By Dennis B. Horne (guest blogger)
Among the many subjects that a “bloggernacle” surfer occasionally finds being discussed, usually from a negative standpoint, is Church Correlation. It seems that Correlation’s purpose is not well understood and has become something of a boogeyman to those who have only sketchy knowledge of what it is for or that disagree with what it does. Some bloggers speak of it as something of a secret guardian that bars the interesting subjects and deep doctrines from being discussed in Sunday School and priesthood or Relief Society. If they think the approved curriculum is boring or lacking in sophistication or scholarly depth, they opine that “Correlation” is likely at fault. Since Correlation does not represent a single individual, it seems safer and less disloyal to criticize it than, say, the current prophet or an apostle.
So what
exactly is Church Correlation? What we know as Correlation today began to take formal
and organized shape and wield great influence during the administrations of Presidents
Harold B. Lee and Spencer W. Kimball. The main objectives were to unify church
departments, eliminate duplication of work, reduce and simplify curriculum, and
ensure doctrinal purity in all printed matter. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism contains an excellent overview of the
history and development of correlation up to the 1990s.[1]
Correlation largely traces its
roots to special reading committees, made up mostly of general authorities,
organized to review manuscripts proposed for use as church study manuals. Eventually
Correlation became its own church department with specific responsibilities to
evaluate and approve all Church produced materials (today that includes church
websites). It is what the Correlation Department supposedly does with the
doctrinal and historical content of Church manuals that raises the ire of some
and gives rise to repeated frustrated discussion by some bloggers. Evidently,
further education and understanding is in order.
Having
noticed the occasional online comment and complaining, we ask—who are the
members of the targeted “Correlation Committee”? By way of answer, Elder Boyd
K. Packer noted, “The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve
Apostles is the Correlation Committee, with the President of the Twelve and the
two senior members acting as the executive committee.”[2] Some voices may be
surprised and perhaps even a little embarrassed to learn that makeup.
When correlation first began (in 1961)
there were Adult, Youth, and Child committees. Today those are combined as the
Materials Evaluation Committee. Twelve people serve with general board callings
from the First Presidency and Twelve. The names of those serving are
confidential. (I would imagine that many more than one BYU religious educator or
CES instructor has served thereon over the decades.) The staff of the
Evaluation Division of the Correlation Department oversee and review the work
of the Materials Evaluation Committee. They also provide support to the general
authorities assigned to the Correlation work from the Twelve and the Seventy.
In addition, they serve as members of and secretaries to a number of general
authority committees.
These organizational
parameters have evolved over time to become what they are now, but were
announced by letter from the First Presidency (Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon
Tanner, and Marion G. Romney) in 1976. The letter explained:
The First Presidency has appointed
a Correlation Executive Committee in the Council of the Twelve and has
organized the Correlation Department of the Church to ensure more effective
correlation of all activities and programs of the various priesthood and
auxiliary organizations and Church departments without exception.
The
Correlation Executive Committee consists of. . .[All names have changed since
the letter was sent almost forty years ago].
This department has been given the
responsibility to review and evaluate all proposed activities, programs,
policies, procedures, practices, plans, terminology, and other materials
intended for use throughout the Church. Thus, all such proposed items prepared
by general Church departments and organizations should be sent to the
Correlation Department for evaluation.[3]
The letter
then made this important point about the role of Church Correlation in relation
to all other church departments, one that bloggers, journalists, and commentators
would be wise to understand: “The Correlation Department will not establish any
policies whatsoever but will ensure that the policies approved by the First
Presidency and the Council of the Twelve are consistently and uniformly
applied.” The First Presidency further clarified these delegated responsibilities
in a June 1978 letter (dated very close to the time that the revelation on the
priesthood was announced). The wording is deliberate and precise in describing
Correlation’s purview:
The Correlation
Department has been given responsibility to ensure more effective correlation
of activities and programs of the various priesthood and auxiliary
organizations and church departments.
This
department is responsible to review proposed activities, programs, handbooks,
curricula, policies, procedures, practices, plans, terminology, training and
leadership materials, and other materials intended for use throughout the
Church for content, doctrine, and correlation.
Thus, such proposed items prepared by general Church departments and
organizations should be submitted to the Correlation Department for review.
The
Correlation Department is not an origination nor implementing organization, but
it will ensure that the policies approved by the First Presidency and the
Twelve are consistently and uniformly applied.
