Balance of Power in the Church and Righteousness

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is a volunteer organization. 

Leaders are very busy people. They get a lot of complaints and demands from the membership. The bishop wants to get home, but there is always one more interview, one more phone call, one more emergency check to write for welfare. 

 This is not set up to be a customer service operation.  There is no 800 number for complaints.

 Leaders talk to other leaders, and presume their competency. After all someone else picked this guy to handle his problems. There is a mentality that if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.  I think there is a tacit assumption that if this other leader cannot handle his problems who am I to step in?  Can I go home now?

On the other hand this is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 We have to do better.

One solution might be for someone on the High Council To take these kind of complaints and follow up on them  and be kind of an arbitrator between the bishop and the Stake president

I can see how something like that might work and also might not work. I wish I had the answer.

 

About this being a lay church, exactly. I've said this too repeatedly over the years.

You really describe well a common leaders' perspective from a position of empathy which imo is critical.

And your suggestion makes me think of the concept of paid local clergy.I've wondered before whether it were necessary. Or, perhaps better, more efficient training by area authorities in the policies and protocols of interventions. 

I like the idea of highcouncilmen review, since they might be more typically available since they're often older, kids more grown, etc...

Or maybe these Ordain Women are right and we're awaiting revelation to let women in the driver's seats  

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

About this being a lay church, exactly. I've said this too repeatedly over the years.

You really describe well a common leaders' perspective from a position of empathy which imo is critical.

And your suggestion makes me think of the concept of paid local clergy.I've wondered before whether it were necessary. Or, perhaps better, more efficient training by area authorities in the policies and protocols of interventions. 

I like the idea of highcouncilmen review, since they might be more typically available since they're often older, kids more grown, etc...

Or maybe these Ordain Women are right and we're awaiting revelation to let women in the driver's seats  

And the HC is typically the retired bishop's pool, lots of practical nitty gritty experience with nothing much to do.

I was actually joking about that in HC yesterday with a former SP who said that we should let the women take over like they do at home.

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Meadowchik]

On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 7:55 AM, mfbukowski said:

Definitely talk to the SP or if that fails, the Area Authority.   If you cannot figure out who that is, I think a letter to Church Headquarters is warranted- make it to the First Presidency.

They might never see it, but you will get a letter back which will be helpful.  Worst case- which is what you want anyway- they will contact your SP and tell him to take care of this mess.   If that fails, continue sending letters.  I can help you figure out who your area authority is if you PM me after you have tried these other avenues.

But don't just let it go.  You deserve at least an apology.

Guess what?? On Saturday morning, SP did just that! He apologized!

He patiently listened to my husband for an hour, then invited me in to say a few words, then to both of us said he was sorry for what we've suffered, sorry for the way our bishop handled it (saying he planned to have a very long talk with him) and sorry for anything he's done wrong in the matter.

It really made a difference to me, a world of difference!

The dynamic between member and Church really is like a relationship. If someone does something wrong to the other, it really does act as an impediment to the ongoing relationship.

Repentance matters even at this level.

I feel very bad for those who must work much harder to heal because a leader who wronged them did not make amends.

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Meadowchik

[smac97]

On 1/20/2017 at 6:25 PM, Meadowchik said:

This can be a tough one if you ever see it from the weaker end.

We're taught that our leaders decide on important matters like membership and temple worthiness. So what happens when a corrupt human element influences leadership decisions? (Has anyone NOT heard of corruption at the local leadership Ievel?) 

Well, such a situation would be unfortunate.  But the structure of the Church accounts for this.  

First, there is substantial "top down" guidance given to the "local leadership level."  The Church Handbook of Instructions is essentially a "how to" manual for bishops and stake presidents.  So if a local leader substantially deviates from the CHI, the aggrieved person can point to that and seen redress.

Second, local leaders, in the main, function "in council" with other leaders.  Bishops confer with their counselors, and with the Ward Council, and with the individual group leaders within the ward (RS president, HPGL, EQP, etc.).  A bishop running roughshod over these folks, ignoring their counsel, would likely be corrected quite quickly.  

Third, every leader of the Church is answerable to another leader.  So the RS president is answerable to the bishop, who is answerable to the stake president, who is answerable to the area seventy, who is answerable to the area presidency, who is answerable to an apostle (or the Twelve).  The chances of "a corrupt human element" improperly influencing the judgment and wisdom of so many different people at so many different levels of church governance about an "important matter" seems . . . low.  

