The Church is not involved in politics...

[_Drifting]

It’s not like he drank coffee or anything like that, but one LDS Church general authority must have had a little lapse in judgment last spring when he used his LDS Church email account to solicit campaign contributions for presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

W. Craig Zwick, a member of the church’s First Quorum of the Seventy, was in Las Vegas as part of a fundraising blitz for the Romney campaign when he got into an email exchange about setting up a golf date with an acquaintance in Salt Lake City.

"I’m down in Vegas helping Mitt Romney today," Zwick, whose son Spencer is Romney’s finance chairman, wrote from his church email address. "How much can you contribute to the Romney for President Committee today? You can only give $2,500 max for you and your wife. Let me know — let’s take zback America!"

That was sent right around the time of the church’s June 16, 2011 letter restating its policy on political participation, including this admonition: "General authorities and general officers of the church and their spouses and other ecclesiastical leaders serving full time should not personally participate in political campaigns, including promoting candidates, fundraising, speaking in behalf of or otherwise endorsing candidates, and making financial contributions."

Oops.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5 ... t.html.csp

Should he resign/be fired?

[_Buffalo]

Maybe given emeritus status like Paul H. Dunn.

[_subgenius]

Should he resign/be fired?

Nope.
its a minor violation, but you obviously would like to exaggerate the situation......so,please...proceed at will.

[_Drifting]

Should he resign/be fired?

Nope.
its a minor violation, but you obviously would like to exaggerate the situation......so,please...proceed at will.

At what point would it become a major violation?

[_RockSlider]

At what point would it become a major violation?

When its not a "wink, wink" rule/policy.

[_Drifting]

At what point would it become a major violation?

When its not a "wink, wink" rule/policy.

What would happen to a member or a Bishop or a Stake President if they did exactly the same thing?

[_subgenius]

What would happen to a member or a Bishop or a Stake President if they did exactly the same thing?

"Since they are not full-time officers of the Church, Area Seventies, stake presidents and bishops are free to contribute, serve on campaign committees and otherwise support candidates of their choice with the understanding they:...(see further information at link below)"

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official- ... neutrality

and to answer your previous question of "At what point would it become a major violation?"...likely never
perhaps you should read D&C 1:21-27

According to Church handbook, this action is not even worthy of a Disciplinary Council. In fact not only is this "transgression" not applicable to that Council as "mandatory" it is even noted under the "not necessary".
In order for it to be escalated to "major" it would have to involve another, and "actual", transgression, such as stealing fast offerings to donate to a campaign.
Your cause here is weak.

[_subgenius]

...Should he resign/be fired?

Our latest nominee for the Gnat-Strainer Award

[_Drifting]

What would happen to a member or a Bishop or a Stake President if they did exactly the same thing?

"Since they are not full-time officers of the Church, Area Seventies, stake presidents and bishops are free to contribute, serve on campaign committees and otherwise support candidates of their choice with the understanding they:...(see further information at link below)"

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official- ... neutrality

and to answer your previous question of "At what point would it become a major violation?"...likely never
perhaps you should read D&C 1:21-27

According to Church handbook, this action is not even worthy of a Disciplinary Council. In fact not only is this "transgression" not applicable to that Council as "mandatory" it is even noted under the "not necessary".
In order for it to be escalated to "major" it would have to involve another, and "actual", transgression, such as stealing fast offerings to donate to a campaign.
Your cause here is weak.

Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately you missed off quoting this:

"General Authorities and general officers of the Church and their spouses and other ecclesiastical leaders serving full-time should not personally participate in political campaigns, including promoting candidates, fundraising, speaking in behalf of or otherwise endorsing candidates, and making financial contributions."

Which clearly shows the GA in the OP has clearly and deliberately breached official FP policy. Sounds like a case for discipline to me....

[_subgenius]

Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately you missed off quoting this:

"General Authorities and general officers of the Church and their spouses and other ecclesiastical leaders serving full-time should not personally participate in political campaigns, including promoting candidates, fundraising, speaking in behalf of or otherwise endorsing candidates, and making financial contributions."

did not "miss it" because you had already covered that...your question was about Bishop/Stake President, correct?

Which clearly shows the GA in the OP has clearly and deliberately breached official FP policy. Sounds like a case for discipline to me....

Yes, clearly a violation...no one is disputing that......and that violation is a minor one, thus why there is no cause for a resignation or "firing"...(as was responded to your OP)
and as was stated in my previous post

....gnat strainer RAH!