- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Does anyone know anything about the policy of “correlation”? I came across this recently. Apparently, it was a policy instituted in the 1970s that sought to forge a uniform image of the way Mormons look and behave, how stake houses are constructed, as well as more attention to standardizing beliefs. Apparently, the church prior to this movement had a lot more diversity than it does now, which might, in part, explain so many of the beliefs that many Mormons think are doctrine. I wonder if this didn’t do more harm than good. It seems the church could use some diversity. It is so bland. Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone knew so more about this. I am interested in learning more about it. My understanding is that even Pres. McKay was worried about the correlation effort and what it would do to the “church.” We all know there were some really wacky things being preached and taught in the Church – especially at the local level – when instruction basically was set at the local level. Correlation was the attempt to stop most of that wackiness and focus on the principles of the Gospel. Serious quesiton for contemplation:
Would you prefer the current bland material but focus on discussion of the concepts and principles in the manuals – or would you prefer having the local leaders in your wards or branches deciding what gets taught each Sunday?
If you tend to complain about correlation, consider the alternative – and how much the “craziness” of the past bothers you.
Old-Timer wrote:
Serious quesiton for contemplation:Would you prefer the current bland material but focus on discussion of the concepts and principles in the manuals – or would you prefer having the local leaders in your wards or branches deciding what gets taught each Sunday?
Seeing as bland and boring is no more accurate than crazy and exciting, might as well take the crazy and enjoy it.
Cadence wrote:Seeing as bland and boring is no more accurate than crazy and exciting, might as well take the crazy and enjoy it.
Tee hee hee. Deep truth, that. Talk about modern revelation! On the whole, ’tis better to let go and let God.
My point is that correlation doesn’t have to be bland and boring – and that craziness is being beaten with a big stick here in at least two threads. We’re talking about a classic “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation if someone complains about craziness AND about correlation undertaken to reduce craziness.
Finally, I really have had some wonderful classes even with the correlated material. If it’s read word-for-word or limited to “yes/no” responses, it’s hellish; if it’s used as a jumping off point for serious discussion, it’s totally fine and can be incredibly enlightening and edifying. I’ve experienced both, so I know it’s not all correlation’s fault.
Old-Timer wrote:
Would you prefer the current bland material but focus on discussion of the concepts and principles in the manuals – or would you prefer having the local leaders in your wards or branches deciding what gets taught each Sunday?I would rather take correlation.
There really is no question that correlation has minimized the “craziness.” My branch, and many others are already out of control. I can’t imagine what kind of atrocities would be breeding in my branch right now with out SOME kind of squeeze to keep things in line. The correlation effort wants us to focus on the gospel principles – even if the members won’t and don’t — and turn most lessons into a Pharisaical discussion about white shirts and two sets of ear rings.
I mock the correlation effort and don’t respect it much, but personally, correlation is not my issue with the church. Whatever.
I posted this at Mormon Matters in September, but I think it bears repeating here. I enjoyed Greg Prince’s biography of David O McKay. Under the McKay Administration, correlation of LDS church materials made a great deal of headway. While correlation has cut down on duplication of church materials, it has become a bit unwieldy. I found a quote by Paul Dunn that discussed how correlation has had some unintended side effects, and he likened these problems to the Supreme Court. We are all familiar with “legislating from the bench”, and there seems to be a similar problem with correlation. Paul Dunn gave an interview in 1995 and said on page 158,
Quote:I think what happened is what’s happening in government today, as I see it now, thirty years later. For example, the Supreme Court is supposed to determine the constitutionality of a law, but very gradually, the Supreme Court starts to make the law. That’s what is happening to correlation. Correlation creates nothing. That’s the process. It has no authority to make a statement that creates a position or direction. That’s totally out of harmony with what President McKay set up. Brother Lee understood that, and carried it out. Since the 1970s, I’ve seen the drift, where correlation is now telling me, if I write something to get through correlation, “You can’t say that.” And I write back and say, “Why?” And they say, “Well, because we think this is the interpretation.” And I write back and say, “You’re not the interpreter.”…And that’s where we got lost. Today, I see correlation, like the Supreme Court, becoming more and more the originator of the thought, rather than the coordinator of the thought….So, while I think correlation is good, I think it’s gone past its original commission.