On 1/20/2017 at 6:25 PM, Meadowchik said:

In reality, regular members have no clear form of recourse if they find that they're being treated unjustly by leadership.

This is not correct.  A member of the Relief Society who feels she is being mistreated by the RS president can seek redress from the bishop.  A member of a ward who feels he is being mistreated by the bishop can seek redress from the stake president, and so on.

On 1/20/2017 at 6:25 PM, Meadowchik said:

Sure they might approach a higher-up, but what is the process?

Picking up the phone.  Sending an email.  

On 1/20/2017 at 6:25 PM, Meadowchik said:

As far as I know, there's no actual protocol for this though I could be wrong.

The "protocol" is to make an appointment with the next-higher-up person in authority and, with patience and decorum and good grace, present the grievance.

On 1/20/2017 at 6:25 PM, Meadowchik said:

This, imo, is why acts of judgment must be treated with the most sacred of respect and humility. There is not a built-in system of checks and balances in the process, at least not in the objective sense.

I'm not sure what you mean.  A bishop's exercise of his authority is, in virtually all circumstances, checked and balanced by A) the CHI and other policies/procedures promulgated by the general authorities of the Church, B) by the councils of the Church with which he confers, and/or C) his stake president.

Your characterization of the Church appears to be very much at odds with my experience in the Church.

On 1/20/2017 at 6:25 PM, Meadowchik said:

The major intended safety net is obviously the Spirit.

Well, yes.  But the Spirit has, hopefully, previously infused the General Authorities when they promulgate policies and procedures which local leaders are obligated to follow (such as the CHI), and members of councils and the local level which confer with bishops and those who have decision-making authority, and the hierarchy of local leadership (ward leaders --> bishop --> stake president --> area authority --> area presidency, etc.).

There are, by my reckoning, all sorts of "safety nets" in the Church.

On 1/20/2017 at 6:25 PM, Meadowchik said:

Then there's protocol for disciplinary action, but it's far from guaranteed to work.

I don't understand.  What does "far from guaranteed" mean?  I have participated in many dozens of disciplinary proceedings at the ward and stake level.  These proceedings have, without exception, studiously conformed to the guidelines in the Church Handbook of Instructions.  They have proceeded without anger or malice or caprice or arbitrariness.  They have been conducted with sobriety, dignity, prayerfulness, and respect and love for the accused.  They have . . . worked.  They have fulfilled their intended purpose.

If there is an error in the discipline/excommunication process (as we have seen in some very few circumstances, such as Avraham Gileadi and Helmut Huebner), then such errors and consequent injustices will not be allowed to stand.  I am confident that God will sort such things out in the end (usually sooner rather than later - both Gileadi's and Huebner's excommunications were essentially erased).

On 1/20/2017 at 6:25 PM, Meadowchik said:

I've had life-transforming experiences through what I believe was inspired guidance from my church leaders. But I've also been hurt. So how do you process that pain if you've been mistreated by the Church?

It would seem that an injured person should A) seek redress for and correction of the injurious conduct, if possible and appropriate, and B) exercise patience and forgiveness.

On 1/20/2017 at 6:25 PM, Meadowchik said:

And are there any here who've ever apologised for anything they've said or done under the priesthood mantle?

Yes.  Many times.

On 1/20/2017 at 6:25 PM, Meadowchik said:

Personally I've heard (what I thought was) implied apology but never actual words for it, from local leadership.

Hmm.

On 1/20/2017 at 6:25 PM, Meadowchik said:

I think it could be good if we were more free to apologise, and if we heard apologies when we've been wronged by leaders.

I suppose.  Healthy doses of patience and forgiveness are also helpful.  It ain't easy being a local leader in the Church.  It's unpaid.  It takes substantial time away from family and personal life.  It's not "voluntary" (in that local leaders are called, they don't "volunteer").  They are sometimes put in a no-win situation.  

On 1/20/2017 at 6:25 PM, Meadowchik said:

As a mom I feel like me apologizing to my children has engendered more trusting relationships. We cannot get along honestly without the habit of apology.

