For today’s religious educators, the digital classroom is a present and growing reality. Here youth in Brazil use an iPad. Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

ABSTRACT: Drawing on histories and interviews, this article examines how online learning has evolved in S&I over the past twenty-five years, including responses to technological advances, global crises, strategic shifts in curriculum delivery, and structural changes in training and administration. Online religious education within S&I is not merely a logistical innovation but a spiritually grounded extension of the restored gospel that expands its reach across the globe. When the gospel is taught online with doctrinal clarity and consecrated love, it can become a sacred venue for conversion, gathering Israel one student, one teacher, and one redemptive relationship at a time.

KEYWORDS: online learning, teaching the gospel, Church history 1946–present,

Introduction

For today’s religious educators, the digital classroom is a present and growing reality. As instruction increasingly shifts to online environments, religious educators face new challenges and opportunities. Questions arise, such as: How can spiritual depth be maintained when teaching through screens? What does “teaching in the Savior’s way” look like in online or remote modalities? And how can educators design courses that communicate doctrine and foster conversion?

This article responds to these questions by offering a historically grounded and pedagogically informed examination of how Seminaries and Institutes of Religion (S&I) has approached online learning. Drawing on institutional records, practitioner insights, and educational theory, we examine how online learning has evolved in S&I over the past quarter-century, including responses to technological advances, global crises, strategic shifts in curriculum delivery, and structural changes in training and administration. While teacher preparation and professional development are critical to the success of online instruction, they are addressed here only as they directly shape student-facing pedagogical practice.[1]

We argue that online religious education within S&I is not merely a logistical innovation but a spiritually grounded extension of the restored gospel that reflects both institutional adaptation and eternal truths. This evolution aligns with President Russell M. Nelson’s prophetic vision of home-centered and Church-supported gospel learning,[2] a pattern that strengthens faith in an increasingly digital world. Framing online instruction in this way provides both institutional justification and spiritual direction for educators navigating these new modalities.

Within this context, digital tools are a means of advancing gospel understanding, relevance, belonging, and Christlike teaching. Indeed, online learning can serve as a meaningful extension of a pattern of gospel teaching and learning deeply rooted within S&I. As the centennial history of S&I emphasizes, the directive to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118) has consistently shaped the institution’s educational philosophy and has legitimized innovation when it aligns with inspired pedagogy.[3] Online education within the Church is best understood not as a departure from traditional religious instruction but as a continuation of the Restoration’s call to make truth accessible, personalized, and spiritually transformative.

Asynchronous modalities in particular invite learners to act for themselves (2 Nephi 2:26), engaging in study, pondering, and prayer in individualized rhythms. Screens, when consecrated to spiritual intent by teachers and learners, can become sites of revelation, agency, and relevance. This introduction, therefore, sets the stage for a deeper examination of how S&I’s digital infrastructure,[4] instructional design,[5] and doctrinal commitments converge to enable spiritual growth in the digital vineyard.

Foundations in Online Education Research and Practice

Efforts to understand best practices in online education are grounded in the scriptural imperative to “seek learning even by study and also by faith” (Doctrine and Covenants 109:7). This dual approach invites educators to draw on the best available scholarship and divine principles while they engage with evolving instructional models. To situate S&I’s online efforts in a broader pedagogical framework, this section provides a brief overview of online learning in US education.

The roots of online education can be traced to the correspondence courses of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These early efforts used postal mail to transmit lessons between instructors and learners, often serving those in rural areas or with limited access to formal schooling. While rudimentary by today’s standards, these programs reflected a commitment to educational accessibility that resonates with S&I’s mission to reach students wherever they are. With the advent of radio and television, educational broadcasts in the mid-twentieth century expanded the possibilities for remote learning. These developments laid the groundwork for more interactive and scalable forms of instruction that would emerge with the digital age.[6]

Foundational research in the field has long emphasized that effective online education requires more than digital replication of traditional classrooms. Michael G. Moore’s interaction theory outlines three essential components of distance learning: student-content, student-instructor, and student-student interaction.[7] These elements must be intentionally designed to foster engagement and reduce transactional distance. In her doctoral dissertation at Brigham Young University (BYU), Sandra Thatcher Powell expands on Moore’s theory by proposing a refined, multidimensional model for evaluating student-content interaction in digitally augmented learning environments. Her framework emphasizes that content interaction is not merely about exposure but about depth, personalization, and responsiveness, highlighting the need for intentional design features that invite student agency and reflection, especially outside real-time settings.[8]

The Community of Inquiry framework developed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer identifies teaching presence, social presence, and cognitive presence as key dimensions of meaningful online learning.[9] Researcher Karen Swan and others have built upon this framework, underscoring the importance of clarity, responsiveness, and frequent feedback in fostering deep learning.[10] Recent studies further affirm and extend these foundational insights. For instance, Martin and Bolliger’s research highlights students’ preference for consistent feedback and instructor interaction,[11] while Harrison and West emphasize the importance of relevance and cognitive engagement in blended environments.[12] These findings reinforce the importance of intentional, multidimensional course design that fosters presence, agency, and reflection. Meta-analyses in distance education continue to affirm that structured interaction—particularly between students and instructors—is one of the strongest predictors of learning outcomes.[13] These findings have led to significant changes in education, including the professionalization of online faculty, the rise of instructional design teams, and greater reliance on learning analytics. Educators are now expected to know their content and to design courses that facilitate cognitive engagement, foster a sense of community, and provide timely formative assessment.[14]

These developments have reshaped expectations for online educators, who must now blend content expertise with pedagogical intentionality and technological fluency. The shift from passive content delivery to interactive, student-centered design is not merely theoretical; it finds vivid expression in religious education efforts in S&I.

Research in Online Religious Instruction

Although still an emerging field, scholarship on online religious education, especially in the context of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has grown significantly over the past decade. Much of this research was catalyzed by the institutional adaptations prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic, yet the insights it offers reach far beyond the exigencies of that moment. At the heart of this growing body of work is a shared commitment to harmonizing pedagogical best practices with doctrinal purpose to ensure that gospel instruction in digital environments remains spiritually transformative, theologically grounded, and educationally sound.

