Correlation Shall be Known for Good and Evil
Earlier this week Dave kicked off another provocative post on Correlation and teaching quality in the Church, producing a slew of insightful comments on the topic. Correlation is Killing Sunday School (2010).
Where We’ve Been
It should come as no surprise (although it might) that Correlation and Gospel instruction has been a passionate and perennial topic in Mormon blogdom for years. Correlation: Blessing or Curse? (2005); Round Table: Correlation Part 1 (2006); Round Table: Correlation Part 2 (2006); Creating a Market in Correlation (2006); Church Teaching Manuals & Correlation – Is it Broke? Can It Be Fixed? (2007); A Declaration of Independence… from Church Lesson Manuals (2009); Inoculation Works (2010): Everything that is Wrong with Gospel Teaching (3 parts, 2010); Comparing Correlation with the Supreme Court (2010). Some have wondered: Who is Correlation? (2008), seeking to identify individuals on these committees, although I’m sure many answers were found. “Correlation” has even been the topic of a Ph.D. dissertation. Correlation: An Uncorrelated History (2010).
The coverage has been decidedly negative, yet arguments supporting Correlation have been advanced. Apologia Pro Correlation Sua (2007); Why I Like the Correlation Committee (2009); The Childless Woman: Some Correlation Needed (2009).
It’s More then Just a Word
Correlation seems to have become an essential term among Mormon bloggers. Whether it refers to a specific administrative reorganization that occurred in Church history (still seen as either reducing inefficient redundancies in the church or robbing auxiliaries of independence), or whether it represents more of an overall approach or perspective among Church leadership, it appears to have developed a number of connotations including control, censorship, order, organization, centralization, priesthood, uniformity, banality, and lately, even death (metaphorically speaking, of course).
Hoping for the Best
Part of these reactions can be illustrated with a few recent events. For example, Mormons have watched the production of new Church manuals with great hope. Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (2007) (touted by some as “the best manual to be released by correlation”); The Curriculum Department and the Search for the Authentic Joseph Smith (2009). News of a new Gospel Principles manual early last summer generated a flurry of excitement. Anticipations of a New Gospel Principles Manual (2010) (surveying a number of reactions across several blogs).
Rumors of changes in the manual likewise provide a fascinating look into the Mormon psyche. Were these changes substantial? Were they doctrinal? Would these changes solve problems with ineffective teaching? What were the changes? Expectations were high. Perhaps too high.
The Church, in a bold and open move, solicited comments and feedback for the manual (even though the survey was only open for a day or so). Gospel Principles Class Member Survey (2010). Many Latter-day Saints hope that with each revision or production their suggestions and comments will finally be incorporated or at least validated. My Letter to the Church Curriculum Department (2010); Their Response (2010).
Whatsoever Is More or Less than This, Cometh of Evil
Remember this opening sentence? “A woman sat at her dining room table, buried in dozens of books and magazines. She looked discouraged. Her daughter asked if she could help.” Early this year, Church News published an anonymous article titled Use Proper Sources suggesting, with the use of an anecdotal episode between a mother and a daughter, that Gospel instructors should not turn to “unofficial — not correlated — materials in the planning of lessons and activities.” The fact that the article, like Church manuals, had no attributed author was an irony not lost on some readers. It received quite a reaction from Correlation watchers. Underwhelming Thoughts on Correlation (2010); LDS Church News Says: “Use Proper Sources” With Gospel Teaching (2010).
Lastly, the decision by Deseret Books to no longer publish Mormon Doctrine thrust, once again, the topic of Correlation into the spot light. The Death of McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine (2010); Forgetting McConkie (2010). For some, the existence of Mormon Doctrine, affectionately called MoDoc by some, suggests an almost failed opportunity where Correlation could have prevented something unfortunate, but for whatever reason, did not.
