Additional Helps for Teacher Development
Chapter Five: Teach the Scriptures, 1980–1989


“Chapter Five: Teach the Scriptures, 1980–1989,” By Study and Also by Faith—One Hundred Years of Seminaries and Institutes of Religion (2015)

“Chapter Five,” By Study and Also by Faith

Chapter Five

Teach the Scriptures

1980–1989

Image
Henry B. Eyring

Henry B. Eyring served as Commissioner of the Church Educational System from 1980 to 1986 and again from 1992 to 2005.

Church leaders in the late 1960s and ’70s had set out to change the world by launching programs in dozens of different countries. During the 1980s the international expansion of Church education continued, and the impact of bringing so many new cultures into the CES family was felt at Church headquarters as CES leaders found themselves having to change to meet the needs of a dynamic worldwide faith. With myriad new languages being taught in the classrooms of seminaries and institutes, curriculum needed to be reduced and simplified. Careful consideration was given to how the limited resources of the Church could best serve the needs of members across the globe.

Commissioner Henry B. Eyring

The spring and summer of 1980 proved to be historically significant in the Church Educational System. On May 7, Dallin H. Oaks, then serving as president of Brigham Young University, wrote to the Board of Education submitting his resignation as president. He said he believed it best for the university “to have a policy of regular turnover in the office.”1 Jeffrey R. Holland, then the commissioner of the Church Educational System, was announced as the new president of BYU beginning July 31, 1980, and Henry B. Eyring, then serving as a deputy commissioner, was appointed acting commissioner of the Church Educational System until a new commissioner could be selected.2 Only two weeks after this appointment, the Board announced that Brother Eyring would serve as the new commissioner.3

During this time of change, CES followed the purpose and direction outlined in President J. Reuben Clark Jr.’s foundational document The Charted Course of the Church in Education. In an address to religious educators in September of 1980, President Marion G. Romney of the First Presidency reread most of this document but substituted the word you for the original phrase “the Church seminaries and institutes.”4 Commissioner Eyring drove President Romney home after the meeting and later related, “I talked with President Romney, as we drove along, about all the changes in youth, in morals, in science, in education, in the sophistication of young people, and the changes in the families.” President Eyring then asked, “Do you think what President Clark taught still describes the way we should approach our students today?” In response, “President Romney chuckled, sat silent for a moment, and then said, ‘Oh, I think President Clark could see our time—and beyond.’”5

CES Administration

During this time Stanley A. Peterson continued his service as the associate commissioner over seminaries, institutes, and Church schools, and zone administrator Frank D. Day became the new assistant commissioner. Clarence F. Schramm, a division coordinator with experience as both a teacher and an administrator, accepted the assignment to become a zone administrator.6 A few months later, in December 1980, A. Bryan Weston, division coordinator of the Great Plains Area, also accepted a zone administrator assignment.7 Dan J. Workman, Frank M. Bradshaw, and Bruce M. Lake made up the rest of the zone administration staff. In 1984 Garry K. Moore was asked to fill the vacancy left when Bruce Lake was called as a mission president.8

Image
leaders at a meeting

Stanley A. Peterson conducts An Evening with a General Authority meeting during the 1980s. Visible on the stand is Marjorie Pay Hinckley (front row, far left), Gordon B. Hinckley, and Commissioner Henry B. Eyring.

Clarence F. Schramm

Brother Clarence F. Schramm had been recruited as a student at Brigham Young University by President Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles when President Packer was serving as a CES administrator. A veteran of the Korean War, Brother Schramm needed to qualify as a teacher in order to maintain his scholarship under the G.I. Bill offered by the United States government. When he dropped by to ask about teaching seminary part-time, President Packer replied, “Clarence, why are you just playing around with part-time teaching[?] You really ought to try this full time. Get in and get your feet wet.” President Packer then asked him to visit the small community of Roosevelt, Utah, to look into a teaching position there. Brother Schramm was unaware that there was an open position at the Roosevelt seminary and school was set to begin in only a few days.9

Image
area directors

CES area directors, circa 1983. On the front row, from left to right, are Bruce M. Lake, A. Bryan Weston, Stanley A. Peterson, Franklin D. Day, Frank M. Bradshaw, Clarence F. Schramm, and Dan J. Workman.

Brother Schramm recalled of his trip to Roosevelt, “I had never been out there. I decided to get a haircut before I did anything. So I went in the barbershop and the barber … spun me around in the chair and said, ‘You must be the new Seminary teacher.’ That’s how small the town was.” When Brother Schramm walked over to the seminary building, the principal also assumed he was the new teacher and said, “Where have you been? School starts on Monday.” Brother Schramm remembered, “I hadn’t committed [to teaching] yet, but I had to commit pretty fast.”10

A few days later Brother Schramm started his career in Church education, teaching in the very same building where William E. Berrett had taught his first seminary class three decades earlier. He later recalled the humble circumstances in Roosevelt: “It was a little white clapboard building. It had no restrooms; it had a little gas stove, propane stove, and a nest of skunks that had moved in underneath it. [In] the winter time, we had to rotate the kids so they would sit on the front row for fifteen minutes and then we’d just automatically change because they would get too hot and the [students] on the back row would be too cold.”11

Over the next several decades Brother Schramm’s career took him to Pocatello, Idaho, and Provo, Utah. After completing his graduate education, he was reassigned to Southern California in 1963. He was instrumental in starting a number of institute programs in the area and for a time served as the director of two programs simultaneously—at Citrus College and Pasadena City College. In 1965 he moved to Sacramento to direct the institute there, and later he was appointed as the area director over Southern California and then over Northern California before his appointment as a zone administrator in 1981.12

A. Bryan Weston

The second new member of the administration, A. Bryan Weston, had been recruited into the seminary program by his mission president, Joy Dunyon. Brother Weston, who had been planning to study music in college, recalled of the experience, “I served as a counselor to him in the mission presidency and traveled with him a lot, so we had a lot of time to talk. And he encouraged that fledgling thought about Church Education.”13 After his mission, Brother Weston did his student teaching at Logan High School and then was hired and sent to Murray, Utah, to teach full-time. After only a year, he asked to be assigned to the institute in Bozeman, Montana, where his parents lived. The assignment in Bozeman was only part-time, so he also took a position as a teaching assistant at Montana State University, teaching genetics and animal science while he worked on a doctoral degree.14 At the time of his arrival, the Bozeman institute was small and struggling. Starting with only 15 students, Brother Weston began approaching LDS families in the area to find prospective students. Three years later, enrollment had risen to 125 students.15

After four years in Bozeman, Brother Weston was transferred to Moscow, Idaho, to direct the institute there. Serving in the home of the first institute of the Church was a thrilling experience for him. He later commented, “There was a great spirit at that place. … Soon after I got there, I looked in the files and found some old telegrams that had come to J. [Wyley] Sessions from President Heber J. Grant and the First Presidency, giving him some instructions and stepping stones along the way as he was trying to establish this new program for the Church.”16

In 1976 Brother Weston was appointed as the director for the Rocky Mountain States Division, which stretched from Minnesota on the north to Kansas on the south and took in parts of eight different states. For the next few years he supervised roughly 40 full-time personnel scattered over the vast area until he was asked to move to Salt Lake City to serve as a zone administrator.17

Garry K. Moore

The final new addition to the administrative team was Garry K. Moore. Brother Moore had grown up in a military family, spending his childhood in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Japan. He attended early-morning seminary in Arizona during his high school years. In 1966 he was serving as a counselor in the presidency of the Language Training Mission at BYU when the other counselor in the presidency asked him if he had ever considered a career as a seminary teacher. He recalls, “I didn’t know what he was talking about, because my teachers were volunteers. I didn’t have any idea what [released] time was, never been in an institute.” He then received a call about it from Marshall T. Burton, the head of personnel for the seminary and institute programs. After discussing the matter with his wife, Lanell, Brother Moore initially declined. They received another opportunity later that same year when a seminary teacher was drafted into the army and his position opened up. This time Brother Moore accepted, despite his lack of familiarity with CES. He later joked, “The first time, to my recollection, I had ever set foot in a release time seminary was the day I walked in as a new teacher, mid-year. So I’m not exactly a traditional hire.”18

Image
Garry K. Moore, Franklin D. Day

Garry K. Moore (left) with Franklin D. Day in 1984. The spire of the newly dedicated Taipei Taiwan Temple is visible in the background.

Brother Moore spent the next couple of years teaching in the Salt Lake Valley followed by one year at the institute in Calgary, Canada, before leaving the system to work in the business world for several years in Los Angeles, California. During this time he continued to serve as a volunteer early-morning seminary teacher. A few years later he was prompted to return to CES. “I received a blessing from the bishop to whom [I] was serving as a counselor,” he later recalled. “It surprised me a bit and I think [it] surprised him because he was very specific, ‘You oughta resign and go take this assignment.’ Which I did at about [a] 50% cut in salary.”19 Brother Moore accepted a position at the Santa Maria, California, institute. He later served as the institute director in Long Beach, California, and as the area director for the Eastern United States Area before joining the central office staff in 1984.20

For many years, Stanley A. Peterson, Franklin D. Day, Dan J. Workman, Frank M. Bradshaw, Bruce M. Lake, Clarence F. Schramm, A. Bryan Weston, and Garry K. Moore supervised all CES programs as an executive council. Another key figure during this time was Gerald N. Lund, who helped focus the curriculum on the scriptures, introduced new teaching techniques, and established a multitude of other important developments in CES.

Gerald N. Lund

Image
Gerald N. Lund

Gerald N. Lund pioneered several innovations in teaching and curriculum design during the 1980s.

Brother Lund, later a member of the Quorums of the Seventy, had first contemplated a career in religious education while he was a student at BYU. He took a class from B. West Belnap, the dean of Religious Instruction, and “was particularly impressed with Brother Belnap’s openness and willingness to listen to student questions.”21 When Brother Lund gave an unconventional answer to a controversial question in a paper for this class, Brother Belnap was so impressed that he asked him if he had ever thought about teaching seminary professionally. Elder Lund later recalled, “I have to admit, I didn’t even know there was such a thing as a career in seminary teaching. I went to seminary, but I didn’t know they paid the teachers.” He ended up taking the training course and pursuing a career in CES.22

In February 1965 Brother Lund was hired as a seminary teacher at Hillcrest seminary in Midvale, Utah, replacing a teacher who had become too ill to complete the school year. He taught at Hillcrest for two and a half years, after which he returned to BYU to begin a master’s degree. While there, he taught at Brigham Young High School for one year until it closed. Then he taught at the Provo seminary until he completed his master’s degree in sociology. At that point he moved to Walnut, California, to accept his appointment as the institute director near Mt. San Antonio College.23

During his time in California, Brother Lund pursued further education. He later remembered, “I applied to and was accepted at the Claremont Graduate School—the premiere Bible-oriented theological school west of the Mississippi—because I said I wanted to get a doctorate in that field. I was actually standing in the registration line, three people from the front, when suddenly I had this overwhelming feeling, ‘What are you doing here? This is not what you want.’ And so I turned around, ripped up my check, and walked away. That was one of those times when the Lord really took a hand in my life.” Later, Brother Lund attended Pepperdine University, sponsored by the Church of Christ, and was able to engage in a course of study focusing on the divinity of Christ and the Bible.24 In addition to attending Pepperdine, he was a student at the University of Judaism in Hollywood, where he learned Hebrew.25

