Bishops and Stake Presidents do have a lot of leeway because each case is an individual matter. Consider two teens, both of the having broken the law of chastity.

One of them is from a non-member household, verbally and emotionally abused, and suffers from clinical depression. He is deeply sorrwoful over what he has done.

The other has grown up with every advantage of the gospel from the day he was born, but ‘really loved’ the girl. Now that it’s over he casually wants to wipe it off his ‘record’ quickly so he can go on the youth temple trip coming up.

There is no ‘one size fits all’. As for cases where a person moves from one stake or ward to another and find the new leader has a different outlook, that seems a lot like when God told Abraham to go sacrifice his only son.

Kings were ordained to be kings, and they were in turn able to ordain priests. Noah was validly ordained to be king by a priest he did not appoint and so those that Noah ordained likewise would have had lawful ordinations even though Noah was unworthy of the priesthood he held. Hence, Alma had a lawful priesthood ordination.

Once he repented of his sins, he was free to exercise that priesthood without coming under condemnation. Noah however would stand under condemnation for exercising the priesthood when he was not worthy to do so, but that would not invalidate his ordinations.

It’s like this: If someone is baptized, and the person who performed the baptism had just committed adultly the night before, they would not have to re-do the baptism. Also, if the person baptizing had just committed adultry, and the person being baptized was also unworthy of being baptized at that time, they would not nave to be re-baptized, but they would not have the blessings of baptism until they repented.

“”I didn’t know this at the time, but my mother did. It took that long to get it investigated by Salt Lake.””

This is disturbing to me–a stake president is using his position of authority to take advantage of young women for more than TWO YEARS (if I understand Peter right, this was happening since before the SP sent him on his mission and until after he returned). The church took two years to investigate this and stop it, and all the while his abuse continues? I am very disturbed that the church wouldn’t take quicker action. Almost sounds like the Catholic Church’s problem with not identifying pedophile priests and taking action against them to protect church members from further abuse.

“At least, I felt this way. I felt that in his ministry to me, he was exercising keys he had, they worked, but he shouldn’t have had them. Nevertheless, while he had them, they worked.”

If personal righteousness has nothing to do with one’s ability or divine right to exercise priesthood keys (which is what seems to be implied here), then I don’t see how there could have been an apostasy or a need for restoration. Don’t we LDS teach that the early church fell away from the truth into wickedness, and thus the church lost its divine authority? If they still had valid priesthood keys that were operative in spite of their wickedness (as is claimed with the SP), then it stands to reason that their successors (the Catholics and Orthodox churches) still have their keys and valid divine authority today.

Since that cannot be right, it seems the best conclusion that I can come to is that your SP didn’t have true divine authority. Along the same lines, I’ve always been taught in the church that the spirit cannot dwell in unholy temples–so it would have been impossible for your SP to have the spirit or any sort of divine guidance when exercising his duties. I have never seen a scriptural exemption clause for those who hold keys or positions of authority. When the 118 pages were lost, Joseph Smith, who was the prophet, lost the spirit, the power of revelation, and the power to translate. I don’t think that a SP who was taking advantage of girls could fare any better than Joseph.

The person who has the most influence on most individual members is their Stake President, followed very closely by their Bishop. (and that order is debatable) The President of the Church is not in the top five – and, in many cases, the top dozen.

However, he might have been given the authority and priesthood. His statement (“do this work with holiness of heart”) says exactly NOTHING about whether or not he held the priesthood. That’s basically my own prayer any time I perform any priesthood ordinance.

I think Joseph asked that question and he was answered by the revelation on keys in the D&C so I guess that clarifies Alma, unless translator Joseph is true and prophet Joseph is fallen.

Alma flees and secretly begins to teach people the message preached by Abinadi. He then decides that those who gathered with him at the waters of Mormon are in need of baptism.

Question: Does Alma have the ‘keys’ to baptise?

My answer: Apparently he doesn’t as he asks God (Mosiah 18:12-18) that he may ‘do this work with holiness of heart.’ In answer to the prayer, the Spirit of the Lord comes upon him and he baptizes those with him. Where did he get his authority? He got his authority from God. There was no passage of keys from human to human, God gave him the right and authority to baptize.

What does that have to do with this discussion? Keys and authority can be given to man directly if the condition warrants. The same could equally be true today. A righteous man can receive from God what he needs in order to do the will of God.

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

If we can say “Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man”, as in the case of your stake president that “was abusing his position as judge with young women”, then can we also say “Amen” to the keys this man possesses? I think so…

In addition, the President’s of the Seventies Quorum (all Seven Presidents, I believe) I think hold keys. Finally, I am reasonably certain, but this is one that may require some correction, that Patriarchs and a few other select callings (Temple President?) hold keys as well, but I’d need clarification on that particular issue. The holding of keys is based on Quorum membership. Essentially if you are the leader of your quorum and not someone else, then you have priesthood keys. The Elder’s Quorum president is a position that has really been under-utilized because of this–doctrinally he could do so much more, but culturally it has become a position of ‘don’t do much beyond oversee hometeaching’. Frankly, he’s responsible for the spiritual development of the adult members of the ward, and that’s a big deal that usually gets shouldered to the bishop.

Can’t the mission president be asked about this?

Speaking of which, Peter, in areas where stakes are not organized, isn’t a lot of power concentrated in the hands of the mission president? I realize he usually has two counselors as well, but branch presidents report to district presidents and they report to the mission president, right? Especially in disciplinary matters, I would think…

Is this right? Can the District/Stake president delegate to the Bishop/Branch President callings from the Stake/District level?