Stake appeals process for disciplinary council?

[webbles]

I've been reading a few court filings in the Bisbee case and the plaintiffs bring up an interesting point about the appeal to the Stake.  From depositions that they made (I believe from one of the bishops and the stake president), it appears that the reason for why Adams was excommunicated was not brought up in the appeal.  The plaintiffs don't believe that and I kind of agree.  I've never been involved at a stake level appeal so I'm wondering if someone on here knows how it works.  What is brought up in the appeals?  Do they talk about why the excommunication happened?  In a case where a person abused a child, had extramarital affairs, and had sex with his mother, how much would be discussed in the appeal?  Or is the discussion more of a general discussion on whether the person is repentant or not?

[helix]

The handbook is light on this, with the gist of it here:

Quote

A person who appeals a decision specifies in writing the alleged errors or unfairness in the procedure or decision.

If a membership council is held to consider an appeal, one of two decisions is possible:

• Let the initial decision stand.

• Modify the initial decision.

From trainings I've seen, appeals are generally for mistakes and errors, and not because you think another person can give you a more favorable outcome. So for example, an endowed member who has membership removal at the ward level should appeal because that was a error of the process.

In the case of the Brisbee ward, he had at least four affairs and relationships with his mother, and apparently the child abuse part apparently wasn't much of a factor. So his was one of the clearest cut cases of membership removal you'll see.

[The Nehor]

It is what Helix said. The appeal is for abuses or errors in the process. The person making the appeal submits in writing the errors they think took place.

Although it is not in any way a legal court it is somewhat similar to most appeal courts in the US. They don’t “retr”y the facts of the case. They decide if the “law” (the rules) were followed and whether there was anything unfair to the member. They may instruct the Bishop to perform the council again if new information came to light. They can also let the decision stand or overturn it.

Unless the appeal touched on the reasons for the excommunication it probably wouldn’t be part of the appeal. The Stake President would have been told the nature of the offense before the first membership council but it is very possibly and probably even likely that they didn’t go over the offense In the council unless the reasons given for appealing touched on it.

Edited February 12, 2023 by The Nehor

[CV75]

"...alleged errors or unfairness in the procedure or decision...", including:

Edited February 12, 2023 by CV75

[Calm]

Adams cared enough about his membership to appeal?  I would have thought he would have laughed about it, he was so blatant with his affairs (or so it seemed to me the way it has been reported).

Here is discussion about the appeal, I can see why webbles was wondering…

https://mormonr.org/sources

8th down, “Deposition of bishop Mauzy where he explains that Paul Adams was excommunicated, and his appeal to the Stake Presidency was unsuccessful” (can’t directly link)

Edited February 12, 2023 by Calm

[webbles]

Thanks for the information.  Another question, in an appeal, is it just the Stake presidency or does the High Council get involved as well?

 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Adams cared enough about his membership to appeal?  I would have thought he would have laughed about it, he was so blatant with his affairs (or so it seemed to me the way it has been reported).

His membership and excommunication keeps getting stranger to me.  There was discovered a letter from Adams to Leizza where he talks about the excommunication (I can't attach it as it is a handwritten letter that is almost 1MB and doesn't compress very well).  He says that, shortly before the excommunication, he was "attending church regularly and fulfilling callings and assignments faithfully".

Then the excommunication happened and he believes it was a mistake:

Quote

I believe that my excommunication was one of those mistakes that I am referring to.

He gives three reasons why it was a mistake:

1) He had already repented

Quote

At that time, though still working to overcome my pornography addiction, I had repented of and not repeated any other major sins and was indulging in pornography but very little and infrequently.

2) It would destroy him

Quote

I was not at that time able to deal with the intense pain, confusion, loss, disappointment, and utter loss of the gift of the Holy Ghost that accompanied the revocation of my church membership, so important it was to me! I knew this and told the bishop this in the church court.  I knew that at that partcular tim, excommunication would destroy me.  When it happened, it was the most painful, gut-wrenching, and soul-rendering experience of my entire life.

