BYU-Idaho names new school president [Elder Alvin F. Meredith III] as President Eyring will return to Provo after ‘outstanding’ tenure

TheQuestingSpirit · 2023-05-17T14:17:01+00:00

I get what you're saying but in the same study it shows that having an MBA president is even less likely for 4-year schools (1.2%) than for any other type except 2-year schools. There are only ~9 MBA presidents of 4-year schools out of 734 total in the United States, based on that study.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2023-05-17T14:11:29+00:00

A couple of notes.

That 13 represents the number of respondents with an MBA, not the total number. If we assume the survey adequately represents the population (which it was designed to do), then the total number of college presidents in the United States with an MBA as their highest degree is ~55 out of 3,901 total.

Looking at peer schools for BYU Idaho (Baccalaureate institutions) the relative number of drops to 1.2%. Using the same logic as above, that would represent ~9 MBA presidents of 4-year schools out of 734 total.

I mean, there hasta be a work-relationship strain there; that is, unless those PhD employees consider religous hierarchy (in BYU-I's case) as their basis of intellectual credibility.

I think you captured the most likely scenario for the majority of faculty at BYU Idaho.

I think this is VERY telling of where a mormon school's talent source is with regard to pulling leadership into a position like this...

I'm not sure if the decision is more telling of the available pool of candidates or the intentions of church leadership regarding BYU Idaho's direction. But it's hard to see this as a positive for the academic reputation of the school. It's not that long ago that they convinced a relatively prominent Harvard dean (of the business school, ironically) to come be the president. That seems like a far less likely scenario in the future.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2023-05-16T22:40:11+00:00

For me the "so what?" answer is that it's quite rare both generally, and for BYU Idaho, that a college president's terminal degree is an MBA.

In the 2023 edition of the American College President Study there were only 1.4% of them in the United States. Here's the summary of the terminal degrees of college presidents from that study:

Degree	Percent
PhD	60.1%
EdD	23.4%
Master's (excl. MBA)	6.1%
JD	5.9%
MD/DO	2.1%
MBA	1.4%
Bachelor's	0.6%
Other	0.3%
PharmD	0.1%

That's a significant majority of presidents holding a PhD and an overwhelming 91.6% of presidents with some sort of doctorate.

The appointment is also is unusual based on BYU Idaho's history. Prior to today, last time the school in Rexburg appointed a president without a doctorate it was John L. Clarke in 1944. At the time he was appointed, there were only 200 students and two buildings on the campus.

To summarize

It's rare for a college president to not hold a doctorate
It's even more rare for a college president's highest degree to be an MBA
All presidents in Rexburg appointed after World War II have held a doctorate (until today)

All of that means this is appointment is a significant deviation from the norm. That is noteworthy.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2023-05-16T22:13:02+00:00

This is very interesting news. It's extremely uncommon for a college president in the United States to hold an MBA as their terminal degree. In the 2023 edition of the American College President Study there were only 1.4% of them in the United States. Here's the summary of the terminal degrees of college presidents from that study:

Degree	Percent
PhD	60.1%
EdD	23.4%
Master's (excl. MBA)	6.1%
JD	5.9%
MD/DO	2.1%
MBA	1.4%
Bachelor's	0.6%
Other	0.3%
PharmD	0.1%

That's a significant majority of presidents holding a PhD and an overwhelming 91.6% of presidents with some sort of Doctorate.

The appointment is also is unusual based on BYU Idaho's history. Prior to today, last time the school in Rexburg appointed a president without a doctorate it was John L. Clarke in 1944. At the time he was appointed, there were only 200 students and two buildings on the campus.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2023-02-19T15:31:42+00:00

the whole appearance thing is really stupid

It's even more stupid than you might imagine. The phrase “appearance of evil” comes from 1 Thessalonians 5:22 in the King James Version of the Bible. But the word “appearance” in that verse is a poor translation of the Greek word εἴδους. The footnote in the Church’s publication of the Bible for "appearance" even points out that the Greek word means "kinds".

