Unanimous 9th Circuit panel dismisses Huntsman tithing lawsuit

(ksl.com 1-31-25)

A panel of 11 judges in the 9th Circuit issued a unanimous ruling Friday dismissing James Huntsman's lawsuit seeking the return of $5 million he donated to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It is the second time the lawsuit has been dismissed in four years.

Huntsman, a former church member, alleged the church committed fraud by using tithing funds to finance commercial endeavors despite stating it had not and would not do so. A U.S. district court granted summary judgment to the church in September 2021.

The 9th Circuit panel, known as an en banc panel, stated in its 63-page set of rulings Friday that it agreed with the district court ruling.

The church's victory in the 9th Circuit, which covers the nine westernmost U.S. states, could have a powerful influence over two other tithing-related cases now in the 10th Circuit, which includes Utah, said Jeremy Rosen, managing partner for the San Francisco office of Horvitz & Levy, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of charitable organizations that supported the church.

"Ninth Circuit opinions are not binding in the 10th Circuit, but I would think that they would have, especially from an en banc panel, a persuasive effect," Rosen said. He added, "I think if the 10th Circuit were to do anything other than rule in favor of the church, especially in light now of this 9th Circuit opinion, there would be a bullet train to the Supreme Court and then a reversal."

Huntsman's lead attorney, David Jonelis, did not immediately respond Friday to a message seeking comment about the case or whether Huntsman would appeal.

-What the court ruling said-

The 11 judges all agreed to toss out the case, but they formed two main groups with different reasons for dismissing the lawsuit.

The six-judge majority ruling threw out the case on the merits of Huntsman's arguments, finding them lacking.

"No reasonable juror could conclude that the church misrepresented the source of funds for the City Creek project," six judges said in Friday's majority ruling. "Although the church stated that no tithing funds would be used to fund City Creek, it also clarified that earnings on invested reserve funds would be used. The church had long explained that the sources of the reserve funds include tithing funds. Huntsman has not presented evidence that the church did anything other than what it said it would do."

Four other judges concurred with that reasoning but also found that the case should have been sidelined by the church autonomy doctrine, which holds that the First Amendment bars the government, and therefore courts, from interfering in church matters.

"This lawsuit is extraordinary and patently inappropriate, a not-so thinly concealed effort to challenge the church's belief system under the guise of litigation," the four judges wrote. "The majority is correct that there was no fraudulent misrepresentation even on the terms of plaintiff's own allegations. But it would have done well for the en banc court to recognize the obvious: There is no way in which the plaintiff here could prevail without running headlong into basic First Amendment prohibitions on courts resolving ecclesiastical disputes.

That group also wrote, colorfully, that "The plaintiff in this case is free to criticize his former church and advocate for church reforms. But he cannot ask the judiciary to intrude on the church's own authority over core matters of faith and doctrine. That is the lesson of this lawsuit. We as courts are not here to emcee religious disputes, much less decide them. The First Amendment restricts our role as it protects religious organizations from lawsuits such as this."

The final judge agreed so strongly on the church autonomy doctrine that he wrote a lengthy solo opinion saying that should have been the only consideration in the case.

"Resolving (Huntsman's) claims requires swimming in a current of religious affairs," Judge Patrick Bumatay wrote. "What is a 'tithe?' Who can speak for the church on the meaning of 'tithes?' What are church members' obligations to offer 'tithes?' These are questions that only ecclesiastical authorities — not federal courts — can decide."

-How the case got here-

Huntsman filed his lawsuit in March 2021. He said that between 2003 and 2015, he tithed over $1 million in cash, over 20,000 shares of Huntsman Corporation stock and over 1,800 shares of Sigma Designs stock to the church, according to Friday's ruling.

When he resigned his membership in the church, Huntsman filed the lawsuit claiming the church had committed fraud because after saying it does not use tithing funds for commercial use a purported whistleblower alleged that it did.

David Nielsen, a former employees of Ensign Peak Advisors, alleged in an IRS complaint that the church spent tithing funds for two commercial uses — $1.4 billion to build the City Creek shopping center in downtown Salt Lake and $600 million to bail out Beneficial Life, an insurance company the church owns through a holding company

Church leaders have maintained that tithing funds are used for religious purposes. The church repeated its position that it used reserve funds for City Creek and Beneficial Life.

The church told the court that it had made no misrepresentations and swiftly made a motion for summary judgment, asking the original U.S. District Court judge in California to dismiss the case before it ever got to trial. The original judge agreed, granting summary judgment in September 2021.

Huntsman appealed, and a 9th Circuit panel reinstated the lawsuit by a 2-1 vote in August 2023.

The church asked for and was granted an en banc appeal of that reinstatement. The en banc panel of 11 judges of the 9th Circuit heard oral arguments in September 2024, when the judges unleashed a barrage of questions at Huntsman's attorneys.

The panel then said it would issue a written ruling in coming months.

That ruling came Friday, and included a repudiations of Nielsen's logic and the usefulness of his information.

-Why the court said Huntsman's and Nielsen's allegations fail-

To explain the funding of the City Creek project, the Church submitted two declarations.

In Friday's ruling, the court said it relied on a declaration submitted by the church from a director in its Finance and Records Department. In the declaration, Paul Rytting stated that all the funds allocated to the City Creek project came from earnings on the church's reserve funds invested by Ensign Peak, "meaning that no principal reserve funds (i.e., funds taken directly from church members' tithing contributions) were used," the judges wrote.

Rytting testified that Ensign Peak allocated $1.2 billion into an internal account earmarked for City Creek on Jan. 1, 2004. Those funds were invested and reached nearly $1.7 billion before appropriations were made for City Creek.

The panel of judges found that the church's statements created a clear distinction between principal tithing funds that come directly from church members and earnings on the funds the church sets aside from its annual income, which includes tithing.

The judges also found that the $1.4 billion the church appropriated to City Creek was consistent with the church's statements that it would be funded by earnings on invested reserve funds.

