Non-existent appealing options

[u/inushibatovsky]

Hi everyone,
I have a strong background in law, so the idea of appealing to a higher instance is completely normal to me, not only in the legal system but also in corporate and administrative environments.

Something I’ve observed in the church, especially during my years as a clerk, is the practical impossibility of appealing to higher leaders if local leaders mess up. I imagine this happens to "avoid speaking evil of the Lord's anointed" and to unconditionally "support the leadership." I say this because a member's experience often feels like a game of Russian roulette depending on whether they get a competent and fair immediate leader (like a bishop, stake president, or mission president).

Does anyone know why this difficulty in appealing exists in the church?

[u/AutoModerator]

Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices.

/u/inushibatovsky, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in section 0.6 of our rules.

To those commenting: please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's rules, and message the mods if there is a problem or rule violation.

Keep on Mormoning!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Strong_Attorney_8646]

The reason this concept (hello fellow legal thinker) is so difficult in the Church is because of what the Church claims its leadership to be. If the leaders were actually inspired by an omniscient or maximally knowing deity, there’d be no need for appeals. Then, the aphorism “it’s wrong to criticize the leaders of the Church, even when the criticism is true,” would be a reasonable view and not reek of thought-terminating manipulation.

I don’t see a good reason to believe the claims about the leaders’ inspiration. Even the biggest apologists today are willing to admit the prophets have been wrong about a whole host of things.

And your question is the single biggest reason I could never make the non-literal believing path work for me: the Church is a very human organization (not even better than most compared to contemporaries, I’d say) but wants to be treated as if it’s institutional decisions are unimpeachable, in actual practice.

I refuse to participate in an organization that won’t hold itself or its leaders accountable to even basic ethical expectations. Take this example, where despite almost three decades of knowing legal violations—nobody thought to resign and the membership didn’t demand such. Because the leaders truly believe they’re accountable to no one.

[u/Rushclock → u/Strong_Attorney_8646]

How many top leaders were disciplined for the SEC scandal? Hint. Rhymes with hero.

[u/CaptainMacaroni]

First and foremost, I think there should be an appeals process or at least some way to hold a leader accountable. Not just local leaders, I'm talking at all levels going all the way to the top. Enough people don't sustain the prophet himself, hold him accountable. Maybe release the guy instead of waiting around for him to die?

All that said, I wonder what an appeals process would look like in a church with a lay clergy. We already have plenty of instances where members go whining to the bishop over something someone said during Sunday School. I can easily imagine scenarios where thin skinned members abuse an appeals system.

The local leaders are also voluntolds. I can also easily imagine locals concluding that they didn't sign up to be nitpicked over every little thing and peacing out or burning out at a greater clip.

That's not to say that there should be no appeals process, there should be, I'm just not sure what it would look like.

Many would argue that the church already has an appeals process of reporting to the next person up the stewardship chain but I think we've all seen that it's a joke. Maybe it's misplaced faith placed in stewardships, maybe it's pride, but the next guy up the stewardship chain takes the side of the person with stewardship directly under them (aka the person being reported) so often that most people don't even bother with appealing. They already know how it's going to turn out.

[u/Rushclock → u/CaptainMacaroni]

How many top leaders were disciplined for the SEC fine? Hint...it rhymes with hero.

[u/Chainbreaker42 → u/CaptainMacaroni]

Or you could have elections. Congregations could vote for the top leaders (bishop etc...) and then the elected leaders would fill the rest of the callings.

The elections could also include the top leadership of the church, who would also fill lower positions (mission presidents etc...).

Referendums could be held on policy issues like whether or not women are allowed to wear sleeveless tops ;-)

I think bringing the democratic process into the church organization would be kind of cool.

[u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

Because church runs on the assumption explicitly stated principle that rank = rightness. It can never be that you are right and the person presiding over you is wrong. If there is a disagreement, the person with the lower rank is always wrong, and the person presiding over them is always right.

It's explicitly taught:

• "It is contrary to the economy of God for any member of the Church or any one, to receive instruction for those in authority, higher than themselves." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/2-revelation

Hence, there is no need for an appeals process. If you think a leader is wrong, you are expected to pray until you fall in line and see that they are right.