In 1974 Brother Lund left California to work at the central office as a college curriculum writer. He later became the director over college curriculum as well as the director of training. More than a decade later, in 1987, he was appointed to the newly created position of central office zone administrator, a post he kept for the rest of his career.26 Working as an author in his free time, Gerald N. Lund is known for his historical fiction, including the best-selling The Work and the Glory series. While at the central office in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Brother Lund helped further develop the CES curriculum and teaching standards.27

The Homestead Experience

A significant shift in the approach of Church education toward the scriptures began in the early 1980s, when Brother Peterson expressed his desire that the curriculum department develop a philosophy of curriculum that would be effective, reduce page counts and costs of curriculum, and simplify translation. He was continuing the work begun in the 1970s born out of the need to greatly reduce and simplify the curriculum used in CES classes around the world.28

As curriculum department personnel began discussing reductions, some emphasized that good curriculum engendered good teaching, while others believed that with proper training and armed with the scriptures, teachers need not be encumbered with “too many objectives, ideas, object lessons, or questions to ask.”29 David A. Christensen, director of curriculum, remembered that he was not happy with the changing “philosophy of curriculum,” nor were Jay E. Jensen, the director of seminary curriculum, or Gerald N. Lund, the head of institute curriculum.30 But they were not united as to the solution.31

Following a November 1980 meeting in which this lack of unity was easy to see, Brothers Christensen, Jensen, and Lund found themselves with very strong but different feelings on the subject. They were unable to reach an agreement, and when Brother Peterson became aware of the situation, he called them into his office.32 Brother Peterson told them, “What we need to do is to have a philosophy of curriculum that you four [the fourth person was Gordon B. Holbrook, manager of special needs curriculum, who was away on assignment when this meeting happened] can agree on, that David can feel good about directing, and I want that now.”33 Then he asked that the three men leave the building, go off somewhere together, and within a few days present a united proposal on curriculum that could be used both in and out of the United States. Before they left he asked that they fast and told them he would fast with them. “I am deeply impressed that Satan does not want this to happen,” he said. Before they left, they knelt in prayer and Brother Peterson blessed them and their mission.34

Brothers Christensen, Jensen, and Lund made reservations at the Homestead Resort in Utah’s Heber Valley. That evening, as they packed for the days ahead, all three of them experienced distractions and difficulties at home.35 Even so, each tried to focus on the task at hand, whether by looking through the Book of Mormon, rereading The Charted Course of the Church in Education, or studying the teaching skills found in the Doctrine and Covenants.36 Fasting, they met together at the Homestead, where they prayed, pondered, outlined ideas on a chalkboard, searched the scriptures, and reviewed the purpose of the Church Educational System and the aim of curriculum.37 They carefully considered a statement Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had made to CES personnel: “If you want to know what it is you should be teaching when you teach the gospel, teach the scriptures; teach them in the order they were given, in the emphasis the Lord gives them and in that way the Lord will teach [the students] what he wants them to know and in the order that he wants them to know it.”38

The fundamental conclusion they came to was to teach the scriptures sequentially, from the beginning of each standard work to the end. They summarized their decisions in the form of five statements:39 (1) “The curriculum would be scripture driven instead of concept oriented.”40 No longer would teachers teach a single concept for the entire class period. Instead, they would teach a scripture block that usually contained several concepts.41 (2) Administrators would create a student manual reduced in size, but the scriptures would be students’ primary text. (3) “An instructional improvement package would have to be in place to help the teachers adapt to the new curriculum.” (4) Seminary courses would use the four institute manuals (Book of Mormon, Old Testament, New Testament, and Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) as resources. (5) The curriculum development department would continue with David Christensen at the head and Gerald Lund, Jay Jensen, and Gordon Holbrook as his assistants. “In addition, a new department was needed to further research and development.”42

Sequential Scripture Teaching and Readiness, Involvement, and Application

Brothers Christensen, Jensen, and Lund returned to the Church Office Building united and soon won the approval of Brother Peterson and the zone administrators to teach the scriptures sequentially instead of topically.43 Commissioner Henry B. Eyring and the Church Board of Education agreed with the new direction, and the timing, too, seemed right: the Church had recently released a new edition of the scriptures that was cross-referenced and contained important corrections and doctrinal clarification from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Everyone agreed that the power of the scriptures would hold students’ interest.

Elder Lund remembered seeing that captivating power illustrated in an early-morning seminary class in Austin, Texas, several years after the new curriculum was put in place. He described entering the room and seeing the teacher:

She was this little wisp of a thing. She couldn’t have been five feet, probably weighed ninety-eight pounds and speaks in this little tiny voice, and I thought, “Oh my, they’re going to just eat her alive.” Then in walk these kids; one of them’s chewing on a McDonald’s breakfast, and another one’s got her hair in curlers, two of them are big football players … and I just thought to myself, “This is going to be ugly.” Then she started, and she took them right into the scriptures, and it was just an incredible experience to watch those kids working. Afterwards, I cornered some of the kids. I picked out [one of the football players] and I said, “Tell me what you think about [your teacher]?” He said, “Oh, she’s the most incredible teacher. … I am learning so much from the scriptures.”44

Sequential scripture teaching allowed each student to discover gospel truths as he or she was personally inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Part of the motivation behind the new training came from Elder Lund’s experience. When he was attending a Church meeting in the mid-1980s, he noticed that the first speaker had prepared thoroughly and had rich content, but his audience seemed bored. The second speaker, in contrast, was very lively and kept her audience engaged, though her content had very little substance. Finally, the third speaker had rich content and, for the most part, kept his audience’s attention.45

Elder Lund later remembered, “I was so intrigued. I had a little folded bank deposit slip in my pocket and I took it out and wrote, right there, that there were three things that were critical in the educational process. … One was learner readiness and what was it that created that different state of readiness in us as an audience, and the other was learner participation, and the other was learner application.”46

Reflecting on this experience, Brother Lund developed a model for effective teaching that included three elements: “First, some kind of readiness (attention grabbing) tool; second, some sort of participation on the part of the student … ; and third, … some kind of relevant application.” The process became a standard skill set for seminary and institute teachers.47 Elder Lund continued:

We’ve had a lot of teachers who think that they’re teaching the scriptures effectively when they say, “All right students, let’s open to chapter one of Alma, and John, would you read a verse?” and then they comment and [say], “Sally, you read a verse,” and then they comment on it. I say “No,” you know, there are things that a teacher can do that helps create variety, there are things that a teacher can do to maintain participation all the way through, and there are things a teacher can do that help a student make application to his [or her] own life. And so we started to try and articulate and define what those were.48

There was more to sequential scripture teaching, or SST, than a teacher opening the scriptures and having students read and comment on a verse. Teachers also received instruction in a teaching process called readiness, participation, and application (RPA, originally referred to as RIA, which stood for readiness, involvement, and application). They learned how to engender student readiness, invite their participation, and motivate them to apply the scriptures to daily living. Regardless of the curriculum and the teaching methods employed, instruction was not complete until students actually lived what had been taught. SST and RPA became the symbols, even the rallying cry, for CES teachers in the 1980s. Leaders hoped teachers would seek the Spirit, perceive the original intent of the writers, and not be afraid to make the lesson enjoyable.49 Elder Lund reflected on some of the difficulties: “One of the other things we saw was teachers who would pore over that scripture block and find just wonderful stuff that just thrilled them that was so over the head of a ninth grader that he was just bored to tears.” Along with teaching the scriptures, emphasis was given to meeting the needs of the students. Elder Lund recalled attending a symposium presentation during the time titled “Teaching the Scriptures and Making It Fun.” One teacher in attendance was infuriated that the presenter used the word fun in the context of teaching the scriptures. Brother Lund took the offended teacher aside and tried to discuss this with him, saying, “Look, we’re not talking about the old gimmicks and games, we’re talking about being in those scriptures, and the kids learning from them, and that is fun.”50

During the 1980s all four seminary courses of study were rewritten with a sequential format, and sequential scripture study was implemented in home-study seminary as well. Elder Lund later looked back on the change in curriculum. “When we switched over to the scripture-centered approach … we said, ‘We think there’s power in the scriptures that will hold them.’ … When they’re in the scriptures and being fed spiritually … it [makes] a difference.”51

Commissioner Eyring asked that the teachers also study the gospel more diligently and immerse themselves in scripture study. He had a deep faith that “young people can be led into and love the scriptures.”52 In 1981 Commissioner Eyring had predicted that in four or five years “you will see more Latter-day Saint youth in our classes pondering the scriptures, talking about them with each other, teaching each other from them, loving them, believing that they really do have the answers to the questions of their hearts.”53 In 1984 President Gordon B. Hinckley, then a member of the First Presidency, told CES personnel, “We have never before had a generation of youth so well-read in the scriptures, so conversant with the scriptures, and so appreciative of the scriptures as we have at the present time. This is largely due to your efforts.”54

Reduce and Simplify

In response to Brother Peterson’s instruction to reduce page counts and costs and to simplify translation, institute course offerings were reviewed and those that did not contribute to fulfilling the mission statement of the Church Educational System were eliminated. A survey revealed that more than 70 different courses were being taught in the various institutes. This number was reduced to 15 authorized courses for institutes worldwide. To retain sufficient flexibility, an approval process was established so that teachers could offer a course outside the approved curriculum to accommodate unusual circumstances.55

While many courses were simplified and their manuals significantly shortened, others received renewed attention. The missionary preparation course was revised by replacing the student manual and instructor’s guide with materials provided by the Missionary Training Center. The CES curriculum department worked with members of the missionary department to write the new teacher manual to help institute teachers adapt the material for use in an institute class.56

Image
book, Church History in the Fulness of Times

The Church History in the Fulness of Times manuals brought some of the most current information available to Church history courses taught in institutes of religion.

Approval was also given to write a new textbook for the institute course on Church history. According to Calvin R. Stephens, who directed the effort, this text was designed to “show [the] hand of God moving His kingdom forward.” It took six years to produce the manual. When finished, checked, and double-checked for accuracy, it became a 649-page text with beautiful pictures, photocopies of rare old documents, maps, facsimiles of the front pages of Church periodicals, photocopies of the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon, and facsimiles of some of the most important revelations. Local teachers or administrators around the world were to develop a unit on the history of the Church in their area so that the course had local relevance and appeal.57 Titled Church History in the Fulness of Times, the new 1989 manual was used in the institutes and seminaries and in Church schools and was welcomed by teachers and students alike. Many adults even purchased copies for their home libraries. One member of the Correlation Committee said, “When I get a chance and the phone is not ringing, I go shut my door and read this. … It’s fascinating.”58

Visual Curriculum

The 1970s and ’80s also saw new developments in the visual curriculum prepared for use in CES classrooms. Capitalizing on the positive response to the Tom Trails filmstrip series, which focused on teachings from the New Testament and was originally produced for the American Indian seminary program, similar series were written for all four seminary courses of study. Like Unto Us (Book of Mormon) and Gates of Zion (Old Testament) were written in the 1970s and followed a group of LDS teens through various circumstances as they sought to integrate gospel principles with everyday situations. These series were replaced in the 1980s with Free to Choose (Book of Mormon) and Not of the World (New Testament), both of which replaced the filmstrip format with still pictures placed on video, eliminating the familiar “beep” that for years had signaled that the next frame in the filmstrip was to be shown. Finally, with the I Will Lead You series on the Doctrine and Covenants, the episodes became full-motion video.59