Bradley G. Boyce, a former religious educator and training specialist for S&I, wrote a landmark dissertation that anticipated many of these developments. Using both Moore’s theory of transactional distance and Garrison et al.’s Community of Inquiry framework, Boyce examines learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner-learner interactions in early home-study and technology-mediated seminary programs. His qualitative case studies reveal that meaningful spiritual learning was closely tied to the quality of social presence and teacher facilitation. Students consistently reported stronger engagement when teachers created a sense of relational warmth, provided timely feedback, and offered opportunities for live interaction. Boyce’s research also emphasizes the importance of intentional course design, suggesting that in asynchronous or remote settings, teachers who cultivate interpersonal trust and spiritual relevance can effectively mediate gospel learning.[15]

Benjamin T. Fryar, an instructional designer and current managing director of institutional research and assessment at BYU–Idaho, conducted a mixed-methods study of religion courses at BYU–Idaho that illustrates this integration. His research demonstrates that students could experience meaningful spiritual growth in online settings, especially when course design emphasizes personal relevance, reflective writing, and teacher encouragement.[16] In a complementary critique, Jon E. Thomas, a religious educator and manager of seminary curriculum for S&I, challenges the overreliance on student satisfaction surveys in online education, arguing that such measures often obscure instructional quality. He instead recommends alternative strategies, including peer observation, standards-based evaluation, and professional development rooted in research-based pedagogy. [17] Together, these studies demonstrate the increasing sophistication of efforts to evaluate and enhance faith-centered digital instruction.

Another recent contribution is Adam R. Jardine’s 2021 article, “The Book of Mormon: A Powerful Model for Distance Learning,” published in the Religious Educator.[18] Jardine, a former online professor for BYU–Idaho and current religious educator with S&I, draws a compelling parallel between the Book of Mormon’s production—across time, distance, and prophetic voices—and the needs of modern online religious instruction. Just as Nephi and Mormon wrote for future readers they would never meet, so too must religious educators design experiences for students separated by time zones, life circumstances, and learning styles. Jardine reframes asynchronous instruction not as a pedagogical compromise but as an opportunity to invite the Spirit into individualized learning. When teachers prioritize doctrinal clarity and spiritual invitation, they can facilitate deep engagement through digital media.

Additional contributions have come through graduate research at Brigham Young University. In his 2025 master’s thesis, Isaac Munoz Moreno explores how spiritually anchored dialogue—what he terms “dialogic interaction”—can be cultivated in online institute classrooms.[19] Munoz Moreno is a former instructor and instructional designer of online learning courses at BYU and a current instructional designer at Montana Technological University. His findings suggest that gospel-centered conversation does not require physical copresence but instead depends on intentional design, including structure, the creation of space, and teacher responsiveness. These insights align with the broader literature on social presence theory, which posits that meaningful community in online learning emerges not automatically but through sustained facilitation and design.

Despite these significant developments, the field of Latter-day Saint–specific research on online religious education remains relatively underdeveloped. Compared to the robust scholarship on online higher education or K–12 distance learning, peer-reviewed studies focused on faith-based instruction within the Church Educational System (CES) are still limited. Much of the existing work has been practitioner-driven or published in internal or semiformal venues. While such sources often ensure spiritual alignment and contextual relevance, they also underscore the need for more empirically grounded and widely accessible research on what makes digital religious instruction spiritually effective.

This gap is partially addressed in Teaching Religion Using Technology in Higher Education, an anthology edited by BYU professor and religious educator John Hilton III.[20] Drawing on case studies and theoretical reflections from Latter-day Saint and other Christian educators, the volume explores how sacred outcomes can be supported through technologically mediated instruction. While the book is focused on higher education, many of its insights—such as cultivating online sacred space, promoting dialogic engagement, and integrating doctrinal identity into course design—hold continued relevance for S&I.

Spiritually anchored dialogue can be cultivated in online S&I classrooms, but more empirically grounded research is needed to show what makes religious education effective. Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

This article seeks to contribute to that evolving conversation. By combining institutional history, pedagogical inquiry, and doctrinal framing, it offers a multidimensional perspective on online learning in S&I. It argues that meaningful gospel instruction in digital contexts is possible and increasingly essential as the Church expands globally and as students’ needs and preferences shift. It also underscores the theological significance of digital pedagogy: Religious educators are not merely transmitting information but facilitating covenantal identity, spiritual development, and personal revelation. As Russ Cummings, the S&I product manager for online learning, explained in an interview, the evolution of online learning reflects more than planning—it reflects providence: “We just saw the Lord’s hand moving the chess pieces so this could happen.”[21] To that end, the future of online religious education in S&I must be shaped by inspiration and experience as well as by careful, empirical inquiry.

There remains a pressing need for rigorous, context-sensitive research conducted in S&I settings to assess effectiveness, identify best practices, and inform policy. Michael Goldhardt identifies this absence of formal study as a significant limitation in S&I’s digital education strategy: without consistent data and empirical review, educators have lacked clarity regarding which approaches yield the strongest spiritual outcomes. As such, the growing field of online religious education, though still modest in size, is rich in potential and calls for inquiry that combine theological depth with instructional rigor.

At the same time, it is important to acknowledge the limits of available evidence regarding student learning outcomes in online seminary and institute classes.[22] While interviews, practitioner accounts, and student narratives provide consistent anecdotal indications that online modalities can support meaningful gospel learning and spiritual growth, S&I does not currently collect systematic, direct measures of student learning. Beyond a general item on the Student Experience Survey (SES) asking students to self-report whether they feel they have learned in a course, empirical assessment of learning outcomes is absent. Greater investment in direct, methodologically robust measures of student learning in online contexts within seminaries and institutes is therefore both justified and necessary, particularly as these modalities continue to expand globally.

To understand the current landscape of online religious education in S&I, it is essential to trace its roots, beginning with home-study programs and evolving through decades of technological experimentation and institutional adaptation. A valuable companion to this narrative is Goldhardt’s in-depth historical manuscript “The History of Online Learning in S&I,” which contextualizes the evolution of digital religious instruction in both global trends in distance education and unique challenges faced by S&I. Drawing on decades of experience and institutional insight, Goldhardt traces how early experiments with Blackboard and Moodle gradually gave way to scalable, spiritually anchored online platforms. His work underscores that the development of online seminary was not a linear process but a series of adaptive responses to logistical complexity, spiritual mandate, and technological constraint.[23]

Laying the Groundwork for Online Seminary (2000–2010)

Online religious education in S&I did not emerge in a vacuum. It developed incrementally over decades as the Church sought to meet the needs of a growing and globally dispersed membership. Early ventures such as home-study seminary, correspondence manuals, and satellite broadcasts primarily addressed geographic and logistical constraints. These early models emphasized access over pedagogy, ensuring that students in remote or underserved areas could still receive gospel instruction when real-time interaction or local adaptation was limited. Home-study seminary was developed in the 1960s to make gospel instruction available to every youth regardless of their geographic circumstances, though it might mean sacrificing teacher presence and daily engagement.[24]

Later in the twentieth century, seminary lessons were often delivered through mailed manuals, cassette tapes, or scheduled phone calls. These tools facilitated doctrinal consistency but lacked relational immediacy. Teachers began to express concern that while students were completing assignments, they were not always internalizing the gospel or forming lasting spiritual habits. Satellite broadcasts in the 1980s and 1990s further centralized instruction, especially for large youth audiences, but remained largely one-directional and passive. Still, these efforts laid a vital conceptual foundation: Gospel learning could transcend physical classrooms. The institution had begun to imagine how emerging technologies might serve revelation.

