Since January 2026, I have been serving on the Executive Committee of the Church Board of Education. I have sensed how much God cares about the associated institutions and I have been made more aware of the resources devoted to them. I am grateful to faithful members around the world that make this possible. I am also grateful for the way every one of you handle your stewardship.
The most important message I have for you today, in this Brigham Young University–Hawaii faculty meeting, is this, “Thank you! On behalf of the Lord, Jesus Christ, and the leaders of His Church, thank you for your goodness, your faith, and faithfulness. Thank you for caring enough about the students of this University, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to work as you do in a job that is more than employment.”
The other message relates to BYU–Hawaii itself. When I have complimented some aspects of the BYU–Hawaii experience, many have explained to me that it results from BYU–Hawaii’s DNA. This has caused me to wonder about DNA because it is, after all, weird to refer to an institution as having biological underpinnings. But let’s lean into the analogy.
In an organism, genetic makeup is encoded within DNA. For simplicity and clarity, we can describe the intrinsic DNA as genotype. We can also describe the outwardly observable characteristics as phenotype.
So, let’s refer to BYU–Hawaii’s DNA as its genotype and its outwardly observable characteristics as its phenotype. But bear in mind that its genotype and phenotype are different than those of other Brigham Young University institutions. While we intend to bless all who matriculate here, our specific target audience is a student from Oceania and the Asian Rim, and there are other specific unique aspects as well.
In nature, the genotype is not completely determinative of the phenotype. For instance, identical twins have the same genotype. If their genotype were determinative, their phenotypes would develop identically. However, studies have shown that many personality characteristics are genetically determined only half the time in identical twins. Non-genetic factors are obviously involved. [1]
For example, a story aired in 2024 of two brothers, Sam and John Fetters. [2] They were identical twins who grew up in the same household. Both have autism but they are at opposite ends of the autism spectrum. Sam was a sophomore at Amherst College, planning a double major in history and political science. In his free time, he runs marathons. His twin brother, John, attends a special school, struggles to form sentences, and likes to watch Teletubbies and Sesame Street. They have the same genotype. Their phenotypes, though, are dramatically different.
Another example comes from Korea. Koreans on both sides of the demilitarized zone are genetically very similar. Yet, South Koreans are 4-6 inches taller than their northern counterparts.[3] While their genotypes are similar, their outwardly observable characteristics differ because of nutrition and disease-related factors.
A final example comes from a rare, inherited metabolic disorder known as phenylketonuria or PKU. PKU is caused by mutations in a gene that encodes for an enzyme that metabolizes phenylalanine. Individuals with the mutation can end up with toxic accumulations of phenylalanine. This in turn can cause severe brain damage and intellectual disability.
But the PKU genotype confers risk, not a determined or fixed outcome. If identified early, nowadays through routine newborn screening, and treated continuously, initially with a special formula and later with strict restriction of high-protein foods, individuals with PKU can have normal brain development and live healthy lives. If treatment is delayed or not maintained, irreversible neurological deficits occur. The phenotype emerges from a gene–environment interaction. PKU is an example where genotype specifies vulnerability, but not outcome.
Recognizing that genotypes are not completely determinative of phenotypes in nature, let’s go back and consider BYU–Hawaii’s genotype and phenotype. BYU–Hawaii has a unique institutional identity or genotype that has been repeatedly described by Prophets of God, from its dedication to the present day. The task is for BYU–Hawaii to become the university that prophets have foretold. This involves the development of both secular and spiritual aspects. The paired aspirations of spiritual and secular are not in opposition to each other, locked in inevitable conflicts. Rather, the optimal expression of both together is the goal.
Optimizing two functions simultaneously is much more difficult and complicated than optimizing one function in isolation. But it is worthwhile. You are asked to do it. You are charged to do it. I would like to suggest that to do so, the genotype needs to be metaphorically transcribed into messenger RNA and then via ribosomes into proteins that eventually lead to the fully developed phenotype.
