S9 E12 President Nelson's Era: Eight Big Changes

Episode 12 of Changes explores eight significant changes in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under President Russell M. Nelson. 

• Essay_Love and Laws of God_Nelson_LDS.org
• News_Top 100 Changes_LDS.org
• Essay_Ministering_BCC
• Video_New Transgender Policy_1932 MS
• Video_LGBTQ Policy Reversal_1091_MS
• Reddi_Top 10 Policy Changes_Reddit
• Essay_Rebranding Mormonism_LDS DIscussions
• Essay_New Home Centered_BYU RSC
• Reddit_Home Centered_Reddit
• Video_LDS Temple Builder Speaks_Mormonish
• Essay_Garment Changes_ReligionNews
• Essay_The Temples Changing_Wheat and Tares
• Essay_Changed the Ordinance_Tokens and Signs
• Essay_On Hemlines and Guidelines_Wheat and Tares

AI Prompt
Start with the "eat your vitamins" quote and how Nelson has made over 100 siginficant change. Then explore and discuss only the 8 key changes described in the docum

Transcript

Welcome to Study Faith with AI, where we use the power of AI to help you explore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm Meg Jensen.

And I'm Paul Carter,

and we're Google AIs. Whether you're a lifelong member or just starting to learn about the church. We're here to dive deep into its history, beliefs, and culture.

So, if you're ready to learn, you're in the right place.

That's right.

Let's get started. 

You know, President Russell M. Nelson once said, "Eat your vitamin pills. Get some rest. It's going to be exciting."

And he was talking about the future of the church. Looking back, since he became the prophet, well, it's kind of hard to argue with that excitement, right? We've seen what, over a hundred significant announcements and changes.

It's really been quite a period. Uh that Desert News article did a good job cataloging them over 100 shifts. They touch everything, you know, from how missionaries get their assignments all the way to like reshaping missions globally. It really signals a dynamic time.

Definitely. And for this deep dive, we're not going to try and tackle all 100 plus. That'd be a lot.

Yeah. A bit much for one session.

Instead, we're zooming in on eight key changes. Think of them as uh maybe pivotal moments, kind of a snapshot of this era.

Good approach.

Our mission here, and this is really for you listening, is pretty straightforward. Understand these eight changes. What was going on before? What exactly changed? And importantly, what were the conversations, the discussions, maybe even the debates around them.

Yeah, the context is key.

Exactly. Consider this your like express guide to the essentials.

We'll tackle these eight changes one by one. Try to paint a clear picture.

All right, let's dive in then. Change number one, this shift towards uh home-c centered church supported gospel study and the changes to the Sunday meeting schedule that went with it. This was announced October 6th, 2018.

Right

now before before this, most of us remember the standard Sunday setup. Yeah. It was that solid three-hour block.

Yep. The three-hour block, Sunday school, priesthood or relief society, sacrament meeting.

And then sort of separate from that, you had home teaching for the men, visiting, teaching for the women. These were more about personal outreach, gospel chats in people's homes.

Yeah. Separate programs entirely. So, it's interesting to think about the move away from that very established structure.

The change brought us the 2-hour Sunday schedule, but maybe even more fundamentally, it introduced the come follow me curriculum,

right? That was huge.

Huge. And the idea was that this curriculum would be the main resource for gospel study happening mostly at home.

Okay.

And then what happened at church on Sunday was designed to like support and build on that home study.

Gotcha. So Church supports home, not the other way around.

Kind of. Yeah. And it's worth remembering a version of Come Follow Me for the Youth had actually started a bit earlier back in 2013 or so.

Oh, right. I remember that.

And alongside this, we saw teacher council meetings change frequency, too. They went from monthly down to quarterly, kind of lining up better with the new curriculum focus.

So, this wasn't just about chopping an hour off Sunday service. It felt, I don't know, more philosophical, a shift in how we do gospel learning.

I think that's a fair way to put it.

So, what were the reactions? What kind of debates or discussions popped up around this?

Well, the official reasoning, the stated intent was pretty clear. It was about deepening faith in Christ and his atonement,

helping members make and keep covenants, strengthening families, against, you know, perceived attacks on faith.

Okay, standard goals,

right? And that definitely resonated with a lot of people. They saw the value in having more dedicated time for home study.