I think one of the reasons why the church has decided to focus on “the basics” is because it is the “safe” thing to do. Correlation doesn’t want to deal with controversial theology. It seems to me that Correlation is all about “dumbing down” the curriculum, because it is easier to deal with. It is much harder to deal with controversial comments from previous leaders. So, in order to be safe, correlation removes such hard to explain topics. (I mean, who can really argue about the need to pray more, read the scriptures, do service, etc?) Hence, spiritual growth isn’t nearly as vibrant as it used to be. Only milk is served, without meat, causing spiritual malnutrition.So, what do you make of Correlation? Do Paul Dunn’s comments bother you? Is Correlation too much of a good thing? Do you think Correlation can ever be restrained, or reversed?
I just find it helpful to always know where the bathrooms are in every church, except the pre-correlation meetinghouses. 
Seriously though, I remember being an impressionable 12-year-old and having a Sunday School Teacher who spent the whole year talking about “Calling and Election Made Sure” and not using the manual. This would have been early 1970s. The funny thing was, as I found out in later studies, she didn’t really know anything about it in terms of it being a second endowment ceremony in the temple. Her whole discussion was based on a journal entry her grandmother had made. The instructor assume that calling and election made sure meant a personal visitation from Christ during which he assures the recipient of his/her place. In retrospect, it was a year lost in terms of meaningful learning. I can see why the brethren want us to focus on basics. I’ve also frequently experienced instructors using outside sources (post-correlation) and while, I know my own pet outside sources are true and consistent with church teachings, these other people, well …
One unintended consequence as I see it though is that now most church members assume the shrink-wrapped church is what it is and always has been. I frequently hear on Sundays how the church never changes.
I am also always amazed at the huge teams of people at church headquarters whose sole job is to work on church curriculum and ensure homogeneity. I’m surprised that as static as the source documents are, that there is such an ongoing need for these people.
curt wrote:Does anyone know anything about the policy of “correlation”? I came across this recently. Apparently, it was a policy instituted in the 1970s that sought to forge a uniform image of the way Mormons look and behave, how stake houses are constructed, as well as more attention to standardizing beliefs. Apparently, the church prior to this movement had a lot more diversity than it does now, which might, in part, explain so many of the beliefs that many Mormons think are doctrine. I wonder if this didn’t do more harm than good. It seems the church could use some diversity. It is so bland…
I don’t know much about this correlation program yet but personally I think it sounds almost like some kind of scary Orwellian nightmare about thought police trying to make sure everyone believes exactly what they are supposed to according to heavy-handed autocratic leaders. In any case, based on the results it seems like this policy has worked almost too well for the Church’s own good so far. Blandness and the idea of the Church trying to present a consistent message don’t bother me nearly as much as the fact that as far as many active members are concerned it’s basically not acceptable at all to believe something different than them with regard to all kinds of detailed doctrines.
The problem with having so many inflexible hard-line doctrines like this is that they basically paint us into a corner where disbelief in of any one of these points threatens to undermine the credibility and viability of the entire organization because they have continued to put so much emphasis on all these things at the same time. Personally I think it would be better to take more of a “bend but don’t break” approach and give people a little more leeway to interpret some of these things the way that makes the most sense to them without acting like so many different points of doctrine need to be an absolute deal-breaker if you don’t happen to agree with the Church’s official views in every case.
It’s a very long read, but this 9-part series at BCC makes an argument for the strong morphing of our LDS religious experience due to the Correlation program: It contains a lot of excellent and interesting history (if you like that sort of thing, which I do).
That was a great series. I can’t believe I didn’t remember it. DA, I agree with your sentiments. I think there should be a bit more leeway with the Gospel.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.