3) Improper procedure

Quote

The excommunication was a mistake.  After I refused to speak in the church court, excommunication was pronounced, though the stake president later confirmed that he would have overruled the excommunication under these circumstances.  He also said that once the decision was pronounced, it was not proper for them to reconvene the court to hear my confession, even at my request.

Their decision had devastated both of us, and you and I counciled together, and together we decided I would ask the court to reconviene and hear my confession, in hopes this display of humility and contrition might save me from excommunication. Here was also a mistake on our part. Had I not done what we decided together, I ultimately would not have been excommunicated at that time, as the Stake President had said. I would have had to go through it at some point in order to progress, but could have done so when I was ready and it would be beneficial to me.

This is the stated purpose of excommunication in church policy. It was not meant to punish, but to help; to help one repent and improve!  was already on the right track at that point, and as I had known and warned, excommunication would have the exact opposite effect of what they wanted to achieve.  And if the court had followed proper procedure, it would have never happened and I'm sure our lives would be very different today.  I would be progressing towards the temple with you, our family would be growing stronger with me at the head, and I wouldn't have traveled the path that ended with m in prison, the children ripped from you, and you filing for divorce, apparently having fallen out of love with me.

The Stake President elected to uphold the church court decision from the second hearing in which I confessed, even though it was improperly held and never should have taken place.  Was that another mistake?  Perhaps or perhaps not, but the decision and operation of the church court the bishop held certainly was.  The Stake President said so at the appeal.

 

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, webbles said:

Thanks for the information.  Another question, in an appeal, is it just the Stake presidency or does the High Council get involved as well?

I believe it used to be the Stake Presidency and the High Council but recent changes in procedure now only require the Stake Presidency. The Stake Presidency can ask the High Council to attend a membership council if they feel it would be helpful.

This change is believed to have been implemented because it is intimidating to have 16 people in the room with you. 4 is much more manageable and conducive to discussion and assistance with repentance.

It also removed the difficulty of finding a time where everyone could attend and often having to find substitutes for those who cannot attend. Being able to fill in for absent members of the High Council in a membership council is the only official church duty I know of that can still apply to High Priests that aren’t serving in a High Priest calling since they ended High Priest groups. Also rare since from what I hear the Stake Presidency rarely asks the High Council to attend membership councils.

Edited February 12, 2023 by The Nehor

[Calm]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

His membership and excommunication keeps getting stranger to me.  There was discovered a letter from Adams to Leizza where he talks about the excommunication (I can't attach it as it is a handwritten letter that is almost 1MB and doesn't compress very well).  He says that, shortly before the excommunication, he was "attending church regularly and fulfilling callings and assignments faithfully".

Then the excommunication happened and he believes it was a mistake:

He gives three reasons why it was a mistake:

1) He had already repented

2) It would destroy him

3) Improper procedure

 

Reads like pure manipulation to me. Narcissistic behavior too in that he is blaming others for his behaviour, he would not have sinned and tossed their lives in the toilet, treated her so poorly if only others had acted properly.  It is essentially one of those nonapology apologies.  If he had truly already repented, why wasn’t he ready to confess?

It would destroy him?  What about his destroying of others?  It is all about him and only him.

Did he write this to her while in jail?  My guess is he was trying to rewrite her memories, tell her what to say. It’s gaslighting at its finest. Yech. “Counseled together”?  More likely if it actually occurred and is not a total fabrication, he was bullying her at that time into agreement in hopes her testimony to the SP would convince the SP the excommunication was wrong. 

Was it a bishop’s court or the high council?  It sounds like it was a bishop’s court as the bishop stated it was him and his councilors.  At the time, iirc, an active elder would have had a church court held in front of the SP and High Council (it was 2012 or 2013, the big changes took place after those years iirc).  So if he was active and fulfilling callings, it would have been only for a short time, correct? (Generic question to anyone in the know).  

added:  went back and checked, he was only a priest, which is why it wasn’t the HC.  This suggests major inactivity to me as the only adult priests I know are ones who are not attending. Besides home teaching, what calling would an adult priest have? (To anyone again)

My admittedly limited experience is they try to work with an adult priest to become an elder if at all possible.  The ones I know were active for about a month before being ordained as an elder.  We had one not too long ago in our ward who is as far as I know a nice guy, but who struggles with tobacco addiction big time (had been in military and has health issues). 

