by

Seminary students are currently studying lesson 107 , which covers D&C 102 as an exploration of the church courts. D&C 102 provides the handbook for our actual Church Handbooks. It outlines the whys and hows church courts are set up (at least for men) and declares “In the Church of Jesus Christ, disciplinary councils are to be conducted according to equity and justice.”

Equity and justice.

Yet the church’s spiritual judiciary system does not involve women at any level, unless they are on trial.

D&C 102 was written in 1834, at a time when those writing it could not even imagine women being on a jury, witnessing legal matters, or sitting in judgement.

Women in Utah were among the first to vote in the United States, in 1870. But their suffrage was revoked in 1887 as a federal condition of Utah becoming a state. In the broader United States, women did not sit on juries until 1898. They did not vote until ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Also in that year, Florence Allen became the first woman judge.

That was 100 years ago.

Yet still in the church, women do not serve on disciplinary councils, do not witness ordinances, and cannot sit in judgement of others.

This is just wrong.

Especially when it comes to sexual “sins,” the exclusively male perspective’s lack of understanding and empathy has proven many times to be deeply problematic.

To be clear, women’s inclusion should not change because of outside pressure. It should change because it is fundamentally wrong to treat men and women, each beloved children of God, without equity and justice. It should change because of it’s wrongness.

Omitted from the the seminary lesson is the further disparity about how discipline for women proceeds. Women who are summoned to disciplinary councils are called in front of a bishopric and his counselors while men who have been ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood are called in front of the entire High Council and State Presidency.

Men, due to their priesthood office, are not disciplined until they sit through a full court where half of the male stake leaders are assigned to prosecute, and the other half are assigned to advocate for and defend the accused man. Women sit with no advocates, and instead have only three men announce their fate.

This is also wrong.

The church is currently discussing what it means to have priesthood power. Leaders like President Oaks are pushing the narrative that women hold the priesthood through the temple and in their callings. But promoting women’s access to priesthood power while using men’s priesthood as the justification for the disparities in our spiritual judiciary system smacks of lesserness. It is neither equal, nor just.

Even at Kirton McKonkie, the church’s professional legal arm, there are few women lawyers and even fewer who work on church cases , but that is perhaps a different discussion.

In sum:

Women should be able to witness all church documents, ordinances, and proceedings, including blessings, baptisms, and sealings.

Women should sit on church juries.

Women should speak as both accusers and advocates.

Women should serve as judges in the church, perhaps especially in matters of sexual sin.

Women should not be subject to a lesser church legal system reserved for themselves and children.

I’ve long thought that in addition to necessary gender-equity changes throughout the temple and other church policies, the church judicial system needs an overhaul. We have the revelatory means to fill in the details, let’s get to it.

Let’s focus on equity and justice.

__

*Photo by Luke Michael on Unsplash