D&C 121:35-37 says that the priesthood can only be used in "righteousness" - that any man who uses his priesthood "in any degree of unrighteousness," such as to "exercise control, dominion or compulsion" over others' souls, loses his priesthood and his authority - "the heavens withdraw."

It would seem that this doctrine (as logical and just as it seems) poses a serious problem for Mormons, in two ways.

First, how would anyone know that an elder performing a baptism or ordination has not lost his priesthood because of some previous, generally unknown, attempt to use it unrighteously, to exercise "dominion" over someone? The passage implies that the mere act of using the priesthood authority unrighteously causes it to be lost; no church court or process or announcement is necessary. The "heavens withdraw." God knows that the man has lost his authority, but nobody else necessarily knows. In fact, even Mormons who know of his unrighteous use of the priesthood will probably comment "It's not for us to judge," and "Nobody's perfect; we are all human and make mistakes." But those comments would nullify what D&C 121 actually says, and make it meaningless.

And yet the concept of "authority" is fundamental to Mormonism. If you were baptized by a Methodist minister or a Baptist preacher (who in Mormon eyes have no authority), you simply have not been baptized at all. But how is that different from being baptized by a Mormon elder who has invisibly lost his authority because of using it in "unrighteous dominion"? (I'm recalling the Mormon husband who forced his unwilling wife to have sex every night because he held the priesthood and was an authority over her, for example. That is certainly "unrighteous dominion." Or Joseph Smith's promising Helen Mar Kimball that her parents' salvation would be guaranteed if she would submit to becoming his wife - that certainly is not doctrinal, and would thus constitute using his priesthood authority in "unrighteous dominion.") Is that baptism or ordination valid, from an elder who has lost his priesthood authority?

I have asked this question of Mormons, and their responses are pretty lame.

One Mormon said that the offender retains his authority until officially removed by a church court. But that is not what D&C 121 says. It mentions nothing about any action by church authorities. "The heavens withdraw."

Another Mormon said that the validity of the baptism or ordination depended on the faith and belief of the recipient, not the priesthood holder. If the baptizee BELIEVES that the baptizer has authority, the baptism is valid. Yet that contradicts the entire idea that ordinances are only valid when performed by someone with valid authority. This argument would also validate the baptism by the Methodist minister or the Baptist preacher, since their baptizee obviously believes that the baptizer has the authority to perform a valid baptism.

The second problem is that Mormons HAVE to believe that unrighteousness by priesthood holders causes the loss of authority, since that belief underlies their entire theory that the early church fell into apostasy: Mormons claim that the leaders after the original apostles died were unrighteous, and THEREFORE they lost their authority. And that produced the "great apostasy" and the need for a restoration. And that argument negates the explanations given by Mormons for the loss of authority, since the Christian church can point to a clear line of priesthood authority from Peter to the present day, whether "righteous" or not. And clearly all the Christians who have been baptized in the last 2000 years believed that the priest had the authority. So, according to that particular Mormon argument, their baptisms are all valid, right?

Can anyone come up with a better Mormon solution to what appears to be a fundamental problem for Mormonism?

Ask your Mormon friends, and let me know how the deal with this.

There's an even worse problem in this. The scripture justifies abuse of authority with the unbelievably lame explanation: "If your bishop were exercising unrighteous dominion, the Lord would have removed him from his position." Church leaders and members simply will not believe that a leader has acted inappropriately because of this mindset.

Solution 1: Always have an authority participating therefore always having a good one in the circle
Solution 2: The ordinance is good, the perp condemed.

I've heard both used.

3. The ordinance is performed under the authority of the presiding authority with individual ph only being the voice.

Richard wrote: "I'm recalling the Mormon husband who forced his unwilling wife to have sex every night because he held the priesthood and was an authority over her, for example. That is certainly 'unrighteous dominion.' Or Joseph Smith's promising Helen Mar Kimball that her parents' salvation would be guaranteed if she would submit to becoming his wife - that certainly is not doctrinal, and would thus constitute using his priesthood authority in 'unrighteous dominion.'"

And I know a mormon woman whose husband withholds sex in order to deprive her of children, and in order to emotionally torture her with thoughts of NOT attaining the highest levels in the Celestial Kingdom because she didn't have as many children as possible. The way this woman tells the story, her husband will not "bless" her, with the "blessing" being intercourse.

Of course, the man is, supposedly, damaging his own standing as well. But mostly, this penishood holder wants his wife to obey him in all things, to be silent most of the time and to speak when he allows her to speak, to keep house to his specifications, to never speak to other males, and so forth. The guy is power hog and a rabid misogynist. If his wife becomes his slave, he will deign to have sex with her. (In the meantime, I strongly suspect the guy of having sex outside of his marriage.)

I challenge someone to provide a basis in scripture for this position. You won't find it. You may see references to the word, "man", but no exclusionary language regarding women. Man is a universal term we apply in the scriptures to everyone.

Now that's just silly! Everyone knows that the big G god is male! Women are just accessories.(tongue in cheek)

It's all in the interpretation. If you're a needy mormon boy-man priesthood holder, then you are certainly _not_ going to interpret "Man" in an expansive way.

And, as always, it's not so much a matter of scripture, but of culture, power, and the rationalization of same.

Loss of priesthood authority is done by an "administrative action" paper form and a few keystrokes. Restoral has to be done by that "laying on of hands" thing again. You'd think there would need to be some "un-laying on of hands" thing.

We used to joke how priesthood-less women could never become sons of perdition... since it was a "priesthood thing" and women could never rise high enough to fall that far.