There is no way the SP would have said those things Imo.  Just because someone doesn’t confess or refuses to talk hasn’t stop any excommunication I have heard of.  Nor has confession and claims of repentance for significant sins.  

Edited February 13, 2023 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

I've been reading a few court filings in the Bisbee case and the plaintiffs bring up an interesting point about the appeal to the Stake.  From depositions that they made (I believe from one of the bishops and the stake president), it appears that the reason for why Adams was excommunicated was not brought up in the appeal.  The plaintiffs don't believe that and I kind of agree.  I've never been involved at a stake level appeal so I'm wondering if someone on here knows how it works.  What is brought up in the appeals?  Do they talk about why the excommunication happened?  In a case where a person abused a child, had extramarital affairs, and had sex with his mother, how much would be discussed in the appeal?  Or is the discussion more of a general discussion on whether the person is repentant or not?

This shows no understanding of the purpose of excommunication. It’s part of the process to restore the member to full fellowship. 

[webbles]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did he write this to her while in jail?  My guess is he was trying to rewrite her memories, tell her what to say. It’s gaslighting at its finest. Yech. “Counseled together”?  More likely if it actually occurred and is not a total fabrication, he was bullying her at that time into agreement in hopes her testimony to the SP would convince the SP the excommunication was wrong. 

He wrote it from jail.  He actually sent it to his father or brother and asked them to forward it to his wife as she was not responding to him (and appears to have started divorce proceedings).  She either did not receive it or threw it away.  The brother sent the letter to the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Was it a bishop’s court or the high council?  It sounds like it was a bishop’s court as the bishop stated it was him and his councilors.  At the time, iirc, an active elder would have had a church court held in front of the SP and High Council (it was 2012 or 2013, the big changes took place after those years iirc).  So if he was active and fulfilling callings, it would have been only for a short time, correct? (Generic question to anyone in the know).  

added:  went back and checked, he was only a priest, which is why it wasn’t the HC.  This suggests major inactivity to me as the only adult priests I know are ones who are not attending. Besides home teaching, what calling would an adult priest have? (To anyone again)

My admittedly limited experience is they try to work with an adult priest to become an elder if at all possible.  The ones I know were active for about a month before being ordained as an elder.  We had one not too long ago in our ward who is as far as I know a nice guy, but who struggles with tobacco addiction big time (had been in military and has health issues). 

Yeah, he never received the Melchizedek priesthood.  But he's been a member of the church since before their marriage.  And they did attend several different wards throughout their marriage.  It is strange that he stayed a priest the whole time.  I think that is something that the plaintiffs feel is a sign that the church knew he was a bad person.  But I haven't seen any reason of why he was never ordained an elder, so it is all speculation.  He has been dealing with pornography since before his marriage (Leizza says she knew about it before they married) so that could be the issue, but I know men who have pornography issues and still are ordained as an elder so I'm doubtful.

As for callings, in June of 2013, several members of the ward sent letters of recommendation to the Border Patrol because Adams was a subject of administrative review (Leizza's letter seemed to indicate that it was because of an affair).  They mention that he helped keep the building clean and helped out with setting up a satellite broadcast.

Those letters are an interesting window to the time.  He will be excommunicated 1 month later.  I wonder what they would have said if they had been written 2-3 months later.  One of the more interesting letters is one from a woman who has taught high school and elementary school for almost 20 years.  She talks about the Adams children and says:

Quote

In [primary], the children participate, are alert and reflect the attention given by their parents at home.  They are bright, healthy, clean, and well mannered.  It is a joy to see them make progress in their young lives.  Sometimes Paul is in the classroom because one of his children is giving a talk, or reporting on a project.  There is an obviously healthy father-child relationship.  I have been observing this every since the Adams family moved into our congregation, almost 5 years now.  It really doesn't get any better than this.  Paul is an honest to goodness real participating father.  The children are blessed to have him as their dad.