For BYU–Hawaii’s genotype to be fully expressed as its optimal phenotype, important gene regulation must take place in the form of decisions, choices, and approaches. The question for us is “Will BYU–Hawaii fulfill its optimal identity or something less than that?” BYU–Hawaii will only become what it is intended to be when its phenotype is a truthful, faithful, and balanced expression of its genotype. In healthy cells, there are genes that promote cell division, (we’ll call it the go gene) promoter genes, and genes that suppress cell division, (we’ll call them the stop gene). These genes can be thought of as accelerators of growth and brakes on growth.[4] These genes are turned on when appropriate signals are received.
In a healthy BYU–Hawaii, these promoters (GO) and suppressors (STOP), accelerators (like a gas pedal) and brakes (brake), thus, both the secular and the spiritual function ideally and optimally together. Then teaching, citizenship, and service—aspects of the spiritual mission—are balanced within and by the BYU–Hawaii faculty.
In a cell, imagine what happens when a promoter gene mutates such that it is always turned on, like an accelerator in a car that is stuck fully pressed to the floor. For a time, there may be stability if the suppressor gene goes into high function. But if the suppressor gene also mutates such that the brake function is broken, then unrestricted cell growth occurs. We call this cancer. If BYU–Hawaii’s promoter and suppressor genes are not functioning appropriately, the ideal phenotype will be distorted. The resulting phenotype would be an overemphasis on teaching, citizenship, service, or the student experience. One or more facets would be compromised at the expense of the others.
The desire of the Church Board of Education is for the students to develop greater faith in Jesus Christ, a stronger testimony of living prophets and apostles, and to become academically and professionally successful. For that to happen, faculty who are successful in both secular and spiritual realms are necessary.
I used to be a cardiologist specializing in the treatment of heart failure. My wife jokes that a specialist is someone who learns more and more about less and less until finally he or she knows everything about nothing. She also said that it was always a bad prognostic sign to become one of my patients. This was statistically true—but not causal. Over the years I saw many people die who had perfectly functioning kidneys, liver, and lungs. However, disease in one organ system was fatal. Similarly, a patient can have many perfectly functioning organ systems and yet die of liver cancer.
At BYU–Hawaii, we need everyone to focus on the health of the whole, balancing appropriately the teaching, citizenship, service, student experience, all of those things that are components of the spiritual mission of BYU–Hawaii. Any department, college, or individual faculty member can cause failure even though the others are functioning well. No department or faculty member can assume that their contribution does not need to be balanced because their contribution may be the one that has the most influence on a group of students.
The non-determinative nature of genotype on phenotype is an archetypical idea for each of us individually. In the premortal existence, at the time we were born as spirit children of God,[5] we had a divine nature. This is asserted in The Family: A Proclamation to the World. We read, “All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature…” [6] Metaphorically we could say that the divine nature is our spiritual DNA, our spiritual genotype.[7] But our spiritual genotype is not determinative. It did not predestine any of us to be evil. What we, as spirit children of God become, what we develop as our phenotype, results from the interaction of our spiritual genotype with the choices we make and the environment we are in. [8]
Throughout our premortal existence, our divine spiritual genotype did not change. However, outcomes among God’s children did differ; several phenotypic expressions were evident in the premortal existence. Consider Satan. He rebelled against God, tried to usurp God’s power, and sought to destroy the agency of man. [9] Do you think God made Lucifer’s spiritual genotype flawed and evil? I don’t. He became who he became because of his choices. One third part of the hosts of heaven chose not to follow the plan of our Heavenly Father. [10] Did God make them with a flawed genotype? I don’t think so. They became flawed as they chose to be rebellious. Their spiritual phenotype differed from those who chose to follow the plan.
Third, among the two third’s part of the hosts of heaven who chose to follow the plan, some are labeled as “noble and great.” If there are some that are “noble and great,” perhaps some are not so noble or not so great. [11] Was this predetermined because of their spiritual genotype? I don’t think so. Their phenotype was also based on choice. After the Fall of Adam, mankind was born into a mortal or fallen world, a world in which choices continue to influence phenotype. [12]While the spiritual genotype does not change, there is an overlay of physical genotype. [13] After many generations, mankind’s genotype likely included hereditary predispositions and inclinations. Environmental factors greatly influence how the genome was expressed. The whole field of epigenetics explores these profound effects.