But when you look at the feedback, the member perspectives, some uh interesting points came up

like what?

Well, one observation was that this new home centered model seemed to work maybe most smoothly for families with certain setups.

How so?

Like maybe a traditional nuclear family perhaps with extended family nearby for support and maybe ideally a parent who had more time at home during the week to really guide that study.

Ah okay I can see that different family structures might find it easier or harder to implement.

Exactly. That was one thread. Another point that got raised was about the church supported part.

Some folks wondered if that support was always as well robust as it could be. Were there things that only the church community could really provide? You know the group learning, hearing diverse perspectives in a class? that maybe got a bit diminished.

Yeah. Like the manual is great, but the shared experience in a classroom adds something else. Right.

Precisely. It's not just about the book, it's the whole ecosystem.

Yeah.

There was also a feeling among some at least that this was trying to nudge members toward deeper personal engagement.

Moving from maybe just uh turning pages in class to really studying, pondering, applying stuff themselves. Yeah,

becoming more active disciples, you could say

less passive learning.

That seemed to be part of the goal. And maybe related to this whole streamlining idea, around the same time, October 2018, the church also announced they were discontinuing some of the big outdoor pageants.

Oh yeah, I remember that announcement, too. Okay, let's move to the second key change. Ministering replacing home teaching and visiting teaching. This really started rolling out in 2019.

Correct.

Before ministering, give us a quick reminder of how home and visiting teaching worked. The nuts and bolts.

Sure. or home teaching for men, visiting teaching for women. They had a pretty clear structure. You got assigned companions. Yep.

You got assigned specific families or individuals to visit each month. Often there was a specific message from the manual or other church materials you were supposed to share.

Right. The monthly message.

Exactly. And there was a reporting aspect. Leaders would check if the visits were made. It was, you know, systematic, clear assignments, focused on regular contact.

Okay. And then came ministering. What was the big idea? What were the key differences?

The language used was about moving to a higher and holier way of caring for people.

Higher and holier. Okay.

The main shift was towards way more flexibility. How you made contact, what counted as service.

Mhm.

It became much less defined. That formal monthly visit with the set message wasn't the expectation anymore.

So less rigid.

Much less. The focus shifted to understanding what people actually needed and helping out in ways that made sense for them. Even the uh the accounting changed. It wasn't about counting visits anymore. It was more about having meaningful interviews with the ministering brothers and sisters to actually talk about the needs of the people being ministered to.

So less about checking the box visit done more about what are the needs, how are we helping?

That was the intention. Yeah, understanding and responding.

How did this land with members? What was the reaction to the discussion?

Well, initially I think there was a lot of positive buzz. People like the idea of more flexibility, more personalized service.

Many were quite happy to move away from what could sometimes feel a bit like a you know obligatory monthly task

I can imagine.

But as it rolled out um some different perspectives started to surface.

Okay. What kind of concerns or alternative views came up?

One theme that came up quite a bit was from members who maybe didn't have strong existing social ties in the ward.

For them the structure of having assigned friends essentially the home or visiting teachers who had to show up was actually kind of valuable.

Ah the guaranteed contact.

Exactly. That regularity, even if the visit was short, provided a consistent touch point, and some felt that was lost or at least less certain with the looser ministering approach. The worry was that more flexibility could for some mean less contact overall.

Yeah, it makes sense. If it's less structured, maybe easier for connections to kind of slip, right?

That was the concern. Yeah. Another point raised was that while ministering sounded great conceptually, some members felt like Church HQ didn't give quite enough um concrete examples or guidance on what should replace the old visit model

like okay we don't have to visit monthly so what should we be doing

kind of it left some feeling a bit uncertain about how to do it effectively in this new way and then there was the observation looking back particularly with co

uhhu

that the old home and visiting teaching structure with his defined roots and reporting might have actually been pretty useful for staying connected and providing support during all that isolation

hm interesting thought like the infrastructure was was already there.

It was. But on the flip side, you had many who really embraced the idea that basically any good deed done for those in your stewardship now counts as ministering,

right?

Focusing more directly on just blessing and caring for people, however, seemed best for them.

Okay, let's shift gears to the third big change. The church ending its long, long affiliation with the Boy Scouts of America, announced May 2018, fully transitioned by end of 2019.

Yep. For decades, BSA was the program for young men in the church. Deeply ingrained.