"Because each relevant Ensign Peak account held enough earnings on invested funds to cover the funds appropriated for City Creek, any commingling of principal tithing funds and earnings on invested tithing funds cannot support Huntsman's fraud claim," Friday's majority opinion stated.

The judges rejected Nielsen's reasoning that the church was using tithing funds because Ensign Peak employees allegedly referred to all the money in its accounts as "tithing."

"Even accepting the facts asserted in Nielsen's declaration as true, they do not show that principal tithing funds were used for the City Creek project," the judges ruled.

The panel rejected the allegations about Beneficial Life outright, saying that neither Huntsman nor Nielsen provided any representations by the church about the funds used to bolster Beneficial Financial Group during the 2008 financial crisis.

https://www.ksl.com/article/51242565/unanimous-9th-circuit-panel-dismisses-huntsman-tithing-lawsuit

What the judge did in Friday's federal court hearing about Latter-day Saint tithing

(ksl.com 1-18-25)

A federal judge blitzed lawyers on both sides with questions Friday during a three-hour hearing in a lawsuit brought by 13 people asking for the return of tithing they donated to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. Shelby repeatedly challenged the attorneys for the plaintiffs about the arguments in the suit they filed, lobbing one pointed question at a lawyer before he made it from his chair to the podium in a downtown Salt Lake City courtroom.

Meanwhile, the lawyer for the Church of Jesus Christ and another representing evangelicals and Seventh-day Adventists called the lawsuit a "broadscale attack" that if successful would set dangerous precedents for the futures of churches and charities.

They also said the plaintiffs had failed to raise issues that would pierce a longstanding American legal precedent called the religious autonomy doctrine or church autonomy doctrine.

"In my own 40 years practicing law in this area and a decade teaching the law, I have never seen a more brazen and dangerous assault on a church's religious authority," said Gene Schaerr, who represented the National Association of Evangelicals and the General Conference of the Seventh-Day Adventists.

Schaerr said piercing the church autonomy doctrine the way the plaintiffs want would "wreak Constitutional chaos for all religious organizations."

The plaintiffs' cases were joined together in April. Shelby did not issue any rulings at the end of the hearing.

"I will take the matter under advisement and I will issue a written decision," he said.

-What the lawsuit alleges and asks the court to do-

The lawsuit alleges that the church defrauded its members by not informing them that leaders were placing some tithing funds into reserve accounts and investing that money. It also alleges the church hid those investments and defrauded members by saying it would not use tithing for the construction of the City Creek development in Salt Lake City while allegedly doing so.

The church has maintained that it used funds that came from "commercial entities owned by the church" and the "earnings of invested reserve funds" to build City Creek, a mixed-use commercial development across the street from church headquarters that was part of efforts to protect the area around Temple Square.

The lawsuit also asks the court to institute a class action that would make it possible for members or former members of the church to seek reimbursement of tithing they donated to the church. It also asks the court to require an annual public accounting about the church's use of tithing and investment funds and to appoint a special master to monitor the collection and use of tithing and investment funds.

Such rulings could create a court-authorized schism in the church, said the lead attorney for the Latter-day Saints, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement.

He said any lawsuit that could successfully pierce the church autonomy doctrine would have to be more of a rifle shot, a very specific case about a particular incident that showed actual harm to a person, not "a blunderbuss attack" on how the church handled tithing for decades and including thousands of people with differing experiences.

-How the lawsuit got to this point-

The 13 people in the lawsuit initially filed a number of separate cases. In April, a panel of judges in Washington, D.C., bundled five lawsuits around the country — Illinois, Tennessee, Utah, Washington and California — into a single case. They assigned the case to Shelby.

The plaintiffs filed a unified complaint in July. The church filed three motions, and Friday's hearing was for arguments on those motions. The first was a motion to strike the creation of a class-action suit, and the other two were motions to dismiss the case.

Clement went first on Friday. He said the plaintiffs' claim faced three fatal problems:

The church autonomy doctrine.

What he alleged was a failure by the lawsuit to establish what statements the plaintiffs relied on and how they were damaged.

The church's belief that the lawsuit missed a three-year window set by the statute of limitations.

Clement also argued for the church in September at a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc hearing in a similar tithing case brought by James Huntsman. Clement is well-known as one of the nation's top appellate litigators.

-The church autonomy doctrine-

The U.S. Supreme Court has strengthened the church autonomy doctrine in several rulings over the past 25 years. The plaintiffs said Friday that it does not apply to their lawsuit, while Clement said it did.

"This case can't get over the First Amendment hump," Clement said.

The church autonomy doctrine says that the government and courts cannot infringe on the way church's govern themselves, especially with regard to religious questions. Clement said the ancient doctrine of tithing, which plaintiffs' attorneys agreed is practiced by most faiths, is a religious doctrine that places Latter-day Saints under scriptural command to give 10% of their income back to God through the church.

Shelby repeatedly asked Clement to consider hypotheticals in which a church, or a fraudster posing as a church, might be liable for fraudulently collecting and misusing tithing. Clement said his reading of court rulings on the religious autonomy doctrine was that there are only two exceptions to protecting church's from charges of fraud — embezzlement or self-dealing and raising funds for very specific purposes and then using them for different purposes.

Christopher Seeger, who represented the plaintiffs, argued that the church's statements that it would not use tithing funds for City Creek or anything but charitable purposes was a specific misrepresentation because a whistleblower alleged that the church used $1.4 billion in tithing funds for City Creek and $600 million to "bail out" Beneficial Life, allegations the church denies.

Seeger also alleged that the church intentionally concealed its investment fund, citing an SEC complaint and subsequent fine paid by the church without admitting wrongdoing.

Shelby sat in front of 13 attorneys, six for the plaintiffs, six for the church and Schaerr representing evangelicals and Seventh-day Adventists.

The judge questioned Seeger and Scott George, who also appeared for the plaintiffs, with questions about whether their complaint established an actual fraud under Utah law. He repeatedly said he could not see how they showed what church statements the plaintiffs relied on when they made donations and how those donations may have been misused and how they suffered a loss.

