Should Elder Uchtdorf step down?

[ttribe]

53 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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?

Perhaps because he lied about it so much?

[JLHPROF]

Just now, ttribe said:

Perhaps because he lied about it so much?

They all did in Nauvoo.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They all did in Nauvoo.

So?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

So?

So why is Joseph the testimony breaker?  We're ok with Brigham but not Joseph doing it?

Edited March 14, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

2 hours 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?

Depends on what forum you were looking at. 

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So why is Joseph the testimony breaker?  We're ok with Brigham but not Joseph doing it?

I can't speak to her specific reasons, but I have spoken with many who feel betrayed by the manner in which he practiced polygamy (Fanny Alger, coercion, sending men on missions and then taking their wives, etc.) more so than the fact that he practiced it at all.  That being said, when I was a believer I would have made the same statement you did; I get your point.

[gurn]

I'm no lawyer, but it looks like it might be illegal with civil and criminal penalties.

https://www.fec.gov/updates/contributions-in-the-name-of-another-are-strictly-prohibited/ 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

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

That isn't true; apostles have been removed before or dropped from the quorum --- with or without excommunication. I'm not saying that this rises or should rise to that at all, but resignation or removal of apostles is hypothetically possible, just as it is for seventies.  

2 hours ago, rpn said:

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). 

Nobody here knows who did it, and neither do you. Several here have said (surprisingly, to me) that it was probably his wife Harriett, and he "white lied" for her to save her embarrassment. Nobody knows that, either. All we know is that eleven donations took place via the account in his name over the last several months. If it was his wife or children/grandchildren, I think that is a technical violation of transparency/straw donor laws (whether witting or unwitting). Donors are supposed to identify themselves so that they can't exceed limits, and donating under someone else's name obviously skirts that. 

I still find it interesting that he has a political donation account in his name after the 2011 policy prohibiting that. And, I'm sure the couple (and their children/grandchildren) aren't oblivious about "just using someone else's account" for eleven political donations. The terse "oversight" apology is good damage control (good economy of words and explanation), and I don't think anything else will be said about it. 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, gurn said:

I'm no lawyer, but it looks like it might be illegal with civil and criminal penalties.

https://www.fec.gov/updates/contributions-in-the-name-of-another-are-strictly-prohibited/ 

Let's see how much bad publicity the Federal Election Commission is willing to tolerate if the agency's powers-that-be elect to prosecute.

[Peacefully]

Where’s a good airplane analogy when you need one:)

[Rivers]

9 hours ago, CA Steve said:

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?

There’s always repentance.  

Until then, I need a new favorite apostle.

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Rivers
Add

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

. Several here have said (surprisingly, to me) that it was probably his wife Harriett, and he "white lied" for her to save her embarrassment

She is family, how is that a white lie?

Quote

Nobody here knows who did it, and neither do you.

True, but why not give him the benefit of the doubt that he isn’t lying?  He is not known for lying, correct?  Why do you think he would not simply admit it if it was him and apologize for not taking the policy seriously?  The vast majority of church members likely don’t care about it and the minority that do, most would probably accept an honest apology thinking ‘we all make mistakes’.  The few that would hold it against him have more issues than breaking a church policy in a minor way ($2000 isn’t going to affect any political races outside of a small town I am guessing).

Quote

I'm sure the couple (and their children/grandchildren) aren't oblivious about "just using someone else's account" for eleven political donations. 

Why?  I bet a majority of Americans aren’t aware of the requirement and if they had always thought of an account listed under his name as “our account”, it may not have registered as a problem.  

Quote

terse "oversight"apology 

Your bias is showing...as is mine as I think that was hardly “terse”, but simply to the point without gushing.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, rongo said:

Several here have said (surprisingly, to me) that it was probably his wife Harriett, and he "white lied" for her to save her embarrassment. 

I can’t speak for others, but in speculating that the donor was Sister Uchtdorf, I did NOT say he “white lied” about it. He said it was “family” who made the donations, and that would be true if the donations came from her. Declining to disclose a fact in detail is not the same as telling a lie, “white” or otherwise. 
 

It would be like my telling you without providing a detailed ledger that I live within my means. 
 

Added later: Why did you put “white lied” in quotation marks? Whom are you quoting? 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So why is Joseph the testimony breaker?  We're ok with Brigham but not Joseph doing it?

Because all my naive life I didn't know polygamy was a commandment to live. And I was in and out of different callings that took me out of Gospel Doctrine class and never sat through a lesson in D&C 132. Or I hated to study the scriptures... preferred to read the Ensign cover to cover. And grew up believing polygamy was to take care of the widows across the plains. Was only aware of BY and those after him. Even devoured most of the "Work and the Glory" series where it mentioned he was commanded to live it but didn't go into him actually living it. In my mid forties or around 2005, a website popped up with a list and a short story of each of Joseph's wives and I felt like you do when you're in an accident and everything is in slow motion, in a state of shock. And after that I read everything I could about polygamy and the book, "In Sacred Lonliness". You see if I'd grown up hearing about him living it all my life I'd probably not look into it much. It was in the details that caused me to take Joseph off the pedestal I had put him on and finding out a lot of other things I was taught, was wrong. 

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So why is Joseph the testimony breaker?  We're ok with Brigham but not Joseph doing it?

My husband was a convert at 20 and it did matter to him. He asked specifically and the missionaries assured him that polygamy started with Brigham Young.

Perhaps it is easier to believe the Restoration happened if is not inextricably connected to polygamy.