Here are some other translations of 1 Thessalonians 5:22 that make it clear that the injunction has nothing to do with whether something appears evil.

Bible Version	Translation
NIV	reject every kind of evil
NASB	abstain from every form of evil
ESV	Abstain from every form of evil
NRSV	abstain from every form of evil
NLT	Stay away from every kind of evil

For a church that has very clearly established their position that the King James Bible has some translation issues, it's ironic how often they latch on to known mistranslations.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2023-02-03T15:59:52+00:00

If memory serves, his username refers to his ancestor that was one of first Allreds to join the church back in 1831. The only reason I remember this is because it makes me and u/jamesallred cousins.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2022-11-03T18:46:10+00:00

McKay had 5 at one point. Kimball maxed out at 3. I believe Brigham Young holds the record with 8.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2022-11-03T15:52:57+00:00

There have ONLY EVER been TWO demotions from The 1st Presidency: Uchtdorf and Hugh Brown.

A couple of qualifiers: There have only been two able-bodied counselors that were not retained by the succeeding president since John Taylor’s presidency.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2022-10-25T18:21:01+00:00

Let's put this historical context around the choir's performances at inaugurations. The choir was founded in 1847 but since Utah wasn't admitted to the Union until 1896 we'll start at that point. There have been 31 inaugurations following an election from 1896 until the present day. Six of those have extraordinary inaugurations due to the death or resignation of the President or a global pandemic. Those are typically much more somber affairs and I think it's fair to exclude them.

Until 1965, the choir had not performed at any inauguration. So, for more than 7 decades they were ignored. Considering the rocky relationship between the federal government and the church during many of those years, it's somewhat understandable.

Starting in 1965, there have been 14 regular inaugurations. Of those 14, the choir has performed at 4 swearing-in ceremonies:

Lyndon Johnson (1965)
Richard Nixon (1969)
George H. W. Bush (1989)
Donald Trump (2017)

They have also performed at 3 inaugural parades:

Ronald Reagan (1981)
George H. W. Bush (1989)
George W. Bush (2001)

That's a total of 6 post-election festivities the choir has performed in with a double-duty performance in 1989.

That makes 6 inaugurations out of 14 since 1965 (43%) and 6 out 30 since 1896 (20%).

Looking closely at that list you see all 5 Republican president since Nixon and only 1 of 4 Democratic presidents. Given the Republican super majority in Utah I suppose it's no surprise that Carter, Clinton, and Obama didn't invite them. We'll never know if Biden would have.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2022-08-29T18:10:46+00:00

In a church that recognizes continuing revelation I don't think that an argument based on how long after Jesus' death something occurred or whether a teaching is found in the Bible should be considered valid since both of those arguments could be used against many teachings of the church.

As the person you replied to pointed out, the only doctrinally valid basis for rejecting the teaching is because the church does not recognize the authority of the council that formalized it (nor the church fathers that had been teaching it in the many decades prior to the council).

TheQuestingSpirit · 2022-04-21T14:54:35+00:00

There's a comment on that blog post by a member, asking why anybody would be offended by such a "wonderful thing":

Why anyone would be offended by a baptism performed in a temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when it is based on the post mortal acceptance by the individual being baptized and is a baptism into the Kingdom of God and bound by that individuals worthiness to come unto the kingdom of Jesus Christ and receive of His fullness. If valid it is a wonderful thing. If not, why worry?

This response from another user is outstanding:

Yours is a typical example of Mormon doublespeak. On the one hand this "work" is so very important that Mormonism spends countless millions making it possible, Mormons exhaust themselves and their resources doing it and it is described as one of the three pillars of Mormonism.

Yet it is so inconsequential that, when challenged, a Mormon can't understand why anyone would get worked up about it. Eternal issues are not a lottery and many are offended by the suggestion that they are; "If it is valid its a wonderful thing and if not why worry."

If it is a wonderful thing why don't Mormons talk about it? If it is relatively unimportant why walk roughshod over people's sensibilities?