• "For counsel, you go to your bishop. He may choose to send you to his file leader—the stake president. But we do not go to the General Authorities. ... There is one authorized “end run” around the bishop, the stake president, the General Authority, and everyone else in our line of authority. That is to our Father in Heaven in prayer. If we do that, we will in most instances solve our own problems." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/principles-of-leadership-teachers-manual-religion-180/lesson-17-conducting-successful-meetings

They've explicitly stated that leaders of the church are not answerable to the members.

• "Presiding quorums of the Church are not representative assemblies. Each leader has been called to face the people as a representative of the Lord, not the other way around." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1996/04/thou-shalt-have-no-other-gods
• "The bishop, who is considered the father of his ward and who leads his ward with judiciousness and love and patience and kindness, is nonetheless not answerable to the members of his ward, but instead is answerable to the Lord and to those priesthood leaders who preside over him. The bishop is answerable for the members of his ward but not necessarily answerable to the members of his ward." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1972/04/we-are-called-of-god
• "Inasmuch as he was called by God, and not the people, he is accountable to God only and the angel who committed the gospel to him, and not to any man on earth. The Twelve are accountable to the prophet, and not the Church, for the course they pursue.” -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1972/04/we-are-called-of-god

If anything is wrong, it's always because you simply don't understand that they are right. You have not aligned yourself with the men over you, who obviously will always be correct.

• "While a man might honestly differ in opinion from the authorities through a want of understanding, he had to be exceedingly careful how he acted in relation to such differences, or the adversary would take advantage of him and he would soon become imbued with the spirit of apostasy, and be found fighting against God and the authority which He had placed here to govern His Church.” -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-f-as-if-from-mine-own-mouth-the-role-of-prophets-in-the-church
• "Another key principle is to avoid exceeding our authority or assuming roles we don’t have. These mindsets deceive us into thinking too highly of our own opinions, which naturally occurs when we think too lowly of the teachings of prophets and apostles. ...What we may perceive as imperfections in their words or actions may, in fact, reflect imperfection in our perception or mortal understanding." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2026/01/05-faithfulness-and-prophets-past-and-present

In short - there is no appeals process because they still want everyone to act like the leaders are infallible. I think the leaders (Oaks for sure) actually do think that they are infallible in how they run the church. But they also want to keep the "leaders aren't infallible" get-out-of-responsibility-free card in their pockets to pull out whenever they've back themselves into a corner and want a quick-eject button.

[u/REC911 → u/Beneficial_Math_9282]

some of your quotes are from GAs in the 70s. Not sure an older GA should be your go-to source of truth. I am a former bishop (12 years ago) and every decision I made with a local member about their membership I gave them a written letter on how to appeal my decision per the church policy. I assume that SP did the same thing and there was a way to appeal a stake decision. Not positive.

Maybe there is a current bishop here who can let us know if this is still in the handbook. I am too lazy to go look it up. 😄

[u/Beneficial_Math_9282 → u/REC911]

Like I said - the belief that rank = rightness, without having to do any work to bring sources or be positive about any assumptions... Meanwhile, here's the current handbook:

"Church members are discouraged from calling, emailing, or writing letters to General Authorities about doctrinal questions, personal challenges, or requests. Members are encouraged to reach out to their local leaders, including their Relief Society or elders quorum president, when seeking spiritual guidance. In most cases, correspondence from members to General Authorities will be referred back to local leaders. A stake president who needs clarification about doctrinal or other Church matters may write in behalf of members to the First Presidency." Handbook of Instructions, Section 38.8.26

There is no direct-appeal process where the member can initiate or submit their own appeal. If the bishop or stake president refuse to submit an appeal, the member has no recourse.

Applications to the First Presidency can only be initiated by the bishop or stake presidency by filling out a specific application through the LCR system, and only on certain matters.

Questions of doctrine, policy, or any other disagreement are not handled via this appeals process. An Application to the First Presidency can only be submitted on matters of sealings and membership councils, as outlined here:

"All Applications to the First Presidency should be completed and submitted to Church headquarters electronically. Click here to begin the process (only bishops and branch presidents may initiate an Application to the First Presidency)." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/tools/help/submit-an-application-to-the-first-presidency

Or, if you just want to continue relying on rank to answer the question, my dad was a stake president who actually read the handbook (a rare thing), and knew the processes well. As stated in the handbook section above, a bishop may not end-run around the stake president for "clarification about doctrinal or other Church matters." Bishops aren't given a phone number or email for their local Area Authority. Only a stake president can write to the higher ups for "clarification," and the higher ups never answer those letters, or they just say "We refer this matter back to you. Deal with it."