There was also a well-received videocassette series entitled Hold to the Rod (produced in 1984–88). These videos were among the first media to use scripture-based concepts and modern situations to teach students scripture-study skills. They depicted the blessings and power that come from understanding and applying the principles of the gospel as found in the scriptures and words of the prophets.60 When Hold to the Rod was integrated into CES curriculum in 1985, it came with four specific objectives: first, to motivate students to study the scriptures; second, to help students develop the skills needed for scripture study; third, to provide students with “positive models of the benefits of searching the scriptures”; and fourth, to give students “opportunities to practice scripture study skills.”61

Steven K. Jones, one of the leading figures involved in the creation of Hold to the Rod, said of his vision for the series, “My desire was to use media to both motivate and to train students. Motivate them to read more and train them to be able to understand more of what they read.”62 The series was initially intended to comprise only three presentations, but implementation was so successful that it “became a twelve-piece series which spanned the technological and production bridge from multi-media filmstrips to full-video, live-action productions.”63

Hold to the Rod was different from previous CES media and was designed specifically with the scriptures as the main focus. Brother Peterson later observed, “It was really a good series. But I think it was a turning point in a lot of ways. It began to bring us back into focusing on the word of God.”64 As the 1980s drew to a close, there was more specific direction given to those preparing visual media to follow the method set out by Hold to the Rod and “have more variety and to focus some of them more on the doctrine, some of them more on the scriptural history, and have them be less self-contained, ‘here’s a movie to watch,’ and more ‘Here’s something I can use as a tool in the classroom.’”65

Faculty Training and Support

The CES administration worked hard to train and support CES faculty in order to make their jobs easier. Brother Peterson believed the entire Church Educational System would function better if the zone administrators and teachers felt that “they [were] part of the decision-making process.” Before the new handbook for policies and procedures was published, for example, he sent it to all of the teachers and administrators and asked them to review the policies, noting the ones they disagreed with or believed would not enhance CES objectives. Then he had the area directors collect these critiques and bring them to a weeklong workshop where, working in concert with administrators and staff personnel, the handbook was revised and approved and then published.66 Many other programs and policies were implemented during his administration to help CES personnel excel.

CES Symposiums

The CES symposium, which started in 1977, became an annual gathering of the entire CES family. Brother Peterson later commented, “What I wanted was that family spirit … when we’re all together. So I called the symposium the family reunion and I said—You know, we’re going to have a family reunion and we want as many of you who can to come.” Every year in August teachers gathered to share ideas, learn new techniques, and be together with the CES family. Funds were eventually made available to allow early-morning volunteer teachers to attend. Before that time, many of the volunteer teachers paid their own way to take part in the symposium.67

Over the years, the CES symposium became not only a warm gathering of friends and colleagues but also an important fountainhead where teachers received training in best teaching techniques, heard the latest in scriptural scholarship, and received instruction from modern-day prophets. Keynote speeches were delivered by members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles or other General Authorities.68 Many of the addresses became classics read by teachers for years to come.

In 1981 President Boyd K. Packer began his address to CES by speaking about a seminary teacher he knew who attended a large university in the eastern United States. As the teacher progressed in his studies, he chose to write his dissertation on the work of a ward bishop. He began to receive praise from his professors, who predicted he would become an established authority in his field but pressured him to leave out any references to the Spirit, revelation, or other spiritual concepts. Ultimately the man chose to leave some gospel references in his dissertation, though this meant that it would never be published. President Packer continued, “He returned to the modest income and to the relative obscurity of the Church Educational System. I talked to this teacher a day or two ago. … He has been a great influence among the youth of the Church. He did the right thing. He summed up his experience this way: ‘The mantle is far, far greater than the intellect; the priesthood is the guiding power.’” President Packer used the story to introduce the central theme of his talk: “A member of the Church ought always, particularly if he is pursuing extensive academic studies, to judge the professions of man against the revealed word of the Lord.”69

The CES symposium also engendered a sense of intimacy with General Authorities, who often shared personal stories and teaching ideas, knowing their audience was a corps of dedicated teachers. At one symposium, Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught about the importance of teachers’ relationship with the scriptures and the gospel:

Become a gospel scholar. With such a great commission, how can we do other than become gospel scholars and then so live as to enable the Spirit to draw from our acquired treasures of truth those portions needed in the very hour?

In the very nature of things every teacher becomes an interpreter of the scriptures to his hearers. It could not be otherwise. We are to preach, teach, expound, and exhort. But our explanations must be in harmony with prophetic and apostolic utterances, and they will be if they are guided by the Spirit. Remember that these are the chief officers placed in the Church to see that we are not “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14).70

Complementing the addresses by Church leaders were presentations by some of the finest Latter-day Saint scripture scholars. Each year the symposium focused on the scriptural text being studied in seminary the coming year. Presentations included topics such as “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Language of the Book of Mormon,”71 “Hosea and Gomer: Teaching Divine Love and the Miracle of Forgiveness,”72 “Harmonizing Hebraism and Hellenism,”73 and “The Joseph Smith Translation: Historical Source and Doctrinal Companion to the Doctrine and Covenants.”74 The symposium committee considered proposals for presentations from anyone willing to submit them regardless of status or rank within the system. The more academic topics were taught alongside presentations targeted at assisting the teacher with practical classroom concerns, such as “Tips for the Poor Reader,”75 “Aha or Ho Hum: Teaching the Old Testament to Make It Live,”76 “A Positive Approach to Classroom Management; or, Are We Having Fun Yet?”77 and “Teaching Is More Than Playing a One-String Banjo.”78

As a veteran of early-morning teaching, Brother Peterson made a special effort to reach out to home-study and early-morning teachers, recognizing in his symposium addresses the sacrifices made by many of them to attend the symposium. In an address given in 1989, he summarized the purpose behind the great expense and effort put into each year’s symposium, saying, “How good it feels to be gathered together as a CES family for the specific purpose of being taught by one another and with the sweet anticipation of being edified together. We are assembled here to prepare ourselves, each one of us, for another year of leading our Heavenly Father’s choice young sons and daughters through the magnificent experience of becoming immersed in the holy scriptures.”79

Leadership Training

Central office leaders also launched a training program in the early 1980s emphasizing servant-leadership. Brother G. Jackson Kidd, the personnel specialist for CES during this period, later commented, “My job was not to go out as a judge to poke a finger at anybody and say you’re right or you’re wrong. But rather to go out, preferably on a preventive, training level to help them understand themselves and one another.”80 Brother Kidd participated in a Zenger-Miller Leadership Seminar, which emphasized modeling supervisory behavior that improved employee performance and morale as well as promoted unity, job satisfaction, and the achievement of the organization’s objectives. With approval, Brother Kidd then adopted the Zenger-Miller program, utilizing examples and videos that demonstrated proper behavior in a wide variety of leadership situations.81

Teaching Support Consultants

During this time a group of teachers received assignments to serve as teacher support consultants providing special help to any teachers who needed it in the classroom. The title was later changed to teaching support consultants (TSCs) to emphasize the role as specialists in effective teaching. Typically, TSCs taught two regular classes of their own, usually in the morning, and then spent the rest of the day traveling to observe and assist other teachers. Referrals to the TSC team came from principals and area directors. Often individual teachers experiencing difficulty called the TSC themselves for help and consultation. Richard E. Jackson served as a TSC in Weber County, Utah. Describing his work, Richard said, “The TSC had no authority. He was just there as your friend. I couldn’t hire, I couldn’t fire, I couldn’t recommend, or any such thing. I was just there to make you more successful than you are at the moment in any way that you want.”82

Gerald N. Lund was asked to oversee the TSC program and held meetings two times each year to train the TSCs. Brother Jackson recalled that Brother Lund asked them to focus on teachers’ strengths and not their weaknesses. Once those strengths were identified, the TSCs would suggest ideas for how to increase the teachers’ strengths. TSCs helped teachers with a wide variety of skills, including scripture mastery, memorization, and implementing the new program of sequential scripture teaching.83

Depending on the area, TSCs often traveled long distances to carry out their work. Robert R. Porcaro, for example, covered the Utah Valley. Though most of the teachers he served worked in Provo and Orem, Utah, he also supported 10 smaller communities throughout eastern Utah, including Vernal, a town over three hours away from where he taught. Despite the distance, Brother Porcaro managed to visit every school in Utah Valley once a month and the most distant schools at least once a semester.84

TSCs usually served for two years before being asked to take a different assignment,85 and at times they assisted the central office in carrying out special trainings. In 1989 at a special meeting of area directors and TSCs, the teachers and administrators assembled at the Church Office Building at 4:00 a.m. and then split into three groups. One group was sent to the hills above the University of Utah, another to the Oquirrh Mountains on the west side of the Salt Lake Valley, and another to the Point of the Mountain at the south end of the valley. Each group carried a set of two-way radios and a signaling mirror that was three feet tall and three feet wide. Just as the sun was rising over the mountains, they received instructions to use the mirrors to signal each other from their distant points. They then traveled back to the Church Office Building, where Elder Richard G. Scott of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained the purpose of the activity. Brother Porcaro remembered, “The message was [that] Christ is the light and we as teachers are the mirrors that reflect the light. Teachers that stand in front of the light of Christ will shadow the light and the youth will not receive the light of Christ that is intended for them.”86

Though the TSC program was discontinued in 1992, when emphasis was placed on the seminary principals and institute directors taking a more active role in improving teaching, it had been a great blessing to the teachers it assisted and served as a forerunner to the training division in the central office. Richard Jackson remembered, “It was definitely an inspired program. It uplifted the hands that hanged down [D&C 81:5].”87

Professional Development Program

In 1986 Brother Peterson created a new division in the central office and asked Ross H. Cole to direct it. Brother Cole led a staff of writers who dedicated much time and energy to creating a training curriculum originally known as the International Professional Development Program (IPDP). This program was “built on the foundation of some basic values that [they] felt came out of the covenants,” or the spiritual commitments that all Latter-day Saints shared.88 It was initially designed to help improve the situation of full-time employees working in countries outside of the United States and Canada by assisting teachers in the international areas, where they had little opportunity to have training in the principles of the gospel and in leadership skills.