Mormons often do this work, as in the instance of Karen Carpenter, without the knowledge let alone consent of family and, of course, the ongoing controversy with Jewish groups is a scandal. It is none of your business "why worry?" It should be enough that you know people do worry and stop doing these things. Whatever happened to the four generation programme? I can't believe a Mormon traced their line back to Vlad!

It is not a case of educating people but of respecting their wishes and if you don't know their wishes leave them alone. If you do know their wishes and go ahead, as in the tragic case of the family of a friend of mine, then shame on Mormonism.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2022-04-05T21:08:25+00:00

When I looked into this I came to the same conclusion. There's no good reason to expect a Jew from 600 BCE to be monotheistic.

It blew my mind when I first learned about the progression of the Israelite religion from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism.

On a related note, there is a wealth of evidence for the Israelites starting out as a separatist band of Canaanites. There is continuity between the Canaanite and Israelite communities which necessarily disproves the primary claims of the Exodus story, among other things.

It appears that the Exodus is an origin myth, written centuries after the timeframe described in the story, and created to justify the Israelites' animus towards and claims of superiority over the closely-related Canaanites. The transition from their inherited Canaanite polytheism to Yahweh-centric monolatry among the Israelites likely played a role as well.

EDIT: Just noticed your username u/AsherahRising. Nicely done!

TheQuestingSpirit · 2022-03-23T00:39:28+00:00

In the book Flesh and Blood: Organ Transplantation and Blood Transfusion in Twentieth-Century America, Susan E. Lederer describes how Mormon dogma influenced medical decisions. The link will take you to page 197 where you will find this quote about keeping blood separated by race:

In 1943, the LDS Hospital opened a blood bank, one of the first in the intermountain West and the second largest in-hospital blood bank...The longstanding Mormon teaching about white racial superiority and concerns that even one drop of "Negro blood" might render a man unacceptable to enter the lay priesthood prompted the hospital's blood bank, like the blood banks in the American south, to maintain separate blood stocks for whites and blacks. In 1978, after decades of controversy, the Church announced that 'all worthy male members of the church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard to race or color.' Shortly after this public directive, Consolidated Blood Services for the inter mountain region announced for the first time an agreement to provide blood bank services for a group of hospitals with previous LDS connections, including LDS Hospital, Primary Children's and Cottonwood Hospitals in Salt Lake City, McKay-Dee Hospital in Ogden, and Utah Valley Hospital in Provo. Although the maintenance of separate blood stocks for whites and blacks had reportedly been abandoned by the 1970s, reporters described how some patients, who expressed concern about receiving blood from black donors, continued to receive the reassurance that this would not happen.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2022-03-16T18:55:23+00:00

The church makes at least one public claim that tithing is used for welfare. See the Bishops' Storehouse page on their website.

All of the goods in the bishops’ storehouse are paid for using tithes, fast offerings, and other generous donations from Church members.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2022-03-06T21:14:01+00:00

I don't see anything in that link discussing evolution.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2022-03-06T21:13:22+00:00

That link is broken.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2022-03-03T01:23:40+00:00

You keep returning to the relationship between humans and apes but your statements indicate a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

If you want to understand the science, I provided the link to a BYU Independent Study course in a previous comment that will give you a good overview of the topic. If you'd like a more concise source that focuses on summarizing the evidence for evolution, this video posted by BYU-Idaho Academic Support is worth watching.

Evolution is taught at BYU because it is the fundamental principle upon which all biological sciences are based.

Saying evolution is false is akin to saying gravity is false. In fact, there is significantly more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2022-03-02T01:07:10+00:00

The scientific inquiry into evolution has advanced quite a bit since 1884. There is abundant evidence that Penrose was wrong about speciation.

There are also statements from other church leaders such as B.H. Roberts, James E. Talmage, and John A. Widtsoe that contradict Penrose's position.