The 1990s and 2000s marked a critical shift with the development of learning management systems (LMSs), such as Blackboard, which allowed instructors to post content, assessments, and communications online.[25] Canvas, a more user-friendly platform adopted widely in the 2010s, became the standard in many institutions, including S&I, due to its integration capabilities, mobile accessibility, and data-tracking tools.[26] The proliferation of LMSs coincided with growing interest in digital education at scale. The early 2000s also saw the rise of massive open online courses (MOOCs), which were designed to democratize access to education through free, web-based classes offered by leading universities.[27] Though often criticized for high dropout rates and limited interaction, MOOCs catalyzed a national conversation about scalability, learner autonomy, and instructional design.[28]

These theoretical and logistical precedents found practical expression in S&I’s early online learning pilots. A critical precursor to the development of online seminary was Tyler Griffin’s doctoral work in instructional technology at Utah State University. Seeking a project that would directly benefit S&I, Griffin collaborated with Brent Fillmore, a specialist in the S&I Training Services Division at Church headquarters, to create a web-based version of the Teacher Improvement Package (TIP). This platform, referred to informally as “TIP-on-the-Web,” was designed to streamline the training of newly called volunteer seminary and institute teachers. Coordinators could direct instructors to an online portal containing foundational modules, which they could complete asynchronously before receiving local follow-up and mentoring. The project reflected early efforts to leverage instructional technology for spiritual instruction and laid an essential conceptual foundation for subsequent online religious education.[29]

In 2008 Tyler Griffin was asked to pilot a new model of online seminary instruction for geographically dispersed students. With no formal infrastructure or curriculum in place, Griffin designed the entire system himself, selecting the open-source Moodle platform for its flexibility and low cost. He wrote original lesson modules, created student interaction tools, and trained a cohort of volunteer instructors across seventeen stakes in the US. The program blended asynchronous learning with weekly synchronous meetings, allowing students to work through gospel content at their own pace while maintaining a sense of connection with others. Griffin emphasized engagement with scripture, peer discussion, and teacher interaction as essential components of spiritual learning. “Can we even make this work?” he recalled wondering—but the answer, borne out through student participation and instructor feedback, was a qualified yes. The pilot revealed both the potential and the challenges of digital seminary instruction.[30]

Practitioners like Michael Goldhardt and Steven Miller pioneered digital lesson development in an environment largely devoid of precedent. “We had no correlation. We had nothing,” Goldhardt recalled. “It was the wild, wild West.” [31] Field writers and curriculum developers iteratively crafted materials that balanced doctrinal clarity with accessible design—often improvising as they went. Their experiences reflect the labor, experimentation, and faith that shaped today’s digital offerings.[32] Goldhardt’s research documents how volunteers adapted early-generation learning management systems (LMSs), such as Moodle, to meet the needs of students in remote areas, often without reliable internet.[33] These grassroots innovations served as the foundation for the more formalized structures that followed. Yet most instructors were volunteers who lacked experience with instructional design or digital platforms. These individuals often received little formal training and were navigating both doctrinal and technological demands with minimal support.

The success and expansion of online seminary during its formative years depended heavily on a cohort of deeply committed stake online supervisors—volunteer educators who served as mentors, facilitators, troubleshooters, and advocates for students in regions without full-time S&I personnel. These individuals shouldered the dual burden of spiritual mentorship and technical coordination. Their grassroots efforts sustained online seminary in remote and underserved areas, refining practices that would later shape the institutional model. Interviewees grew visibly emotional when recalling the sacrifices of these early volunteers.[34]

Brad Boyce noted that many of these individuals “just kept trying to make it work” despite overwhelming demands and limited institutional support.[35] Michael Goldhardt observed that volunteers “were doing it for free after teaching all day and they had no idea what they were doing, and we had no idea how to help them yet.”[36] In one case, a supervisor in a remote district hand delivered printed lessons and laptops to scattered students across vast distances. Douglas Geilman affirmed, “These weren’t just helpers—they were spiritual leaders in the truest sense.”[37] Their consecrated service formed the human scaffolding on which the early success of online seminary was built. As student numbers grew, staffing remained minimal. Russell Cummings recounted how he and Michael Goldhardt handled curriculum, the help desk, data reporting, training, and system development—essentially alone. “They’d ask, ‘Who’s on your reporting team?’ And we’d say, ‘That’s us.’ It was always just us.”[38]

The spiritual impact of these innovations is reflected in teacher narratives. One student, unable to attend early-morning seminary due to severe anxiety, found solace in late-night scripture study through asynchronous coursework, encountering peace and purpose in otherwise restless hours.[39] Another student, uplifted by written encouragement from a teacher she had never met in person, gained a sense of self-worth that sustained her through academic hardship.[40] Such moments illustrate how consecrated digital interactions can reflect the relational power of in-person instruction.

A turning point in the institutional acceptance of online seminary came through formal evaluation. As the program entered its second year (2009–10), S&I leadership commissioned a study comparing outcomes across early-morning, home-study, and online modalities. Conducted by the S&I research team, the evaluation assessed students’ doctrinal understanding, ability to articulate gospel principles, and engagement. Results showed that online students kept pace with their peers and, in some domains, exceeded them—particularly in their ability to articulate gospel principles and reflect on spiritual growth. “That was very promising,” Griffin noted. “It showed there’s something here.” These findings provided critical evidence for S&I administrators, who soon presented the program to the CES Board of Education. In 2010 CES leadership formally approved online seminary as an official offering—marking its transition from experimental pilot to institutional program. Griffin, who had by then accepted a faculty position at BYU, viewed this as a satisfying conclusion to the launch phase: “The launch is complete. We’ve shown this can work.”[41]

Formalizing and Scaling Online Seminary (2010–13)

By 2010 the S&I Training, Curriculum, and Information Services divisions jointly oversaw the development, delivery, and support of online classes.[42] Key figures, including Tyler Griffin, Brad Boyce, Mark Weiss, and Douglas Geilman, helped transition the program from a volunteer experiment to a systematized offering supported by central office infrastructure.[43]

One of the earliest areas where online seminary achieved strategic significance was in the Europe East Area. In Russia, where religious instruction faced restrictive regulations and vast geographic dispersal, online seminary offered a legal and logistically viable means of gospel instruction. Church leaders approved online seminary as the official model for Russia in the early 2010s, and it became a proving ground for the program’s spiritual and administrative potential.[44] Within this broader context, the rise of online religious education in S&I represents both a convergence with national trends and a theologically distinctive endeavor. Unlike secular institutions, S&I is concerned with knowledge transmission and with spiritual formation, conversion, and discipleship. This dual purpose places unique demands on course design, teacher training, and institutional infrastructure. Yet it also provides a doctrinal rationale for innovation: the belief that technology, when consecrated and guided by the Spirit, can become a tool for divine instruction. As S&I continued to expand its digital offerings, its educators drew from best practices in instructional design and from inspired patterns of prophetic leadership and scriptural mandates to teach “the doctrine of the kingdom” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:77) in all nations, by all means available.