It becomes
clear that one cannot blame the Correlation Department for simply implementing
the policies of the First Presidency and the Twelve. One might also be wise to
consider carefully before blaming the Brethren for enacting such policies.
In an attached document are found
some specific guidelines that will be of interest to those wondering how the
evaluation process takes place and what its standards are. Guiding principles related
to determining church doctrine and the sources of doctrinal authority are
explained:
Explanation of the Major Categories
used by Correlation Review Committees.
1.
CORRELATION in a broad sense includes matters pertaining to (1) doctrine; (2)
Church policies, procedures, and practices, and (3) factual accuracy. Thus,
items listed in an evaluation report in this category include:
a. Doctrine of the Church,
consisting of (1) the teachings of the scriptures; (2) the clearly defined
interpretations placed on the scriptures by the prophets, seers, and revelators
of this dispensation; and (3) the exact and appropriate rendering of scriptural
references.
b. Policies, procedures, and
practices of the Church, involving correctness of a proposed statement as
compared with the statement approved by the General Authorities on such matters
as policies, procedures, practices, organizational structure, and the content
of handbooks and guidelines.
c. Factual accuracy, including such
items as correctness of dates, names, places, historical events, etc.
2.
INTERPRETATION pertains to problems in one of the following categories:
a. Items not clearly defined nor
determined by the General Authorities.
b. Items containing assumptions,
inferences, or implications relating to doctrine or to principles of
correlation.
c. Items which might cause
misunderstanding or confusion among different national, cultural, or ethnic
groups.
d. Items which might contain
material that might be questionable in such areas as (1) appropriateness of
content, graphic design or art, (2) length, (3) level of audience, (4) method
of presentation, and (5) cost of production.
Beyond
these directions and explanations, Correlation is provided with further written
guidelines on doctrine and policy by the First Presidency and Quorum of the
Twelve; these are confidential. They are made available to specific internal
individuals on a need to know basis. Correlation staff meet regularly with the
Correlation Executive Committee, so any questions of a doctrinal nature that
arise and need settling can be resolved.
The First
Presidency and the Twelve take their responsibility to keep the doctrine of the
Church pure very seriously and Correlation is the main method available;
General Conference is another. Few mistakes are made and Mormons know they can
trust Church produced materials. Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained:
Of course, the
Church does have a responsibility to point out what is the voice of the Church
and what is not. This is especially necessary when some alternate voice,
deliberately or inadvertently, communicates a message in a way that implies
Church sponsorship or acquiescence.
For
the same reason, the Church does approve or disapprove those publications that
are to be published or used in the official activities of the Church, general
or local. For example, we have procedures to ensure approved content for
materials published in the name of the Church or used for instruction in its
classes. These procedures can be somewhat slow and cumbersome, but they have an
important benefit. They provide a spiritual quality control that allows members
to rely on the truth of what is said. Members who listen to the voice of the Church
need not be on guard against being misled. They have no such assurance for what
they hear from alternate voices.[4]
This understanding brings us to
another popular issue frequently debated in the “bloggernacle”—that of exactly what
constitutes Church doctrine.[5] The Church has published
an excellent booklet (that has been approved by Correlation) on the subject
entitled Teachings of the Living Prophets[6], and has also posted a fine summary piece on their Newsroom webpage.[7]
Since we are examining Church
Correlation processes, which originate with and are directed by the First
Presidency, their own written guidelines (even if a little dated) can be very helpful
in explaining the sources and parameters of settled church doctrine. In an
official letter directed to a former Church Commissioner of Education, the
First Presidency (Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. McKay) wrote:
As forecast by
President [J. Reuben] Clark, speaking for the First Presidency at Aspen Grove
on August 8, 1938, the First Presidency has, after careful and mature
deliberations, reached the following conclusions.
1. Institutes and
Seminaries will hereafter confine themselves exclusively to the following work.
. . .
Teaching the principles
of the Gospel as set out in the doctrines of the Church.
In this work the
teachers will use—The Old and New Testaments; The Book of Mormon; The Doctrine
and Covenants; The Pearl of Great Price.
These four
constitute the 'Standard Works of the Church' and are the ultimate authority on
all matters of doctrine, save where the Lord shall have given or shall give
further revelation through the prescribed source for such, the President of the
Church.