George said the complaint established a theme. Shelby questioned whether pleading general themes met the standard for establishing fraud in the U.S. 10th Circuit. At one point, Shelby said he wanted to clarify what appeared to be a disconnect to him between what he and plaintiffs' attorneys felt was the law he should follow. That discussion lasted about 45 minutes.

-What's next-

One of the issues Shelby will consider is whether the statute of limitations bars the lawsuit altogether. Clement argued that news reports about the alleged whistleblower's account started the clock on the three-year statute in December 2019. The plaintiffs didn't file suit until 2023.

The judge noted that there were 26 national and local media accounts of the alleged whistleblower's account between December 2019 and February 2020 and that Huntsman filed his suit in 2021 and the plaintiffs in another lawsuit filed theirs in 2020. Clement said the plaintiffs seeking a class action in Friday's hearing didn't file until after the SEC settlement.

"Why is that analysis wrong?" Shelby asked George.

George said the SEC settlement provided more clarity and should be when the clock started.

The potential class-action case is one of three pending lawsuits about the church's tithing.

Shelby previously judged one of those cases, which is now before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The other, the Huntsman case, is before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It's possible those courts could issue their rulings on September hearings before Shelby issues his.

In September, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco heard arguments about whether to reinstate a lawsuit filed by Huntsman seeking a refund of $5 million he tithed to the church.

He alleges the church used tithing funds for part of the construction of the City Creek development in downtown Salt Lake City and that he wouldn't have donated the money if he knew tithing was being used for that alleged purpose.

A judge threw out the suit in 2021 but a three-judge appeals panel reinstated it in 2023 and the church appealed. The case also focuses on the church autonomy doctrine.

In a separate case, three former church members accused the church of propounding false beliefs and misrepresenting its history and practices to defraud members of donations.

Shelby also heard the case. He dismissed most of the case, but the defendants, including Laura Gaddy, appealed to the 10th Circuit Court. A panel of three 10th Circuit judges heard oral arguments in September. They have yet to issue a decision, but they indicated they saw barriers to the suit in church-autonomy precedent.

Can You Think Of Any Other Benefits That I Should Mention?

(by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)

Not infrequently, I read comments from purportedly liberated ex-Latter-day Saints about the glories of churchless Sundays.  Instead of attending mind-numbingly dull and repetitious meetings, they claim to spend most of their Sundays skiing, golfing, biking, reading classic books, listening to superb music, perfecting their highly toned bodies through exercise, enjoying the beach, and sipping fine imported wines.

And perhaps they do.

Would I gain by skipping out on Sunday meetings and spending the day as if God didn’t exist?  Yes.  In some ways, quite undeniably so.  I’m not a big fan of meetings myself.  I love forests and oceans.  And quietly reading.

But I think that my life would also be seriously impoverished.

Bracketing the truth-claims of my faith, I simply want to jot down, in no particular order, some of the things that I would be missing if I were to drop out of participation in my ward on Sundays.

I would lose a great deal of social contact, and other types of socializing probably wouldn’t fully (or even significantly) compensate me for that loss.  I think of people who lack the kind of close society that the Church provides — and not merely of young people who need to cruise singles bars in the hopes of picking somebody up with whom they can have a long-term (or even short-term) relationship.  I’ve often noticed boastful entries on a couple of message boards where apostates want to know what everybody else on their board is doing that Sunday morning instead of attending Latter-dy Saint services; the obvious answer, at least at the time people are writing there, is that they’re sitting alone in front of their computers, typing comments into cyberspace directed to strangers, to people whom, overwhelmingly, they’ve never met and probably won’t ever meet.

Virtual community isn’t entirely the same thing as real community.  It’s a well-publicized fact that study after study has demonstrated significant health benefits for religious believers.  Some opponents have dismissed those benefits as coming not from religious belief itself, but from being participants in a strongly supportive community.  Fine.  I’m not sure that that’s all it is, but let’s grant that claim for purposes of the argument.  The fact remains that religious believers have pretty easy and regular access to such supportive communities; the irreligious, on the whole, suffer by comparison.

Just one example:  When my wife is out of town, members of our ward have frequently invited me over to dinner.

On other, quite different, occasions, funerals are well-attended and grieving families are lovingly supported.  (I’ve been to some funerals, outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where the non-family mourners could easily be counted on one hand.)  Mine is a community of people who “are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort” (Mosiah 18:8-9).  “Thou shalt live together in love, insomuch that thou shalt weep for the loss of them that die” (Doctrine and Covenants 42:45).

Weddings and wedding receptions draw large, supportive crowds.  Wedding and baby showers attract eager helpers and enthusiastic participation.  The community rallies around its members at the crucial pivot-points of their lives.  We aren’t social atoms.  By contrast, my parents spent their last three decades in an upscale California neighborhood where there was seldom any contact of any kind with the people who lived on either side of them or across the street.  They were all past the age when they had kids in school and ran into each other at PTA meetings, so they had virtually nothing in common, nothing to bring them together.  They sometimes waved at each other across the street, but that was essentially the extent of their interactions.  When my parents died, nobody from their neighborhood attended the funeral services.  I doubt that any of the neighbors even knew that they had died.  Members of their ward knew, though, and they stepped forward.

Some years ago, Hilary Clinton made an African proverb famous: “It takes a village to raise a child.”  Latter-day Saint wards supply such “villages.”  They supplement the efforts of parents and extended families, providing teachers, youth leaders and activities, scouting programs, youth service projects, and the like.  Parents aren’t left on their own for the moral and social formation of their children.

I’m put in mind of Robert Putnam’s famous 2000 book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.  The book surveys the decline of “social capital” in the United States since 1950, describing what Putnam holds to be a marked reduction in all the forms of in-person social intercourse upon which Americans once founded and enriched the fabric of their social lives.  A distinguished political scientist, he believes that this trend undermines the active civil engagement on which a strong democracy depends.  If the earlier Harvard sociologist David Riesman hadn’t already used the phrase in rather a different sense as the title of a famous book of his own, Putnam could easily have described America as, more and more, a “lonely crowd.”  And I doubt very much that Putnam regards internet message boards as an adequate replacement for genuine community.