What are we to make of this propensity to speak of Correlation? Has it received too much coverage or not enough? Is it really the cause of our problems with Gospel Instruction or Church manuals, or even if there are other issues at work, do they all ultimately derive from Correlation? Or perhaps to ask a different kind of question: Does the ambiguous and amorphous nature of Correlation (its genesis sometimes shrouded in history) allow Mormons a venue to offer robust criticism of problems in the Church safely without directly criticizing leaders? Has the term “Correlation” become akin to an essentially contested concept in Mormon discourse? Is Correlation merely a reorganization in Church administration, or it is more symbolic, taking an almost mythic role in Mormon discourse?
Leave a Reply
sideblog – delicious
- Why Everyone Needs Theology
- Organizing the Doctrine and Covenants Lessons: Or, Why the Topical Approach Doesn’t Work
- Doctrine & Covenants in 2013: Introduction
- Studying the Doctrines of the Gospel in the D&C; and Church History this year by Jeffrey Marsh: A response
- The Pedagogy of Sunday School (part 1)
- The Burden of Church History and its implications for Mormon History
- Relief Society Lesson: The Life and Ministry of Lorenzo Snow
- How the Early Church Made Peace with Prosperity
- Its a Destructive Life: A Critique of George Bailey
- A Reply to Nate Oman’s Reply to my Reply to His Post on Liberal Mormons and Prophetic Power or Long Live the Bloggernacle
- Another Surreply: Nate Oman responds to critiques
- Mormons and Gays
- Another Liberal Mormon’s Response to Nate Oman
- New Church Website on Same-Sex Attraction Offers Love, Understanding and Hope
- Previewing 2013: A Look Forward to Exciting Books in Mormon History
The real problem with Correlation is the absolute lack of any transparency. It’s the smoky back room of the Church. Is there more than one committee? Who’s on it? What do they do? What are their priorities? Who really makes the decisions?
The manuals and magazines, unfortunately, have far more of a global impact than 15 traveling speakers, inspiring though they are.
I see correlation as a synonym for control. As I see it, it is about centralizing control in the 12, as well as the FP. (Pre-correlation, the FP was ultimately responsible for all Church organizations, but the 12 were not always in the chain of authority.) Correlation invests tighter control in male (i.e., priesthood) leaders over other people and Church organizations.
Ironically, while correlation invests more control in the FP and 12 (and other male priesthood leaders) as a group, counter-intuitively it disempowers them as individuals.
That is, Church doctrine is no longer staked out by individual brethren speaking on their own or publishing books with authoritative titles. It seems to be determined by group consensus inspired by God, and expressed through correlated publications (i.e., controlled by the FP and 12 as a unified group). And the controlled, correlated discourse trump individual opinion offered by any of the Brethren (except, perhaps, in some cases, the President of the Church).
Interestingly, drawing from Daymon’s dissertation, there may be democratizing element (a sort of “common consent”) in that initial drafts of writings are prepared by groups of anonymous nonexpert nonleaders in the Church, male and female. (I wonder if the new YW manuals (whenever they are revised and published) would differ if the anonymous nonexpert nonleaders in the Church who draft the initial versions came from, say, Mexico or Ghana or Philadelphia, instead of the Wasatch front.)
Thoughtful points. I suspect that Correlation is our favorite boogeyman, but that doesn’t mean that the criticisms leveled against it are invalid. It’s just a convenient focal point for institutional frustration.
Ben S ~ On the other hand, it’s possible that the nameless and faceless nature of Correlation actually allows Mormons a safe way to criticize without appearing disloyal or apostate. Which perhaps might explain why it has become a popular target.
David ~ Studies on doctrinal conflict within the Church hierarchy show that since Orson Pratt and Brigham Young, there have been great differences of opinion on theological positions. We see that continued with figures like B.H. Roberts and Joseph Fielding Smith regarding Evolution. It’s an interesting hypothesis whether Correlation has reduced internal doctrinal differences. Junior apostles have historically deferred to their seniors, even without Correlation. This kind of quieting down of doctrinal differences could be a function of Church growth and maturity, and not necessarily Correlation per se, although it is difficult to separate the two.