Oh, absolutely. Decades of partnership. Scouting was woven into ward activities, young men's programs. It had this clear structure, merit badges, ranks, advancements.

The Eagle Scout,

the Eagle Scout Award, hugely significant for many. It was just a core part of growing up in the church for young men for a very long time.

So, why the split? What led the church to step away and create its own thing?

Well, the church announced it was developing its own global program, the Children and youth program.

This new program has sort of three main pillars. Gospel learning, service and activities, and personal development.

Okay.

And a big part of this roll out was the expansion of FSY conferences for the strength of youth. These are modeled on BYU's EFY program.

EFY. Yeah.

And they're now being implemented much more broadly, especially across North America.

Okay. Now, this decision leaving the scouts that definitely sparked a lot of conversation. Strong feelings on both sides, I'd imagine.

For sure. Lots of debate. Several viewpoints emerged.

What were some of the main ones?

Well, one perspective suggested the change was driven by a desire to have a youth program that aligned more closely with specific church values.

Now, the church didn't frame it quite like this officially, but one source we looked at interpreted it as a way to quote preserve certain values and specifically mentioned differing views on LGBTQ plus issues between the church and the BS. say as a potential factor.

Okay, so that's one interpretation that was out there. What else?

Another big discussion point was about the program structure itself.

Some felt scouting offered really clear goals, tangible achievements, lots of opportunities for learning practical skills, leadership,

right? The merit badges, the ranks, very defined,

very defined. And the concern was that maybe some of that would be lost in the new more internally focused program. And the personal development part of the new program emphasizes, you know, intrinsic motivation, personal revelation.

But the worry was does would that resonate as well with all youth especially those who maybe thrive on more structure clear goals external recognition with all gold stars so to speak

yeah different kids respond to different motivations that makes sense

totally and you definitely heard a sense of sadness even loss from many adults parents leaders who had poured years into scouting within the church

understandable

and this was happening while the BSA itself was facing its own difficulties declining membership lawsuits, stuff like that,

right?

But the church's messaging around the new children and youth program really emphasized it was designed to be more homesteaded and church supported just like the Sunday school changes.

Ah, that theme again.

A theme again. And also that it should be more youth led with adults mentoring rather than directing everything. The ultimate goal stated was to put the focus squarely on faith in Jesus Christ, helping youth become like him.

Okay.

Rather than just checking off boxes in a specific program, whether that was scouting ranks or for the Young Women the old Personal Progress Program.

Gotcha. Moving to number four. This one involves a pretty major policy shift. The 2019 reversal of that November 2015 policy about baptizing children of parents in samesex relationships. This definitely got a lot of attention.

Oh, absolutely. A huge amount. The 2015 policy, as President Nelson explained later in a BYU speech, basically said that children living with parents who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender needed first presidency approval for baptism,

which was a significant change at the time.

Yes. And then the 2019 reversal.

What did that do?

It completely undid the 2015 policy. Effective immediately, children of LGBT parents could be baptized without needing that special first presidency approval. Both the Mormon stories transcript and President Nelson's BYU talk confirm this.

Okay. Now, this policy, both putting it in place and then reversing it, obviously caused a lot of uh controversy and debate. Let's talk about the impact of the 2015 policy first.

Yeah. The Mormon race podcast transcript really paints a picture of the deep pain and distress the 2015 policy caused for LGBTQ members, their families, their allies. Many saw it as well, deeply hurtful, exclusionary. It had real emotional and social fallout.

And the reversal in 2019, how was that received generally? Was it universally welcomed?

Well, it was largely welcomed by the LGBTQ community and their supporters as, you know, a necessary correction, a step towards inclusion. But across the wider church membership,

perspectives were more How so?

The warm and thread, for example, shows that some members had come to view that initial 2015 policy as like divinely inspired. So for them, the reversal could be challenging. It raised questions about prophetic authority, consistency.

Right. President Nelson did address the reasons for both the policy and its reversal in that BYU speech. What was his explanation?

He explained the 2015 policy was initially intended to uh reduce friction in homes to avoid putting kids in a difficult position between church teachings and their home life with LGBT parents.

Okay.

Then he said the decision to reverse it in 2019 came after a lot of prayerful thought seeking the Lord's will. A reconsideration basically

but such a big policy shift back and forth. It naturally brings up complex questions about prophecy unchanging principles like that sore Mormon thread discussed.

