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Davis Bitton, formerly professor of history at the University of Utah and official Assistant Church Historian, wrote an unpublished general history of Christianity under the intriguing title of “Nostalgia for the Primitive Church.”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/