Mankind’s spiritual genotype derived from heavenly parents. Once born into the world, we bring with us our divine nature as well as some aspects of our premortal development. Once mortal, the diversification of outward characteristics continues. These characteristics can range from becoming a son of perdition to becoming a saint. But becoming carnal, sensual, and devilish is not predetermined. It results when man chooses to follow the enticings of Satan. [14] It results when we love Satan more than God and through willful disobedience of God’s commandments.
The Lord revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith, “Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God. And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers.” [15]
Our phenotype, then, is determined by our choices. President Russell M. Nelson taught “[Y]our choices today will determine three things: where you live throughout all eternity, the kind of body with which you will be resurrected, and those with whom you will live forever.” [16]
President Jeffrey R. Holland has taught, “Our deepest desires, our premortal yearnings, are still divine in their origins, and they are still deep in our souls. The echoes of our earlier innocence still reverberate, and the light that forsakes the evil one still shines. Our hearts … desire that which is spiritual and holy rather than that which is ‘carnal, sensual, and devilish.’” [17]
Whether we transform our divine nature into our intended eternal destiny depends on us. In a similar way, whether BYU–Hawaii’s divine, heaven-established genotype is transformed into its intended destiny, the optimal BYU–Hawaii phenotype, does not depend solely on students. Nor does it depend solely on faculty. Nor does it depend solely on faculty leaders or the administration. It depends on each individual part, each individual division, each individual department that touches on BYU–Hawaii’s mission. Each part is crucial.
Even though the resulting phenotype depends on each part, my invitation for you is to evaluate yourselves as if the outcome depends solely on you. Stand where you are and lift where you stand, to paraphrase President Dieter F. Uchtdorf. Ask yourself, “What is it that I can do to transform BYU–Hawaii’s genotype into the phenotype God intends?”
I believe there are many things that are essential in the phenotypic expression of a faculty member at BYU–Hawaii. I would like to mention just two, loyalty to the Lord’s living prophet and loyalty to other faculty members.
We believe in ongoing revelation through a prophet of God. This claim is audacious and extraordinary. But it is true. Let me point out something obvious, though. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we worship Jesus Christ. He is the head of the Church.[18] The Atonement of Jesus Christ is central to our faith. However, one of the unique aspects of our faith is that we are led by Jesus Christ through a living prophet.
On September 27, 2025, at 10:30 p.m., President Dallin H. Oaks was informed that President Russell M. Nelson had passed away. President Oaks said that about five minutes later, he felt a crushing weight of responsibility on his shoulders. Then he started to have some thoughts about things he should do about President Nelson’s funeral and general conference. Because those promptings came to him, he realized that the Lord’s restored Church is never without a prophet.
On Tuesday, October 14, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., fourteen ordained Apostles met together. Thirteen of us sat in a semicircle facing President Oaks, who was seated in front of us. He asked each member of the Twelve, starting with Elder Kearon, whether the First Presidency should be reorganized right away. Each Apostle spoke in turn. After that happened, we all sensed that it was the Lord’s will that the First Presidency should be reorganized with President Oaks as the President of the Church.
President Oaks announced that the Lord had told him already who his counselors would be. When he announced that his first counselor would be Henry B. Eyring, the look on President Eyring’s face was amazing. It was this. He must have been one of the five people on the planet who didn’t think he’d be involved in the First Presidency. And then he announced Elder D. Todd Christofferson as being his second counselor. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, when President Christofferson speaks, sometimes his eyebrow goes up a little bit. I don’t know if you’ve noticed that. This time when his name was announced, it went here. Then, President Oaks took a seat in the middle of the room, and the remaining thirteen Apostles stood in the circle around him. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was voice in setting apart President Oaks. As Elder Holland began, “Dallin Harris Oaks,” this amazing feeling came into the room. Lightness and joy filled every fiber of my being. I knew in that sacred moment that I had my hand on the head of the prophet of God on the earth. I knew that I would follow him anywhere and do anything he asked me to do. I wish all of you could have been there. You couldn’t, so the best I can do is to tell you what I felt. As faculty at BYU–Hawaii, you have the right and the obligation to make sure that you know the same thing that I do, that the Lord’s prophet today is President Oaks. This is something that God doesn’t want to be kept a secret. You need to know for yourself that Dallin Harris Oaks is God’s prophet on the earth today. But the quest needs to be more than just an academic exercise. It means that you’re willing to follow the prophet and trust him. When you’re willing to do that, it makes this revelation easier for the Lord to give you.