A key turning point came with President Dieter F. Uchtdorf’s 2011 address to CES employees, titled “A Teacher of God’s Children.” Speaking from the Salt Lake Tabernacle, President Uchtdorf directly acknowledged the evolving tools of religious education: “Recently I learned that some seminary classes are even held by means of Skype or iChat. All these developments could easily seem like a dream. But they are not a dream; they are part of the fulfillment of prophecy! I give thanks for the miracles of modern communication and transportation that have helped make it possible for the voice of the Lord to reach the ends of the earth.”[45] Interview participants frequently cited his remarks as a spiritual anchor that validated their efforts. As one online seminary leader put it, “That talk gave us permission to innovate. It helped us feel like we weren’t just compensating—we were being guided.”[46]

However, for much of its history, S&I lacked a coherent philosophy of digital instruction. Until recently, terms like online, remote, virtual, and home-study were used interchangeably in both internal documents and public communication.[47] This terminological imprecision made it difficult to develop consistent policies, track performance, or train teachers effectively. As a result, many online initiatives were idiosyncratic—dependent on individual instructors, local leaders, or regional innovations. Some teachers used email and PowerPoint to create flexible remote options for students with unusual schedules; others experimented with Google Docs or private blogs to foster scriptural discussions. But these innovations, while creative, remained informal and unevenly supported. This skepticism was not merely structural—it was cultural. “When we first got here,” Cummings remembered, “our goal was: keep your heads down. Don’t let anyone see your helmet above the trench, or you’ll get shot.” Many in S&I believed that online classes could never replicate the Spirit of the classroom. As Cummings put it, “You can’t feel the Spirit online—that was the belief.”[48]

Program Maturity and Strategic Integration (2013–20)

Beginning in 2013 online seminary transitioned from a locally improvised program into a centrally supported and strategically planned component of S&I. What had begun as a grassroots effort largely staffed by volunteer stake online supervisors underwent substantial institutional expansion as area directors and coordinators began assuming greater responsibility.[49] This shift was particularly visible in international settings, where the need for consistency and reliability prompted the transfer of oversight from local priesthood leaders to full-time S&I personnel.[50] Despite institutional momentum, the expectations for instructors remained inconsistent. Teachers were not typically required to have prior training in online learning, though digital delivery became more widespread.[51] Cummings observed that online teaching required a complete pedagogical shift. “You could have the best classroom teacher—and they might be the worst online teacher,” he noted. “You’re not presenting content anymore—the system does that. Your job is to engage students through discussion boards, feedback, and personal encouragement.”[52]

By 2015 S&I had begun investing in more robust technological infrastructure. Systems reliant on emails, PDFs, or Google Sites gave way to integrated platforms such as Zoom, Canvas, and the Gospel Library.[53] The development of centralized curriculum materials and training protocols further enabled teachers and administrators to meet the demands of a growing and increasingly diverse online student body.[54]

These structural changes were accompanied by a broader cultural and institutional shift. Initially regarded by many as a provisional or second-tier solution, online seminary gradually gained legitimacy and esteem within S&I. Interviewees described early skepticism, both from teachers and local leaders, who questioned whether digital formats could offer the same spiritual impact as traditional in-person classes. Despite promising outcomes, initial efforts in online seminary encountered considerable skepticism from within the S&I system. Griffin recalled that many educators feared the initiative would threaten traditional teaching roles: “There was this feeling of being threatened, . . . that if this worked, there would be no more need for teachers like me.”[55] Others doubted the spiritual efficacy of digital instruction, insisting that “you can’t feel the Spirit online.” These concerns, while understandable, often stemmed from unfamiliarity with digital pedagogy and discomfort with structural change. Griffin and his colleagues navigated this cultural headwind by focusing on student outcomes and spiritual impact, but the need for internal validation remained. As the program expanded to fifty classes across multiple continents—including students in Russia, South Africa, and the Middle East—it became increasingly clear that online seminary addressed both geographic isolation and the needs of students with anxiety, health issues, or atypical schedules. These unanticipated benefits helped soften resistance and broaden support.[56]

This perception began to change as students and teachers shared meaningful spiritual experiences in online settings and as general Church leadership offered visible affirmation. Despite growing support, Cummings emphasized that online learning wasn’t viewed as legitimate until changes were made to the Church’s General Handbook, explicitly naming it as a viable modality. “There’s a difference between support and legitimacy,” he said. “Only when the Handbook changed did it finally feel real.”[57]

Online institute developed more gradually than online seminary, but it marked a significant step in S&I’s efforts to expand digital religious education to young adults in diverse and decentralized life circumstances. While online seminary had addressed the needs of high school students, institute required a different approach—one that could engage students who were balancing missions, employment, college, or family responsibilities, often in locations without physical institute programs. In 2015 Michael Goldhardt and Douglas Geilman were tasked with initiating a pilot program. As Geilman explained, “Once online seminary was kind of stable, then we started to say, what about institute?”[58] The program drew on lessons learned from seminary while adapting to the unique demands of young adult learners. As Goldhardt observed, these adaptations often required instructors to simultaneously serve as content facilitators, spiritual mentors, and technical troubleshooters.

Still, some institutional skepticism remained. “There were people that thought institute would never work online,” Geilman recalled. “That it just couldn’t feel the same, wouldn’t produce the same kind of social connections.”[59] Yet this resistance was increasingly offset by global demand: “There was a big need in Africa and Brazil and other places where we didn’t have institute,”[60] and “in some places, the students were pushing for it. They didn’t have options, but they were ready.”[61] These voices reframed the program’s purpose—not as a workaround but as a spiritually vital offering for a growing global Church. Online institute, like its seminary counterpart, became a vehicle for connection, testimony, and belonging in digitally mediated ways.