Image
group of teachers

Participants at a professional development meeting held in Stromberg, Germany

“We took our cue,” Brother Cole said, “from the early 1980s. Elder [Henry B.] Eyring gave a talk to us about values, and In Search of Excellence was a book at that time that was a fairly prominent book in business.” The book explained that at the heart of a successful business is a set of core values.89 The hope was that by using these core values taught in such a program, teachers would learn to focus on gospel truths in their lessons and avoid teaching to their personalities or teaching only what was popular to the students.90 Core values were identified and approved, drawn from the promises Latter-day Saints made when they were baptized, received the priesthood, and married in the temple and from the commitments expected from a CES teacher. The values of CES were defined as (1) Doing God’s Work, (2) Understanding the Word of God, (3) Living in Harmony with the Will of God, (4) Edifying Teaching, (5) Servant Leadership, and (6) Growing Toward Perfection.91

In seminars that lasted for seven to ten days each, held during the summer, area directors gathered their teachers together in dormitories, where they ate together, stayed together, and received instruction from central office personnel. There was time for discussion, testimony bearing, and social and athletic activities, all of which were intended to strengthen the bonds of unity and tie teachers more closely to the core values of CES.92

The initial IPDP workshop was held in Germany in early 1987 under the direction of Brother Cole and zone administrator Frank Bradshaw. It involved personnel from all over Europe and South Africa. In March of that same year, 39 CES personnel from Brazil gathered together in Atibaia, outside of Sao Paulo, for the two weeks of intensive training. Led by Brother Cole and Brother A. Bryan Weston, with curriculum writer Randall L. Hall along to help with Portuguese translation, this second workshop was filled with a sense of warmth, openness, and fellowship and gave participants a renewed sense of direction and purpose. Many of those in attendance expressed that the workshop marked a new beginning for CES work in Brazil. Not long afterward a third international workshop was held in Asia under the direction of Brother Cole and Brother Garry K. Moore, and a modified version was held in the Pacific for personnel at the Church schools.93

To engage teachers throughout the school year, leaders developed four-lesson units on each of the core values. Teachers were expected to successfully complete one lesson each week. These lessons were “intended to get down to their hearts, to really get them to think deep and to use scriptures [and the] writings of the prophets, [and] to put their head [and heart] in line with what should be done.” After a year of individual study, teachers attended a workshop at which IPDP leaders taught and demonstrated how to “take the teaching skills and blend them with [core values and] principles.” Instructors then selected a project that would take six to eight months to accomplish. They were required to do one task related to living the gospel in their personal lives, one focused on teaching effectively, and one that involved administering appropriately. The goal, as Brother Cole expressed it, was “to get them [the teachers] to look at what they’re doing and analyze [it]” and to find methods for how to do better that were rooted in the core values. The assignments selected had to be completed in order to receive certification. The third-year workshop also included the employee’s spouse and added a focus on the family.94

This program was intensive, and the teachers and administrators who completed the program were given salary increases for their efforts. This training was as effective as any college course work in a United States college or university, and the salary increases were to provide the same type of financial increases given to teachers in the U.S. who completed additional course work.95

Two years after the program’s inception, leaders made the decision, partly because of its success internationally, to require all seminary and institute teachers in the United States to receive similar training.96 The first summer of what was called the Professional Development Program (PDP), teachers cloistered together for a week and studied and pondered a values course. Then they set aside time during the school year to complete self-selected assignments that reinforced the major values that had been identified. The second summer, they engaged in projects related to teaching effectively, administrating appropriately, and living the gospel more intently. Each teacher was to “apply the covenants they [made] with God … to every aspect of their lives,” including their profession. The third summer, with their spouses, they were encouraged to adopt the PDP principles in their personal lives and within their families.97 Stan Peterson summed up the experiences with PDP by saying that the teachers needed this program and it served its purposes well.98

Graduate Scripture Study

CES administration also authorized a program specifically intended to increase teachers’ content mastery of the scriptures. In a program originally called Graduate Scripture Study (GSS), area directors could offer in-service training classes designed to give teachers the opportunity to study in depth the four standard works as well as the Church’s history. Instructors were appointed to teach these graduate-level classes, which assisted personnel in acquiring increased knowledge as well as credits that led to salary increases. Later called Professional Development Scripture Studies, these classes were held once a week after school and lasted three hours. Teachers taking the courses were expected to conduct graduate-level research on topics of their choice, have the research approved by the instructor, and then write publishable papers detailing the results of their studies. Classes were videotaped and sent to teachers who lived too far away to attend, so they could participate, learn, and also receive credit. Such courses provided faculty members with an opportunity to master a discipline and to also test some of their ideas on their peers and ascertain the orthodoxy of their thoughts.99

Summer Employment Option

In yet another effort to increase teacher effectiveness, in the early 1980s the Church Board of Education approved eight weeks of summer employment in the United States. Teachers had the option to work for two to eight weeks when school was not in session and were given additional compensation as they spent the extra weeks engaged in planning lessons, reading books whose themes had a direct relationship to the following year’s course of study, doing research, visiting prospective students, enhancing recruitment programs, and developing their teaching skills.100

A message from the zone administrators sent in February 1985 contained the following exhortation relative to the summer employment option:

To assist the Lord in accomplishing this great design for his children in this dispensation, we must become more effective gospel teachers, helping our students to understand and live “the fulness of his gospel,” as revealed in the scriptures from which we teach.

It is our prayer that the Lord might bless each of us with wisdom and good judgment, letting us take full advantage of our preparation opportunities. Especially may we improve our abilities to teach his gospel, that through our studying, pondering, and praying we might more effectively “bring forth fruit,” and that that fruit might “remain” (John 15:16).101

Human Resources

In an effort to make compensation fair, cost-of-living allowances were instituted in certain large urban areas such as Boston and California, where the cost of housing and food was significantly higher than in the Intermountain West. Determining fair compensation “was a very complicated process,” which required much study and the creation of a cost of living index that could help administrators adjust a salary when an employee was sent to a different area with a higher cost of living.102 The final result was approved by the Church Board of Education and was deeply appreciated by the teachers who were the beneficiaries of the program.

Inasmuch as the Church Educational System was fundamentally focused on teaching, administrators determined that those who were chosen to serve as principals, institute directors, and area and division coordinators—positions that were never intended to be permanent assignments—would be given only modest position allowances. This action was carried out with the notion that when these individuals returned to the classroom they would not face a severe decrease in compensation. Administrators emphasized that in many ways no position was greater than another and that how employees served was far more important than what their position happened to be.103 In a meeting of the Church Board of Education, a decision was reached that all administrative assignments were subject to rotation, and leaders were asked to carry this information to all employees.104

For many years, those assigned to teach institute had received a salary increase and had their pictures appear in the Church News. Seminary teachers were often made to feel they were not as valued as those who taught in the institutes. After much discussion led by Brother Peterson, policies changed and “it was decided that there would be no difference in salary for the [teachers] with the same credentials and same years of experience whether they taught in seminary or institute.”105 Brother Peterson and his administrative council also established policies that encouraged institute and seminary teachers to meet together in faculty meetings. “We don’t have two branches of the family,” Brother Peterson said. “We want everyone to join hands” and work together. Leaders asked a few institute teachers to teach seminary and requested that some long-time seminary teachers teach institute for a period and then return to seminary teaching. Administrators worked diligently to create the feeling that once one became a member of the CES family, what mattered was how he or she served, not where.106 While most understood and accepted this philosophy in theory, not everyone was willing to make the transition from institute to seminary, seeing it as a demotion, and those who willingly did so were often greeted by a colleague asking, “What did you do wrong?”107

Employment Standards

In the spring of 1982, Associate Commissioner Peterson reviewed several personnel policies with the Executive Committee. The first involved hiring unmarried men. In the past, men who were not married but were extraordinary teachers and met all other criteria had been hired, but if they failed to marry within three years following their employment, they were terminated. The Executive Committee of the Church Board of Education asked that Brother Peterson continue “to review each case on an individual basis and not have a limited time arrangement,” believing, perhaps, that such a time constraint might lead to less-than-happy marriages.108

There were infrequent occasions when personnel had to be terminated. Each case was carefully reviewed and evaluated so teachers could be given every opportunity to succeed. Moral transgressions and other serious sins, as well as divorce, required that employees leave the Church Educational System. Brother Peterson remembered that it was very difficult to have to terminate someone, partly because ineffective teachers carried an added burden, believing that the administrator was telling them, “You’ve failed the Lord. You’re not worthy.”109 In one Church Board of Education meeting, as leaders discussed the possible termination of a teacher and the difficulties that would follow, a member of the First Presidency said, “I’ve listened to a lot of concerns about the teacher. But who speaks for the children, for the young people? We have to remember that they are the ones that are going to be hurt if we don’t do the right thing here.”110 In these cases, efforts were generally made to assist those being terminated in securing other employment or in gaining more education so they could be successful in other lines of work.111

Closure of the American Indian Seminaries

A program that came under scrutiny during this time was the American Indian seminaries, which had gradually spread onto reservations throughout the United States. In 1981, Gary J. Coleman, who later was called to the Quorum of the Seventy, served as the associate area director of the Arizona–New Mexico North District. In a February 2 letter, he reviewed several seminaries on reservations where attendance was dwindling. He recommended eliminating 7 full-time teachers and bringing in a total of 14 CES missionary couples to replace them by the fall of 1982. Brother Coleman explained that while the Church was dedicated “to a cause that shares the gospel with a covenant people,” there was just not enough work at these seminaries to warrant spending more tithing money for full-time teachers there.112

Brother Coleman discussed the situation with Regional Representatives in March and recommended ending seminary programs for American Indian students in kindergarten through eighth grade. Brother Coleman felt that teaching these youth was more like babysitting and should not be a part of the CES’s stewardship.113 The federal government also moved away from separate schooling for American Indians, and the Intermountain Indian School in Brigham City, Utah, closed in 1984. Other difficulties, such as the questions of students giving up their traditions to be members of the Church and what constitutes the definition of a Lamanite, led to the phasing out of American Indian seminaries throughout the Church and the inclusion of American Indian youth with other Primary children or seminary students in regular classes. The teachers and students of the Indian seminaries were integrated into the larger family of Church education, and the Indian seminary program came to an end.114

Project Share

Beginning in the mid-1970s, seminary students in the United States were encouraged to help their peers in parts of the U.S. and in other nations by donating money to Project Share, a fund that helped seminary students in less developed countries around the world. There was a wonderful outpouring of support for the program, with many students finding ways to earn money to contribute. The Project Share money mainly went to purchasing scriptures and curriculum materials for students who couldn’t afford them in places such as Africa, the Pacific, Central and South America, and Taiwan.115 Frank Bradshaw witnessed the fruits of this program when he visited a class in Peru. It was raining, and the corrugated tin roof of the building exacerbated the noise. As Brother Bradshaw watched, the teacher passed out the student materials for the upcoming month. She handed them out first to the students who had paid their fees. One young man who had no money asked with tears in his eyes, “Are there any [materials] for me?” Because seminary students in the United States had raised money for Project Share, the teacher was able to say yes. When the young man got his materials, “he just put them in his arms and hugged them to his chest, and just held them for about two or three minutes [as] tears stream[ed] down his cheeks.”116

International Programs

The international expansion of Seminaries and Institutes of Religion continued steadily during the 1980s. During this time programs opened in 19 countries. Wherever the Church opened its doors, religious education followed soon after. In the Caribbean, seminary and institute classes began in the Bahamas (1980), the Dominican Republic (1981), Barbados (1982), St. Vincent and the Grenadines (1982), and Haiti (1983). On the other side of the world, new programs began in the Pacific on Guam (1970), the Marshall Islands (1980), Micronesia (1970), French Polynesia (1982), Papua New Guinea (1986), Tuvalu (1986), and Palau (1989). Working in concert with the Church schools previously established, seminary classes began in Indonesia (1979) and Kiribati (1985). Some of the earliest CES classes in West Africa began in Ghana (1987) and Nigeria (1988). Other programs began in such diverse locations as Turkey (1982), Belize (1982), and Luxembourg (1986).117 Whenever possible, teachers were recruited from among the local membership of the Church. In many cases, CES missionaries, usually retired couples, provided assistance until the programs were fully functional. In some locations, however, even the assistance of senior couples was impossible, particularly as Church education ventured behind the Iron Curtain for the first time.

Seminary in East Germany

One of the most significant achievements of this period came in the establishment of seminaries in the communist country of East Germany. The Cold War was near its height when Church leaders in East Germany began requesting seminary for their youth.118 President Thomas S. Monson, then the Apostle with stewardship over the area, began searching for a way to take seminary behind the Iron Curtain. In April 1979 he met with CES leaders about the possibility of introducing a modified version of the home-study program into the country. Elder Monson suggested the curriculum be simplified and introduced as a course of study for adults, because a program directed specifically at the youth would be viewed with suspicion by government leaders.119 Eventually, the decision was made to move forward with a youth program.

Image
Freiberg Germany Temple

Greater openness in the 1980s led to the construction of this temple in Freiberg, East Germany, as well as the first seminary programs in that nation.

