A priest in my ward was ordained to elder

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

I guess we're reading Waters' post differently. I thought it was well put, that GA's do things we might despise or condemn, but that doesn't have to cloud the big picture. Although any member of the church is somehow, whether they like it or not, an heir to both the positive and negative legacies of the leaders and members who came before, in the long run the positive can still outshine the negative.

I'm sure Stapley did a lot of good things in his life; Waters wondered if people in his own priesthood line might have done worse things than write that letter. It paints LDS leadership as a rich, complex spectrum of humanity, just as complex and ambiguous as any of us. I personally find this characterization quite appealing. But, I'm a humanist, after all.

As do I, but a more important point, which maybe only I believe, is that the leaders really are not better people than the rank and file members who serve diligently every day without notice or fanfare, but because they're no better, they have the exact same failings, biases and flaws. It explains a lot.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Tex still has leader worship believing they are more righteous than the average hometeacher, bishop, YM President or stake patriarch.

If one views these men as mortal men no different at all than any other, simply possessing a different administrative responsibility, then it explains behavior such as that of Stapely.

What his status in the hereafter is will not be determined by us.

This is a foolish conflation, and I think you know it. It's not even worth the time I'm taking to type this sentence.

Originally Posted by Solon

I guess we're reading Waters' post differently. I thought it was well put, that GA's do things we might despise or condemn, but that doesn't have to cloud the big picture. Although any member of the church is somehow, whether they like it or not, an heir to both the positive and negative legacies of the leaders and members who came before, in the long run the positive can still outshine the negative.

I'm sure Stapley did a lot of good things in his life; Waters wondered if people in his own priesthood line might have done worse things than write that letter. It paints LDS leadership as a rich, complex spectrum of humanity, just as complex and ambiguous as any of us. I personally find this characterization quite appealing. But, I'm a humanist, after all.

I believe that the men who fill such difficult and sacred callings as these deserve special deference. It doesn't mean we excuse their mistakes, but I do think it means we don't focus on them disproportionately. There is something sinister in taking pleasure in the mistakes of others, even if it's framed as an altruistic "it's so reassuring to know they're human too."

One of the primary reasons we focus on the lost 116 pages, probably the prophet's most glaring early mistake, is to understand how he learned from it and how he behaved for the rest of his life as a result. To that end, it's a useful lesson.

But the line between learning from others' (even leaders') mistakes, and taking some secret schadenfreud from it, is very thin.

[MikeWaters]

SIEQ is right. Hero-worship and deference even in sin is wrong. The notion of obeying despite moral sin, as we are taught, is wrong, wrong, wrong.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

I believe that the men who fill such difficult and sacred callings as these deserve special deference. It doesn't mean we excuse their mistakes, but I do think it means we don't focus on them disproportionately. There is something sinister in taking pleasure in the mistakes of others, even if it's framed as an altruistic "it's so reassuring to know they're human too."

[. . .]

But the line between learning from others' (even leaders') mistakes, and taking some secret schadenfreud from it, is very thin.

I think you make a good point here: there's nothing to be gained delighting in others' mistakes, other than TV ratings for the paparazzi.

I took Waters' post not as an indictment of Stapley, but as an observation of the ambiguities that can arise when we mix the authority of god with the abilities of humans. There's a lot of gray in there, but somehow the shade is always more white than black.

My lame metaphors aside, I felt optimism when I read Waters' post.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Solon

I think you make a good point here: there's nothing to be gained delighting in others' mistakes, other than TV ratings for the paparazzi.

I took Waters' post not as an indictment of Stapley, but as an observation of the ambiguities that can arise when we mix the authority of god with the abilities of humans. There's a lot of gray in there, but somehow the shade is always more white than black.

My lame metaphors aside, I felt optimism when I read Waters' post.

Fair enough.

Maybe I've just become accustomed to Waters' tendency to mask his criticisms with faux altruism and self-righteousness.