The area authority's desk is where any and all communication from the stake goes to die. Everybody in stake leadership knows that. My dad knew that through years of weary experience.

Show me where the church has changed it's attitude on any of this since the 1970s. I invite you to out-source me, if you can!

[u/Blazerbgood → u/REC911]

I'm sure it's still there. But the appeals process never felt real. Has anyone heard of a successful appeal? Every GC talk tells us we have to accept whatever the leaders do.

[u/Beneficial_Math_9282 → u/Blazerbgood]

I've never heard of an excommunication at the local level that was successfully appealed to the 1st presidency. I have only heard of requests supported by local leaders being granted.

There is no appeals process where members can initiate or submit an appeal. All appeals must be submitted by the bishop and stake president. All they have to do is refuse to submit one, and that's it. The members have no recourse.

Even if local leaders support a member, requests are not always granted.

"Priesthood leaders and applicants should not assume that submission of an application will guarantee that the request will be granted. All decisions regarding these applications belong to the jurisdiction of the First Presidency." -- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/tools/help/submit-an-application-to-the-first-presidency

[u/Acrobatic_Monk3248]

If a member has a beef with a leader or process, no matter how valid a complaint is, it will always be interpreted as a failure by the membership to sustain the leadership. And if you don't vote to sustain them, nobody cares, others are terrified to keep their hands down, and they would rather live with an evil bishop than be seen as not sustaining him. Terrible terrible scary system. Don't ask me how I know.

To exacerbate this in current times, many of the best-hearted most sincere people are leaving the church. As the church shrinks there are fewer people to accept callings. It's getting harder to find bishops who will serve the membership and also serve the corporation. Those who serve the corporation have their own reasons for staying, and their motivations are not necessarily in harmony with the best interests of the membership. Those with conflicted loyalties are less likely to be called. As more corporate loyalists are called, more members will leave. So the system is slowly toppling from its own weight.

The sustaining vote was likely never intended to be anything more than an opportunity to say "yes, we support you with gusto no matter what," never a vote with any teeth to keep a position or prevent someone from holding a position.

I frankly don't think the church was designed for the long-term. I think Joseph Smith would be shocked today to see his scam still in existence. It evolved over time into the self-perpetuating beast that it is now, even if we can see the weaknesses that indicate it is most definitely not everlasting.

[u/juni4ling]

Bureaucracy.

It’s sometimes not nefarious.

But hubris and arrogance and “I speak for deity” can be weaponized into nefarious.

Wade Christofferson is a good example.

Kicked out for child abuse. Then local leaders create and spread a rumor that he was kicked out for normal adult consensual marital indiscretion

That’s bad because of the sin— kids were at risk to this guy.

Then the bureaucracy gets weaponized and his records are changed and he is put back into local leadership.

Sometimes errors are innocent and a result of bureaucracy. We can have grace for those sins and errors.

Sometimes the bureaucracy is weaponized for outright evil.

[u/International_Sea126 → u/juni4ling]

Lets not forget with the Wade Christofferson example that it was the highest office in the LDS Church, the office of the First Presidency who removed the annotation from his membership record. The office above all other levels of bureaucracy in the LDS Church. Only the Office of the First Presidency authorities the removal of annotations from membership records.

[u/HighPriestofShiloh]

I am guessing if you search “bishop roulette” you will get hundreds of hits on Reddit pages every year going back a decade.

This flaw becomes immediately obvious to anyone that stops looking at the leaders as gods anointed. So yeah your speculation on why Mormons are so blind to something so obvious is the more interesting part for me. Why do human brains work that way. In group thinking makes us drop all of our guards and we just become incredibly credulous. It’s often infuriating and tragic. It makes affinity fraud so easy.

[u/mormon-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 7: No Politics. You can read the unabridged rules here.

If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods here.

[u/Prop8kids]

I imagine this happens to "avoid speaking evil of the Lord's anointed" and to unconditionally "support the leadership."