I understand your perspective.  For myself, I would also like to see more in the way of patience with and forgiveness of each other.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Well, such a situation would be unfortunate.  But the structure of the Church accounts for this.  

First, there is substantial "top down" guidance given to the "local leadership level."  The Church Handbook of Instructions is essentially a "how to" manual for bishops and stake presidents.  So if a local leader substantially deviates from the CHI, the aggrieved person can point to that and seen redress.

Second, local leaders, in the main, function "in council" with other leaders.  Bishops confer with their counselors, and with the Ward Council, and with the individual group leaders within the ward (RS president, HPGL, EQP, etc.).  A bishop running roughshod over these folks, ignoring their counsel, would likely be corrected quite quickly.  

Third, every leader of the Church is answerable to another leader.  So the RS president is answerable to the bishop, who is answerable to the stake president, who is answerable to the area seventy, who is answerable to the area presidency, who is answerable to an apostle (or the Twelve).  The chances of "a corrupt human element" improperly influencing the judgment and wisdom of so many different people at so many different levels of church governance about an "important matter" seems . . . low.  

This is not correct.  A member of the Relief Society who feels she is being mistreated by the RS president can seek redress from the bishop.  A member of a ward who feels he is being mistreated by the bishop can seek redress from the stake president, and so on.

Picking up the phone.  Sending an email.  

The "protocol" is to make an appointment with the next-higher-up person in authority and, with patience and decorum and good grace, present the grievance.

I'm not sure what you mean.  A bishop's exercise of his authority is, in virtually all circumstances, checked and balanced by A) the CHI and other policies/procedures promulgated by the general authorities of the Church, B) by the councils of the Church with which he confers, and/or C) his stake president.

Your characterization of the Church appears to be very much at odds with my experience in the Church.

Well, yes.  But the Spirit has, hopefully, previously infused the General Authorities when they promulgate policies and procedures which local leaders are obligated to follow (such as the CHI), and members of councils and the local level which confer with bishops and those who have decision-making authority, and the hierarchy of local leadership (ward leaders --> bishop --> stake president --> area authority --> area presidency, etc.).

There are, by my reckoning, all sorts of "safety nets" in the Church.

I don't understand.  What does "far from guaranteed" mean?  I have participated in many dozens of disciplinary proceedings at the ward and stake level.  These proceedings have, without exception, studiously conformed to the guidelines in the Church Handbook of Instructions.  They have proceeded without anger or malice or caprice or arbitrariness.  They have been conducted with sobriety, dignity, prayerfulness, and respect and love for the accused.  They have . . . worked.  They have fulfilled their intended purpose.

If there is an error in the discipline/excommunication process (as we have seen in some very few circumstances, such as Avraham Gileadi and Helmut Huebner), then such errors and consequent injustices will not be allowed to stand.  I am confident that God will sort such things out in the end (usually sooner rather than later - both Gileadi's and Huebner's excommunications were essentially erased).

It would seem that an injured person should A) seek redress for and correction of the injurious conduct, if possible and appropriate, and B) exercise patience and forgiveness.

Yes.  Many times.

Hmm.

I suppose.  Healthy doses of patience and forgiveness are also helpful.  It ain't easy being a local leader in the Church.  It's unpaid.  It takes substantial time away from family and personal life.  It's not "voluntary" (in that local leaders are called, they don't "volunteer").  They are sometimes put in a no-win situation.  

I understand your perspective.  For myself, I would also like to see more in the way of patience with and forgiveness of each other.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Hey Smac, the last time I responded to a post like this of yours it was apparently ignored. So, with respect, I'm not sure I should bother this time. 

Cheers!

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Hey Smac, the last time I responded to a post like this of yours it was apparently ignored. So, with respect, I'm not sure I should bother this time. 

Cheers!

I'm not sure which post you are referencing here.  I do not recall "ignoring" your posts.  I have not been on the board much for the past while.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure which post you are referencing here.  I do not recall "ignoring" your posts.  I have not been on the board much for the past while.

Thanks,

-Smac

It was my Patriarchy thread.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is not correct.  A member of the Relief Society who feels she is being mistreated by the RS president can seek redress from the bishop.  A member of a ward who feels he is being mistreated by the bishop can seek redress from the stake president, and so on . . .

The "protocol" is to make an appointment with the next-higher-up person in authority and, with patience and decorum and good grace, present the grievance . . .