There are many other values to be found in participation in Latter-day Saint Sunday meetings, or, anyway, in something very like them.  They may not be as hedonistically satisfying as snowboarding or mountain biking on the Sabbath, but they’re probably more important, and perhaps even more satisfying, in the long term.

Take singing, for example.  Some have noticed that, once Americans are out of high school and into their mid-twenties, most never sing much any more.  A small thing, you might think, but not completely unimportant.  Church, however, offers not only congregational singing, but the chance to participate in a choir.  And, for some, the opportunity to play the piano and the organ on a regular basis.  Good things.  They keep music alive among ordinary people who aren’t professionals at it.  We who participate in church have other sources of music beyond iPods.  We’re not just passive consumers of it.

For Latter-day Saints, Sunday worship offers a weekly opportunity to renew covenants.  Even if critics recognize no transcendent significance in the sacrament service, surely they might be able to see that taking weekly stock of where one stands, and forming weekly resolutions to improve, can have real value.

Sunday services provide a chance for reflection on the biggest of big issues, an opportunity to pause and take stock of oneself and one’s life.  And not just during the administration of the sacrament.  Otherwise, the pressures to careen thoughtlessly through life — “distracted from distraction by distraction,” as T. S. Eliot puts it in the first of his Four Quartets — are intense.

At church, we think about the meaning of life.  We become part of a community of Saints that reaches back not only into the early nineteenth century but beyond, into biblical times.  And, even beyond that, into an eternity before that extends into an eternity ahead.  Especially for Americans, who tend to live in an ahistorical Now, this provides a deeply rich ground for our daily lives and decisions and pursuits.  We’re part of a communion of Saints, of those who’ve gone before and those who will follow after us.  And I haven’t even mentioned family history research, so much encouraged and supported by the Church.)  On an even grander scale, too, the Plan of Salvation, the Great Plan of Happiness, endows every day with potentially cosmic meaning.

For perhaps most of my adult life, I served as a Gospel Doctrine teacher in Sunday school.  It’s my favorite Church calling, bar none.  From one perspective, church is a kind of continuing adult education seminar.  It’s fabulous, as even those who deny their divine inspiration should be able to see, to be able to come together each week in order to discuss some of the greatest and most influential texts in human history.  For those of us who believe that, in doing so, we’re hearing the word of God, it’s an inestimable treasure.

There are even benefits to be gained from simply dressing up.  I’m not someone who loves suits and ties; I prefer, indeed, not to wear shoes.  But I feel sorry for those whose days and weeks are casual all the time, without variation, without certain times and places being demarcated as special, as worthy of somewhat greater formality.  This adds richness to life.

Participating in a community of discipleship offers enormous scope for service — which, as many studies have shown, is a major source of human happiness.  It’s not only the children and the youth who benefit from programs for young people.  The adults who’re involved in them also benefit.  And this extends beyond youth programs.  Teaching, heading up activities, participating in organized efforts to fix up widows’ homes and to shovel snow for the elderly, serving at welfare canneries, volunteering at Church employment centers, and a host of other, similar, efforts, can provide deep satisfaction.  I think, in this context, particularly of my service as a bishop, which exposed me to people and situations and experiences I would never otherwise have had.  They tested me, and sometimes they worked me to the bone, and I didn’t always handle them as effectively and competently as I wished, but I grew from them in a manner that few other assignments could have matched.

I appreciate a community in which elderly people can still contribute, and in which they’re valued.  Not merely within a family, but publicly.  And not merely for their monetary value, or their productivity as employees, which largely ends when  they retire.  In my ward, older men and women serve in multiple capacities, including the temple and various leadership roles.  They aren’t marginalized into irrelevancy.

It’s true that the preaching in our congregations isn’t done by polished professionals.  It can be uneven.  Sometimes it can be a bit pedestrian. But it’s often quite personal and heartfelt, and, through it, we learn to know about, and to know, our neighbors in remarkable ways.

Our monthly day for fasting and for expressing testimonies in sacrament meeting, when I approach it in the proper spirit, can be remarkable.  And not merely the comments made in the meeting by members of our ward.  The opportunity to abstain from food for two meals, and then to donate at least the amount of money saved thereby for assistance to the (mostly local) poor, is a wonderful one.  The money doesn’t go to fundraising campaigns, or to expensive overhead, but directly to people who need it.

These are just a few hasty thoughts.  If I were to forego gathering with the Saints on Sundays, I would miss out on all or most of what I’ve mentioned above, and probably on much else besides.  Would there be some gains?  Yes.  I might get more writing done.  I could, very conceivably, spend more time in the mountains.  I would have more time for television and, even better, for reading.  And so forth.  But, in the long term, even (for now) bracketing the eternal benefits that I foresee, my life would, in several important respects, be measurably less than it now is.

Do you have anything to add?  (Confession:  I’m more interested in comments from believing Latter-day Saints here than I am in hearing from sneering and alienated former believers.  I already know pretty much what they think.  That’s what led me to write this.)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2025/01/can-you-think-of-any-other-benefits-that-i-should-mention.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawIMgoJleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHUYGnJTvk5bGhQJNTzF8nHG-yNTQTMM17M2aZjJTtLgw0DpYT9bA6zJC9Q_aem_39SD3-KiqqIRPFN969iE5w

Exploring the Ancient Origins of Sacrament Prayers in the Book of Mormon

(By Daniel Peterson latterdaysaintmag.com 1-20-25)

Its faithful members typically think of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as restoring the New Testament church that was founded by the mortal Jesus and then led by his chosen apostles.  And that is how I commonly think of it.  In my judgment, we’re right to claim it and to proclaim it.

