missing priesthood policy training

I know ive seen this before but my keywords must be wrong. We had a member who was ordained to the Aaronic priesthood but was never recorded. There used to be a training that said that until it was recorded he didn't have the priesthood. Does anyone recall where that training is?

Try Handbook 1: 16.1.10. It's not stated that way, but unless you can satisfy the procedure outlined, it will have to be done over.

1historian wrote:We had a member who was ordained to the Aaronic priesthood but was never recorded. There used to be a training that said that until it was recorded he didn't have the priesthood. Does anyone recall where that training is?

I think you're recalling the concept incorrectly, which explains why you can't find such training -- that exact statement can't exist in any training because it's not true.

If a person has been ordained to the priesthood by one who is duly authorized to perform that ordinance, then that person indeed has the priesthood. Yes, there are steps that must be followed for the ordinance to be considered valid for record-keeping purposes, as outlined in HB1, 16.1.10. But that's not the same as saying that he doesn't have the priesthood. The instant the ordination is complete he can exercise that priesthood, even if the clerk has not yet recorded it.

If what you are saying were true, then 16.1.10 would say something like "The instant it is discovered that a person's ordination has not been recorded, he must immediately stop doing anything that requires that priesthood until the ordinance is properly validated and recorded." It says no such thing. Instead, it focuses on record keeping steps that must be performed to properly record the ordination (or other ordinance) to make it valid (which in some cases may even involve performing the ordinance again). The whole focus is on making the ordinance valid for record-keeping purposes, not for making the ordinance actually effective.

You may be thinking of instruction regarding baptisms for the dead:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... 5?lang=eng
See especially verses 1–9 for instruction about recorders, and recording on earth / recording in heaven. Note that it is specifically talking about baptism for the dead, but it could be interpreted broadly.

I found it, it was part of the "Responsibilities for Updating Membership Records" training. the line was :Even though an ordinance has been approved by those with the proper keys and performed by the proper authority, it is not valid unless it is properly recorded.

We had a missing priesthood Aaronic priesthood ordination and I was told we would go by the spirit of the law and extend callings and deal with the missing priesthood down the road, as we haven't been able to find any records or witness who could recall it. (It was supposedly a year ago and in another ward that the ordination took place)

1historian wrote:We had a missing priesthood Aaronic priesthood ordination and I was told we would go by the spirit of the law and extend callings and deal with the missing priesthood down the road, as we haven't been able to find any records or witness who could recall it. (It was supposedly a year ago and in another ward that the ordination took place)

Ok, cast in that light, I'd tend to side with his priesthood not being valid. I don't understand taking someone's word for it and moving forward as if it existed when it can't be substantiated. I think that's just digging the hole deeper. While it was a different ward, one year ago isn't so long that it would be that difficult for them to find a witness.

and I agree and the solution is simple and clear I just need something I could show the bishop so we could pause and fix the situation before we just keep adding layers to this. The sad thing is we could have fixed this weeks ago if we had been willing to address the problem.