The seminary program was introduced in East Germany at a youth conference held in Dresden in the summer of 1980. One student remembered, “It was a very special youth conference, a spiritual time when we had seminary classes every day. Beginning in September, it was held regularly once a week.”120 Along with the weekly class, Super Saturdays were held every other month, when all the youth from the district met together. Manfred Schütze, one of the district presidents in Germany who later became a CES area director, remembered, “We actually didn’t have enough teachers, since everyone was already busy with three or four callings. But we said, ‘Okay, seminary is important,’ and the program was instantly received with great enthusiasm by the youth.” Brother Schütze himself taught one of the classes. He recalled, “Our weekly lesson consisted of one page, copied by typewriter, from the manual. The seminary manual had thirty-four lessons for each year, and only the teacher had the written material. The students just had their scriptures.”121

Despite the difficulties, it was a choice time for the Church in East Germany. The youth and their leaders grew closer as they learned the gospel together. Seminary enrollment among the East German youth was unusually high. F. Enzio Busche, later a member of the Quorum of the Seventy, who visited East Germany the year after the program was introduced, remembered an experience when he visited the country. “I knew that transportation was very difficult and people were spread out all over,” he recalled. “Very few had cars, and, in order to come to their meetings, they had to endure long rides by bicycle, train, or streetcar.” When Brother Busche arrived to see the progress of the program, the stake president in the area apologized, saying, “I’m sorry we are missing eleven.” Brother Busche asked what he meant, and the stake president replied, “We only have 89 percent enrolled.” Elder Busche later recalled, “I was surprised because even in the United States, 89 percent attendance was considered very high. I excitedly told him, ‘Oh my goodness, that’s wonderful.’ He looked at me as though I had not understood that they only had 89 percent attendance and were missing 11 percent of their young people.” The president told Brother Busche, “We will not give in. We will not be satisfied with 89 percent. Every one of our young people is important. We cannot lose even one.”122

Church Education in Africa

Some of the most significant growth for seminaries and institutes during the 1980s came in Africa. It was a time of sacrifice as well as growth. Initially CES programs on the continent were established only in South Africa.123 The program continued on a fairly stable level there until 1978, when the revelation extending the priesthood to all worthy males was received, opening the door for proselyting in other African nations. Seminary and institute programs were established in Zimbabwe in 1979, and soon missionaries were being sent to Nigeria and Ghana. The Church grew rapidly in these two countries, and in the late 1980s approval was soon received to open the seminary and institute programs there.

Image
administrators and coordinators in Africa

Several zone administrators at a meeting with local coordinators and their wives in Africa

Frank M. Bradshaw, who supervised Africa, called CES retirees Walter T. and Ruth Stewart into his office to talk about the possibility of serving a couple’s mission to open the program. Brother Bradshaw recalled, “I called them to just do some investigating to see if it would even be a possibility for them to go. They came into my office on a Friday. I told them what we had in mind and her face just dropped. She turned gray and I thought she was going to die. I said, ‘This isn’t a call. We are trying to find out if it is a possibility. You go home and think about it and get back to me next week, and if you want to do it, fine. If you don’t, we understand.’” The Stewarts thought about it over the weekend and came back on Monday, announcing that they would take the assignment. Brother Bradshaw asked what had happened over the weekend. He later explained, “They went to the temple that afternoon after I talked to them, and they saw all these little old people sacrificing to work in the temple and they said to themselves, ‘Well, boy, if they can do that, we ought to be able to go to Africa.’” After obtaining the necessary visas, the Stewarts were on their way to Ghana.124

The work in Ghana proved to take all the Stewarts’ time, so another couple was asked to take the assignment in Nigeria. Brother Lars M. Bishop and his wife, Deaun, who had previously served a couple’s mission in Nigeria, received a call to return and help launch CES programs there. They arrived in May 1988. With only a few months before school began, they traveled throughout the country recruiting and training teachers for the program. By the time seminary launched in Nigeria on September 12, 1988, there were 530 students enrolled in 48 different locations. A month later the first institute program in the country launched at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka. By the time seminary began the next year, enrollment had increased to 701 seminary students with 69 teachers and 28 institute students with 4 teachers. Just days before they were scheduled to leave the country, Brother Bishop suddenly fell ill. When he left he had to be carried onto the plane. He passed away a few months later in Salt Lake City. Christopher N. Chukwurah, his successor as the head of seminaries and institutes in Nigeria, later wrote that Brother Bishop “left his foot-prints on the sands of time as the pioneer of Seminary in Nigeria. We loved him.”125

Stories from Around the World

Inspiring stories of students all over the world highlighted their dedication, faith, and diligence. One young man who lived in Central America prevailed upon his parents to allow him to attend early-morning seminary when it was first established in his ward. Not having enough money to purchase an alarm clock, he dressed and left for seminary whenever he awoke early in the morning and then would sleep on the building’s doorstep until it was time for class. Another seminary student in Germany skied 20 kilometers each morning because buses did not operate that early during the winter months. Following seminary, he also skied to school because he missed his school bus. After winning a trophy in a skiing competition, he remarked that winning was fun but attending seminary was better.126

A seminary teacher from a small town in Utah reported that one day he taught “a lesson on the reality of repentance—that God really loves and will forgive us if we truly repent.” Throughout the course of the lesson, he noticed that “one big, rough boy who was a star on the football team sat there listening, and suddenly tears began to run down his face. … After class the teacher approached the boy and asked if he could help him in any way. The boy responded with a smile and shyly said, ‘No, not really. I just had this wonderful feeling flood over me as you were talking, and I realized that God really loved me and would forgive my sins.’”127

Church Schools

During the 1980s the Church’s K–12 schools around the world developed closer ties to the seminary and institute programs. In areas where government-sponsored educational programs made Church schools no longer necessary, the schools were closed and replaced with religious education programs. In Mexico and throughout the Pacific, the Church schools remained a vital part of the Latter-day Saint communities they served.

Church Schools in Mexico

In Colonia Juárez and Colonia Dublán in northern Mexico, the Juárez Academy continued to serve as the center of community events. Residents of both colonies served on the school’s faculty, and the administration adopted an “open door policy” for the community members on all matters relating to the schools. Faculty members and seminary teachers living in Colonia Dublán even worked as chauffeurs, helping many students from the community make it to the school every day. Adopting the motto of “Helping Each Individual Achieve Their Potential,” the academy became well-known for its sports, arts, and academics.128

In November 1989 the school enjoyed the special distinction of receiving a visit from the president of Mexico, Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The entire community marveled as they watched five large military helicopters sweep over the valley and land on the academy campus. The president and his entourage were taken to the academy gymnasium, where they ate a “typical” Mormon dinner, complete with turkey and homemade candy. The president enjoyed a brief concert by the academy band and visited with several hundred guests from the local community. He was so impressed during his visit that he invited those present to dine with him at the president’s residence, Los Pinos, in Mexico City. Three years later he remembered his invitation and 270 members of the Church traveled to Los Pinos for dinner with the president.129

At the Benemérito school near Mexico City, its reputation increased as its excellence in academics and extracurricular activities became better known. The achievements of the school provided great advertising for the Church throughout Mexico. One girl from a Mexico City suburb who graduated from the school reflected, “The missionaries were very important in my home town of Chalco, but the greatest missionary tool was Benemérito. People in my town heard about this great school, with clean kids, and good teachers.” She added, “When I was a child, my town had only a branch. Now the same town has three stakes. It is commonly understood among us that this happened because of the influence of Benemérito.”130

Image
performance in Mexico

A cultural performance at the Benemérito school near Mexico City, Mexico

One of the most recognized extracurricular entities at the school was the folk dance group, Ballet Folklórico, whose members served as engaging representatives for the Church through their numerous performances throughout Mexico and the United States. At the end of every program the dancers sang “I Am a Child of God” and “We’ll Bring the World His Truth.” Guadalupe Lopez Duran, the dance teacher, commented, “The youth understood that they were missionaries. … They carry a message through dance, art and music. We testify of the Church as we perform.”131

A seminary building and a chapel were also built and became a vital part of the Benemérito campus. They were separated for a time from the rest of the buildings by a large concrete wall that was built because Mexican laws prohibited “holding classes in religion or religious meetings of any kind, in buildings used for school purposes.” Years later, however, these laws became more lenient, and the wall was taken down.132

Many former students returned to their beloved school to give back for what they were given. Abraham Martinez was one such student. He had planned to drop out of school and work after elementary school, since his area did not have a secondary school for him to attend. “Fortunately,” he said, “my grandmother, who raised me, made many sacrifices and helped me be able to attend Benemérito.” Living on campus, Brother Martinez “took a shower every day and ate three meals” for the first time in his life.133 “The impact of Benemérito in my life is large,” he later said. “As a student and a leader I have lived on this campus for over twenty years. I found my eternal companion, and all three of my children were born here. The young man I taught here baptized my mother. There are no words to express the gratitude I have for this school.”134 Brother Martinez went on to teach seminary at Benemérito and later served as an area director in Mexico and as a bishop, stake president, mission president, and Area Seventy.135

Church Schools in the Pacific

By the 1980s the Church operated one university, one college, six high schools, ten middle schools, and eight elementary schools in the Pacific. Along with the schools, over 11,500 students were enrolled in seminary and institute programs throughout the region. The schools served as a hub for many of the Latter-day Saints, providing education, opportunity, and community.136 The construction of temples near or on the campuses of some Pacific schools during the 1980s reinforced the vision of the schools as centers for secular and spiritual learning.

The LDS Fiji Technical College was among the newest of the Church schools, and its administrators invested resources into building a strong culture. In a 1983 interview for the Church News, Hiagi M. Wesley, the principal of the college, noted, “There are lots of firsts happening at our school. … We are building our traditions.”137 Brother Wesley came from a unique background to lead the school in Fiji. Born on Rotuma, an island so tiny it does not appear on most maps, Brother Wesley had been introduced to the missionaries at his convert sister’s wedding reception at an LDS chapel. He initially met their message with skepticism.