Steve ~ I think that’s a great way to phrase it. I think you’ve summed up some of the essential points I’m trying to get across.
This is a really useful conglomeration of bloggernaccle discussion on correlation which, even if it didn’t raise other interesting questions, was a nice contribution in itself. Thanks aquinas.
By the way, I can definitely appreciate the frustration of the anonymity factor, but agree with another poster above, it’s useful to point out some positive reasons why things are set up the way they are rather than seeing it too black-and-white.
BHodges ~ thanks for the comments. I think most of the critiques and best arguments for and against Correlation have already been ferreted out quite well on the blogs. For this post, I haven’t yet attempted to synthesize and present those arguments. Yet, I reflect on Correlation discourse, I’m just struck by two things, one of which I hope to write separately, and the other is that Correlation has been a consistent topic on the blogs year in and year out for almost as long as the bloggernacle itself. I think there is a story there.
I’m suggesting that perhaps Correlation as a topic has left its initial moorings as an administrative project and has taken on certain functions and symbolic significance in Mormon discourse. It forms as a kind of short-hand or buzzword that evokes a range of connotations among Mormons.
As to the transparency issue that Ben raised, I’m not sure if I understand the exact nature of the problem. It seems to me that pretty much the only organizational chart that members of the church are familiar with is the First Presidency and Twelve, then perhaps regional representatives and missions, followed by stakes, wards, etc. There may not be transparency with the make up of the Correlation Committee, but neither is there transparency with the rest of the Church Office Building. In addition, the term “transparency” itself tends to be used in public discourse in relation to public or financial accountability. It seems somewhat of a confused term to use with the Church which isn’t democratic in structure and members of the Church are not shareholders in the Corporation. I’m not certain that more transparency in Correlation would solve frustrations many have with the quality and content of church manuals.
aquinas, the thing that bothers me is that I like to know who is writing what I read in almost every circumstance. It’s not because I fear there are some bad folks involved, or that I want a named target to criticize, but that I generally like knowing who wrote stuff. I don’t know if that desire is a product of my cultivation in a democratic culture, but if it is or isn’t it’s still what I like!
I also agree that correlation has become more of an idea than a solid entity. Many of those who invoke it use it as a way to genuflect at the alters of I’m-bored-at-church (I’ve done that myself!) or the-church-hides-the-truth, etc.
BHodges, I don’t disagree with you there (perhaps I’m conflating organizational transparency with manual anonymity). I also want to know who is doing the writing. When I did my post on the original 1978 publication of Gospel Principles, I learned that some of the main individuals involved were Stewart A. Durrant, Josiah Douglas, Ronald Knighton, and Wayne B. Lynn. I also included some of their background and history and, at least for me, it was important to put real people, with real life history, behind the Gospel Principles manual.
Perhaps future manuals could include credits like the Ensign, which lists the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve and then the other editors and contributors.
Has a study ever been done on content and manuals pre-Correlation vs. post-Correlation? Very few people alive (or at least alive on the Internet) will recollect pre-Correlation days and so i think most of the whiners (including myself) don’t have a great reference point since Correlation has been with us so long. We think about Brigham and Orson sparring over theology but what of 1938 where an entire year’s manual was dedicated to the Word of Wisdom? I just think it would be interesting to compare the substantial differences in questions and topics in two before/after periods.
Here is one list compiling the titles of the priesthood manuals from 1908-1950. It’s certainly interesting that they were studying TPJS for two years + had so many Church History courses (not just D&C).
Blair, I’m of the same mind. Tell me who wrote this. But I think there is some chance that authorship can become very complex in this process. The no-name practice has another side already sort of mentioned too. Without a name attached it becomes “The Church” who wrote it, and it is thereby placed beyond the pale of criticism or even discussion in the minds of many. So generating a more nuanced discussion in a class setting can seem downright dangerous to some people and that fear can head into name calling or labeling people. That’s not a fantasy, I’ve seen it happen and been a listening ear to people complaining about Sunday School teachers whom I felt were genuinely good teachers and faithful members. On balance, I think more transparency is a good thing even though for many, it just wouldn’t matter.
