TLDR
The reported Kyle S. McKay “standing before he does” drama is not just about one leader’s hurt feelings. It is about what happens when religious authority becomes so fragile that ordinary human movement gets treated like disrespect.
If the allegations are accurate, McKay’s behavior was not dignified, spiritual, or Christlike. It was thin-skinned authority theater.
A leader who needs a room full of people to wait for his body language before they stand has confused reverence with control.
A Church Leader Should Not Be This Fragile
There are small stories that reveal large problems.
The alleged Kyle S. McKay “standing before he does” incident is one of them. On its face, it sounds almost too petty to matter: a senior LDS leader reportedly becoming angry because people stood up before he did, as though the timing of their legs somehow threatened his priesthood authority.
But that is exactly why it matters.
Healthy authority does not panic when someone stands up. Healthy authority does not need choreography to feel respected. Healthy authority does not interpret normal human behavior as rebellion.
If a religious leader is so sensitive that people leaving, standing, singing imperfectly, or failing to read his cues becomes an insult to his office, the problem is not the congregation. The problem is the leader’s ego.
And if the system around him rewards that ego, the problem is bigger than one man.
The Allegation Is Ugly Because It Sounds Familiar
The specific claim circulating online is that McKay has yelled or lashed out at people for standing before he does, including an alleged incident connected to the ASU Institute in Tempe, Arizona. The same account claims he also complained about the audience not singing properly.
To be clear, this is not currently a fully verified scandal with a public transcript, official statement, or video everyone can inspect. It is an allegation.
But the reason it spread so quickly is not because people think standing etiquette is fascinating. It spread because it fits a pattern many former and current Latter-day Saints recognize immediately: leaders who turn deference into doctrine, manners into obedience tests, and ordinary meetings into little demonstrations of rank.
That is the deeper story.
A church culture that treats “who stands first” as spiritually meaningful has already wandered into dangerous territory. Not dangerous because anyone’s body position is important. Dangerous because it teaches members to watch authority instead of conscience.
Wait until he stands.
Do not speak after he speaks.
Notice who sits on the stand.
Recognize who presides.
Adjust your behavior to the man at the front of the room.
That is not humility. That is hierarchy dressed as reverence.
Priesthood Authority Should Not Need Stage Blocking
The LDS Church already has formal language around presiding authorities. That structure exists. No one needs to pretend it does not.
But there is a major difference between orderly meeting administration and emotional dependence on visible submission.
Inviting a presiding authority to sit on the stand is one thing. Expecting a room full of adults to treat his posture like a royal signal is another. One is procedure. The other is status performance.
And that is where this kind of drama becomes embarrassing.
A spiritual leader should not need a room to prove his importance by waiting for him to stand. He should not need the last word in every physical gesture. He should not need people frozen in place until he decides the meeting is emotionally safe to exit.
That is not priesthood power. That is insecurity with a title.
The most damning part is how small it is. This is not a doctrinal dispute. This is not a serious pastoral crisis. This is not a matter of protecting children, helping the poor, or comforting the grieving.
It is standing.
Standing.
If that is enough to trigger a public correction or angry outburst, then the office has become too entangled with personal vanity.
Reverence Is Not Obedience to a Man’s Ego
Defenders of this kind of behavior often hide behind reverence.
They say people should respect the office. They say meetings should be orderly. They say members should understand priesthood keys and presiding authority.
Fine. Respect matters. Order matters.
But reverence is not the same thing as submission to ego. Respect is not the same thing as theatrical deference. Order is not the same thing as everyone nervously monitoring the most powerful man in the room.
Real reverence points people toward God.
Fake reverence points people toward the leader.
That distinction matters. Because once the leader’s feelings become the object of the room’s attention, the meeting has already lost its spiritual center. People are no longer asking, “How do I draw closer to Christ?” They are asking, “Did I offend the man on the stand?”
That is a miserable kind of religion.
It trains people to be anxious, not holy. It teaches them to manage authority figures, not develop moral courage. It turns worship into behavior compliance.
And when leaders encourage that, they are not protecting sacred order. They are protecting themselves.