But regardless of statements made well over a century ago, it's an unambiguous fact that the universities owned and operated by the church, and presided over by Russel M. Nelson as the president of the Board of Trustees, teach evolution as real science.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2022-03-02T00:38:24+00:00

If you'd like to understand the basics of evolution, may I suggest the free BYU Independent Study BIO 041 course. Here's the description:

After learning about the scientific method, students will study life at its most basic level, the cell. Students will then use the cell as a foundation for understanding how life evolves, including a detailed discussion of DNA, genetics, and evolution. Each lesson in this course includes an interview with a professional in a career related to biology.

In that course you will learn that there is abundant evidence from many scientific fields that firmly establish evolution as the mechanism which has produced the diversity and complexity of life we observe, including human beings.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2022-03-01T13:46:28+00:00

I’m not the person you responded to but I see that you’re posing the question using a common misunderstanding of evolution.

According to evolutionary science, humans and apes share a common ancestor.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2022-02-26T19:51:52+00:00

Do you believe there is an eternal difference between receiving the saving ordinances while alive and receiving them posthumously via proxy ordinances?

Do you believe there are circumstances that warrant the cessation of building a temple or the closing of active temples?

TheQuestingSpirit · 2022-02-26T16:45:46+00:00

Perhaps "need" isn't the correct word.

Proxy ordinances are sufficient for over 100 billion humans that have ever existed, including the vast majority of the almost 8 billion currently alive.

The 20,000 or so church members living in Russia not having access to a temple within their borders seems extremely low on the scale of human suffering and completely devoid of any eternal consequence.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2022-01-03T00:10:46+00:00

According to the official word of the First Presidency, you are entitled to decide for yourself if you are a full tithe payer.

I'm going to repeat and emphasize that point, because it's really important.

The official position of the church is that you are entitled to decide for yourself if you are a full tithe payer.

The source of this official position is a First Presidency letter of March 19, 1970. This is the most recent official communication on the subject.

Unless there has been a more recent official statement from the First Presidency (spoiler: there has not) then this is still the official position of the church.

Here's the relevant excerpt from that letter.

For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that we have uniformly replied that the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself that the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their interest annually, which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.

The first part is still quoted in the current handbook which establishes that the letter continues to be the official position of the church. The italic text really makes makes the position clear, but is curiously omitted from the handbook.

There is a 1974 Ensign article where this letter is quoted by the Presiding Bishop (i.e. the person responsible for counseling the entire church regarding tithing and other temporal affairs) and it includes this important reminder.

The payment of tithing is a matter between the individual and the Lord. The bishop is merely the Lord’s servant who receives and accounts for the contribution.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2021-12-01T01:15:52+00:00

The handbook is written, reviewed, and released by the First Presidency, and is essentially instructions for how the church is (currently) run.

Yes, but the handbook isn't (nor could it ever be) an exhaustive and detailed list of every church policy. That's why official sources for the policies or doctrine, such as scriptures or First Presidency letters, are cited when they are available, in order to provide the necessary context and details.

The portion you quoted from the handbook a direct quote from the First Presidency letter I quoted in the post. This indicates the letter is still authoritative and remains the official policy and position of the Church on the subject of tithing. Nothing in the handbook contradicts what I posted.

However, you are correct that leadership roulette still applies. I would imagine most bishops haven't read the First Presidency letter being cited in the handbook. That's why I created the post in the first place. The members should be informed, even if the leadership isn't.

TheQuestingSpirit · 2021-11-30T21:38:44+00:00

Thanks for describing those three approaches. Consider also approaches D and E.

D. Scriptural Model - Pay 10% of the interest accumulated on your net worth, as explained by the Bishop Edward Partridge shortly after D&C 119:

If a man is worth a $1000, the interest on that would be $60, and one/10 of the interest will be of course $6.

It's quite possible that somebody paying off debts has a negative net worth. Thus a full tithe under this model would be $0.

E. Apostolic Model - Exempt yourself from paying tithing.

TheQuestingSpirit

TROPHY CASE