Legal determinations in Mormon policy and doctrine

Last week I commented on how the LDS Church occasionally delegates a determination to legal authorities.  That reference was in the context of tithing and ill-gotten gains, but I thought of a few other situations in which ecclesiastical outcomes are decided by legal determinations.  There are likely more that I can’t think of, but these two examples bring up a few issues that are worth considering.

The first example I thought of is in the area of excommunication.  If a member of the Mormon Church is convicted of murder in a court of law, it is my understanding that the person is excommunicated as a result.  I am unsure what other crimes, if any, toll similar results.  I think the this policy is intended to protect the good name and reputation of the Church,the idea being that if someone happens to be wrongly convicted, their endowment blessings will be restored at a later date or in the hereafter.  Furthermore, if the convicted person was an endowed member of the Church, he or she would not be permitted to wear temple garments in prison.  (Clarification from anyone familiar with the details of these policies is welcome.)

The second example I thought of in which the Mormon Church relies on legal determinations is in the are of the Law of Chastity.  To comply with the Law of Chastity, Mormons are told they must avoid sex before marriage and then only have sexual relations with the spouse to whom they are legally married.  However, this definition presupposes that the marriage is a heterosexual one.  This was a safe assumption for most of the history of the Mormon Church, until 2001 when the Netherlands became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage.  Thus, the redefining of what constitutes a marriage literally forces the LDS Church to redefine its definition of chastity.

Obviously, when the Mormon Church relies on legal determinations, it is free to change that policy when the laws change in such a way that do not comport with Mormon policies or doctrines.  In some situations, such as cases of ill-gotten gains, it makes sense as a practical matter to defer to the determination made by the IRS or the SEC.  In others, such as same-sex marriage, LDS Church doctrine clearly trumps the determination made by a state supreme court or electorate.

The ecclesiastical use of legal determinations represents and interesting vote of confidence in the rule of law.  Any church takes matter of God and faith very seriously, so to pin a spiritual outcome on legal process is no small matter.  I wouldn’t, however, recommend this practice. It becomes troublesome as soon as you move from one jurisdiction to another.  Many countries in which the LDS Church operates have relatively high degrees of corruption that extend to law enforcement officers.  For example, I would feel less than confident in relying on a criminal conviction in many Latin American countries when making a decision on excommunication. There still may be public image issues, but without a minimum level of due process, it probably isn’t appropriate to pin someone’s membership on the vagaries of third-world justice.

Even within countries with strong traditions in the rule of law, public opinions and evolving social mores can result in the change legal determinations, as illustrated by same-sex marriage laws.  I think  it is admirable that the Anglo-American legal system has been stable and reliable enough for the Mormon Church to base some of its policies or doctrinal definitions on legal determinations, but I anticipate a departure from that practice in the future, at least as it relates to doctrinal matters.