Sometimes we might be tempted to feel warm and fuzzy about having a living prophet, if he teaches what we already believe and asks us to do things we already want to do. But what if he asks us to accept what we do not believe or behave in a way that we would not otherwise be the way we have behaved, what then?
Brigham Young provides an example. He said, “[M]any things which were revealed through Joseph came in contact with our own prejudices: we did not know how to understand them.”[19] Brigham was acknowledging that the Lord had revealed through the Prophet Joseph things that challenged his personal beliefs. Brigham continued, “[W]hen the Vision [what we now know as Doctrine and Covenants section 76] came first to me, it was directly contrary and opposed to my former education, [and] I could not understand it. … [What I had previously been taught and believed was] diametrically opposed to the doctrine revealed in the Vision.”[20] Those of us living in 2026 need to bear in mind that in 1832, most protestants believed that heaven was very, very small, reserved only for a select elect and that hell was enormous and would be populated by the majority of people who were all condemned to hell, to be tormented eternally—because God abhorred His creations. The teaching of the Vision reverses this teaching. As President Oaks has taught, “The revealed doctrine of the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all the children of God—with exceptions too limited to consider here—will ultimately inherit one of three kingdoms of glory, even the least of which ‘surpasses all understanding.’”[21] When faced with something from the living prophet that was diametrically opposed to his prior beliefs, Brigham reported, “I said [to myself], Wait a little. I did not reject it …. I used to think and pray, to read and think, until I knew and fully understood it for myself, by the visions of the Holy Spirit.”[22] When it comes to President Oaks, I suggest we adopt Brigham’s approach. If we don’t understand something, wait, don’t reject the teaching, think, pray, and seek confirmation. President Oaks will always direct us to the Savior. President Oaks’ only concern is about our eternal welfare and does not hesitate to tell us, “Jesus Christ is the way.”
The second phenotypic expression that is essential in a faculty member at BYU–Hawaii is loyalty to other faculty members. This means that you do not speak negatively about a fellow-faculty member to students or peers. This is part of the embodiment of mutual respect. Resolve issues with each other. If you need to talk to someone about a fellow faculty member, talk confidentially to your supervisor.
Many years ago, I arrived home one evening venting about some individuals at work. In the introduction, it was mentioned that I was a medical director of a multi-institutional transplant program. There were some conflicts that were occurring between those institutions, and that threatened to just shatter the cooperative and collaborative nature of this program. I came home after hearing some negative things said about me and I was venting about them. I was extremely frustrated. Our daughter, Ashley, then 10-years-old, looked troubled and said, paraphrasing the Sermon on the Mount, “But, Dad, I thought we were supposed to pray for those who despitefully use us!” I felt like rebuking her sharply and saying, “Why can’t you be like a normal kid and just nap during Church?” But her counsel touched my heart. My prayers changed and my interactions with associates changed, and this eventually led to a resolution of a very significant challenge. This past Tuesday evening, assembled in Utah State Capital were hundreds of people from those institutions celebrating the 40 th anniversary of the Utah Cardiac Transplant Program. I attribute it directly to my daughter’s council, the healing that occurred within that program by helping me refrain from saying what actually was true but negative. Instead of expressing it in a different way, it started by praying for those and then seeing it the way forward.
Part of Brigham Young University–Hawaii’s five-year strategic plan that was presented to the Church Board of Education last April included a slight modification of its mission statement. It now reads: “Our mission is to prepare disciples of Jesus Christ who will live and lead in Oceania and the Asian Rim.” To accomplish this mission, your phenotypic expression needs to include loyalty to the Lord’s prophet and loyalty to fellow faculty members.