By 2018 online classes were no longer seen merely as a logistical solution for rural or homebound students. Instead, it was increasingly chosen for its pedagogical flexibility and its capacity to reach students navigating anxiety, complex schedules, or social isolation. What had once been viewed as a fallback had become, for many, a spiritually empowering primary option. In the years just prior to the pandemic, S&I focused on building scalable systems that could adapt quickly to changing circumstances. Though no one anticipated the COVID-19 pandemic, the investments made in these years allowed the Church to pivot rapidly in 2020. When in-person classes shut down, online seminary expanded globally within weeks, drawing on infrastructure, curriculum, and staffing models that had been developed and tested during the preceding decade.[62]

Pandemic Response and Acceleration (2020–22)

The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed a rapid and unplanned shift to digital education, including in S&I. Practically overnight, teachers were thrust into online instruction, often without adequate training, technological infrastructure, or shared pedagogical expectations. Many defaulted to synchronous video platforms such as Zoom or Google Meet to replicate traditional classroom experiences. While this emergency remote instruction was a necessary stopgap, it frequently resulted in student disengagement, teacher fatigue, and lessons that prioritized content delivery over spiritual formation. Longstanding classroom formats, such as forty-five-minute in-person lessons, proved difficult to adapt meaningfully to screen-based learning, especially amid student isolation and virtual fatigue.

At the same time, the limitations of these synchronous approaches helped clarify a vital pedagogical distinction: Effective online learning requires more than digital access—it requires intentional design. In response, many institutions including S&I began investing in more sustainable asynchronous models that allowed students to engage with gospel content at their own pace, in their own environments.

One of the most significant turning points was the adoption of Canvas as the standard LMS for S&I. Initially implemented to align with S&I sister institutions (BYU–Pathway and BYU–Idaho), Canvas quickly proved useful for organizing lessons, tracking student progress, and enabling asynchronous learning. More importantly, its adoption prompted S&I leaders and curriculum designers to articulate a design logic for online religious education: Lessons had to be structured, engaging, and spiritually meaningful when no teacher was present in real time.

The expansion of online religious education in S&I has not been accidental or ad hoc; it reflects a deliberate and ongoing effort to align instructional infrastructure with the spiritual needs of the global Church. This alignment reflects long-term planning inspired by Church leaders who have expressed a desire to integrate online learning across multiple departments, including missionary training.[63] Recognizing both the potential and limitations of digital education, S&I leaders have initiated substantial structural reforms, built administrative capacity, and invested in resources to ensure that online modalities serve more than logistical convenience—they serve divine purpose.

A turning point in this institutional shift came in 2020, when S&I leadership created the Online Learning Division, a specialized administrative unit in S&I tasked with overseeing the development, implementation, and evaluation of digital instruction. Unlike earlier eras where innovation emerged from the margins and was driven by individual teachers or local coordinators, this new structure formalized the Church’s commitment to online learning as a central component of its educational mission. The division is led by experienced administrators drawn from other CES institutions, including BYU–Idaho and BYU–Pathway Worldwide, both of which have significant expertise in scalable digital instruction. Their cross-institutional experiences bring a blend of technological fluency, curriculum insight, and pedagogical strategy.

One of the division’s earliest decisions was to draft new terminology for class types and options to mitigate the aforementioned inconsistencies in language. By 2021 S&I formally distinguished four primary modalities: in-person, remote (video-based), online (asynchronous Canvas-based, usually combined with a synchronous gathering), and home-study (manual- or Gospel Library–based). This move toward terminological precision marked a major cultural shift. No longer was online synonymous with backup or exceptional. Instead, each modality was framed as equally valid, with its own pedagogical strengths and spiritual affordances. Leaders began encouraging teachers and coordinators to choose the modality that best met students’ needs rather than defaulting to in-person instruction out of tradition or habit.

Another critical strategic decision was to move from a generalist model, where S&I managed online learning as an extension of existing in-person responsibilities, to a specialist model, in which each geographic area of the Church would have dedicated online learning leaders (referred to as online directors) and program administrators (referred to as online seminary principals and online institute directors). This organizational design ensured that online learning was not an afterthought but a primary assignment with real accountability and ongoing support. Further, these new roles provided the needed infrastructure for continued expansion of online learning programs.

Building a functioning online infrastructure required more than administrative oversight. It involved the careful coordination of instructional staffing, teacher training, curriculum development, platform integration, and student support. In terms of staffing, S&I began to build a hybrid workforce that included full-time employees, stake-called volunteers, and service missionaries. This mix allowed for flexibility and scalability, particularly in areas where full-time personnel were limited. However, it also introduced challenges related to training, oversight, and consistency—challenges the Online Learning Division has worked to address through focused onboarding and ongoing development resources.

One key resource was the development of the new online teacher training course, which introduced educators to both doctrinal foundations and practical tools for asynchronous instruction. This course included units on using Canvas, building relational presence, crafting spiritually meaningful prompts, and responding to student submissions with both doctrinal insight and personal encouragement. A series of in-service training articles titled “Developing as an Online Teacher” was developed in the Gospel Library. These articles are accessible to in-service leaders and teachers as resources for ongoing development.

Curriculum development also underwent a transformation. Traditionally, seminary and institute curricula were written for physical classrooms, with lesson plans assuming real-time teacher-student interaction. But as online participation increased, curriculum designers began to prioritize digital-first principles: shorter reading passages, active and scaffolded learning activities, embedded assessments, multiple lessons to choose from, and flexible pacing.[64] Combined with these were weekly synchronous gatherings and community-based discussions to foster relevance and belonging.

S&I’s institutional strategy thus reflects educational theory as well as the revealed principles about agency, stewardship, and the universality of gospel access. And the infrastructure behind it—policies, platforms, and personnel—is not merely technical. It reflects the Church’s commitment to bring the gospel to every child of God, regardless of location, schedule, or circumstance.

As the online learning population continues to grow, S&I will need to maintain its investment in online teacher development, curriculum refinement, and technological integration. More importantly, it will need to continue asking the foundational question that has always guided its best innovations: How do we teach in the Savior’s way when we are not physically present? And, equally important, how do we do so at scale? In other words, how do we meaningfully balance impact with reach?