I think that letter is an interesting counterpoint to the lady who, in her deposition, said that everyone was gossiping about abuse happening in the family.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, webbles said:

think that letter is an interesting counterpoint to the lady who, in her deposition, said that everyone was gossiping about abuse happening in the family.

Very interesting.  

[Dario_M]

If a president or bishop abuses his child and even have sex with his uhm...own mother🤢 i find it actually justifiably that he get excommunicated. 

I don't understand why he desirves an apeal. 🍏  But okay that is just me you know. 🤷‍♂️

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

If a president or bishop abuses his child and even have sex with his uhm...own mother🤢 i find it actually justifiably that he get excommunicated. 

I don't understand why he desirves an apeal. 🍏  But okay that is just me you know. 🤷‍♂️

He wasn’t a bishop, not even a very active member though his wife and kids were.  He had the priesthood that he probably got when he turned 16, but had never been ordained as an elder.

The controversy of this case is whether or not bishops should report abuse to the police if the abuser confesses to them.  Church policy says do not report confessions unless required by law.  This is because it is believed abusers will confess less and be less likely to seek help if they know they will be reported.  

My memory says statistics don’t show any improvement in areas that have mandatory reporting laws, I think someone (Hamba maybe?) posted a report to the board awhile back.

This is a topic on this board primarily because there is a lawsuit against the Church and two bishops claiming if they had reported what they knew, the children would have suffered much less abuse than they did.  However, there is controversy on just what the bishops actually knew and what the father, Paul Adams, actually confessed.  The father committed suicide and the mother has already finished her prison time and is barred from seeing the kids, so the criminal side of the story appears to be resolved except perhaps for the mandatory reporting issue.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Calm

[Dario_M]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

He wasn’t a bishop, not even a very active member though his wife and kids were.  He had the priesthood that he probably got when he turned 16, but had never been ordained as an elder.

Oh sorry i have read it wrong. My bet

But he still had the Priesterhood though. So i find that he may be get excommunicated. Especially for abusing his child. But that is just me you know. 🤷‍♂️

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

My memory says statistics don’t show any improvement in areas that have mandatory reporting laws, I think someone (Hamba maybe?) posted a report to the board awhile back.

Agree i also don't think that inprovements will be made soon. 

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is a topic on this board primarily because there is a lawsuit against the Church and two bishops claiming if they had reported what they knew, the children would have suffered much less abuse than they did.  However, there is controversy on just what the bishops actually knew and what the father, Paul Adams, actually confessed.  The father committed suicide and the mother has already finished her prison time and is barred from seeing the kids, so the criminal side of the story appears to be resolved except perhaps for the mandatory reporting issue.

But why needed the mother to go to prison? Why not that man... Her husband? The father who abuses his child??  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Oh sorry i have read it wrong. My bet

But he still had the Priesterhood though. So i find that he may be get excommunicated. Especially for abusing his child. But that is just me you know. 🤷‍♂️

Agree i also don't think that inprovements will be made soon. 

But why needed the mother to go to prison? Why not that man... Her husband? The father who abuses his child??  

Going from memory….

The man was in jail and heading towards trial when he killed himself.  Evidence was solid.  My guess is he would have gone away for a long, long time, if not forever for raping his daughters and abusing his sons.  
 

The mother went to prison for 2 years for abuse, though she claimed she only beat them because her husband said he would if she didn’t and she wasn’t as bad.  But she never reported the abuse that she had to be aware of, won’t go into the more graphic details save to say the dad bragged he had the perfect situation because his wife didn’t care what he did.  There was something definitely mentally off about her in that even after a year of parenting classes while she was in jail, she thought physically hurting a child was appropriate discipline.  No empathy or sympathy for her children on her part.  The bishop had tried to get the mother to open up or go to the police herself, she instead said she would protect the kids and gave the impression to the bishop she was doing so, but didn’t.  Her sister minister kept pushing her to open up and was more than willing to help her leave, but as far as the sister minister could guess, it was the mother being abused.  The mother’s brother stated he thought she was autistic, might have been that or something else.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Calm

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Going from memory….

