Gentlemen of the Jury by John Morgan, 1861
LDS Church policy dictates that only men may call a disciplinary council, staff the council, and judge the outcome. However, both male and female members may be brought before these all-male councils at the discretion of their local, male leaders. Theoretically, the rationale for holding a council is not punitive:
Priesthood courts of the Church are not courts of retribution. They are courts of love. Reference 1
When a man requires a woman to submit to an interrogation by a group of men about sensitive personal issues such as her sex life, does she feel love or shame? Does this process meet the criteria set forth in the Thirteenth Article of Faith: “virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy”? Consider this case:
I have a friend who had a one-time fling after years of celibacy. Our bishop called a church court on her and told her that all of the sins she had repented of in the past were no longer forgiven because she had messed up again. He forced her to recount, in front of him, his counselors, and the ward clerk, every sexual experience she had ever had or be excommunicated. He wanted to know all the lurid details—sexual positions, whether it was oral, anal, or vaginal, whether she had orgasms, etc. Needless to say, she felt coerced and abused by this process.
Simply telling men who staff disciplinary councils to stop asking for sordid details is not enough to address the trauma a woman may experience when brought before an all-male council. Consider another case, where the amount of disclosure erred in the opposite direction: