The Russell Nelson Era: Changes in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[Rocker Ute]

The perpetual education fund is all but dead. It was a loan program and the loans did not get repaid. Maybe BYU tuition breaks should be a loan program.

I don't know if that is true (that it is all but dead). We have some members of our ward who teach at LDS BC and they are still getting people from all around the world on the PEF. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that it is now funded in such a way that it no longer needed donations to keep it going. I have heard people critical of it because the loans they give are solely off of the interest of the fund and not the full fund itself. Dunno - would like to learn more about that and if it is true.

I really do expect to see massive ramping up of the BYU Pathways program though to counterbalance what BYU is and provide access to a decent education to the global church.

I had to be on BYU's campus at the end of the year last year, and just looking at the massive infrastructure investments etc, it is hard to believe that the church will ever fully abandon that model. I do wish they would do as scratch suggested and let the wealthy parents pay a full tuition, and then let other students in who qualify but may not be able to pay.

As for BYU being a place to find your spouse, I've had two nieces and one nephew go there and all three have struck out at finding love at BYU, but found it elsewhere. I think they should ask for their money back.

[Sullyute]

I don't know if that is true (that it is all but dead). We have some members of our ward who teach at LDS BC and they are still getting people from all around the world on the PEF. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that it is now funded in such a way that it no longer needed donations to keep it going. I have heard people critical of it because the loans they give are solely off of the interest of the fund and not the full fund itself. Dunno - would like to learn more about that and if it is true.

President Hinckley stated that the loans were from the interest earned by the PEF endowment not the endowment itself, so it should never run out of money. That should be the greatest legacy of Hinckley if it is used correctly.

[Rocker Ute]

President Hinckley stated that the loans were from the interest earned by the PEF endowment not the endowment itself, so it should never run out of money. That should be the greatest legacy of Hinckley if it is used correctly.

My comment was poorly structured (big surprise). My wondering if something was true wasn't about the PEF being run off the interest, but rather if it was all but dead.

Regarding being run solely off of the interest of the fund - I could look for it, but the church basically put out something that said as much and so I was under the impression that even if 0% of the loans ever got paid back it could go into perpetuity. I agree, that is a tremendous legacy. I only noted that people were critical that not all of PEF funds were being used, but these critics are also the same people who are critical of the Church's charitable work in general.

[Scratch]

I don't know if that is true (that it is all but dead). We have some members of our ward who teach at LDS BC and they are still getting people from all around the world on the PEF. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that it is now funded in such a way that it no longer needed donations to keep it going. I have heard people critical of it because the loans they give are solely off of the interest of the fund and not the full fund itself. Dunno - would like to learn more about that and if it is true.

I really do expect to see massive ramping up of the BYU Pathways program though to counterbalance what BYU is and provide access to a decent education to the global church.

I had to be on BYU's campus at the end of the year last year, and just looking at the massive infrastructure investments etc, it is hard to believe that the church will ever fully abandon that model. I do wish they would do as scratch suggested and let the wealthy parents pay a full tuition, and then let other students in who qualify but may not be able to pay.

As for BYU being a place to find your spouse, I've had two nieces and one nephew go there and all three have struck out at finding love at BYU, but found it elsewhere. I think they should ask for their money back.

The real solution would be for the church to sell BYU to private investors and let the marketplace control it. You would still have all of the supposed benefits that are being discussed in this thread, because the market would dictate that a huge private school in Provo, Utah (especially with BYU's history) would have cater to LDS students. You would still have essentially the same school, but the tuition would reflect the realities of the marketplace and you would also be able to disassociate from all of the negatives that get tied to the church (the church is fostering an elitist upper class, the church is subsidizing an education for a very small subset of largely American kids, the weird BYU-specific rules reflect the church's views in general, etc.).

[sancho]

The real solution would be for the church to sell BYU to private investors and let the marketplace control it. You would still have all of the supposed benefits that are being discussed in this thread, because the market would dictate that a huge private school in Provo, Utah (especially with BYU's history) would have cater to LDS students. You would still have essentially the same school, but the tuition would reflect the realities of the marketplace and you would also be able to disassociate from all of the negatives that get tied to the church (the church is fostering an elitist upper class, the church is subsidizing an education for a very small subset of largely American kids, the weird BYU-specific rules reflect the church's views in general, etc.).

I always figured SVU would eventually become a BYU east campus. You are suggesting the opposite - BYU becomes SVU west. I'm on board if anyone's taking a vote!