[carbon dioxide]

6 hours ago, ttribe said:

Perhaps because he lied about it so much?

Perhaps there were reasons to lie.  I don't believe lying is always wrong. In fact there may be many situations where lying might be required.  I believe that if someone wants to be told the truth, they need to be mature to handle it in the right way.  If telling the truth might lead to danger, harm, injustice, ect, then lying is probably the best policy to keep the peace or maintain safety.  Some people may not deserve to know the truth.  They can't handle it.

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, gurn said:

I'm no lawyer, but it looks like it might be illegal with civil and criminal penalties.

https://www.fec.gov/updates/contributions-in-the-name-of-another-are-strictly-prohibited/ 

Most likely nothing will happen.  It is all about intent.  If it was an innocent mistake, little will be done.  Sort of like making mistakes on taxes.  An innocent mistake will have minor consequence at best.  Intentional stuff will get you in big trouble.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, gurn said:

I'm no lawyer, but it looks like it might be illegal with civil and criminal penalties.

https://www.fec.gov/updates/contributions-in-the-name-of-another-are-strictly-prohibited/ 

Read it carefully. Says it is illegal if it is used to get around campaign financing laws meaning it would have to make the donation itself illegal. For that much money giving to several different groups.....yeah, they’re fine.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Perhaps there were reasons to lie.  I don't believe lying is always wrong. In fact there may be many situations where lying might be required.  I believe that if someone wants to be told the truth, they need to be mature to handle it in the right way.  If telling the truth might lead to danger, harm, injustice, ect, then lying is probably the best policy to keep the peace or maintain safety.  Some people may not deserve to know the truth.  They can't handle it.

For my husband he was lied to by the modern church about Joseph's polygamy. I think that for many, that also plays a role.

For me, I grew up with an awareness of Joseph lying about polygamy and thought of it as possibly justified. I saw the situation differently after personally experiencing being lied to extensively over a long period about important things. After that, I saw Joseph's deceptions not just as justified lying but as part of an unacceptable habitual pattern of abuse. 

[Stargazer]

16 hours 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 don't want to drag this into politics any more than it already is, but you may need to be more aware of how it sounds when you write "...more moderate-leaning people..." when writing about someone who donates to Democrat candidates. This implies that you think Democrats are somehow "moderate" and perhaps that Republicans are extremists. I can assure you that there are extremists in both parties. And of course those extremists love to label their opponents as extremists, just as they buff their nails in pride at their own "moderation".

Edited March 14, 2021 by Stargazer

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

My husband was a convert at 20 and it did matter to him. He asked specifically and the missionaries assured him that polygamy started with Brigham Young.

In all fairness to the missionaries they probably believed that.  Even in the Church today there are many young people (and older people too) who know next to nothing about the topic.

Missionaries are hardly gospel authorities.

[Meadowchik]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

In all fairness to the missionaries they probably believed that.  Even in the Church today there are many young people (and older people too) who know next to nothing about the topic.

Missionaries are hardly gospel authorities.

Oh, sure, I can believe that the missionaries believed that. But I do think it is reasonable to conclude that as church representatives they shared intentional falsehoods perpetuated by the church. I do not think those institutional deceptions were accidental. At some point--starting with Joseph Smith himself--or many points in the chain, there was intent to deceive.

Edited March 14, 2021 by Meadowchik

[gopher]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So why is Joseph the testimony breaker?  We're ok with Brigham but not Joseph doing it?

 

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Because all my naive life I didn't know polygamy was a commandment to live. And I was in and out of different callings that took me out of Gospel Doctrine class and never sat through a lesson in D&C 132. Or I hated to study the scriptures... preferred to read the Ensign cover to cover. And grew up believing polygamy was to take care of the widows across the plains. Was only aware of BY and those after him. Even devoured most of the "Work and the Glory" series where it mentioned he was commanded to live it but didn't go into him actually living it. In my mid forties or around 2005, a website popped up with a list and a short story of each of Joseph's wives and I felt like you do when you're in an accident and everything is in slow motion, in a state of shock. And after that I read everything I could about polygamy and the book, "In Sacred Lonliness". You see if I'd grown up hearing about him living it all my life I'd probably not look into it much. It was in the details that caused me to take Joseph off the pedestal I had put him on and finding out a lot of other things I was taught, was wrong. 

I also learned about Joseph's plural wives later in life, but it was more of a relief than anything else.  It never seem right that something as big as polygamy would be revealed through and put into practice by BY and not through the prophet of the restoration.

[gopher]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

My husband was a convert at 20 and it did matter to him. He asked specifically and the missionaries assured him that polygamy started with Brigham Young.

Perhaps it is easier to believe the Restoration happened if is not inextricably connected to polygamy.

Don't most people who claim to believe in the Restoration believe that God revealed that to them?  Does your husband believe God also lied to him by telling him JS was His prophet?  Or did he only believe what the missionaries told him without any confirmation from the Holy Ghost?  Polygamy is one of many things that are difficult to believe in the restored church without some reassurances from God.

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, gopher said:

Don't most people who claim to believe in the Restoration believe that God revealed that to them? 

Do they?

 

2 minutes ago, gopher said:

Does your husband believe God also lied to him by telling him JS was His prophet?  Or did he only believe what the missionaries told him without any confirmation from the Holy Ghost?  Polygamy is one of many things that are difficult to believe in the restored church without some reassurances from God.

I think like with any spiritual test, facts were important to him too, along with feelings.