“When they told me the Joseph Smith story, I laughed,” he later recalled. “But as they continued to teach me, something seemed to touch me.” After his baptism, Brother Wesley’s sister helped him financially so that he could attend Liahona High School, where his testimony continued to grow. He later served a mission in Fiji, attended BYU–Hawaii and Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, and returned to Fiji. A few years later, he was appointed to head the LDS Technical College. He reflected, “My main concern is that we produce more and better missionaries, that our young people develop a testimony of the gospel and serve the Church throughout all these islands—perhaps even the world.”138

In 1983 the LDS school in Kiribati applied for its secondary certification. Following this change, students from Kiribati no longer traveled to Tonga for their secondary education.139 The school was still fairly new and was still being led by couple missionaries. Louis and Barbara Durfee arrived in Kiribati to fill this role in 1985 and noted that the local members lived in homes that mostly consisted of four poles and palm leaf roofs nestled in the coconut and breadfruit trees. The Durfees themselves were accommodated in a cinderblock house with an electric refrigerator and a gas stove, but they still had to boil and filter their water and contend with a variety of bugs and island rats. As part of their work at the school, Louis taught classes, repaired roofs, built shelves, and even put a fence around the school tennis court. He later confessed he spent as much time doing construction work as he did teaching during his mission. Barbara also fulfilled a number of responsibilities, including teaching religion and English classes. She even became a local celebrity when the members learned that she prepared a better wedding cake than those imported at a higher cost from Fiji. Barbara’s culinary skills became so popular that the school headmaster intervened when her work began using too much of the school’s cooking gas; however, the Durfees, at their own expense, decided to continue to provide Barbara’s cake-making services to the community.140

Image
students in Kiribati

Students at the Moroni Community School in Kiribati

In a time of economic turmoil in New Zealand,141 the Church College of New Zealand was a safe haven for young students to mingle and share their beliefs. It also provided opportunities for life-changing experiences in sports, culture, music, and leadership. One student who attended in the 1980s said, “Church College made a huge impact on my life because it taught me about structure, about the gospel and how important it was, and you could have a life with sport, music, and social relationships all within that structure.”142

To meet the continued increasing demand for schools in Samoa, in 1980 the Church opened a secondary school in Western Samoa, the Church College of Vaiola.143

In Samoa, religion teachers at the Church schools worked in cooperation with local stake presidents and bishops to help students prepare for future missionary service by calling seniors on two-week “mini-missions.” A larger percentage participated in this experience every year. School yearbooks also emphasized gospel principles such as honesty and encouraged students to keep their standards high by avoiding tattoos, immodest clothing, and inappropriate dance routines. At the LDS Church College, Pesega, students could become members of an honors society that promoted excellence in schoolwork.144

While the Church schools worked to build faith in the restored gospel, they also worked to increase students’ appreciation of their own culture. In the 1980s a program of “Samoanization” was launched using special activities at the schools to educate the students on their own unique heritage. The school put on Samoan culture days, field days, assemblies with guest appearances, and school dances. These events centered on the island society and built a sense of place among the student body.145

In Tonga, Liahona High continued to serve as a vital center for the Church. More than just a school, it also served as the home for Sabbath-day meetings for the local wards, and in 1983 the Nuku‘alofa Tonga Temple was dedicated on its campus.146 That same year, “100 percent of the graduating class [at Liahona] accepted calls to serve missions either in Tonga or in other parts of the world.”147

Missionary work also happened at the school itself. Many nonmember students became converted during their time at the school, and some later returned to serve as faculty members. Samisoni Uasila‘a, who served as a band teacher and later as a principal at the Church’s Saineha middle school and high school in Vava’u, grew up in a nonmember family in Tonga. He attended Liahona High School after his aunt, a member of the Church, convinced him and his parents that he should. The separation from his parents was difficult for the 12-year-old, who later remembered, “It was the first time to get away from my parents. I cried almost every night, especially when I went to bed.” Brother Uasila‘a’s religion teachers at Liahona High played an important role in his growing testimony: “My seminary teachers did a good job. Each time I went back to my room I reviewed what we had discovered that day from my own scriptures. I wrote everything down the seminary teacher told me from the Bible.” Before the end of the school year, Brother Uasila‘a wrote his parents asking for permission to be baptized, which they granted.148

In the middle of his second year, Brother Uasila‘a was eating breakfast when he heard rumors that a student’s parents and sister had died from eating poisonous fish. Later in the day Brother Uasila‘a found out that his parents and sister were the victims. He was left without any means of support. Brother Uasila‘a later recalled, “Because I was the oldest, I decided to quit school. I was almost thirteen years old. I never prepared anything even for my tuition to go back to school. I was planning to stay back and plant some crops and send the rest of [my] younger brothers and one sister to school.” After talking with his grandmother, Brother Uasila‘a eventually decided to go back to school but still had no money for tuition. Not sure of how to proceed, he approached the principal of the school and asked for help. The principal agreed to ask all of the departments at the school to donate funds to pay for Brother Uasila‘a’s tuition, materials, and uniform. During the rest of his time at the school, Brother Uasila‘a worked at the school during breaks to pay off his debt. He remembered, “So many times I had only one uniform and I had to wash it almost every night. I had no iron, I put my clothes under my pillow every night. That’s how I came through.”149

When he finished at Liahona, Brother Uasila‘a felt pressure to return home and take charge of his family. He recalled, “When I graduated so many people and so many of my friends said, ‘Why don’t you go back and help your brothers and sister?’” But Brother Uasila‘a decided instead to serve a mission. He remembered, “When I returned I stayed together with the rest of my younger brothers. They were not members of the Church when my parents died. But when I returned from my mission I baptized the rest of my brothers and my only sister. … They all served a mission here in Tonga and they all married in the temple.” In addition to working at the school throughout the years, Brother Uasila‘a served as a bishop, stake president, and president of the Nuku‘alofa Tonga mission. He was later appointed as the principal of Saineha High School. Through the charitable acts of the Liahona faculty, Brother Uasila‘a became not only a gifted educator but a pillar of the Church in his homeland.150

School Closures in the Pacific

By the early 1980s, external factors began to weigh on the LDS school in Tahiti. Despite years of dialogue between school officials and government leaders, students at this school were required to take an examination to be accepted into secondary school while their peers at government-funded schools were accepted without testing. When several students failed to pass the exam, parents became concerned about their children’s education and CES administrators began to realize that students at the school were being singled out and treated unfairly. Church leaders announced the closure of the school in 1982.151

While the closure came as a disappointment to some of the Tahitian Saints, the school’s purpose had largely been served by that time. The Tahitian government had made quality education available through a number of new schools opened in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and seminary and institute programs were in place throughout the islands.152 Jean A. Tefan, a former teacher and principal of the school, commented, “[The Church members] were sad, because we had good teachers, good curriculum, good religious education. They were sad, but they had to cope with that. There was no rebellion.” Perhaps the silver lining to the school’s closure was the announcement that a temple would be constructed where the school once stood.153

In Indonesia the LDS elementary school in Jakarta, opened in 1977, was also closed. For a decade the school had served as a missionary tool and given the Church a mark of legitimacy in the nation of Indonesia. It had maintained a steady enrollment of over 200 students, but in 1987 over 90 percent of them were not LDS. “The Church was paying 85 percent of the annual budget, but most of the children of the Church in Jakarta and throughout the island were not able to enroll because of distance and cost.” Church leaders made the difficult decision to close the school. Effian Kadarusman, the country director for CES, explained that the closure enabled them as a way to reallocate resources, providing more support funds and scholarships for young Indonesian members to pursue their studies in higher education. Every student found a new school to move to, and the Church offered to pay most students’ entry fees to assist in the transition. Although the closure was painful for some Church members and caused some problems for Brother Kadarusman, when asked about it years later he still felt strongly about the decision and the wisdom of investing in higher education for young Indonesian Church members.154

Commissioner J. Elliot Cameron

Image
J. Elliot Cameron

J. Elliot Cameron served as Church commissioner of education from 1986 to 1989.

In a March 1986 meeting of the Church Board of Education, J. Elliot Cameron was introduced as the new Commissioner of the Church Educational System.155 In introducing Brother Cameron, President Gordon B. Hinckley stated that his “call was a compliment to his faithfulness in assignments he [had] received in the past, and an indication of the full confidence and respect that the Executive Committee had for him.”156 Brother Cameron replaced Commissioner Henry B. Eyring, who had served for almost six years and who had been called as First Counselor in the Presiding Bishopric. Before leaving the commissioner’s office to serve in the Presiding Bishopric, Elder Eyring often expressed his conviction that large organizations, even those whose mission was religious in nature, functioned better and were more apt to meet their goals if everyone had in common what he called shared values.157 As seminaries and institutes were found on every continent on earth, many staffed by volunteer teachers and missionaries, it was especially important that everyone held the same commitment to reaching the objectives established by the Church Board of Education.

Originally from Panguitch, Utah, J. Elliot Cameron had served as “a teacher, principal, and district superintendent in Utah public schools”; president of Snow College; dean of students at Utah State University; and dean of students and vice president of student services at Brigham Young University.158 In 1980 Brother Cameron was appointed the president of BYU–Hawaii, where he remained until he was asked to serve as the commissioner.159

In many ways, Commissioner Cameron was one of the most important architects of the system he came to preside over. While he was the dean of students at BYU in the 1960s, he had been called to a meeting with President Harold B. Lee, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, where he shared some of his opinions about the educational needs of the Church. President Lee was so impressed with Brother Cameron that he asked him to carry out a study on educational opportunities throughout the Church. Brother Cameron was given a year-long leave of absence from BYU while he worked closely with President Lee to produce the study. Brother Cameron’s work produced a massive document consisting of three volumes, combined to be nearly 1,100 pages long, with almost 100 more pages of accompanying tables and appendices.160 The work was perhaps the first detailed review of the history of the administration of the Church Educational System.

The report contained a lengthy section on recommendations for the system in the future. Chief among them was a call for the Church to rely on local governments for secular education and focus on taking religious education to the members around the world.161 The study became an important guide to President David O. McKay and other Church leaders.162 One administrator remembered President Lee handing him and his fellow administrators a copy of the report filled with handwritten notes and telling them to read it thoroughly.163 By the time Brother Cameron became the commissioner, nearly every suggestion in his report had been carried out,164 but one in particular had not: in order to ensure close ties between Church education and Church leaders, he recommended that the commissioner of the Church Educational System be a General Authority.165

During his time in office, Brother Cameron emphasized the importance of following priesthood leadership and developing discipleship. “Discipline,” Brother Cameron taught, “is a derivative of disciple. We are His disciples.” He also said, “The Church Educational System, like every business and activity, is carried on in a complicated social setting where habits, customs, conventions, and laws blend together to determine daily procedure. Even in our setting there must be discipline.” Brother Cameron cautioned teachers against forgetting their proper role in the classroom. “Some teachers try to be ‘pals’ to their pupils, but the students have friends of their own age and look to the teacher for something different. That something is ‘leadership.’ That leadership needs to be positive. It does not demand an assault upon the student’s will, but it means persuading his will to desire the right things.”166

Another theme stressed by Commissioner Cameron was the need to rely on the Lord as the primary source for guidance in the work. In one of his public addresses he commented, “From time to time we have been reminded in the Church Educational System that our work must be done in the Lord’s own way. I suppose that it is because there has been a tendency for some of us to go our own way, to copy the practices and goals and organizations of the world.” He continued, “That which we are to teach is given us from on high, whether it be in a secular discipline or from a spiritual base. Inspiration supersedes talent. How we use that knowledge and talent is a determining factor in our success.”167

Commissioner Cameron served from 1986 until 1989, when he retired and was called as the president of the Provo Utah Temple. After his retirement the post of commissioner was left vacant for three years.168 Brother Stanley A. Peterson assumed much of the commissioner’s duties during the interregnum. Brother Cameron was thrilled when another of the suggestions from his study was implemented in 1992 with the appointment of President Henry B. Eyring, then of the Seventy, as Commissioner of the Church Educational System,169 placing a General Authority in the post of commissioner. Since that time the commissioner has been a General Authority, creating a strong tie between Church education and Church leadership.170

Strengthening the Foundations

During the 1980s Church education continued to expand on the global stage. While expansion continued, Commissioners Eyring and Cameron, along with Brother Peterson and the other leaders of CES, worked to fortify and strengthen the foundations of the work.

The need for more international materials led to a new emphasis on the scriptures as the basic texts of all courses taught by seminaries and institutes. The decision to teach the scriptures sequentially in seminary courses gave teachers and students new motivations to rely on the power of the word.

The Church schools in Latin America and the Pacific became a more fully integrated part of the family of Church education, and their religious education programs were strengthened. Changes in policy led to new training initiatives for teachers, and improvements in benefits allowed teachers stability and comfort in their professions. Finally, seminaries and institutes breached new frontiers in places like Africa and behind the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe, preparing the way for future expansion in the years to come.

