On its face, the story makes the bishop sound stupid, but I try never to accept such stories at face value. The action has apparently been reviewed by the bishop, stake president (who I believe to be a very bright and savvy guy), President Samuelson and an apostle. The likelihood of administrative stupidity decreases (but admittedly doesn’t disappear) with so many involved.
I was also amused by the sentence: “An anonymous e-mail alerted The Tribune to the situation, not the Walton family.” I assume the Trib author meant “An anonymous e-mail, not from the Walton family, alerted The Tribune to the situation.” Isn’t the statement inherently self-contradicting? If the e-mail author were truly anonymous how could we know it wasn’t from the Waltons?
The biggest problem I have with the story is that we’re unlikely ever to know the truth. The only persons who are quoted with respect to the facts of the case are the Waltons who can’t be expected to be objective. And the apparent bad guys in the story cannot comment. If they’re withholding information that would vindicate them, I honor their fidelity to their obligations of confidentiality. At the moment, we just don’t know if they’re heroes or jerks.
|