BYU–Pathway and the Global Expansion of Online Institute (2022–Present)

The global expansion of online religious education in S&I cannot be fully understood without considering the pivotal role of BYU–Pathway Worldwide as the Churchwide access provider of higher education through online certificates and degrees.[65] BYU–Pathway operates in close coordination with S&I, particularly through its reliance on institute courses to deliver religious instruction to students across more than 180 countries.[66] Launched in 2009 and later formalized as an independent institution in 2017, BYU–Pathway was designed to meet the needs of students who might otherwise lack access to traditional higher education. Its model combines online academic coursework with spiritual instruction and local support gatherings, often held in chapels. The program draws upon a blend of CES infrastructure, missionary support, and self-reliance initiatives. Over time, BYU–Pathway has become a flagship example of what the Church describes as “education for life”—education that prepares individuals for employment, service, leadership, and gospel living.

By 2023 BYU–Pathway announced a significant transition: All its religious education courses would be delivered through online institute, administered by S&I.[67] This shift was monumental. It meant that the spiritual formation of more than 70,000 students worldwide would now take place almost entirely through S&I’s online platforms, teachers, and curricula.[68] To accommodate this influx, S&I created new recruiting pipelines for online institute instructors, namely through senior service missionaries.

This collaboration revealed several key strengths of the S&I model. First, it demonstrated the scalability of online religious education when supported by prophetic planning and ecclesiastical infrastructure. Few institutions could pivot so quickly to serve tens of thousands of students across continents, yet S&I was able to leverage its existing systems to meet growing demand. Second, it affirmed the doctrinal coherence of the Church’s educational strategy. By unifying gospel instruction across BYU–Pathway and institute, students received consistent spiritual messages rooted in the restored gospel and taught by spiritually and technologically prepared instructors.

There are challenges, to be sure. Teaching tens of thousands of students asynchronously with weekly synchronous meetings (referred to as gatherings) requires thoughtful systems of feedback, accountability, and relational support. Not all students are equally prepared, and not all instructors have equal facility with digital tools. Yet within these limitations lies a powerful opportunity to extend the reach of Zion, not just institutionally but spiritually.

In this way, BYU–Pathway’s partnership with S&I represents a model for future expansion. As the Church continues to grow in regions where full-time seminary and institute programs are not feasible, online modalities offer a sustainable and spiritually rich alternative. These courses are both functional and formative. One example illustrates this potential with striking clarity. Sister Brown, a service missionary teaching online institute to BYU–Pathway students, recounted her experience with Daniel, a student who had known about the Church for much of his life but had never fully engaged with the gospel. Enrolling in Jesus Christ and His Everlasting Gospel stirred something in him. As he began to feel the Spirit more deeply, he stayed after class gatherings (hosted through Zoom) to ask questions, share personal struggles, and seek spiritual direction. Sensing his sincerity, Sister Brown invited him to consider baptism. He responded with genuine interest, initiating a conversation about covenants and discipleship. Over time, he chose to be baptized, distancing himself from prior relationships that no longer aligned with his spiritual growth. He noted how warmly Church members had embraced him, especially in contrast to the criticism he received from others in his life. Reflecting on the experience, he told Sister Brown, “You are my missionary.”[69] Her ministerial care—offered entirely through online and remote interactions—became the catalyst for his conversion. This story affirms the spiritual capacity of digital instruction. When online institute is taught with doctrinal clarity and consecrated love, it can become a sacred venue for gathering Israel one student, one teacher, and one redemptive relationship at a time. These courses invite conversion, foster testimony, and integrate gospel principles into daily life. And because they are offered through a unified, global infrastructure, they help fulfill the vision articulated in Doctrine and Covenants 90:11: “Every man shall hear the fulness of the gospel in his own tongue, and in his own language.”

Answers, Guiding Principles, and Conclusions

This article has explored the rise of online religious education in S&I, tracing its development from improvised necessity to doctrinally grounded innovation. What began as a response to logistical constraints—first through correspondence and satellite delivery and later through pandemic-induced remote learning—has matured into a spiritually intentional, pedagogically informed modality of gospel teaching and learning. Across each dimension of this transition, a central truth has emerged: Digital instruction in S&I, when anchored in prophetic vision and iterative design, can become a sacred means of gathering, teaching, and transforming lives.

First, we have shown that spiritual depth can be preserved and enhanced in digital settings. The principle of “learning . . . by study and also by faith” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118) is not bound by geography or schedule. When educators design courses with doctrinal purpose, create opportunities for personal revelation, and sustain relationships with students asynchronously, they help fulfill the divine mandate to teach “the doctrine of the kingdom” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:77). Asynchronous platforms, when thoughtfully employed, invite students to act for themselves (2 Nephi 2:26), fostering agency, reflection, and testimony.

Second, we have demonstrated that teaching in the Savior’s way is not limited to physical proximity. Jesus Christ ministered across boundaries of time, culture, and expectation. His pattern of being rooted in love, invitation, and presence offers a guiding framework for online religious educators. In digital classrooms, teachers can extend that same relational grace through intentional communication, spiritual sensitivity, and compassionate design. As President Jeffrey R. Holland has taught, “God . . . is not an absentee landlord.”[70] Nor should we be absentee teachers when we are teaching through screens. Spiritual presence is not a matter of location; it is a matter of love, attentiveness, and prophetic purpose.

Third, this study has highlighted how conversion can flourish in online and remote modalities. When students engage with doctrine in meaningful ways, receive consistent feedback, and experience genuine care from instructors, they are more likely to internalize gospel truths and act on them. S&I’s move from emergency remote instruction to structured, digital-first online courses has created new opportunities for spiritual scaffolding (chunked readings, active and scaffolded learning activities, embedded assessments, reflective prompts) that guides students through principles of the gospel while respecting their varied learning contexts. As other scholars in religious education have noted, such spiritually grounded instructional design is essential for ensuring that digital learning environments are not just pedagogically sound but theologically resonant.[71]

Finally, as online religious education continues to mature, it is worth remembering the people who built it. Many early stake supervisors and field teachers devoted their time and commitment to this work long before it was fully understood or adequately resourced. Their efforts were often physically and emotionally demanding, carried out with little recognition and under conditions that required constant improvisation. One curriculum developer reflected that the challenges faced during those early years are easily forgotten now that systems are in place, but they were overcome only through extraordinary persistence and faith. Interviewees emphasized that behind every login screen was a living soul in need of spiritual nourishment and that the relational dimension of online instruction remains as vital as ever. Teaching with that awareness—with trust, love, and attentiveness—is how today’s educators can honor and extend the legacy of those who laid the foundation.