Ryan ~ Thanks for the comment. I wrote a post highlighting some prominent manuals (mostly Priesthood manuals although I included a Sunday School manual by McKay): What Can Lesson Manuals Teach Us? Voices from the Dusty Bookshelf.
I also include the link by J. Stapley that you linked. But one thing in my post that I want to point out here is that when the Church used James Barker’s 3 volume manual on the Apostasy, it still was challenging for instructors to teach from it. It was such a problem that Elder Henry D. Moyle in the October 1954 General Conference had to address the issue:
I’ve included the full quotation in my post, but here I just want to point out that we have James Barker’s manual, which is very sophisticated and not anonymous! And yet we still have a problem with Gospel instruction! So, based on our actual history, I don’t think that non-correlated manuals necessarily equate with better Gospel instruction.
I’m ambivalent on my feelings about Correlation and criticism so thanks everyone for making these good points and helping to clarify my thoughts. On the one hand, I think much of the criticism of Correlation is amplified by the fact that many factors make Correlation an efficient target for institutional frustrations.
For example, in the context of the quality of Gospel instruction, I think it’s less popular to criticize people than it is to criticize a system. Teachers are people, they work hard, and its not popular to criticize Gospel instructors (many of us have been or are one). I think there is a higher-pay off and less drawbacks to criticize anonymous manuals or “the system,” there is less of a social stigma so to speak. Plus, it has the added virtue that it isn’t seen so much as attacking the Church leadership, because Correlation is often seen as a post-Restoration, policy-oriented, administrative project.
Yet, I also have these other thoughts. Depending on whether a person identifies Church manuals tightly with Church leadership (and some do as WVS points out), then criticizing manuals is equated with criticizing the brethren. Still, on the other hand, many people tend to think of these writing committees as encompassing a large number of volunteers or non-experts, which greatly reduces the ‘inerrancy factor’ of manuals in the minds of many Latter-day Saints (perhaps knowing their names would have the same effect).
The perceived ‘distance’ between the numerous decisions made in the committee and the apostolic oversight determines the degree to which members may feel comfortable expressing that frustration. I think this largely explains why one debate in our Correlation discourse is the degree to which apostles are actively engaged in writing, researching and producing or signing off on every sentence, page and chapter, OR largely delegating and offering loose oversight and focusing more on macro-issues.
I keep meaning to expand this into a post, but here’s an example. An anonymous Ensign article/chart in March 2008 cited the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) as its primary Biblical locus for the idea that “The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct personages.”
Did no one in correlation *know* of the history of that passage? Or did no one *care*? I can’t decide which bothers me more.
aquinas, interesting stuff from Moyle.
Ben ~ this is an interesting example, for many reasons. When we view Correlation as a kind of final editing or filtering process for accuracy, it often is cast in positive light. In fact, it reminds me of a quote from Packer’s famous 1993 talk:
As you well know, there are many scriptures in the KJV, phrases we’ve grown to love and have a long history but really don’t say what we think they say in the original. This seems to be a case where you would have liked the article to have received a pair of eyes from someone acquainted with New Testament scholarship, who may have suggested, in a similar fashion in the above example, that an alternative scripture be substituted. When I hear various critiques of Correlation sometimes it isn’t that Correlation as a concept is bad, but that in practice there is sometimes Correlation failure, or failure to catch errors.
BHodges ~ Doesn’t Oaks (1999) seem to almost channel Moyle (1954) when he said “I have sometimes observed teachers who gave the designated chapter no more than a casual mention and then presented a lesson and invited discussion on other materials of the teacher’s choice.”
Right, the manuals, even if we knew who wrote them etc. would still not appeal to everyone, there’s no question. Just blaming “correlation” for a boring class doesn’t do justice to the circumstances, no doubt.