By the time Commissioner Cameron retired, seminaries and institutes served 763,000 students in 73 countries and territories. The Church Educational System also included “eight elementary schools, thirteen middle schools, and nine high schools, [as well as associations] with more than 1,400 college and university campuses.” Commissioner Cameron summed up the wide range and reach of Church education: “We meet [with] 215,000 seminary students every week; we conduct literacy and health education workshops, teach adult religion classes, conduct seminars, and conduct home study and professional development classes. We teach in the most modern laboratories and in local meetinghouses, in members’ homes, in thatched huts, in land-rover buses, and even in shepherds’ fields.”171 The ranks of the seminaries and institutes included 1,671 full-time employees and 19,925 volunteers.172

While the scope of the expansion of seminaries and institutes during this period was remarkable, just as important was the fact that the organization managed to stay connected with its roots in the teachings of the scriptures and the words of modern prophets. President Eyring emphasized the importance of this connection in an address at the 1984 CES symposium, promising, “I bear you my testimony that your young people can be deeply affected by the way you tell them what prophets are like. If, when you read the words of prophets, and if, when you describe your experiences with the words of prophets, you tell them the joy you felt and the joy you feel from knowing that God speaks to you by living prophets, I bear you my testimony that you will be building power in them to resist temptation and to resist persecution.”173

Notes

  1. Combined Boards of Education, May 7, 1980, 2, in Leland H. Gentry, “Added Notes: A Word about Board of Education Minutes,” in A History of Religious Education and the Central Office (1994), 30.

  2. See Gentry, “Added Notes: A Word about Board of Education Minutes,” 31.

  3. See Leland H. Gentry, “Thematic Variation: The Educational Symphony Continues,” in A History of Religious Education and the Central Office (1994), 1–2.

  4. See Marion G. Romney, “The Charted Course Reaffirmed” (address to Church Educational System religious educators, Sept. 12, 1980), 1; Scott C. Esplin, “Charting the Course: President Clark’s Charge to Religious Educators,” Religious Educator, vol. 7, no. 1 (2006), 113, rsc.byu.edu.

  5. Henry B. Eyring, “‘And Thus We See’: Helping a Student in a Moment of Doubt” (evening with a General Authority, Feb. 5, 1993), 4–5.

  6. See Gentry, “Thematic Variation: The Educational Symphony Continues,” 3.

  7. See A. Bryan Weston Oral History, interview by Matthew K. Heiss, Mar. 10, 2000, 6–7, James Moyle Oral History Program, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.

  8. Seminaries and Institutes Historical Record (2013), 23, Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  9. In Clarence Schramm Oral History, interview by Casey Paul Griffiths, Nov. 8, 2010, 2, 4, transcript in Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  10. Schramm Oral History, 4.

  11. Schramm Oral History, 4.

  12. See Schramm Oral History, 4–7; Seminaries and Institutes Historical Record, 22.

  13. Weston Oral History, 2.

  14. See Weston Oral History, 2–4.

  15. See Shawn D. Bills, “Bryan Weston, CES Career: 1967–2005,” biographical sketch, 1, Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  16. Weston Oral History, 6.

  17. See Weston Oral History, 6–7.

  18. Garry K. Moore, interview by Kenneth W. Godfrey, Oct. 18, 2006, 1–2, transcript in Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  19. Moore, interview, 3.

  20. See Jared Jepson, “Garry K. Moore,” biographical sketch, 1–2, Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  21. In Casey Paul Griffiths, “Gerald N. Lund,” biographical sketch, 1, Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  22. In Paul H. Peterson, “Gospel Teaching and Writing: An Interview with Elder Gerald N. Lund,” Religious Educator, vol. 7, no. 2 (2006), 1–2, rsc.byu.edu; see Griffiths, “Gerald N. Lund,” 1.

  23. See Griffiths, “Gerald N. Lund,” 1.

  24. In Peterson, “Gospel Teaching and Writing,” 9; see also Griffiths, “Gerald N. Lund,” 1.

  25. See Griffiths, “Gerald N. Lund,” 1.

  26. See Griffiths, “Gerald N. Lund,” 1–2; Seminaries and Institutes Historical Record, 24.

  27. See Griffiths, “Gerald N. Lund,” 2–3.

  28. See Stanley A. Peterson, interview by Leland H. Gentry, Feb. 11, 1993, 21–22, Church Educational System central office interviews, 1991–1993, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.

  29. John L. Fowles, “A Study Concerning the Mission of the Week-Day Religious Educational Program of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1890–1990: A Response to Secular Education” (PhD diss., University of Missouri–Columbia, 1990), 289.

  30. David A. Christensen, interview by Leland H. Gentry, July 2, 1991, 15, Church Educational System central office interviews, 1991–1993, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.

  31. See Fowles, “Study Concerning the Mission of the Week-Day Religious Educational Program,” 293.

  32. John Fowles wrote that Brothers Christensen, Jensen, and Lund met with Brother Peterson and their disagreements were again manifest, so they all met again with the zone administrators. When unity eluded them once more at that meeting, the trio met a second time with Brother Peterson (see Fowles, “Study Concerning the Mission of the Week-Day Religious Educational Program,” 294); see also Kelly P. Anderson, Sean R. Dixon, Tracy R. Kirkham, Gregory B. Wightman, “Foundations of Sequential Scripture Teaching in the Church Educational System,” (unpublished paper, 1997), 9–10, copy in Griffiths’ possession.

  33. In David A. Christensen, interview, 15.

  34. In David A. Christensen, interview, 15–17; see Fowles, “Study Concerning the Mission of the Week-Day Religious Educational Program,” 294.

  35. See David A. Christensen, interview, 16. Brother Christensen told Leland H. Gentry that the night before coming to the Homestead, “all hell broke loose that night in our homes. It was a mess, it was a disaster in my home. It was such a disaster in all of our homes that the next day I think we were supposed to meet at 8:00 at the Homestead. I think Jay finally pulled in about 9:00. It had been very very difficult. I have a witness that Satan did not want to have happen the blessing that was to attend us up there. And the change in the entire philosophy of our writing and teaching curriculum.”

  36. See Gerald N. Lund Oral History, interview by Jeffrey L. Anderson, Feb. 23, 1999, 7, James Moyle Oral History Program, Church History Library, Salt Lake City; Fowles, “Study Concerning the Mission of the Week-Day Religious Educational Program,” 296.

  37. See David A Christensen, interview, 16–18.

  38. In Gerald N. Lund Oral History, 7.

  39. See Gerald N. Lund Oral History, 7; David A. Christensen, interview, 17.

  40. Jay Jensen, interview by John L. Fowles, June 2, 1989, in Fowles, “Study Concerning the Mission of the Week-Day Religious Educational Program,” 294. Jensen quoted his personal diary in the interview.

  41. Fowles, “Study Concerning the Mission of the Week-Day Religious Educational Program,” 294, 296.

  42. Jensen, interview, in Fowles, “Study Concerning the Mission of the Week-Day Religious Educational Program,” 294–95. Jensen quoted his personal diary in the interview.

  43. See Fowles, “Study Concerning the Mission of the Week-Day Religious Educational Program,” 297.

  44. Gerald N. Lund Oral History, 9.

  45. See Gerald N. Lund Oral History, interview by Jeffrey L. Anderson, Feb. 23, 1999, 14–15, James Moyle Oral History Program, Church History Library, Salt Lake City; Griffiths, “Gerald Lund,” 3.

  46. Gerald N. Lund Oral History, 15.

  47. Kelly P. Anderson, Sean R. Dixon, Tracy R. Kirkham, and Gregory B. Wightman, “Foundations of Sequential Scripture Teaching in the Church Educational System” (paper, University of Phoenix, Oct. 16, 1997), 16, Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  48. Gerald N. Lund Oral History, 15.

  49. See Gerald N. Lund Oral History, 14.

  50. Gerald N. Lund Oral History, 14.

  51. Gerald N. Lund Oral History, 9.

  52. Henry B. Eyring, speech delivered at the LDS Church Office Building, Apr. 6, 1981, 12, in Fowles, “Study Concerning the Mission of the Week-Day Religious Educational Program,” 260.

  53. Henry B. Eyring, speech, Apr. 6, 1981, 13, in Fowles, “Study Concerning the Mission of the Week-Day Religious Educational Program,” 260.

  54. Gordon B. Hinckley, “Counsel to Religious Educators” (address to Church Educational System religious educators, Sept. 14, 1984), 2.

  55. See Calvin R. Stephens, interview by Leland H. Gentry, June 7, 1991, 9–10, Church Educational System central office interviews, 1991–1993, Church History Library, Salt Lake City. The survey and approval process information was provided by Randall L. Hall, who was on the curriculum team at this time.

  56. See Stephens, interview, 14.

  57. See Stanley A. Peterson Oral History, interview by Jeffery L. Anderson, Feb.–Mar. 2000, James Moyle Oral History Program, 29, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.

  58. In Stephens, interview, 10–11.

  59. See Daniel L. Hess, “The Evolution of Media in the Church Educational System of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 2002), 28–32, 34.

  60. See Hess, “Evolution of Media in the Church Educational System,” 33–34.

  61. Hold to the Rod Teachers Packet, 1, in Hess, “Evolution of Media in the Church Educational System,” 34.

  62. In Hess, “Evolution of Media in the Church Educational System,” 33.

  63. Hess, “Evolution of Media in the Church Educational System,” 34.

  64. In Hess, “Evolution of Media in the Church Educational System,” 34.

  65. Paul V. Johnson Oral History, interview by Casey Paul Griffiths, Jan. 19, 2010, 2, Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  66. Peterson Oral History, interview by Anderson, 21–22.

  67. Stanley A. Peterson Oral History, interview by Casey Paul Griffiths, Sept. 10, 2011, 17, transcript in Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  68. General Authority speakers at Church Educational System symposiums in the 1980s were Boyd K. Packer (1981), Paul H. Dunn (1982), Neal A. Maxwell (1983), Bruce R. McConkie (1984), Dallin H. Oaks (1985), Marion D. Hanks (1986), Richard G. Scott (1987), James E. Faust (1988), and Dean L. Larsen (1989).

  69. Boyd K. Packer, “The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect” (Church Educational System symposium on the Doctrine and Covenants and Church history, Aug. 22, 1981), 1–2.

  70. Bruce R. McConkie, “The Bible, a Sealed Book” (address at the Church Educational System symposium on the New Testament, Aug. 17, 1984), 10, si.lds.org.

  71. See Paul Y. Hoskisson, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Language of the Book of Mormon,” A Symposium on the Book of Mormon (1982), 40–42.

  72. See Brent L. Top, “Hosea and Gomer: Teaching Divine Love and the Miracle of Forgiveness,” A Symposium on the Old Testament (1983), 165–68.

  73. See Roger K. Petersen and P. Gary Esterholdt, “Harmonizing Hebraism and Hellenism,” A Symposium on the New Testament, 1984 (1984), 128–30.

  74. See Robert J. Matthews, “The Joseph Smith Translation: Historical Source and Doctrinal Companion to the Doctrine and Covenants,” The Ninth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators’ Symposium (1985), 18–23.

  75. See Ronald G. Woolstenhulme, “Tips for the Poor Reader” (handout), provided at the 1981 Church Educational System symposium on Church History, Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  76. See Gerald N. Lund, “Aha or Ho Hum: Teaching the Old Testament to Make It Live,” A Symposium on the Old Testament (1983), 105–9.

  77. See Chris Martin, “A Positive Approach to Classroom Management; or, Are We Having Fun Yet?” New Testament: The Twelfth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators’ Symposium (1988), 3.