To support religious educators navigating these transformations, we have offered seven guiding principles:

1. Embrace the doctrinal and institutional foundations of online learning. Online instruction is not a deviation from tradition; it is a spiritually grounded extension of S&I’s legacy of adaptation, revelation, and global outreach. Digital modalities reflect pedagogical innovation and the prophetic vision of home-centered, Church-supported gospel learning. When rooted in doctrine and aligned with institutional mission, online education becomes a consecrated means of gathering Israel and fostering personal conversion.
2. Prioritize teacher presence and relational ministry. Spiritual teaching requires human connection, trust, and ministering to foster individual belonging and class community. In online classrooms, teachers must learn to communicate care and presence through video messages, personalized feedback, and timely outreach. Building spiritual relationships through screens is possible and essential for fostering faith and belonging in virtual settings.
3. Deepen doctrinally grounded instructional design. Online learning environments must be intentionally crafted to support comprehension and transformation. Active and scaffolded learning activities, varied options for student choice, embedded formative assessments, and reflective prompts can guide students toward gospel understanding and personal revelation. Doctrine should be engaged with, experienced, and internalized through well-designed learning pathways.
4. Invest in teacher preparation for digital discipleship. Effective online instruction depends on spiritually prepared and technologically and pedagogically trained teachers. Many instructors enter online classrooms with gospel knowledge but limited experience in online teaching. Structured onboarding, video modeling, and ongoing mentoring are vital to help teachers build confidence and competence in navigating digital tools and fostering spiritual dialogue in asynchronous formats.
5. Design for global inclusion and cultural adaptability. As online seminary and institute expand globally, particularly through partnerships like BYU–Pathway, curriculum must reflect linguistic, technological, and cultural diversity. Lessons must be translated both linguistically and spiritually, adapting to varied contexts without compromising doctrinal integrity. Designing for access, relevance, and local belonging ensures that no student is excluded from spiritual growth due to geography or circumstance.
6. Listen to feedback from the field, the students, and the Spirit. Sustainable and iterative progress requires a feedback-rich culture. Institutional leaders, curriculum teams, trainers, and teachers must remain responsive to students’ lived experiences, instructor insights, and spiritual impressions. Listening well and acting on what is heard ensures that online learning remains both spiritually effective and pedagogically sound.
7. Teach the future by honoring the past. The digital transformation of S&I rests on decades of consecrated labor by teachers, curriculum developers, and volunteers who built systems often without precedent or recognition. Remembering their innovation, sacrifice, and spiritual vision helps today’s educators see themselves as inheritors of a sacred tradition. Looking backward honors that legacy and equips us to move forward with clarity, humility, and faith.

In sum, the transition to online religious education in S&I is not merely a logistical response to global trends—it is a spiritually vital expansion of the Church’s educational mission. As Latter-day Saint religious educators have shown, online religious instruction, when aligned with prophetic direction and approached with iterative design, can become a spiritually rich medium for gospel teaching and learning. If online learning is to fulfill its sacred potential, it must remain rooted in a dual imperative: fidelity to revealed truth and responsiveness to students’ lived realities. This mirrors the Savior’s own ministry. He met people where they were—in their homes, by the roadside, in private conversation—and he spoke to their hearts. He taught with clarity, compassion, and spiritual invitation. Religious educators today are called to do the same regardless of the modality.

When consecrated through love and doctrine, technology can become a vessel of divine instruction. The screen is not a barrier—it is a bridge. Used with spiritual intent, it can extend love, deepen faith, and fulfill the sacred charge to gather scattered Israel in every nation, kindred, tongue, and device. It is in this spirit that we gather in the digital vineyard—not merely to replicate what was but to cultivate what can be.

Notes

[1] Investigations of online modalities for teacher training and professional development constitute an important and emerging area of study within S&I; however, a sustained analysis of these systems falls outside the scope of the present, student-centered inquiry.

[2] Russell M. Nelson, “Opening Remarks,” Ensign, November 2018, 8.

[3] By Study and Also by Faith: One Hundred Years of Seminaries and Institutes of Religion (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2015).

[4] Digital infrastructure refers to the technological systems and platforms that support online religious education, including learning management systems, video conferencing tools, mobile apps, and content delivery networks. In the context of S&I, it encompasses tools such as Gospel Library, Canvas, Zoom, and custom-built interfaces that facilitate access to curriculum, instruction, and interaction across geographic and temporal boundaries.

[5] Instructional design is the systematic and theory-based development of educational experiences, focusing on learner needs, clear objectives, and effective delivery of content and assessments.

[6] Michael Grahame Moore and William C. Diehl, eds., Handbook of Distance Education, 4th ed. (Routledge, 2018).

[7] Michael G. Moore, “Theory of Transactional Distance,” in Theoretical Principles of Distance Education, ed. Desmond Keegan (Routledge, 1993), 22–29.

[8] Sandra Thatcher Powell, “Defining and Measuring Learner-Content Interaction in Digitally Augmented Learning Experiences” (PhD diss., Brigham Young University, 2020), https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/9327.

[9] D. Randy Garrison et al., “Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education,” The Internet and Higher Education 2, nos. 2–3 (1999): 87–105, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6.

[10] Karen Swan, “Learning Effectiveness Online: What the Research Tells Us,” in Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and Direction, ed. John Bourne and Janet C. Moore, vol. 4 of the Sloan-C Series (Sloan Consortium, 2003), 13–45.

[11] Florence Martin and Doris U. Bolliger, “Engagement Matters: Student Perceptions on the Importance of Engagement Strategies in the Online Learning Environment,” Online Learning 22, no. 1 (2018): 205–22, https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092.

[12] J. Buckley Harrison and Richard E. West, “Sense of Community in a Blended Technology Integration Course: A Design-Based Research Study,” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 15, no. 6 (2014): 289–312, https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i6.1907.

[13] Robert M. Bernard et al. “A Meta-Analysis of Three Types of Interaction Treatments in Distance Education,” Review of Educational Research 79, no. 3 (2009): 1243–89, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844.

[14] Formative assessment refers to ongoing, low-stakes evaluations designed to monitor student learning and provide feedback that guides improvement—for both students and instructors. In online settings, this may include quizzes, discussion posts, reflection prompts, or interactive activities that inform instructional adjustments and support student progress.

[15] Bradley G. Boyce, “Understanding Learner Interactions in the Home-Study and Technology-Mediated Seminary Program for Youth in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (PhD diss., Brigham Young University, 2011), https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/3023/.

[16] Benjamin Trevor Fryar, “Describing Spiritual Growth in an Online Religious Education Course: A Phenomenological Perspective” (PhD diss., Brigham Young University, 2015), https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/5511/.

[17] Jon E. Thomas, “Current State of Online Teaching Evaluation Processes in Post-Secondary Institutions” (PhD diss., Brigham Young University, 2018), https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/7000.

[18] Adam R. Jardine, “The Book of Mormon: A Powerful Model for Distance Education,” Religious Educator: Perspectives on the Restored Gospel 22, no. 1 (2021): 123–43, https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-22-no-1-2021/book-mormon.