I'm not sure what you mean.  A bishop's exercise of his authority is, in virtually all circumstances, checked and balanced by A) the CHI and other policies/procedures promulgated by the general authorities of the Church, B) by the councils of the Church with which he confers, and/or C) his stake president.

There is, however, a culture of superiors giving "the benefit of the doubt" and assiduously seeking to support and not undercut underling leaders when there are appeals or protests. This is overall a very good thing. Where it wouldn't be a good thing is if one has a legitimate complaint, but the culture doesn't lend itself to fully considering the complaint. This does happen, and isn't a good thing when it happens. 

I think a higher ranking leader should uphold and support subordinate leaders, where possible, while seeking to correct errors or abuses when they crop up. What a difficult task! I met with the new stake president Sunday night to discuss four reinstatement/restoration of blessings cases that I will be sending his way. He told me that he has been inundated with people complaining about their bishops not giving them Church assistance. None from my ward, but that has happened in the past. I think in almost any conceivable case like that, a stake president should refuse to intervene --- while listening, and making it clear that he cares about them and their plight.

I had a member of my ward who received formal discipline who disputed the terms of the discipline. This went all the way up to Salt Lake, and the answer that came back was . . . it's whatever your bishop decides.  I was thankful that this was supported from the top --- unless there is very good cause, frequent overturning of local actions would not be a good thing. 

Every case is unique, and should be considered on its merits and unique circumstances.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Guess what?? On Saturday morning, SP did just that! He apologized!

He patiently listened to my husband for an hour, then invited me in to say a few words, then to both of us said he was sorry for what we've suffered, sorry for the way our bishop handled it (saying he planned to have a very long talk with him) and sorry for anything he's done wrong in the matter.

It really made a difference to me, a world of difference!

The dynamic between member and Church really is like a relationship. If someone does something wrong to the other, it really does act as an impediment to the ongoing relationship.

Repentance matters even at this level.

I feel very bad for those who must work much harder to heal because a leader who wronged them did not make amends.

 

FANTASTIC!!! Great news! 

This has been my experience in the church as well- I think your relationship analogy is exactly right.  If you want to carry it to the spiritual level, remember the scriptures describe the church as the "spouse" of Christ- so your analogy is on the money!

Edited February 1, 2017 by mfbukowski

[smac97]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

There is, however, a culture of superiors giving "the benefit of the doubt" and assiduously seeking to support and not undercut underling leaders when there are appeals or protests.

Perhaps in some circumstances.  But this speaks more to an imperfect implementation of the system which is presently in place.  My comments were rebutting Meadowchik's assertion that "regular members have no clear form of recourse if they find that they're being treated unjustly by leadership."

It is one thing to point to flaws in the system.  It is quite another to assert that there system at all.

3 hours ago, rongo said:

This is overall a very good thing. Where it wouldn't be a good thing is if one has a legitimate complaint, but the culture doesn't lend itself to fully considering the complaint. This does happen, and isn't a good thing when it happens. 

You are quite correct.  The implementation of the system is not always perfect.  

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I think a higher ranking leader should uphold and support subordinate leaders, where possible, while seeking to correct errors or abuses when they crop up. What a difficult task! I met with the new stake president Sunday night to discuss four reinstatement/restoration of blessings cases that I will be sending his way. He told me that he has been inundated with people complaining about their bishops not giving them Church assistance. None from my ward, but that has happened in the past. I think in almost any conceivable case like that, a stake president should refuse to intervene --- while listening, and making it clear that he cares about them and their plight.

I think the stake president should confer with the bishops in question and review the circumstances of each request for assistance, but otherwise should leave the ultimate decision in such matters to the bishops.  

In the U.S. legal system, there are trial courts who are answerable to courts of appeal.  Regarding pretty much all factual issues which a trial court judge addresses, the appellate courts will leave the trial court's findings alone except in cases where there is an "abuse of discretion."  In other words, the trial court judge is the one hearing the case, analyzing the evidence, listening to witness statements, etc., and hence is presumed to be in the best position to adjudicate factual issues.

I think a similar concept should be applied vis-a-vis bishops and stake presidents.