Absolutely. That kind of rapid change prompted a lot of discussion. How do you square that with a theology that often emphasizes you know eternal truths and prophets speaking God's unchanged changing word. It led to lots of different interpretations and wrestling with the implication.

Okay, let's move to our fifth key change, the revision of the for the strength of youth pamphlets. That's a pretty core guide for young members,

right? And a Weed and Tears blog did a deep dive comparing the 2011 and the 2022 versions before the latest one. The 2011 pamphlet had well, a lot of specific rules, guidelines, warnings about dating age, dress and grooming, music, sexual purity, pretty detailed.

And the 2022 version took a different tack.

Yeah, it's a notable shift towards principles over specific rules. The tone is generally more positive, hopeful, encouraging. A lot of the specific don'ts from the old version were either removed or broadened out. The focus shifted to personal responsibility, integrity, making decisions based on principles.

Interesting.

Oh, and repentance. It's discussed much earlier in the new booklet.

So, moving from rules to principles, what kind of discussions did that generate?

Well, the Weed and Teres blog highlighted a few things. One concern was this idea of leader roulette. leader roulette meaning

the worry that without clear specific rules how standards get interpreted and applied could vary a lot depending on local leaders you might get inconsistencies and expectations from one ward or stake to another

okay a potential lack of uniformity what about the language used especially around sensitive stuff like sexual purity or repentance

the new version generally uses uh softer language there compared to 2011 some of the more forceful warnings maybe even fear based language from the older one were toned down or removed. Some saw that as positive, others maybe missed the directness

and specific guidelines like dating, dress, music, any notable changes there.

Yeah, the wait till 16 to date guideline is still there, but the blog notes ongoing talk about how it's applied. Dress and grooming, music choices, the approach seems more general, fewer specific prohibitions. And interestingly, the word of the wisdom section, some read the new wording as maybe less explicitly against things like marijuana compared to the older text that sparked some debate

and the shift from obedience to integrity as the guiding idea that seemed important too.

Absolutely. The blog mentioned people like therapist Jennifer Finlay and F who argue that developing personal integrity, aligning your actions with your core beliefs is more valuable long-term than just following rules out of obligation. Right. It sparked discussions about moral agency, developing a conscience.

But it sounds like not everyone was thrilled with the new approach.

That's right. Weed and tears pointed out But some folks preferred the older, more prescriptive version. They felt the specifics provided clearer boundaries, clearer expectations for youth.

Okay. Change number six takes us into the temple. Modifications to the endowment ceremony as detailed in the temples that are a change in blog. Given how sacred temple ordinances are, any changes are bound to get people thinking and talking.

For sure. The blog lists several specific changes. Things like um a 15-minute announcement beforehand talking about the covenants people will make.

Okay. Like informed consent

sort of. Also, more pictures or images of Jesus Christ used during the presentation. They stopped using a witness couple during ceilings. Certain symbolic actions like some handshakes were altered or removed, though the blog notes the handshake thing might be more related to postcoid adjustments.

Anything else?

Yeah, removing the old instruction against loud laughter in the celestial room, showing Adam and Eve wearing temple clothing right from the start of their part. and dropping the phrase of the dead when talking about vicarious ordinances.

That is quite a list. What kind of reactions or debates did these changes cause?

According to the temples, they are a change in blog, a real mix. Some members see them as fairly minor tweaks, not changing the core ceremony much. Others appreciate specific things like that pre- covenant announcement you mentioned.

The blog also mentioned the ongoing discussion about historical links to masonry. Right.

Yes. That conversation continues among some members, you know. the historical roots of the endowment, the symbolism, and whether these recent changes really address any fundamental questions or concerns related to that history

and the extra images of Christ. How did that land?

Generally positive, seen as bringing Christ more visually into the experience. But the blog points out some feel that just adding pictures doesn't fundamentally change the endowment's main focus, which is on making covenants and learning through signs and tokens.

And the symbolism of things like the apron still open to interpretation.

Oh yeah, the blog gives examples of different personal views on what various symbols mean. It really highlights how personal and nuanced people's understanding of these sacred things can be.

Okay, number seven is maybe more on the practical side, but one many members apparently wanted. Sleeveless temple garments.

