I think most of us have "panic lied" before) hypothetical dishonesty wouldn't appear to bother most here. 

I doubt this was a panic lie given it was thoughtful and he has lawyers who will consult anytime something comes up most likely.

I am not bothered by dishonesty I don’t believe exists. If he is lying, than it becomes an issue for me, but I see no reason to assume a lie at this point. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm wondering what, if anything, would change for the "nothingburger" people if amended reports disclose that the 13 donations were from Uchtdorf?

If they disclose that they indeed came from one or more family members, but not him, then obviously my read on this will have been very wrong. 

But the (understandable --- I think most of us have "panic lied" before) hypothetical dishonesty wouldn't appear to bother most here. 

I would still be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I don’t know that that would prove anything. The online accounting system could have automatically recorded it as having come from him even if somebody else were doing the procedure. 

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would still be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, because I don’t know that that would prove anything. The online accounting system could have automatically recorded it as having come from him even if somebody else were doing the procedure. 

I'm saying if he came clean and admitted that they were all from him, after records show that beyond doubt. Would you at least be disappointed?

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I doubt this was a panic lie given it was thoughtful and he has lawyers who will consult anytime something comes up most likely.

I am not bothered by dishonesty I don’t believe exists. If he is lying, than it becomes an issue for me, but I see no reason to assume a lie at this point. 

Oh, no doubt Church legal and Public Affairs had a hand in the brief statement. It sure reads/sounds like it!

Obviously, we are seeing this differently. Maybe time will tell. Maybe not. I wouldn't be surprised if there is no further mention of this. If later reports clarify who made the donations (for example, if people other than Uchtdorf himself are identified as the donors), then that will prove that. If they identify him as making the 13 donations, it seems that most here will continue to assume it was Harriett or a niece or whoever. So, I'm not sure we'll ever know. 

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm wondering what, if anything, would change for the "nothingburger" people if amended reports disclose that the 13 donations were from Uchtdorf?

If they disclose that they indeed came from one or more family members, but not him, then obviously my read on this will have been very wrong. 

But the (understandable --- I think most of us have "panic lied" before) hypothetical dishonesty wouldn't appear to bother most here. 

Nothing would change for me if he lied.  It’s between him and God and really has nothing to do with me.  Besides that, it doesn’t seem reasonable for me to judge him for something we’ve all likely done before (as you’ve said).

“Judge not, that ye be not judged” and all that.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm saying if he came clean and admitted that they were all from him, after records show that beyond doubt. Would you at least be disappointed?

Yes, because that would directly contradict what he has said up to now — which is why I don’t think that is likely to happen. The explanation he has given strikes me as plausible, and I’m satisfied with it. 

[Rain]

 

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm saying if he came clean and admitted that they were all from him, after records show that beyond doubt. Would you at least be disappointed?

I think first of saying I would be disappointed, but realistically when I think about the fellow saints I actually know this wouldn't phase me if they were in the same place.  It didn't hurt me. He didn't lie to me.  It affects nothing about me.  So if a fellow member were to lie in this situation I would just figure it is between him and the Lord.  

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I'm wondering what, if anything, would change for the "nothingburger" people if amended reports disclose that the 13 donations were from Uchtdorf?

As I said earlier in the discussion, the only thing that might be problematic in my mind would be if Elder Uchtdorf were to have actually lied about the situation.

If that were the case, then yeah - he should probably get a stern talking to. But I still wouldn't expect him to have to step down as an Apostle - not over something so trivial.

 

Quote

If they disclose that they indeed came from one or more family members, but not him, then obviously my read on this will have been very wrong. 

How magnanimous of you. 

 

Quote

But the [...] hypothetical dishonesty wouldn't appear to bother most here. 

Maybe we aren't reading the same thread, because I don't believe anyone has said they would be cool with him lying.