“Legal doctrines” are particular principles that different legal systems adopt. I though it would be fun to go through some and comment on how they pertain to Latter-day Saint theology and governance. 

Mens rea, Culpability, Duress, 

Latin for “guilty mind.” Principle in criminal law where somebody is only guilty if they have guilty intent. E.g. the difference between unintended manslaughter and murder, or somebody accidentally taking a book out of a library without paying for it. At various points in scripture some people are clearly seen as less culpable than others given their circumstances (the Phillistines, the prostitutes going into heaven before the pharisees, etc.), so I’m comfortable seeing Mens rea as divine legal doctrine. 

ignorantia juris non excusat 

“Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” In many legal systems not knowing about a law doesn’t get you out of the consequences of breaking it. I feel like the gospel actually has an opposite take on this. We don’t see Adam as sinning until he knew that he was naked, and we don’t see gentile coffee drinkers as sinning in the same way that Jews don’t see goy pork eaters as sinning. They’re not under the law so it doesn’t apply to them, but if they did actually believe it then things change. 

Notice

In the same way that somebody serves somebody with papers to officially notify them of a legal action, so too God sends prophets like Jonah to essentially serve people papers. 

Corroboration

Many times the scripture requires “2 or 3 witnesses,” echoing the legal perspective that one testimony isn’t enough to condemn somebody. 

Due process, Right to be Heard (“Audi alteram partem“)

Church disciplinary councils. D&C spends a lot of time outlining these details. 

Res judicata

The idea that at some point all avenues have been exhausted and a ruling is final. In theory this might apply to excommunications once the final First Presidency appeal has been exhausted. However, there is one case I’m aware of (Maxine Hanks) when an excommunication from before we revoked later on down the road, so this probably isn’t ironclad. 

Licit versus Valid Ordinances

Okay, this is a concept from Catholic canon law and not “profane” law, but  it’s still relevant. In Catholicism there are cases where a priest or bishop has had their faculties removed from doing certain rituals, but if they do perform those rituals they are still valid and recognized. (There’s a long history here that almost caused a civil war in Christendom as far back as Constantine, see “Donatist controversy”). In the same sense that Catholics take the “let no man put asunder” very seriously in regards to marriage, so too are former priests and bishops always priests/bishops. They aren’t supposed to do certain things like ordination (so it’s “illicit”), but if they do then those ordinances are recognized as valid. (This is one reason why Catholic splinter groups headed up by apostate bishops are so theologically interesting-in some ways they’re still recognized as a bishop even after breaking with Rome). 

In the Latter-day Saint case, if somebody who is patently unworthy baptizes somebody, we recognize that they shouldn’t, but my understanding, although it might vary from stake to stake or whatever, is that the ordinance is still valid. I also had a seminary teacher that had the interesting take that Alma the Younger was able to baptize people without any account of him receiving the priesthood because he had received it as a wicked priest of Noah, so he had a valid priesthood transmission. I’m not a huge fan of this theory since then it would imply that you could have a valid priesthood transmission even in a Church of rank apostasy, with all the implications that has for the Great Apostasy. 

Informed Consent

Baptismal interviews and temple prep classes speak to the idea that people need to be informed about covenants before they undertake them, but of course it doesn’t take long to see complaints from some quarters that temple prep classes aren’t straightforward enough about the actual covenants to qualify as informed consent, I suspect there’s more transparency about this now. 

Nondelegation doctrine

A principle that certain decisions cannot be delegated to other branches of government or entities. In attempts to lighten the bishop’s load there is a question about which responsibilities are truly non-delegatable and which ones can be given to others. I suspect there’s another discussion about this vis-a-vis sealing cancellations. Last time I heard, this was still personally handled by the President of the Church as the one on earth who has all the keys, but I don’t know if that’s still the case. It seems like it would be a massive amount of work for one person.  

 Jurisdiction

Obvious a big issue for Latter-day Saint governance, although we term it stewardship, but it’s the same idea that a Circuit Court judge in one court can’t make law for another Circuit Court. 

Stare decisis

The idea that precedence is followed. We kind of do this, but there’s kind of a sunset time period, where it’s been long enough that something has been said with no follow-up that it’s not considered binding (e.g. caffeinated drinks).

Original Intent/Textualism/Purposivism/Living Constitutionalism

Latter-day Saints have adopted each of the major constitutional theories for interpreting sacred texts. We like to get the historical background to see what God really meant given the background (original intent), but sometimes we also do textualism. For example, it’s clear from the historical record that Joseph Smith thought the the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, but my out is that that’s not what the actual text of D&C says at all. And then of course there’s the Brigham Young quote that says that if the Book of Mormon was retranslated it would be materially different because the Saints need different things at different times; there’s a strong tradition of “living constitutionalism” with our own scriptures. 

lex posterior derogat priori

Later laws appeal prior ones. Obviously we make a big deal out of following the living prophet, and not our Journal of Discourses hobby horses. 

Strict versus Substantial Compliance

For some ordinances we practice substantial compliance (if it’s basically done right it’s good enough), and for some we practice strict compliance (every word has to be exact). 

Recordation

Officially entering a record into the public repository. There’s a surprising amount of legal-ese in D&C about how records need to be carefully kept on earth since they are binding in heaven. 

Contract

 A lot of discussion in D&C about contracts and obligations and how some of them apply to after this life.  

Corporate liability

Relevant to the discussions about whether “The Church” should apologize for the action of its members or leaders. Can “The Church” be culpable, or can we just say that “The Church” is perfect and its members and leaders are imperfect?   

Material Breach

At some point people cross lines where they are in “material breach” of their baptism covenant, and a disciplinary council is called. 

Adoption and Inheritance

Core to Latter-day Saint exaltation theology, which essentially is the process of inheriting “all that the Father hath” as a child of God (and Abraham). 

Duty of care

“A duty of care is a legal obligation that is imposed on an individual, requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care to avoid careless acts that could foreseeably harm others, and lead to claim in negligence.”

Relevant to commandments about parenting. We have a duty of [spiritual] care whether or not our children decide to follow the gospel.