That's right. That article sleeveless Mormon temple garments finally why now covers this.

Traditionally garments the underclothes worn by endowed members had sleeves to the elbow and legs to the knee required.

And the change is simply offering a sleeveless option.

Exactly. Sleeveless tops for both men and women are now available as an alternative.

What's the thinking behind this? Any speculation?

The article floats a couple of ideas. Maybe an effort to make garments more appealing or comfortable for younger adults who might have different clothing preferences.

Makes sense.

Also, just practicality, especially in hot, humid places where the traditional garments could feel well, pretty uncomfortable.

Yeah, I can see that. And you talk about about whether this might affect how consistently people wear them.

The article touches on garment wearing trends across different age groups. Historically, younger members sometimes had lower rates of daily wear compared to older members. So, there's some discussion, maybe hope, that a sleeveless option could make garments more comfortable, more appealing for younger folks, and maybe boost overall compliance.

The article also put this in a slightly broader context, didn't it, about garment guidance.

Yeah, it mentioned how the church had actually removed this specific day and night wording from the temple recommend questions back in 2019.

Oh, right.

Only to put it back earlier this year. So, that kind of back and forth just shows there's an ongoing evolution, maybe refinement in the guidance around wearing garments.

Okay. Finally, our eighth change. This one's about the name of the church itself. The big push to use the full name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and discourage Mormon Church or LDS church.

Yes, this has been a very clear, very consistent message. from leadership, especially President Nelson, the rebranding revelation article talks about this. Now, the full name was always the official one obviously,

right?

But Mormon church, Les Church, those shorter terms became super common over many, many years, widely used, generally accepted both inside and outside the church.

And the change is just a strong push to use the full correct name. Why the emphasis?

The main reason, consistently stated, is about clarifying the church's identity, its core identity, putting the focus squarely on Jesus Christ using the full name explicitly says this is his church it centers him

and how have members reacted to this push has it been easy to adopt

it's been varied lots of members have really embraced it making a conscious effort to use the full name all the time talking writing online but for others it's been maybe a harder habit to break you know after years of using the shorter terms so a real spectrum of adoption there

okay wow we've covered a lot of ground these eight key changes it really does bring you back to that core question, doesn't it? How do members make sense of all this? Are these changes seen as like practical adjustments for a growing global church or are they viewed more as, you know, divine mandates, direct revelation?

That really is the crux of it, isn't it? And the sources we looked at show there's no single answer to that among members. You see a whole range of interpretations, right? Some definitely see these changes as positive, necessary adaptations, good management, you might say, keeping the church relevant and functioning well in today's world. Steps in the right direction,

sensible adjustments.

Yeah. Others approach them with perhaps more skepticism. They might question the motivations, wonder if changes or reactions to external pressures or, you know, woke agendas as one commenter put it, rather than purely internal or divine direction.

And this must spark questions about revelation itself, right? How it works, how it relates to policy.

Absolutely. For some, seeing policies change, especially ones that had previously been linked to prompt real reflection on the nature of ongoing revelation and how it guides the church day-to-day.

And you have to remember President Nelson's own words saying more changes are likely coming.

Right. Eat your vitamins.

Exactly. It suggests this period of dynamism isn't necessarily over. So understanding these changes really means looking at the context, the specifics, and the wide variety of member perspectives and interpretations.

This has been a fascinating deep dive. It really highlights just how dynamic things have been recently in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We've touched on everything from Sunday schedules and how we serve each other to youth programs, temple practices. Huge shifts.

Uhhuh. And the reactions are just as varied as the changes themselves.

For sure. These eight changes, they really give us a window into this ongoing evolution under President Nelson.

They do. And reflecting on them kind of makes you think about that balancing act, doesn't it?

Adapting to a complex changing world while holding fast to core beliefs and doctrines.

It's a constant tension. Probably

probably So maybe a final thought for our listeners, keep exploring these things. Dig into the information that's out there. Think about these shifts and, you know, come to your own informed understanding of what this period of change means.

Great point. Well, thank you for joining us on this deep dive into a truly significant period of change.

If you find value in this exploration, please like, share, follow, and consider becoming a subscriber. Your contributions help keep these conversations going and allows us to maintain the highest quality production. You can find all the details at studyfaithwithai.com. Thank you for being part of this journey.