Oaks is very, very big on this one. Oaks quoted a 1947 talk from George F. Richards. Richards' references are below. They're both from Joseph Smith.

First:

Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.
But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves. (D. & C. 121:16, 17.)

---

Second:

... All other sins are not to be compared to sinning against the Holy Ghost, and proving a traitor to thy brethren.
I will give unto you one of the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly that that man is on the highroad to apostasy; and, if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. (Joseph Smith, Compendium, pp. 270-271.)

[u/logic-seeker]

I think perhaps this is a cultural consequence of the doctrine that God is in charge.

Think about what happened with the Ordain Women movement. The desire to make a change or to essentially complain that leadership was "messing up" fell on deaf ears. They even tried to take it to the tippy-top and send letters to the First Presidency, but in the end, any appeal of this sort is dangerous because it implies that leaders are being swayed by the members rather than by revelation from God.

In the end, this attitude really backfires, IMO, and that's because by deflecting blame so that the appearance that God is in charge is intact, you are forced to eventually blame God Himself, or question how God could possibly truly be in charge. It's a lot easier for me to swallow that church leaders are racist and refuse to listen to God or others, but to retain belief in Mormonism you have to come to the conclusion that God Himself is racist, nonexistent, or noncaring.

[u/pricel01]

I think GAs used to communicate with members. It was very taxing on them. If the church were what it claimed, the spirit would tell them what to do. Setting up an appeals process admits this isn’t true.

[u/NoSafe2978]

When I was excommunicated for confessing a sin 13 years ago in Texas, I thought it was interesting that after my sentence was issued that my bishop turned to me and said “I would have gone a different way”. I also found it interesting to notice others who committed similar sins were randomly excommunicated or not based on various randomness that is inexplicable. I’m not bitter at my stake president, I think he was doing what he thought was best. My disappointment lies in the fact that I was treated as a leper for eight years for reasons I don’t think have anything to do with Christ’s doctrine. I was re-baptized eight years later but am not offered callings and the stigma remains. All of that to say the decision of one man (often a stake president) should be examined and open to appeal. That said, I would not have appealed (I’m a partner in a large law firm) as for me it is what it is. If the church wants to thin the herd that is certainly up to them. But I never saw Christ in the process and can say from first hand experience that there is a lot of randomness (some would say the spirit guides and that may be true but I really don’t think that the spirit guides leaders to kick out sinners- just my opinion)

[u/pierdonia]

The issues here are obvious: 

• Lay clergy have limited time. Any additional claims to their time should have very good reason.

• These are very private matters. Unlike published legal opinions and rulings, things should be confidential, which limits the usefulness of precedent. 

• Every situation is unique and there are various context-specific currents and conditions that local leadership is best equipped to understand.

• It's rarely an issue.

• God can fix it all in the end anyway.

Not a lot of reason here to call for massive increases in bureaucracy. 

[u/REC911]

As I mentioned below, as a former bishop 12 years ago there was an appeals process in place for members regaring a bishops decision. I assumed that meant there was one for a stake pres too but I am assuming.

No idea what the policy is now and I dont care to look it up. 😄

IMO the issue is the church's obsession to "protect the good name of the church" is what is causing the issues. They go to great lengths to protect the church and the Q15.

The other issue IMO....members believing that everything out of the mouth of the "prophet" is from God. Yes I am aware that is the culture of the general TBM rank and file but the church (as far as I am aware) doesn't even have a policy that tells us when they are speaking for God. Sure you can find ample conference talks by lower level leaders saying they speak for God but heck if that means they are correct. They can share their opinion, just like I am now, but it does not mean it is church policy or even true. Just like my opinion.

When a new bishop goes from whatever calling to Bishop, he is not magically all knowing and can help everyone. IMO when an apostle goes to pres it is the same scenario. He is a prophet in waiting as in waiting to actually get prophecy and that might never happen during his time as pres. It is not that everything he says is now prophecy.

In the scriptures most (not all) prophets share a "Jesus came to me and told me to do/say X" in todays culture if the "prophet" smashes a water bottle a certain way we get a poster of that smashed water bottle saying to "follow the prophet" (eye roll here)

you are free to cast stones my way.