The Phrase “Priesthood Authority” Can Become a Weapon
The allegation says McKay was offended because standing early disrespected his priesthood authority.
That phrase is doing a lot of work.
In the best version of LDS belief, priesthood authority is supposed to mean service, stewardship, sacrifice, and responsibility. It is supposed to bless people. It is supposed to build them up. It is supposed to make leaders more accountable, not less.
But in the worst version, “priesthood authority” becomes a shield for thin skin.
It becomes a way to say, “My feelings are doctrine.”
It becomes a way to make ordinary people responsible for managing a leader’s sense of importance.
It becomes a way to turn embarrassment into sin.
That is spiritual manipulation. Not always dramatic. Not always conscious. But real.
A leader who feels personally wounded because people stand too early should not lecture the room about respect. He should ask himself why his authority feels so delicate.
The Real Scandal Is the Culture That Makes This Plausible
Even if this specific allegation were exaggerated, the fact that it is plausible says something.
People have heard versions of this before. They have seen the obsession with seating, speaking order, titles, handshakes, room placement, and who gets acknowledged first. They know the awkward hush that falls when someone important enters. They know how quickly a meeting can become less about worship and more about rank.
That does not happen by accident.
It happens when a religious culture spends too much time training people to honor offices and not enough time training leaders to be normal around power.
The healthiest leaders do not need to be managed like monarchs. They can be interrupted without collapsing. They can be disagreed with without pouting. They can be treated like people without interpreting it as rebellion.
The worst leaders cannot.
They need signals. They need deference. They need everyone to know who is in charge.
And when they do not get it, they call it disrespect.
McKay’s Position Makes the Allegation More Troubling
Kyle S. McKay is not just some local leader with an unfortunate temper. He is a General Authority Seventy. He is also the Church Historian and Recorder.
That matters because people in those roles do not merely represent themselves. They represent the institution. They model what authority is supposed to look like.
A leader in that position should be calmer, wiser, and more emotionally disciplined than the average person in the pews. He should not need symbolic dominance. He should not turn a meeting into a lesson about his rank. He should not make members feel that their natural movement is an affront to God’s order.
The higher the office, the lower the tolerance should be for petty authoritarian behavior.
That is the tradeoff. If leaders want the respect of high office, they should accept the scrutiny that comes with it.
This Is How People Learn to Distrust Leaders
Some members leave because of history. Some leave because of doctrine. Some leave because of policy. But many lose trust through moments like this.
Not one big explosion. Just a thousand small humiliations.
A leader scolds a room for not singing well enough.
A leader corrects people for standing too soon.
A leader implies his office has been dishonored because ordinary people failed to perform deference correctly.
A leader turns a church meeting into an authority drill.
People notice. Even when they say nothing, they notice.
And some of them remember it for years because the moment teaches them something important: this leader’s dignity is fragile, and the members are expected to protect it.
That is not a recipe for faith. It is a recipe for resentment.
The Standard Should Be Simple
No religious leader should yell at people for standing.
No religious leader should treat seating, posture, or exit timing as a test of spiritual loyalty.
No religious leader should use priesthood authority to launder personal offense.
No religious leader should make a congregation feel small so he can feel properly honored.
That should not be controversial.
If a meeting ends and people stand, let them stand. If someone misses a cue, let it go. If the hymn is not sung with enough gusto, survive it. If people are imperfectly reverent, model patience instead of demanding tribute.
A leader who cannot do that is not defending sacred order. He is exposing his own insecurity.
Final Thoughts
The alleged Kyle S. McKay standing drama is petty on the surface and serious underneath.
It is petty because the object of offense is absurd. People stood. They moved. They failed to wait for the important man to move first. A mature adult should be able to survive that.
But it is serious because it reveals a broader sickness in religious leadership culture: the temptation to mistake deference for faithfulness.
A church that follows Jesus should not produce leaders who need royal exit etiquette. It should produce leaders who wash feet, bear burdens, and absorb small slights without making them everyone else’s problem.
If the allegation is true, McKay did not defend priesthood authority.
He cheapened it.
He made it look brittle, vain, and embarrassingly small.
And no amount of title-based reverence can make that look like Christlike leadership.