The claim is muddied just a bit, of course, by the fact that the Church’s modern organization has changed over time.  It’s a moving target.  Did the early Church have “assistants to the Twelve” and a “First Council of the Seventy” and “home teachers” as we once did but no longer do?  Did it have wards and stakes and a Relief Society, and Young Men’s and Young Women’s organizations?  Probably not.  But those are relatively peripheral matters.  The Lord’s Church will always be adapting to best serve the societies in which it is established.  Revelation, and the Restoration, are ongoing.

It’s clear that the idea of a restoration of original Christianity had been around for a long time.  That’s why my late friend Davis Bitton, formerly professor of history at the University of Utah and official Assistant Church Historian, wrote an unpublished general history of Christianity under the intriguing title of “Nostalgia for the Primitive Church.” He used that concept as the organizing theme of his narrative.  Sensitive observers of Christendom had long been aware, sometimes painfully so, of its manifold historical departures from the ideals and practices of the earliest Christians.

The life of St. Francis of Assisi and the Franciscan movement that he founded can be viewed as an attempt to retrieve important but neglected aspects of Christianity.  An animating principle in the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation, too, as seen in such figures as Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, was to return to original Christian teachings and practices, stripping away the changes of later generations.  And Roger Williams (d. 1683), the great early New England minister, theologian, and writer, founder of Providence and Rhode Island, is often credited with this statement:  “There is no regularly constituted church on earth, nor any person qualified to administer any church ordinances; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking.”  That precise verbal statement may not actually be his, but it does authentically seem to represent his actual views.

“Restorationism” became a powerful religious force in the early American Republic.  Its most notable exponent was the Scotland-born preacher Alexander Campbell (d. 1866).  “We have no system of our own,” he once wrote, “nor of others to substitute in lieu of the reigning systems. We only aim at substituting the New Testament in lieu of every creed in existence; whether Mohammedan, Pagan, Jewish or Presbyterian. . . .  We neither advocate Calvinism, Arminianism, Arianism, Trinitarianism, Unitarianism, Deism or Sectarianism, but New Testamentism.”

In this regard, Alexander followed in the footsteps of his father, Thomas Campbell (d. 1854), who also became an eminent preacher and a major American “Restorationist”: “Where the Bible speaks,” Thomas Campbell famously said, “we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent.”

The new dispensation that opened with the young Joseph Smith’s vision in the Sacred Grove in 1820 emerged, thus, into a particular American religious environment.  It was an environment in which the hope of a restoration of ancient, New Testament Christianity had been passionately advocated and widely embraced.  Notably, before his encounter with the Book of Mormon and his rise to the First Presidency, Sidney Rigdon had been an influential Campbellite preacher.  And he brought many of his “Restorationist” congregation with him, including such soon-to-be prominent figures as Isaac Morley, Edward Partridge, Newel K. Whitney and Elizabeth Ann Whitney, Frederick G. Williams, and the future apostles Luke and Lyman Johnson, Lyman Wight, Orson Hyde, and Parley Pratt.

Acceptance of Joseph Smith’s mission obviously entailed belief in the restoration of primitive Christianity.  But it soon became evident that the newly-founded Church would transcend mere Christian Restorationism alone.  Concepts such as prophets, patriarchs, Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, temples, priests, and high priests were at least as much at home in the Old Testament as in the New.  And the very idea of a living prophet, ongoing revelation, and new scripture went far beyond Thomas Campbell’s dictum that, “Where the Bible speaks, we speak; where the Bible is silent, we are silent.”

From its very beginning, too, this was a Nephite Restoration.  But Martin Luther, Roger Williams, and the Campbells had never imagined Adam, Abraham, Noah, or Moses as pre-Christian Christians, let alone awaited the chronicle of a vibrant pre-Columbian Christianity in the Americas.  The Nephites were wholly unexpected news.  “For this intent have we written these things,” explains Jacob 4:4, “that they may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming.”  But the news wasn’t always welcomed.  Indeed, in 1832 it was Alexander Campbell who published the very first pamphlet attacking the Book of Mormon.  The title he chose for it was “Delusions.”

After the First Vision, the first angelic ministrant to the young Joseph Smith was a resurrected Nephite named Moroni.  Later, Moroni presented Joseph not only with the golden Nephite plates, but with other Nephite artifacts such as the Urim and Thummim or Interpreters, a massive breastplate, and the Liahona (which was, strictly speaking, a Lehite artifact but which, in any case, originated well outside the biblical narrative).  And, of course, the Book of Mormon is an entirely Nephite scripture.  Although one of its constituent sections, the book of Ether, tells the story of the earlier Jaredites, it reaches us as it had been edited by a Nephite prophet.

Furthermore, the sheer length of the Book of Mormon represents, in a way, its weight and significance in the Restoration.  Counts vary, but the King James Version of the New Testament—the book at the core of Christianity as a whole—weighs in at between 180,000 and 185,000 words.  In its original Arabic, the Qur’an, the foundation of the Islamic faith, weighs in at just under 80,000 words.  The text of the Book of Mormon is roughly 270,000 words long.  Clearly, the proportion of the Restored Church’s scriptural canon that comes from the Nephites is substantial.

For the rest of this column, though, I want to focus on an element of our regular weekly worship service whose Nephite origin is, I suspect, often forgotten.

When we seek the text of the two sacrament prayers, we commonly turn to Doctrine and Covenants 20:75-79.  There, the Lord commands the elders or priests of the Church to kneel while praying as follows:

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”

We don’t know the precise words of the eucharistic or sacramental prayers among the Old World’s early Christians, but there is no evidence that they were the same as those that we use today.  Our words are Nephite words.  Before they ever appeared in the Doctrine and Covenants, they were published in the Book of Mormon.

At the conclusion of his record, as his earthly custodianship of the plates came to a close, Moroni seems to have been tying up loose ends.  Surprised to be still alive, he wanted to include as much as he could that would be useful to future readers (see 1:1, 4) in a series of very short chapters that described common Nephite religious practices.  Thus, Moroni 2-3 explains conferral of the gift of the Holy Ghost and ordination, both by the laying on of hands.  Moroni 4-5 provides the sacrament prayers.  And Moroni 6 describes the order of the Nephite church, including requirements for baptism and for maintaining (and losing) full fellowship, and how meetings were conducted.