The man was in jail and heading towards trial when he killed himself.  Evidence was solid.  My guess is he would have gone away for a long, long time, if not forever for raping his daughters and abusing his sons.  

Oooh. How horible. In what kind of world do we live right? 😞

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 

 

 

The mother went to prison for 2 years for abuse, though she claimed she only beat them because her husband said he would if she didn’t and she wasn’t as bad.  But she never reported the abuse that she had to be aware of, won’t go into the more graphic details save to say the dad bragged he had the perfect situation because his wife didn’t care what he did.  There was something definitely mentally off about her in that even after a year of parenting classes while she was in jail, she thought physically hurting a child was appropriate discipline.  No empathy or sympathy for her children on her part.  The bishop had tried to get the mother to open up or go to the police herself, she instead said she would protect the kids and gave the impression to the bishop she was doing so, but didn’t.  Her sister minister kept pushing her to open up and was more than willing to help her leave, but as far as the sister minister could guess, it was the mother being abused.  The mother’s brother stated he thought she was autistic, might have been that or something else.

Okay. I allready read this storie and i notice that this is a really sad one. 😞 And unfortunately it is also not really clear who is telling the truth i find. How can people be so abusive anyway?

I am always suprised when i hear or read stories like this. How people can be like this. And i feel sorry for the kids mostely. They are the ones that are damaged the most mentaly. And maybe on a later age even more. So sad. What a sad world we live in a actually.

Thank you for explaining te me dear Calm.  

Edited February 13, 2023 by Dario_M

[rpn]

Perp dad was keeping up appearances.   Excommunication (In a small town with lots of members who would know the possibilities of the facts) would likely have affected his Border Patrol status and reputation.   Of course he was trying to get it overturned.  He was still denying it  (and scripturally, it required two witnesses --- in sexual behavior situations it is not uncommon to be unable to prove what the member refuses to admit to in the council, and unless a member agrees that the bishop to whom any original confession is made has authority to share it with others, they don't even have ONE of the required two---:  so if neither mom nor children were testifying, there may well have BEEN a procedural problem with the two witnesses

[smac97]

On 2/12/2023 at 7:58 AM, webbles said:

I've been reading a few court filings in the Bisbee case and the plaintiffs bring up an interesting point about the appeal to the Stake.  From depositions that they made (I believe from one of the bishops and the stake president), it appears that the reason for why Adams was excommunicated was not brought up in the appeal. 

Could you provide references?  I'd like to review the depositions.

On 2/12/2023 at 7:58 AM, webbles said:

The plaintiffs don't believe that and I kind of agree. 

Yes, it would seem strange for a person to appeal his excommunication, but the stake president would make no inquiry as to the substance of why the excommunication occurred.

But why would the plaintiffs in the civil case care about this?

On 2/12/2023 at 7:58 AM, webbles said:

I've never been involved at a stake level appeal so I'm wondering if someone on here knows how it works.  What is brought up in the appeals?  Do they talk about why the excommunication happened?  In a case where a person abused a child, had extramarital affairs, and had sex with his mother, how much would be discussed in the appeal?  Or is the discussion more of a general discussion on whether the person is repentant or not?

I have previously been involved in quite a few disciplinary procedures, but none involving an appeal.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, it would seem strange for a person to appeal his excommunication, but the stake president would make no inquiry as to the substance of why the excommunication occurred.

The Stake President would have already known. A bishop informs the Stake President before holding a membership council.

[blackstrap]

To misquote 1 Tim 3:1 " He who desires the office of Bishop... has a screw loose " 

[webbles]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you provide references?  I'd like to review the depositions.