  78. See Dean L. Thomson, “Teaching Is More Than Playing a One-String Banjo,” Doctrine and Covenants: The Thirteenth Annual Church Educational System Religious Educators’ Symposium (1989), 8.

  79. Stanley A. Peterson, “I, the Lord, Am Bound When Ye Do What I Say,” Doctrine and Covenants Symposium Speeches 1989 (1989), 41.

  80. Jack Kidd, interview by Leland H. Gentry, June 11, 1991, 9, Church Educational System central office interviews, 1991–1993, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.

  81. See Kidd, interview, 16–18.

  82. Richard Jackson, interview by Casey Paul Griffiths and Robert A. Ewer, Mar. 10, 2014, 1–4, 10, Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  83. Jackson, interview, 2–3.

  84. See Bob Porcaro, “Called to Be In-Service Director,” autobiographical sketch, 1, Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  85. See Jackson, interview, 3.

  86. Porcaro, “Called to Be In-Service Director,” 4.

  87. Jackson, interview, 10.

  88. Ross Cole Oral History, interview by Jeffrey L. Anderson, Dec. 24, 2003, 40, 67, James Moyle Oral History Program, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.

  89. Cole Oral History, 93; see also Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman Jr., In Search of Excellence (1988).

  90. See Cole Oral History, 40.

  91. See The Commencement Planner (Church Educational System booklet, 2002), 4.

  92. See Cole Oral History, 40–41. Other details were verified by Randall L. Hall, who participated in these seminars.

  93. Verified by Randall Hall.

  94. Cole Oral History, 95.

  95. This explanation was given by Stanley A. Peterson.

  96. See Cole Oral History, 41.

  97. Cole Oral History, 40–41, 94–95.

  98. See Stanley A. Peterson, interview by Randall L. Hall, Jan. 30, 2013, notes in Hall’s possession.

  99. Verified by Randall L. Hall.

  100. See Moore, interview, 17.

  101. Zone Administrators’ Coordinator, vol. 6, no. 1 (Feb. 1985), 1.

  102. See F. Weldon Thacker, interview by Leland H. Gentry, Apr. 25, 1991, 5, Church Educational System central office interviews, 1991–1993, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.

  103. See Thacker, interview, 8.

  104. Verified by Randall L. Hall.

  105. Thacker, interview, 7–8.

  106. Peterson Oral History, interview by Anderson, 24–26.

  107. Verified by Randall L. Hall.

  108. Executive Committee Meeting Minutes, Mar. 25, 1992, 7–8, in Gentry, “Thematic Variation: The Educational Symphony Continues,” 17.

  109. Peterson Oral History, interview by Anderson, 50–52.

  110. In Peterson Oral History, interview by Anderson, 51.

  111. See Peterson Oral History, interview by Anderson, 48–49.

  112. Gary J. Coleman letter to Charles Beckert, Feb. 2, 1981, Gary J. Coleman scrapbooks, 1960–1992 June, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.

  113. See Gary J. Coleman scrapbooks, Mar. 27, 1981; Mar. 30, 1981; July 30, 1981; Oct. 14, 1981.

  114. See Scott C. Esplin, “‘You Can Make Your Own Bright Future, Tom Trails’: Evaluating the Impact of the LDS Indian Seminary Program,” unpublished paper, 28–30, copy in Griffiths’s possession.

  115. Verified by Randall L. Hall.

  116. Frank M. Bradshaw, interview by Leland H. Gentry, Oct. 11, 1991, 6, Church Educational System central office interviews, 1991–1993, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.

  117. See Seminaries and Institutes of Religion Annual Report for 2013 (2013), 3, Mormon Newsroom, mormonnewsroom.org.

  118. See Raymond Kuehne, Mormons as Citizens of a Communist State: A Documentary History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in East Germany, 1945–1990 (2010), 181.

  119. See Faith Rewarded: A Personal Account of Prophetic Promises to the East German Saints from the Journal of Thomas S. Monson (1996), 59.

  120. Carmen Schlegel, in Kuehne, Mormons as Citizens of a Communist State, 181.

  121. In Kuehne, Mormons as Citizens of a Communist State, 181.

  122. Yearning for the Living God: Reflections from the Life of F. Enzio Busche, ed. and comp. Tracie A. Lamb (2004), 237–38.

  123. See Seminaries and Institutes of Religion Annual Report for 2013, 3.

  124. Frank Bradshaw, interview by E. Dale LeBaron, May 22, 1991, E. Dale LeBaron CES oral history interviews, 1991–2003, 65–68, Church History Library, Salt Lake City. For more information on the Stewarts’ work in Ghana, see Walter T. Stewart papers, 1988–1990, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.

  125. Christopher N. Chukwurah, “Brief History of the Seminary Program in Nigeria,” Sept. 21, 1989, 1–2, Church Educational System Zone Administrator’s Area Files, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.

  126. See Bradshaw, interview by Gentry, 6–7.

  127. In “Teaching by the Spirit and the Student,” Growing Edge, vol. 18, no. 8 (Apr. 1986).

  128. Albert Kenyon Wagner and Leona Farnsworth Wagner, comps., The Juarez Stake Academy, 1897–1997: The First One Hundred Years (1997), 100–101, 110.

  129. See Whetten, LaVon Brown. Colonia Juarez: Commemorating 125 Years of the Mormon Colonies in Mexico (2010), 150–51.

  130. Woman from Chalco Oral History, interview by Barbara E. Morgan, Feb. 2013, in Barbara E. Morgan, “The Impact of Centro Escolar Benemérito de las Americas, a Church School in Mexico,” Religious Educator, vol. 15, no. 1 (2014), 158.

  131. Guadalupe Lopez Duran Oral History, interview by Barbara E. Morgan, Feb. 20, 2013, in Morgan, “Impact of Centro Escolar Benemérito de las Americas,” 156.

  132. Harvey L. Taylor, “The Story of L.D.S. Church Schools” (1971) and Clark V. Johnson, “Mormon Education in Mexico: The Rise of the Sociedad Educativa y Cultural” (PhD diss., Brigham Young University, 1976), 183, in Morgan, “Impact of Centro Escolar Benemérito de las Americas” 156.

  133. Abraham Martinez Oral History, interview by Barbara E. Morgan, Feb. 22, 2013, in Morgan, “Impact of Centro Escolar Benemérito de las Americas,” 153.

  134. Martinez Oral History, interview by Barbara E. Morgan, June 12, 2013, in Morgan, “Impact of Centro Escolar Benemérito de las Americas,” 161.

  135. See Morgan, “Impact of Centro Escolar Benemérito de las Americas,” 161.

  136. See R. Lanier Britsch, “Latter-day Saint Education in the Pacific Islands,” in New Views of Mormon History, ed. Davis Bitton and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher (1987), 197–98.

  137. In Mike Foley, “School, Saints Aid LDS Image in Fiji,” Church News, Jan. 8, 1983, 7.

  138. In Gerry Avant, “From a Tiny Island, He Influences Many,” Church News, Dec. 16, 1984, 5, 13.

  139. See Britsch, “Education in the Pacific Islands,” 207–8; Roy G. Bauer, “From Small Beginnings: A Short History of the Growth of the Church and Moroni Community School in the Republic of Kiribati,” unpublished document, 1–2, 4, copy in Casey Griffiths’s possession, courtesy of Alton L. Wade.

  140. See Dennis A. Wright and Megan E. Warner, “Louis and Barbara Durfee’s CES Mission to Kiribati,” in Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: The Pacific Isles, ed. Reid Neilson, Steven C. Harper, Craig K. Manscill, and Mary Jane Woodger, (2008), 118–20.

  141. See Tina Dil, “New Zealand,” Ensign, Sept. 1989, 36.

  142. In Tereapii Elinora Solomon, “A Life-History Analysis of Achievement of Mãori and Pacific Island Students at the Church College of New Zealand” (master’s thesis, University of Waikato, 2008), 77.

  143. See Brandon S. Plewe, ed., Mapping Mormonism: An Atlas of Latter-day Saint History (2012), 141.

  144. See R. Carl Harris, ed., Building the Kingdom in Samoa, 1888–2005 (2006), 275.

  145. See Harris, ed., Building the Kingdom in Samoa, 1888–2005, 273–74.

  146. See “Nuku‘alofa Tonga Temple,” Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, LDSChurchTemples.com

  147. R. Lanier Britsch, Unto the Islands of the Sea: A History of the Latter-day Saints in the Pacific (1986), 487.

  148. Samisoni Uasila‘a, interview by Brian W. Sokolowaky, Nov. 8, 2003, 1–3, 6–7, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.

  149. Uasila‘a, interview, 10.

  150. Uasila‘a, interview, 1, 5, 10–11.

  151. See Britsch, Unto the Islands of the Sea, 83.

  152. See Britsch, Unto the Islands of the Sea, 83; Jean Tefan Oral History, interview by Casey Paul Griffiths, Oct. 1, 2010, 13, James Moyle Oral History Program, transcript in Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  153. Tefan Oral History, 15; see also “New Temple Presidents,” Church News, Apr. 22, 2012, 13.

  154. R. Lanier Britsch, From the East: The History of Latter-day Saints in Asia, 1851–1996 (1998), 490, 500–503.

  155. See Leland H. Gentry, “Recapitulation: The Symphony Continues,” in A History of Religious Education and the Central Office (1994), 1, Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  156. Gentry, “Recapitulation: The Symphony Continues,” 1.

  157. See Cole Oral History, 94.

  158. “News of the Church,” Ensign, Mar. 1986, 108; see also Gentry, “Recapitulation: The Symphony Continues,” 1.

  159. See R. Lanier Britsch, Moramona: The Mormons in Hawaii (1989), 186.

  160. See J. Elliot and Maxine Cameron Oral History, interview by Casey Paul Griffiths, Oct. 22, 2010, 11–12, transcript in Griffiths’s possession; J. Elliot Cameron, “A Survey of Basic Educational Opportunities Available to Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” 3 vols. (1964–65), Church History Library, Salt Lake City, hereafter referred to as the Cameron Report. Although the full study is comprised in three volumes, it was continuously paginated from volume to volume. A shortened version of the study, cut down to 196 pages and submitted by Cameron as his PhD dissertation in 1966, is in the L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

  161. See Cameron Report, 1073.

  162. See J. Elliot and Maxine Cameron Oral History, 23.

  163. See Dee F. Andersen Oral History, interview by Casey Paul Griffiths, Sept. 20, 2010, 3, transcript in Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  164. See J. Elliot and Maxine Cameron Oral History, 17.

  165. See Cameron Report, 1006.

  166. J. Elliot Cameron, “Discipline, a Requirement for Disciples,” Apr. 6, 1988, 13–14, Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  167. J. Elliot Cameron, “Teach Gospel Values in Every Class,” 4–5, 10, Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  168. See Seminaries and Institutes Historical Record, 23–24.

  169. See J. Elliot and Maxine Cameron Oral History, 20–21.

  170. See Seminaries and Institutes Historical Record, 24–29.

  171. Cameron, “Teach Gospel Values in Every Class,” 1. The figures also included students at BYU, Ricks College, LDS Business College, and BYU–Hawaii, all of which were part of the Church Educational System but considered separate entities from Seminaries and Institutes of Religion and Church elementary and secondary schools.

  172. See Employee and Volunteer Religious Educator Estimates, Statistical Report, Mar. 2, 2010, Seminaries and Institutes of Religion archive, Salt Lake City.

  173. Henry B. Eyring, “Eyes to See, Ears to Hear” (address at the Church Educational System symposium on the New Testament, Aug. 16, 1984), si.lds.org.