[Rocker Ute]

If any of you have read the biography of David O McKay the struggle between him and Ernest Wilkinson is pretty interesting in light of this discussion and realities of the church today. Wilkinson was about building BYU and like institutions all over. He wanted to create a gigantic educational conglomerate. McKay worried about the ongoing expense and feasibility of such a thing. It would appear McKay was right and fortunately Wilkinson didn't get his full wish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

If any of you have read the biography of David O McKay the struggle between him and Ernest Wilkinson is pretty interesting in light of this discussion and realities of the church today. Wilkinson was about building BYU and like institutions all over. He wanted to create a gigantic educational conglomerate. McKay worried about the ongoing expense and feasibility of such a thing. It would appear McKay was right and fortunately Wilkinson didn't get his full wish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ernie was quite a force of nature. I interviewed him once for a political science paper. At that time he was "President Emeritus" of BYU. He had a very fiery personality, which he himself described as "tempestuous." Even when I quietly asked him polite questions, he sometimes shouted his answers. When he was BYU's president he was constantly competing with the U. If the U. put up a new building, BYU would put up a bigger one. For example, the Marriott Center was a direct response to the Huntsman Center (then the Special Events Center.) It was actually kind of funny to watch.

[UtahsMrSports]

My go-to source for conference rumors is @TheStakeClerk. He (mostly) nailed it with the 2 hour church.

He is hearing that we are going to see a sharp uptick in the number of temples.

[LA Ute]

He is hearing that we are going to see a sharp uptick in the number of temples.

FWIW, we have a current GA in our ward who says the same thing.

[concerned]

FWIW, we have a current GA in our ward who says the same thing.

According to some in my book group, the coffee/tea WOW rumor has legs, because the ban is inhibiting missionary work in Asia. In their work, they interface with higher-ups in the Church, so they might be on to something.

[Scratch]

According to some in my book group, the coffee/tea WOW rumor has legs, because the ban is inhibiting missionary work in Asia. In their work, they interface with higher-ups in the Church, so they might be on to something.

I could easily see them saying that the word of wisdom prohibitions are not barriers to baptism or full membership in good standing for converts. That would actually track the history of the WOW, where it was initially just general advice that was later turned to a commandment after the church's membership had had the opportunity to acclimate to it. In other words, it would essentially be a micro, individual implementation of that historical macro principle.

[concerned]

I could easily see them saying that the word of wisdom prohibitions are not barriers to baptism or full membership in good standing for converts. That would actually track the history of the WOW, where it was initially just general advice that was later turned to a commandment after the church's membership had had the opportunity to acclimate to it. In other words, it would essentially be a micro, individual implementation of that historical macro principle.

You could be baptized, you can go to temple, but you still couldn't go to BYU.

[UtahsMrSports]

I took a poll on twitter for people to vote on whether or not there would be changes to the Wow, temple numbers, and missionary program. So far I have about 25 responses on each question. 52% think the wow will change, 64% think the temple numbers will go way up and 88% think there will be changes to the missionary program. Thats a majority of each and my "n" is clearly high enough that I feel safe saying that each of these rumors are confirmed.

[DrumNFeather]

Looks like the November 2015 policy related to baptism of children of LGBTQ parents is no more. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/artic...ion-april-2019

[Rocker Ute]

Looks like the November 2015 policy related to baptism of children of LGBTQ parents is no more. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/artic...ion-april-2019

Thank goodness.

[LA Ute]

Looks like the November 2015 policy related to baptism of children of LGBTQ parents is no more. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/artic...ion-april-2019

Key text:

At the direction of the First Presidency, President Oaks shared that effective immediately, children of parents who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender may be baptized without First Presidency approval if the custodial parents give permission for the baptism and understand both the doctrine that a baptized child will be taught and the covenants he or she will be expected to make.

A nonmember parent or parents (including LGBT parents) can request that their baby be blessed by a worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holder. These parents need to understand that congregation members will contact them periodically, and that when the child who has been blessed reaches 8 years of age, a Church member will contact them and propose that the child be baptized.

Previously, our Handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.

The very positive policies announced this morning should help affected families. In addition, our members’ efforts to show more understanding, compassion and love should increase respect and understanding among all people of goodwill. We want to reduce the hate and contention so common today. We are optimistic that a majority of people — whatever their beliefs and orientations — long for better understanding and less contentious communications. That is surely our desire, and we seek the help of our members and others to attain it.