The prayer over the bread forms the longest part of Moroni 4, and the fifth chapter of Moroni contains the prayer over the wine or water.  They are, obviously, identical to the prayers given in Doctrine and Covenants 20:

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”  (Moroni 4:3)

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee, in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”  (Moroni 5:2)

It’s likely that the sacrament prayers had been in place for centuries:  In fact, their language goes back to the time when the resurrected Savior himself instituted the ordinance of the sacrament among the Nephites.  Please note the close verbal resemblance between his words at that time and the sacrament prayers, as well as the specific sequence of the phrases:

“And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.” (3 Nephi 18:7)

“And this shall ye always do to those who repent and are baptized in my name; and ye shall do it in remembrance of my blood, which I have shed for you, that ye may witness unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you.”  (3 Nephi 18:11)

I pause here to observe that many critics allege that Joseph Smith composed the Book of Mormon as he went along.  If so, it was a very impressive feat for him to have constructed his sacrament prayers from phrases that—in my modern printed English edition—he had attributed to the risen Savior fully seventy-seven pages earlier.  And yet eyewitnesses to Joseph’s amazingly rapid dictation of the Book of Mormon expressly deny that he went back in the manuscript to refresh his memory.  And no evidence has been found to show that computer-aided searches and copy-and-paste functions had arrived on the frontier of either New York or Pennsylvania by the late-1820s.

But the Nephite roots of our sacrament prayers may go back even further in Book of Mormon history, to at least a century and a half before the visit of Christ:  At the close of King Benjamin’s speech, his audience enters into a covenant, declaring “we are willing . . . to be obedient to [God’s] commandments in all things that he shall command us,” after which they agree to “take upon [themselves] the name of Christ” and obligate themselves to “remember to retain the name written always in [their] hearts” (Mosiah 5:5-12). These three promises are still the essential elements of the sacrament prayers in today’s Latter-day Saint worship services.

(My thinking on the sacrament prayers was prompted by John W. Welch, “Our Nephite Sacrament Prayers,” which is online at BYU ScholarsArchive.)

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/exploring-the-ancient-origins-of-sacrament-prayers-in-the-book-of-mormon/

The Truth About Brigham Young

Why Was a Restoration Necessary?

(latterdaysaintmag.com 1-5-25)

“For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant; they seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.” Doctrine and Covenants 1:15–16

The Know

In the spring of 1820, Joseph Smith prayed to the Lord for forgiveness of his sins as well as for knowledge in determining which of the existing churches he should join. In response to this prayer, Joseph Smith saw God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, who commanded him that “I must join none of them, for they were all wrong” (Joseph Smith—History 1:19). The Lord then promised Joseph that “the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto me.”1

From the outset of his experiences, Joseph Smith would learn that there had been an apostasy or falling away of the early Christian church and that he would be called to restore the Church of Jesus Christ to the earth. This restoration would occur in subsequent years as Joseph Smith translated or revealed new scriptures, received priesthood authority from resurrected prophets and apostles, and formally organized the Church as instructed and authorized by the exalted Savior Jesus Christ.

From the earliest days of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the need for this restoration was clearly taught.2 That teaching sets Latter-day Saints apart from other Christians. For over two hundred years, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has maintained that “ [1] the gospel was changed, [2] the covenants were broken, [3] and the authority was lost, and thus it was necessary to restore them to the earth.”3 Further, as Richard E. Bennet has noted, “To minimize this fact is to misunderstand our history.”4 Together, these three things succinctly summarize why a restoration through the Prophet Joseph Smith was needed.

The Gospel Was Changed in Significant Ways

First, during the Apostasy many points of the gospel were deliberately altered, removed, or lost. This was made clear in the Book of Mormon by the angel who told the prophet Nephi, “They have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious” (1 Nephi 13:26). According to John W. Welch, this “could have occurred more by altering the meaning or understanding of the concepts taught by the Lord than by changing the words themselves.”5 For example, while the words grace and faith would have originally evoked covenant concepts and obligations for first-century Christians, these words were reinterpreted in later centuries to remove any covenantal associations.6 This dramatically shifted how Christians understood essential elements in the gospel of Jesus Christ.7

In addition, the angel showed Nephi that “there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God,” or the Bible (1 Nephi 13:28). As John Gee has observed, many of these problematic changes to the Bible are recognizable even as early as the second century AD, a time in which “Christianity had fragmented into dozens of splinter groups with each group charging that the other possessed both forged and corrupted texts.”8

One early Christian bishop named Irenaeus, for example, claimed that the followers of a Christian named Valentinus corrupted the scriptures “by transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another . . . adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions.”9 Tertullian similarly observed how Marcion, a Christian leader, “accepted Paul and a modified form of Luke, but rejected all other Christian scriptures.” Tertullian also openly condemned Marcion for having “made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject-matter.”10 Others added passages to the scriptures to fit their beliefs and to serve their own situations.11

The Covenants of Jesus Christ Were Modified or Discarded

Another cause of the Apostasy identified by the angel in Nephi’s vision was the loss of covenants. The angel explained, “Many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men” (1 Nephi 13:26–27). This same problem was mentioned in 1831 when the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith, “They have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant; they seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:15–16).

