Church Disciplinary Councils: Scriptural, But Not Revelatory

When you read Doctrine & Covenants section 102 as part of your Come Follow Me readings this week, take a moment and pause at the first word. No, I’m not talking about the word This, which is the first word of verse one. I am talking about the first word of the introduction: Minutes.

Compare that word, Minutes, to the first word of the section that follows: Revelation. Or the first word of the section that precedes it, which is also Revelation. Section 102 is one of a minority of sections in the Doctrine and Covenants that makes no pretense at being a revelation. It is just the minutes of a meeting where a group of men came together to decide on some policies and voted on them; majority rules. (No women were invited.) This distinction matters because D&C 102 is often cited as the scriptural mandate for the punitive (and often traumatizing) practice of holding church disciplinary councils within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS/Mormon). These church courts continue within the LDS Church decades after most other churches have abandoned church courts in favor of more uplifting pastoral care approaches.

In February 2020, the Church Handbook gave church discipline a facelift, renaming Disciplinary Councils as Membership Councils, and their most severe outcome, Excommunication, as Withdrawal of Membership. However, most of the processes and penalties associated with the practice remain the same. They may not call it excommunication anymore, but withdrawal of membership continues to involve the same shunning-style punishments. Just like excommunication, withdrawal of membership renders null ordinances that are requisite to eternal salvation according to LDS theology.

The good news is that more meaningful policy changes did come alongside these superficial name changes, bringing long overdue correction to some of the most blatantly sexist aspects of prior church discipline policy. Until 2020, bishops were allowed to excommunicate women but not men, who could only be excommunicated by higher-level stake presidents. Three times as many volunteer staff were required to terminate a man’s membership compared to a woman’s.  While the removal of these sexist clauses is an important and welcome step, church discipline policy is not yet even close to treating women fairly. Current policy still allows women to be punished by disciplinary—ahem—membership councils, but does not allow women to call councils, staff them, or judge their outcomes.

Salem Witch Trials Engraving, artist unknown

The meeting minutes that would become D&C 102 were written in 1834, at a time when punishing women in courts staffed entirely by men was the norm in America. In 1867, Elizabeth Cady Stanton described the attitude of the male-only American government of her time this way: “We [men] will be judges, jurors, sheriffs; and give woman the right to be hung on the gallows.” (The Selected Papers of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, pg. 83) In fact, the year 1834 was closer in history to the years of the Salem Witch Trials than to our modern time. It is unsurprising that the group of men who participated in that meeting decided on a system that was less than progressive.

Fortunately, we don’t have to wait for a revelation to overrule a policy a group of men voted on about two centuries ago, even if it happens to have a section number in Doctrine and Covenants. Call another meeting. Vote for a more compassionate, less punitive, more egalitarian approach.

Oh, and don’t forget to invite women to the meeting this time.

April Young Bennett

April Young Bennett is the author of the Ask a Suffragist book series and host of the Religious Feminism Podcast. Learn more about April at aprilyoungb.com.

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. TeresaHart says:

    Hear, hear, invite the women to make the rules that effect women? Why would they do that, these men like their power over women, it helps keep women quiet and toeing the party line.

  2. Spunky says:

    Amen. I’m so tired of a religion that enslaves and judges women according to men’s whims.

  3. Katie Rich says:

    Such an important issue. Any woman who has come up against abuse from a priesthood leader and has watched how men are able to protect themselves and their friends over the victim(s) understands how broken this system is. Men aren’t accountable to the women they harm.

  4. Lily says:

    I have always wondered where the whole idea of excommunicating someone came from. It just doesn’t resonate with me as something the Savior would have done.

  5. D says:

    As far as I’m concerned, church courts are the creepy-basement of Mormonism.

    I had a stake held court against me when I was a teenager.

    I can’t think of any other situation in society where it would not be considered anything-but-horrific for 10 middle-aged men to take confront a teenage girl with intense sexual questioning, behind closed doors.

    There was no other women in the room. I was not asked to invite a relief society president, friend, or even a parent (I had just barely turned 18 —but was still very much a kid.)

    On top of everything, I felt very wrongfully accused because the event that lead to the disciplinary court was NOT consensual. They mistook my insistence that it was my not fault for my refusal to repent.

    This should not have even been legal. I had no idea what a church court even was—yet alone had the opportunity to put up a boundary to deflect sexual questioning of strangers.

    Looking back, I see the dangers of a structure where women have no real voice to speak. I know the process has been tweaked a bit since my horrific experience —but it still has no place in any church

    This memory, even 20 years later, makes me want to go to the church office building and start turning over tables.

    • Oh D! I am so sorry this happened to you! What a traumatizing experience, and so soon after a rape! When you were so young! I am horrified.

      • D says:

        Thank you, I really appreciate that. Thanks for shining lights on a topic that cuts deep for many people, but never gets discussed, because it’s uncomfortable.

        I have to think that if more members knew of the hurt caused by these painful church disciplinary councils, something would change.

        Unfortunately, this church court process is so shaming and embarrassing that those impacted will rarely speak up.

        I think my only hope is that the priesthood leaders involved can listen to their conscience, feel the discomfort, and make a change.

  6. Caroline says:

    Amen. This practice of church courts is troubling, and especially so when only men sit in judgement of women. Time to throw out the practice entirely. But if it’s retained, at least get the RS president and other women leaders in there as full partners with men to decide the outcome.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.