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I had a member of my ward who received formal discipline who disputed the terms of the discipline. This went all the way up to Salt Lake, and the answer that came back was . . . it's whatever your bishop decides.  I was thankful that this was supported from the top --- unless there is very good cause, frequent overturning of local actions would not be a good thing. 

Every case is unique, and should be considered on its merits and unique circumstances.

Agreed.  There should be some substantial - but not total - deference given to the bishop's decision.

Thanks

-Smac

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Guess what?? On Saturday morning, SP did just that! He apologized!

He patiently listened to my husband for an hour, then invited me in to say a few words, then to both of us said he was sorry for what we've suffered, sorry for the way our bishop handled it (saying he planned to have a very long talk with him) and sorry for anything he's done wrong in the matter.

It really made a difference to me, a world of difference!

The dynamic between member and Church really is like a relationship. If someone does something wrong to the other, it really does act as an impediment to the ongoing relationship.

Repentance matters even at this level.

I feel very bad for those who must work much harder to heal because a leader who wronged them did not make amends.

 

I am so happy for you and yours!!  Not one thing wrong with apologies and they should come from all levels of leadership.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, such a situation would be unfortunate.  But the structure of the Church accounts for this.  

First, there is substantial "top down" guidance given to the "local leadership level."  The Church Handbook of Instructions is essentially a "how to" manual for bishops and stake presidents.  So if a local leader substantially deviates from the CHI, the aggrieved person can point to that and seen redress.

Second, local leaders, in the main, function "in council" with other leaders.  Bishops confer with their counselors, and with the Ward Council, and with the individual group leaders within the ward (RS president, HPGL, EQP, etc.).  A bishop running roughshod over these folks, ignoring their counsel, would likely be corrected quite quickly.  

Third, every leader of the Church is answerable to another leader.  So the RS president is answerable to the bishop, who is answerable to the stake president, who is answerable to the area seventy, who is answerable to the area presidency, who is answerable to an apostle (or the Twelve).  The chances of "a corrupt human element" improperly influencing the judgment and wisdom of so many different people at so many different levels of church governance about an "important matter" seems . . . low.  

This is not correct.  A member of the Relief Society who feels she is being mistreated by the RS president can seek redress from the bishop.  A member of a ward who feels he is being mistreated by the bishop can seek redress from the stake president, and so on.

Picking up the phone.  Sending an email.  

The "protocol" is to make an appointment with the next-higher-up person in authority and, with patience and decorum and good grace, present the grievance.

I'm not sure what you mean.  A bishop's exercise of his authority is, in virtually all circumstances, checked and balanced by A) the CHI and other policies/procedures promulgated by the general authorities of the Church, B) by the councils of the Church with which he confers, and/or C) his stake president.

Your characterization of the Church appears to be very much at odds with my experience in the Church.

Well, yes.  But the Spirit has, hopefully, previously infused the General Authorities when they promulgate policies and procedures which local leaders are obligated to follow (such as the CHI), and members of councils and the local level which confer with bishops and those who have decision-making authority, and the hierarchy of local leadership (ward leaders --> bishop --> stake president --> area authority --> area presidency, etc.).

There are, by my reckoning, all sorts of "safety nets" in the Church.

I don't understand.  What does "far from guaranteed" mean?  I have participated in many dozens of disciplinary proceedings at the ward and stake level.  These proceedings have, without exception, studiously conformed to the guidelines in the Church Handbook of Instructions.  They have proceeded without anger or malice or caprice or arbitrariness.  They have been conducted with sobriety, dignity, prayerfulness, and respect and love for the accused.  They have . . . worked.  They have fulfilled their intended purpose.

If there is an error in the discipline/excommunication process (as we have seen in some very few circumstances, such as Avraham Gileadi and Helmut Huebner), then such errors and consequent injustices will not be allowed to stand.  I am confident that God will sort such things out in the end (usually sooner rather than later - both Gileadi's and Huebner's excommunications were essentially erased).

It would seem that an injured person should A) seek redress for and correction of the injurious conduct, if possible and appropriate, and B) exercise patience and forgiveness.

Yes.  Many times.

Hmm.

I suppose.  Healthy doses of patience and forgiveness are also helpful.  It ain't easy being a local leader in the Church.  It's unpaid.  It takes substantial time away from family and personal life.  It's not "voluntary" (in that local leaders are called, they don't "volunteer").  They are sometimes put in a no-win situation.  

I understand your perspective.  For myself, I would also like to see more in the way of patience with and forgiveness of each other.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I certainly agree with the spirit of your post, and I am perhaps more informed than you are about the details of the situation, but suffice it to say that in this case, the SP appeared to be uncooperative and the member did not know how to access any appeal above the SP.

Having been in leadership positions, you and I know how this works but the general membership does not.  Most would feel uncomfortable in contacting the SP again to find out how to "go over his head" after the bishop AND the SP appear to be not handling the problem properly.  It is a difficult situation.  Leaders have easy direct access to Area and higher authorities, but in the tiny tiny minority of cases in which the local leadership appears unresponsive or even antagonistic (we all make mistakes and are human) rank and file members do not know how to take the grievance to higher authorities.

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

There is, however, a culture of superiors giving "the benefit of the doubt" and assiduously seeking to support and not undercut underling leaders when there are appeals or protests. This is overall a very good thing. Where it wouldn't be a good thing is if one has a legitimate complaint, but the culture doesn't lend itself to fully considering the complaint. This does happen, and isn't a good thing when it happens. 

I think a higher ranking leader should uphold and support subordinate leaders, where possible, while seeking to correct errors or abuses when they crop up. What a difficult task! I met with the new stake president Sunday night to discuss four reinstatement/restoration of blessings cases that I will be sending his way. He told me that he has been inundated with people complaining about their bishops not giving them Church assistance. None from my ward, but that has happened in the past. I think in almost any conceivable case like that, a stake president should refuse to intervene --- while listening, and making it clear that he cares about them and their plight.

I had a member of my ward who received formal discipline who disputed the terms of the discipline. This went all the way up to Salt Lake, and the answer that came back was . . . it's whatever your bishop decides.  I was thankful that this was supported from the top --- unless there is very good cause, frequent overturning of local actions would not be a good thing. 

Every case is unique, and should be considered on its merits and unique circumstances.

Thank you. I think your comment on the culture is accurate. 

It is nice to hear of both you and Smac having such positive views of the process. One thing I'm hearing, however, is that there a starkly contrasting Church-cultural differences between US, England, French, etc. leaderships.  I would also say there are likely pockets of corruption when they do exist, rather than a perfectly even distribution. This would mean that most of us won't be privy to the really bad messups if and when they happen.

Anyways, one thing I couldn't quite articulate previously was about protocol: in the Church with disciplinary actions, as far as I know the leaders don't fill out a form for every single worthiness-based decision that they make. There's no form that gets reviewed or copied them sorted, counted, and rechecked.

And I'm not saying there should be, but rather that the system promotes some stuff and hinders others and we should be aware of its/our blind spots.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps in some circumstances.  But this speaks more to an imperfect implementation of the system which is presently in place.  My comments were rebutting Meadowchik's assertion that "regular members have no clear form of recourse if they find that they're being treated unjustly by leadership."

It is one thing to point to flaws in the system.  It is quite another to assert that there system at all.

You are quite correct.  The implementation of the system is not always perfect.  

I think the stake president should confer with the bishops in question and review the circumstances of each request for assistance, but otherwise should leave the ultimate decision in such matters to the bishops.  

In the U.S. legal system, there are trial courts who are answerable to courts of appeal.  Regarding pretty much all factual issues which a trial court judge addresses, the appellate courts will leave the trial court's findings alone except in cases where there is an "abuse of discretion."  In other words, the trial court judge is the one hearing the case, analyzing the evidence, listening to witness statements, etc., and hence is presumed to be in the best position to adjudicate factual issues.

I think a similar concept should be applied vis-a-vis bishops and stake presidents.

Agreed.  There should be some substantial - but not total - deference given to the bishop's decision.

Thanks

-Smac

This is one of those extremely few cases in which the local leadership did not handle the situation properly

In the case of the courts and making appeals, the individuals involved are represented by an attorney who knows how to make appeals.  There is no such analogy in the church.

As we know, lots are drawn in disciplinary councils to assure that both the interests of both the individual and church are represented.  Perhaps one who drew the lot to represent the individual's interest could be appointed to make sure that the individual has access to the appeal process in case the system breaks down.  On the ward level, that might be a Bishop's counselor, or on the stake level perhaps a high council member.