Roberts Rules of Order

You may think, what has gotten into them over at Off Topic.  They are now writing about rules of what?  And what significance has that to, well, to anything?  Good question.  Let me entertain you.  As we all know Roberts Rules of Order is the parliamentary process we all follow for all our conventions.  Maybe sightly modified for some but the fact is that WE ALL follow them.  So, I would hazard a guess that John David Mercer Schofield, Leo Jack Iker, Bobby Duncan, Et al have seen and used Roberts Rules of Order repeatedly, ad nauseam.  Would everyone agree?  Certainly  one needs to be familiar with these rules if you are going to get a word in edgewise.  Well for those of you who have a copy, and I am referring to the 2nd Edition, my version is penguin putnam books copyrighted 1989 and 1998, turn to page 246, and read section 68.  For those who do not have a copy handy here is what it states:

68.   Rights of Ecclesiastical Tribunals. Many of our deliberative assemblies

are ecclesiastical bodies, and it is important to know how much respect
will be paid to their decisions by the civil courts.

A church became divided and each party
claimed to be the church, and therefore entitled to the church property.
The case was taken into the civil courts, and finally, on appeal to the
U. S. Supreme Court, which held the case under advisement for one year,
and then reversed the decision of the State Court, because it conflicted
with the decision of the highest ecclesiastical court that had acted
upon the case. The Supreme Court, in rendering its decision, laid down
the broad principle that, when a local church is but a part of a larger
and more general organization or denomination, it will accept the
decision of the highest ecclesiastical tribunal to which the case has
been carried within that general church organization, as final, and will
not inquire into the justice or injustice of its decree as between the
parties before it. The officers, the ministers, the members, or the
church body which the highest judiciary of the denomination recognizes,
the court will recognize. Whom that body expels or cuts off, the court
will hold to be no longer members of that church.

These (then bishops now just regular folk) knew then what would become of their fate should they try and steal land and property and they went ahead anyway.  They intentionally inflicted untold misery on a wide number of people realizing that the only thing to come out of it was the expenditure of resources that could have been spent on the needy and the intentional infliction of as much pain as could be mustered on those left behind.  

On another blog, actually several blogs, there is the admonition to be kind and gentle as the thugs plans slowly come unwound.  We are told, do not gloat, do not be gleeful.  Can someone once again explain why?  I mean I understand what is being said, but, these folks intentionally, with malice and forethought set out to not only crush the church but the people in it as well!