I don't have any references to online resources.  I've been grabbing the documents from the AZ court website.

From the "Plaintiff's response and controverting statement of facts to church defendants' statement of facts in support of church defendants' motions for summary judgement" (document id 2118121), page 38

Quote

Bishop Mauzy refused to disclose what happened during the Stake-level appellate council based on privilege; however, he claimed that none of the attendees who were there to decide if Paul Adams' excommunication should be upheld or reversed were told why he was excommunicated.  (Ex. 49: Mauzy deposition pp 121:16-122:19)  Stake President Goates also refused to disclose what was said at the appellate council, but stated what is "brought forth is the reason for the appeal" and the members of the appeal committee might not know the underlying reason for excommunication.  (Ex. 50: Kevin Goates deposition transcript pp. 31-33, 42-44)  A jury will need to decide if they find Defendant Mauzy's and Non-Party Stake President's Goates' testimony that the "judges" deciding whether to uphold or revers an excommunication may not know the reason for the excommunication is truthful.

The Exhibit 50 for President Goates doesn't contain anything like what they describe but it is a subset of the entire deposition.  I have yet to find his entire deposition on the AZ court site.

But I have Bishop Mauzy's full deposition.  It is document id 2081051.  The pertinent part starts on page 120:

Quote

Q. So did you speak at the process?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you speak about why he was excommunicated
at the process? Without disclosing it.
A. No, I did not speak about what took place at the
ex- -- at our council.
Q. How did the members that were there that were
going to decide whether he was going to be excommunicated learn what he was being excommunicated
for?
A. They --
MR. MALEDON: Object to the form.
A. They -- yeah, they did not know.
Q. (By Mr. Manly) Well --
A. He had his right to voice his opinion, why he
objected to the excommunication.
Q. Oh, okay.
A. But never mentioned a word, what it was about.
Q. Well, didn't they know what it was about?
A. No, sir.
Q. How do you know that?
A. Because what we discuss is confidential, in the
excommunication, at our council.

Q. So you're telling me that they had an appeal
where the basis for ex- -- your testimony to this jury
in this case is going to be that they had an appellate
process with a man who apparently was accused of
something serious enough to be excommunicated, and what
he was being excommunicated for was never discussed with
the panel that was going to excommunicate him?
MR. MALEDON: That's not -- just object to the
form. Counsel, that's --
A. Yeah, I --

MR. MANLY: What's funny?
MR. MALEDON: It's not funny. I'm not laughing.
I'm just -- I'm wondering why you feel necessary to
distort the facts the way do. You know he says -- he's
already testified that the excommunication occurred
before the appeal. He told you who was there.
Q. (By Mr. Manly) He's appealing his
excommunication, right, trying to say, "My
excommunication is wrong," correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And what you're telling me is the panel
that's going to decide that appeal doesn't know why he
was excommunicated? Is that what you're going to tell
the jury?
A. The panel? Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Just to be clear, the panel was not told,
by him or you or anybody else in any way, shape, or
form, why he was going to be excommunicated?
A. To my remember, no, sir, they weren't.

 

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, webbles said:

I don't have any references to online resources.  I've been grabbing the documents from the AZ court website.

From the "Plaintiff's response and controverting statement of facts to church defendants' statement of facts in support of church defendants' motions for summary judgement" (document id 2118121), page 38

The Exhibit 50 for President Goates doesn't contain anything like what they describe but it is a subset of the entire deposition.  I have yet to find his entire deposition on the AZ court site.

But I have Bishop Mauzy's full deposition.  It is document id 2081051.  The pertinent part starts on page 120:

Hmm.  I guess I could see this happening.  If the "appeal" is not about the "facts" (what happened), but rather about the "law" (whether the procedures and protocols were followed), then the basis for the excommunication could be irrelevant.  The purpose of the appeal is not to second-guess the findings of the bishopric.

Moreover, an "appeal" only widens the circle of people with the confidential information.  

Thanks,

-Smac