[19] Isaac Munoz Moreno, “Understanding Dialogic Interactions in Online Religious Education” (master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, 2025), https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/10774.

[20] John Hilton III, ed., Teaching Religion Using Technology in Higher Education (Routledge, 2018).

[21] Russell Cummings, interview by Eric Rogers, August 5, 2025, in author’s possession.

[22] The Student Experience Survey (SES) provides valuable insight into students’ perceptions of engagement, belonging, and perceived learning but does not function as a direct assessment of doctrinal understanding, skill development, or spiritual formation. Future research could employ mixed-method approaches, including performance-based assessments, artifact analysis, and longitudinal designs, to better evaluate learning outcomes in online religious education.

[23] Michael Goldhardt, “History of Online Learning in S&I,” unpublished manuscript in authors’ possession.

[24] By Study and Also by Faith, 176–200.

[25] A learning management system is a digital platform for delivering, managing, and tracking educational content. Examples of these include Blackboard and Moodle.

[26] Canvas is a widely used LMS that provides the digital infrastructure for online courses. It has been adopted across S&I and other CES platforms for its consistency and features.

[27] Massive open online courses are online courses, often provided by universities, designed for large-scale participation and open access via the web.

[28] Julia Kasch et al., “Educational Scalability in MOOCs: Analysing Instructional Designs to Find Best Practices,” Computers & Education 161 (2021): 104054, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104054; Christian M. Stracke et al., “Instructional Quality and Learning Design of Massive Open Online Courses,” in Handbook of Open, Distance and Digital Education, ed. Olaf Zawacki-Richter and Insung Jung (Springer, 2022), 1–22, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0351-9_95-1.

[29] Tyler Griffin, interview by Eric Rogers, August 6, 2025, in author’s possession.

[30] Tyler Griffin, interview by Eric Rogers, August 6, 2025, in author’s possession.

[31] Michael Goldhardt, interview by Eric Rogers, July 22, 2025, in author’s possession.

[32] Steven Miller, interview by Eric Rogers, July 22, 2025, in author’s possession.

[33] Goldhardt, “History of Online Learning in S&I.”

[34] Griffin, Goldhardt, and Boyce and Geilman interviews by Eric Rogers, 2025, in author’s possession.

[35] Brad Boyce, interview by Eric Rogers, July 22, 2025, in author’s possession.

[36] Michael Goldhardt, interview by Eric Rogers, July 22, 2025, in author’s possession.

[37] Douglas Geilman, interview by Eric Rogers, July 22, 2025, in author’s possession.

[38] Russell Cummings, interview by Eric Rogers, August 5, 2025, in author’s possession.

[39] Douglas Geilman, “The Online Seminary Pilot Program History,” unpublished manuscript in authors’ possession.

[40] Geilman, “Online Seminary Pilot Program History.”

[41] Tyler Griffin, interview by Eric Rogers, August 6, 2025, in author’s possession.

[42] Geilman, “Online Seminary Information and History.”

[43] Geilman and Boyce, interview by Eric Rogers, July 22, 2025, in author’s possession; Michael Goldhardt, interview by Eric Rogers, July 22, 2025, in author’s possession.

[44] Michael Goldhardt, interview by Eric Rogers, July 22, 2025, in author’s possession; Douglas Geilman, interview by Eric Rogers, July 22, 2025, in author’s possession.

[45] Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “A Teacher of God’s Children,” address to CES Religious Educators, January 28, 2011, Salt Lake Tabernacle; published in Religious Educator: Perspectives on the Restored Gospel 12, no. 3 (2011): 1–13, https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-12-no-3-2011/teacher-gods-children.

[46] Douglas Geilman, interview by Eric Rogers, July 22, 2025, in author’s possession.

[47] Hybrid learning is an educational model that intentionally blends online and face-to-face instruction to maximize both flexibility and effectiveness.

[48] Russell Cummings, interview by Eric Rogers, August 5, 2025, in author’s possession.

[49] Keith Burkhart, interview by Matthew C. Godfrey, 2024, in author’s possession.

[50] Geilman, “Online Seminary Information and History.”

[51] Goldhardt, “History of Online Learning in S&I.”

[52] Russell Cummings, interview by Eric Rogers, August 5, 2025, in author’s possession.

[53] Geilman, “Online Seminary Information and History.”

[54] Michael Goldhardt, interview by Eric Rogers, July 22, 2025, in author’s possession.

[55] Tyler Griffin, interview by Eric Rogers, August 6, 2025, in author’s possession.

[56] Tyler Griffin, interview by Eric Rogers, August 6, 2025, in author’s possession.

[57] Russell Cummings, interview by Eric Rogers, August 5, 2025, in author’s possession.

[58] Douglas Geilman, interview by Eric Rogers, July 22, 2025, in author’s possession.

[59] Douglas Geilman, interview by Eric Rogers, July 22, 2025, in author’s possession.

[60] Douglas Geilman, interview by Eric Rogers, July 22, 2025, in author’s possession.

[61] Douglas Geilman, interview by Eric Rogers, July 22, 2025, in author’s possession.

[62] Jim Izatt, interview by Eric Rogers, 2025, in author’s possession; see Geilman, “Online Seminary Information and History.”

[63] Goldhardt, “History of Online Learning in S&I.”

[64] Scaffolded learning activities are learning tasks that include built-in support structures (e.g., templates, guides, or chunked information) to help students move from basic to more complex understanding. This support is gradually removed as the student gains mastery. Embedded assessments are evaluations integrated directly into the flow of course content to measure learning in real time, rather than being administered only at the end of a unit.

[65] Benjamin C. Peterson, “BYU–Idaho Pathway: A Gateway to Global Church Education,” Religious Educator: Perspectives on the Restored Gospel 18, no. 3 (2017): 43–67, https://rsc.byu.edu/religious-educator/vol-18-no-3-2017.

[66] “Facts & Stats,” BYU–Pathway Worldwide, https://www.byupathway.edu/facts-stats.

[67] “Religion Courses (Institute),” BYU–Pathway Worldwide, https://www.byupathway.edu/system-transition/religion-courses.

[68] “Facts & Stats,” BYU–Pathway Worldwide.

[69] Sister Brown, missionary testimonial video, shared by Eric Rogers, Online Institute Missionary Training, Seminaries and Institutes of Religion, 2024. Transcript in author’s possession.

[70] Jeffrey R. Holland, “Look to God and Live,” Ensign, November 1993, 14.

[71] Hilton, introduction and conclusion to Teaching Religion Using Technology.