[UTEopia]

While I am happy about the change. I believed the policy was wrong from the start. Changes like these cause many to doubt. Did God's will change in the past 4 years? I understand the difference between policy and doctrine, but many don't.

[mUUser]

...….I believed the policy was wrong from the start.......

Yeah anybody with an ounce of common sense did. Gonna happily this one behind us.

[LA Ute]

Looks like the November 2015 policy related to baptism of children of LGBTQ parents is no more. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/artic...ion-april-2019

Key text:

At the direction of the First Presidency, President Oaks shared that effective immediately, children of parents who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender may be baptized without First Presidency approval if the custodial parents give permission for the baptism and understand both the doctrine that a baptized child will be taught and the covenants he or she will be expected to make.

A nonmember parent or parents (including LGBT parents) can request that their baby be blessed by a worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holder. These parents need to understand that congregation members will contact them periodically, and that when the child who has been blessed reaches 8 years of age, a Church member will contact them and propose that the child be baptized.

Previously, our Handbook characterized same-gender marriage by a member as apostasy. While we still consider such a marriage to be a serious transgression, it will not be treated as apostasy for purposes of Church discipline. Instead, the immoral conduct in heterosexual or homosexual relationships will be treated in the same way.

The very positive policies announced this morning should help affected families. In addition, our members’ efforts to show more understanding, compassion and love should increase respect and understanding among all people of goodwill. We want to reduce the hate and contention so common today. We are optimistic that a majority of people — whatever their beliefs and orientations — long for better understanding and less contentious communications. That is surely our desire, and we seek the help of our members and others to attain it.

[UtahsMrSports]

While I am happy about the change. I believed the policy was wrong from the start. Changes like these cause many to doubt. Did God's will change in the past 4 years? I understand the difference between policy and doctrine, but many don't.

In my opinion, and maybe its a hope, is that had this policy not been leaked and the leaders had a chance to discuss it further, they may have come to the conclusions of today. I think the fact that it got leaked, they felt their hand was forced and went with it.

[LA Ute]

Regarding the policy change on children of the same-sex parents, my opinion is that we should take “yes“ for an answer. It seems to me the prior policy was based on treating those kids the same as children of polygamist parents, which might have seemed logical at the time, but on reflection is not. Polygamy is illegal; same-sex marriage is not.

[Scorcho]

I'll argue that LDS church leaders look at baptism rates the last few years and recognized it has slowed to a crawl, despite having more missionaries than ever, and decided "all hands on deck"



okay not really, but I was late to this thread and all of the good commentary had already been posted

[Applejack]

Regarding the policy change on children of the same-sex parents, my opinion is that we should take “yes“ for an answer. It seems to me the prior policy was based on treating those kids the same as children of polygamist parents, which might have seemed logical at the time, but on reflection is not. Polygamy is illegal; same-sex marriage is not.

It never seemed logical.

[concerned]

This is to stop the bleeding. This policy is having a big effect on membership, especially among millennials.

[LA Ute]

This is to stop the bleeding. This policy is having a big effect on membership, especially among millennials.

Do you really think so? Are data available?

[Scorcho]

Do you really think so? Are data available?

I know this doesn't directly deal with the subject discussed, but clearly growth has slowed. In the 80's there were years when nearly 500k were joining every year.

Year	Total membership	New converts added	Percentage growth
2013	15,082,028	299,555	2.03%
2014	15,372,337	290,309	1.92%
2015	15,634,199	261,862	1.70%
2016	15,882,417	248,218	1.59%
2017	16,118,169	233,729	1.47%

https://religionnews.com/2018/04/13/...ly-in-the-u-s/

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...-declines.html\

I blame BYU

[concerned]

Do you really think so? Are data available?

Yes I really think so. Based on comments I have heard.

[chrisrenrut]

Do you really think so? Are data available?

I think the negative effect of this was more about attrition than growth. I remember at the time there was a huge increase (at least locally) of record removal requests. I think it also drove more than a few highly active members towards inactivity.

[LA Ute]

“It is clear that in our daily labors, in our families, and in our Church associations is a significant share of the clinical material that God has given us to practice on. This means we will experience at each others’ hands some pain, some lack of finesse, and certainly some genuine mistakes. In fact, as we see each other developing and growing (as well as sometimes when we are not at our best), we are privy to an intimate and precious thing.”

--Neal A. Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2007 edition), loc. 879, kindle Edition

[LA Ute]

It never seemed logical.

It can seem logical but only if one does not think it through, IMO. I don’t think that was done.