Forsaking covenants was a key aspect of understanding apostasy in biblical times. James E. Faulconer has observed that both “faithfulness to God and apostasy from him are often spoken of in terms of covenant [throughout the Old Testament]. To be faithful is to keep covenant; to apostatize is to break covenant.”12 Noel B. Reynolds has similarly noted that this tragic forsaking of covenants is evident in early Christian texts in the first four centuries as ordinances were changed to fit theological innovations and deemphasize the need of individuals to live a transformed life.13 As Welch observed, “Without the covenants, the teachings of early Christianity are removed from their settings in a covenant-based religion and are given more general, diluted roles.”14

Essential Priesthood Keys and Authority Were Lost

Third, in order to make covenants and perform ordinances, priesthood keys and authority are required. Operating under the keys, which were entrusted first to Peter, was essential to the order of the Church of Jesus Christ (see Matthew 16:18–19). That authorization allows an individual to represent the Lord and help others become more like Him. Gee observed, “In order for someone to represent God, God has to designate them as his representative and grant them that authority. It is not something that we choose for ourselves.”15

That priesthood authority also allows individuals to receive revelation for others under their stewardship. Thus, prophets and apostles have the authority to receive revelation for the whole Church because they have been given the needed authority to do so. Loss of this authority (and therefore the loss of this revelation), Gee notes, “will cause the Church to lose its legitimacy in God’s eyes.”16 Joseph Smith noted the loss of the priesthood as a root cause of the general apostasy as early as 1832.17 When Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery recognized that no one had the authority to baptize in 1829, John the Baptist bestowed this authority upon them, which authority “shall never be taken again from the earth” (Doctrine and Covenants 13:1).

The Why

The Great Apostasy that preceded the Restoration was caused by various circumstances working in tandem after the deaths of all twelve of the Apostles ordained by Jesus Christ.18 Any one of these reasons, whether intentional or not, would have been enough to merit a restoration of the gospel, especially as time passed with no apostolic authority and only local Church leaders left to lead the church.19 That there would be a general apostasy was recognized by the New Testament writers and even early Christians.20 However, they also recognized that there would be a restoration, righting the wrongs perpetuated by the apostasy and restoring the gospel in its fulness to the earth to complete the truths that had survived through the centuries.

The “times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began,” Peter mentioned were fulfilled in the Restoration (Acts 3:21). Speaking in modern times, the Lord has said He “called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments . . . that mine everlasting covenant might be established; that the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world, and before kings and rulers” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:17, 22–23). With the covenants of God once again established and with prophets authorized to act in God’s name again on the earth, the gospel could be fully restored.

None of this is to say, of course, that other religions, churches, denominations, or individuals are without truth.21 Such has never been the teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; prophets have repeatedly recognized how individuals faithfully held firm to the truth they had received throughout the centuries leading up to the Restoration. Elder Dallin H. Oaks taught, “When the gospel was first restored, the pulpits of this land were aflame with the testimony of Jesus, the divine Son of God and Savior of the world . . . , [and] there were many good and honorable men and women who were valiant in their own testimonies of Jesus.”22 As the prophet Joseph Smith affirmed, “Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists &c. any truth? Yes, they all have a little truth mixed with error.”23 President Gordon B. Hinckley similarly invited the world, “Bring with you all that you have of good and truth which you have received from whatever source, and come and let us see if we may add to it.”24

Thus, the Restoration of the gospel serves as an invitation to the world to come, receive more truth, make eternal covenants with God, receive ordinances from those with the authority to do so in the name of Jesus Christ, and be blessed in this life and in the next. It is a message and invitation extended by God to all people throughout the world.

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/why-was-a-restoration-necessary/

Looking Again at the Anthon Transcript(s)

(interpreterfoundation.org)

Abstract: The official account of Martin Harris’s visit to Charles Anthon, canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, suggests that Anthon may have been shown more than one transcript by Harris. The differing responses of Anthon to each of these transcripts may shed light on the kinds of characters he was shown and provide additional perspectives that can help clarify a little more what is happening in the historical sources.

https://interpreterfoundation.org/looking-again-at-the-anthon-transcripts/

Football, faculty and faith — why I’m excited about BYU’s future

(deseret.com 1-5-25)

A seasoned veteran of the U.S. Department of Commerce once told me you learn a lot by watching migratory patterns. People vote with their feet. They choose nations, communities, businesses and institutions for a reason. Right now, there is a positive magnetism flowing toward Brigham Young University.

In recent years, The Wall Street Journal has placed BYU among the nation’s top 20 universities. The Princeton Review had BYU near the top of its list of “most religious” campuses. This year, U.S. News & World Report ranked BYU 21st for best value and Forbes listed BYU as the nation’s No. 1 financially strongest school.

According to the 2025 WSJ/College Pulse survey, BYU also ranked as the most highly recommended university by recent alums and current students. BYU is top 10 for producing students who go on to earn Ph.D.s and top 5 for students who graduate with the least debt. Enrollment and admission yields remain high even as a “demographic cliff” is projected to cause a 15% dip in the population of college-age students nationwide.

BYU football, meanwhile, capped off a thrilling 11-win season last month by trouncing a highly talented Colorado team, attracting record television viewership for the Alamo Bowl. Weeks earlier, the No. 1 high school basketball prospect in the country announced his decision to play for BYU’s Kevin Young. Coach Young himself passed up attractive offers — including NBA coaching jobs — to lead BYU in one of the most competitive Power Four conferences for basketball.

But just as important as who is coming to BYU is why they want to be here.

And the reasons go much deeper than athletic opportunities.

“I wanted a place where I could be really unapologetically me,” football standout Keanu Tanuvasa told “BYU Sports Nation” last week regarding his decision to play for BYU next season over attractive offers from Georgia and Alabama, among others. “I felt like BYU reflected me in a lot of ways, in the sense of God and family being huge and in the sense of the pursuit of becoming the best version of yourself and more than just an athlete.”

Beyond athletics, BYU’s mission is attracting and retaining the most capable, innovative and spiritually aligned faculty in the university’s history. By doubling down on its distinctive value proposition of academic excellence and spiritual devotion, BYU is drawing talent who see opportunities here that may be unavailable elsewhere.

Take Shima Baughman. The daughter of an Iranian political activist who fled to the United States and eventually converted to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Baughman teaches criminal law by day and is a dynamic mother who floods Instagram with spiritual insights by night. She recently taught law at another respected institution but came back to BYU in order to explore the role faith and religion play in prisoner reintegration and reducing recidivism. She felt BYU provided an environment to ask different kinds of questions about criminal law that too often are left unanswered.