As you seek to express the divine identity of BYU–Hawaii in the daily choices of teaching, citizenship, and service, student experience, I promise that the Lord will magnify your consecrated efforts. Your students from those target areas, and beyond need more than excellent instruction; they need faithful witnesses of Jesus Christ whose lives demonstrate that spiritual strength and academic excellence can flourish together. God lives and He loves this university, its faculty, and its students. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world, and His Church has been restored. We are led today by a living prophet, Dallin H. Oaks. As you loyally follow the Savior, sustain His prophet, and strengthen one another, BYU–Hawaii will more fully become what prophets have foreseen and what God intends it to be. In the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Sources:
[1] Jane E. Brody, “What Twins Can Teach Us About Nature vs. Nurture,” New York Times, August 20, 2018
[2] Jon Hamilton, “These identical twins both grew up with autism, but took very different paths,” Morning Edition, National Public Radio, April 4, 2024
[3] Schwekendiek DJ, Journal of Biosocial Science, January 2009, 41(1):51-55
This paper investigates height and weight differences between the two Koreas by comparing national anthropometric data published by the South Korean Research Institute of Standard and Science with United Nations survey data collected inside North Korea in 2002. For socioeconomic reasons, pre-school children raised in the developing country of North Korea are up to 13 cm shorter and up to 7 kg lighter than children who were brought up in South Korea--an OECD member. North Korean women were also found to weigh up to 9 kg less than their Southern counterparts.
[4] Siddhartha Mukherjee, “The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer,” [2010], 369
[5] Doctrine and Covenants 93:29-30; Abraham 3:22
Before being born as spirit sons and daughters of heavenly parents, man existed as intelligences, intelligences that were co-eternal with God. We do not know enough about the intelligences that were incorporated into the spirit children of God to determine whether they were predestined to a specific fate, but we doubt it.
[6] “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Gospel Library; “Young Women Theme,” Gospel Library, recite “I am a beloved of heavenly parents, with a divine nature…”
[7] DNA is deoxyribonucleic acid. DNA encodes all genetic material in humans and is found in chromosomes.
[8] Dallin H. Oaks, “Free Agency and Freedom,” in The Book of Mormon: Second Nephi, the Doctrinal Structure, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate Jr. [1989], 13–14
“Perhaps these persons, as the saying goes, were ‘born that way.’ But what does that mean? Does it mean that persons with susceptibilities or strong tendencies have no choice, no free agency in these matters? Our doctrine teaches us otherwise. Regardless of a person’s susceptibility or tendency, his will is unfettered. His free agency is unqualified. It is his freedom that is impaired. … We are all responsible for the exercise of our free agency.
“… Most of us are born with thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.
“God has promised that he will consecrate our afflictions for our gain (see 2 Nephi 2:2). The efforts we expend in overcoming any inherited weakness build a spiritual strength that will serve us throughout eternity. Thus, when Paul prayed thrice that his ‘thorn in the flesh’ would depart from him, the Lord replied, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’ (2 Corinthians 12:9)”
[9] Moses 4:3
[10] Joseph Smith Translation, Revelation 12:4; Abraham 3:26-28
[11] Abraham 3:22-23
[12] Alma 13:3-4
[13] Jeffrey R. Holland, “Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon,” Deseret Book, 1997, 205-207; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Alma 26:19–22; Alma 41:11; Doctrine and Covenants 29:41
[14] Moses 5:10-12
[15] Doctrine and Covenants 93:38-39
[16] Russell M. Nelson, “Think Celestial!,” Liahona, November 202, 118
[17] Jeffrey R. Holland, “Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon,” Deseret Book, 1997, 205-207
[18] Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121
[19] Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 6:281
[20] Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 6:281
[21] Dallin H. Oaks, “Kingdoms of Glory,” Liahona, November 2023, 26
[22] Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, Volume 6:281 (1792–1835).
Later, during the tumultuous mid-1830’s, many claimed Joseph was a fallen or darkened prophet, but Brigham Young again showed his approach, while acknowledging Joseph’s fallibility. Brigham stated “It gave me sorrow of heart, and I clearly saw and understood, by the spirit of revelation manifested to me, that if I was to harbor a thought in my heart that Joseph could be wrong in anything, I would begin to lose confidence in him, and that feeling would grow … until at last I would have the same lack of confidence [as the apostates] in his being the mouthpiece for the almighty…. [T]hough I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults.… It was not for me to question whether Joseph was dictated by the Lord at all times and under all circumstances or not.... He was called of God…and if [God] had a mind to leave [Joseph] to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. [Joseph Smith] was God’s servant, and not mine” (Leonard J. Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses, 59-60)