Take Bradley Rebeiro, a BYU graduate with a Ph.D. from Notre Dame whose forthcoming book “Frederick Douglass and Constitutional Abolitionism,” recently went under contract with Harvard University Press. He credits BYU’s intellectual milieu, including the Wheatley Institute where he is a constitutional fellow, for championing and enhancing the project.

Take the inaugural dean of BYU’s school of medicine, Mark Ott, who brings experience from Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Stanford and the University of Utah medical schools. He chose to step away from his surgical practice to take on the monumental role of inaugural dean because he felt compelled by the idea of building the next generation of doctor-disciples who could go out and serve the world in a manner distinct from other medical schools.

The dean of BYU’s business school, Brigitte Madrian, similarly left the prestige of Harvard to chart a vision to “transform the world through Christlike leadership,” developing business and community “leaders of faith, intellect, and character.” Under her tenure, enrollment in BYU’s business school has reached record levels.

So far, I’ve pointed to faculty from BYU’s graduate schools in law, business and medicine. But those championing BYU’s dual heritage of spirit and intellect, study and faith are coming from a variety of disciplines.

Take, Grayson Morgan, a recent hire in geography. He told me over the phone, “I love being able to integrate the gospel into how we teach at BYU and being able to bear my testimony. … There were so many instances as a graduate student and instructor where I felt the gospel would help inform a perspective here or there, but I didn’t always feel there was the support for sharing such a perspective in an academic setting. Being able to do that here at BYU has made a big difference in how I approach things.”

At the heart of studying geography, Morgan went on to say, is the idea of loving your neighbor — a central tenet of Jesus Christ’s gospel. Morgan also discussed his experience going through BYU’s hiring process, including his interview with a general authority in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

“Lindsey, my wife, and I had some concerns about moving west away from family, but the general authority we met with was so kind and considerate. He asked penetrating, good and thorough questions that really helped me realize how important being a professor at BYU is. But also, the questions and worries we had were things he had experienced in his own life. He was able to offer counsel and comfort in a lot of ways that helped us feel at peace about taking the job if we were offered it. So, it was really a beneficial process more for us. I took it as a very positive, growing experience more than a weeding process, if you will.”

Trent Williams, an associate professor of entrepreneurship, came to BYU about a year ago after stints at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University and the Whitman School of Management at Syracuse University. He similarly discussed being drawn to BYU’s distinctive educational approach:

“Having been at other institutions that I think have some nice goals, I just really appreciate the explicit linkage between the mission of educating young people and how that synchronizes with the desire to develop the whole person, especially the spiritual person. That’s the kind of approach I’ve taken historically, but now I can be overt in that approach here at BYU.”

While the institution has a long way to go, and no one in the administration is hanging up “mission accomplished” banners, there is a unified desire to continue taking the necessary steps to become the Christ-centered, prophetically directed university of prophecy. There is a palpable enthusiasm on campus and a sense of momentum for this shared vision.

Brigham Young famously admonished Karl G. Maeser: “Remember to not teach even the alphabet or the multiplication tables without the Spirit of God.”

The leadership for this comes from the Church Board of Education. It extends to BYU’s President C. Shane Reese and Church Commissioner Elder Clark G. Gilbert who each bring a dynamic energy to the task and are doggedly committed to advancing BYU’s efforts to be a world-class university unwaveringly committed to BYU’s spiritual mission. This commitment influences everything from alumni service projects at football tailgates and BYUtv stories about the good in our opponents to additional resources for inspired, experiential learning opportunities that enhance the student experience and mission-inspired efforts, including BYU’s new school of medicine with a focus on assisting the church’s worldwide humanitarian efforts.

The gospel of Jesus Christ inspires BYU’s ongoing efforts to foster a covenant community of belonging, increase graduation rates and host campus-wide date nights attended by thousands of students. Brigham Young’s admonition extends from the classroom to scholarship to facilities and even to doing athletics differently.

“It’s important that we stay humble, it’s important that we love even our opponents, so we’ve been teaching that to you guys,” BYU coach Kalani Sitake said to his team after their last-minute victory this fall over the University of Utah. “It’s what tough guys do. (LaVell Edwards) taught me that lesson, and then all I did was try to love as many people as I could. ... That’s the beauty of the gospel in football. There’s nothing like it, and that’s what tough guys do.”

Once again, BYU is supported and guided by a Church Board of Education, chaired by the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well as BYU’s executive committee, consisting of Elder D. Todd Christofferson and Elder Ronald A. Rasband, both members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Elder Michael T. Ringwood, a General Authority Seventy, and Sister Camille N. Johnson, General President of the Church’s Relief Society.

During a moment in which so many institutions of higher learning have lost a focus on students and a sense of moral grounding, BYU’s leadership knows what the institution is and what it must become. Of course, not every student or faculty member is the right fit for an explicitly religious university that overtly supports and upholds the values, positions, policies and teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That’s OK.

Not everyone is a good fit for the Air Force Academy or West Point, either. Nor is every student the right fit for Yeshiva, Catholic University, or Wheaton College. There are, thankfully, hundreds of institutions of higher learning in the United States.

But religious institutions like Pepperdine, Baylor or BYU contribute something unique in the modern educational landscape. They seek to stake out clear moral propositions and build educational communities that support the whole person during a time when so many young people face societal trends toward atomization and isolation.

Such communities require shared standards. The Air Force Academy demands rigor and expectations that transform young cadets into officers of the armed forces. BYU’s mission is different — to transform students into disciple-scholars, lifelong followers of Jesus Christ. Its shared honor code, ecclesiastical endorsement and hiring standards ensure a community focused on cultivating this common goal.

Some will see such a vision and environment as compelling. Others will disagree and even criticize BYU’s approach or goals. Those of us who support BYU can engage critics with love, humility and patience. That’s all part of BYU becoming the Christ-centered, prophetically directed university.

But it doesn’t hurt to take note of the migratory trends.

https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2025/01/05/football-faculty-faith-byu-future/