Teachers will do
well to give up indoctrinating themselves in the Sectarianisms of the new
Divinity School Theology. . . .
In their teaching,
the teachers will use verbiage and terminology which have become classic in the
Church. . . .
Furthermore,
teachers will not advance their own theories about the Gospel or Gospel
principles.
Profane [secular] history
may be used when necessary and contributive, but when used it should be
obtained from reputable and recognized authorities, not from propaganda
sources….
One need not be a rocket scientist
to discover that the scriptures themselves, as interpreted by modern prophets
and apostles where needed, are the source of church doctrine and that only direct
revelation from the President of the Church can modify that doctrine (see Official
Declarations 1 and 2 for examples).
Another letter from the same First
Presidency is concerned with maintaining doctrinal uniformity and purity in
gospel teaching in the church. It was written to four apostles that had been
assigned to be members of a reading committee. It is a longer letter, but is
valuable because it gives a feel for how principles of correlation work. The
First Presidency wrote, in part:
To meet the required standards for use by
Church organizations, such materials must:
1. Clearly set
forth or be fully consistent with the principles of the Restored Gospel.
2. Be wholly free
from any taint of sectarianism and also of all theories and conclusions
destructive of faith in the simple truths of the Restored Gospel, and
especially be free from the teachings of the so-called "higher
criticism." Worldly knowledge and speculation have their place; but they
must yield to revealed truth.
3. Be so framed
and written as affirmatively to breed faith and not to raise doubts. “Rationalizing”
may be most destructive of faith. That the Finite cannot fully explain the
Infinite casts no doubt upon the Infinite. Truth, not error, must be stressed.
4. Be so built in
form and substance as to lead to definite conclusions that accord with the
principles of the Restored Gospel, which conclusions must be expressed and not
left to possible deduction by the students. When truth is involved there is no
place for student preference or choice. Youth must be taught that truth cannot
be blinked or put aside; it must be accepted.
5. Be filled with
a spirit of deepest reverence. They should give no place for the slightest
levity. They [manuals] should be so written that those who teach from them will
so understand.
6. Be so organized
and written that the matter may be effectively taught by men and women
untrained in teaching and without the background equipment given by such fields
of learning as psychology, pedagogy, philosophy, and ethics. The great bulk of
our teachers are in this untrained group.
Courses on
"comparative religion" have no place otherwise than in the
Post-Graduate School to be established at the Brigham Young University and
there only for the purpose of developing and demonstrating the truth of the
Restored Gospel and the falsity of the other religions of the world, and
thereby build the faith and knowledge of post-graduate scholars. The subject is
one for careful, prayerful study by the mature mind, not for the framing of the
thought and belief of the youthful mind.
The work of all
these Church organizations must have as their purpose the building up of firm
testimonies in the minds and hearts of the Saints, particularly of the
youth,—testimonies of the truth of the Restored Gospel, of the Messiahship of
our Lord Jesus Christ, of the divinity of the mission of the Prophet Joseph
Smith, of the divine origin of this Church established by God and His Son by
and through the Prophet, and of the fact that this is and always will be the
Church of Jesus Christ with all that this connotes—all to the end that the
Saints may have and enjoy these testimonies, that they may live in keeping with
the commandments of the Lord, that they may constantly increase their knowledge
of the Truth, thus enabling them so to live that salvation, exaltation, and
eternal happiness in the Celestial Kingdom may come to them, and lastly that
they in turn may lead others of the world to a knowledge and testimony of the
Truth both by their precept and by their example, so bringing to them these
same blessings. . . .
In the preparation
of all these materials prime consideration should be given, by those
undertaking it, to our own Church history and doctrinal literature. In the
rather recent past these sources have been too little considered. Sectarian
views and doctrines have had too large a place and consideration; the paganistic
theories and tenets of the so-called “higher criticism” have not been without
their influence; none of these have a place in our Church. They should be
wholly eliminated from our literature.
The leaders of the
Church have from the beginning been men of stalwart spiritual integrity,
righteous in their living, virile in their thinking, profound in their
knowledge of the Gospel, and with undoubting faith. They have left sermons and
writings which in good part are original sources and should be so dealt with.
In recent years they have been too little consulted and too infrequently used.
Not mere sectarian scholarship, but Church scholarship coupled with unwavering
faith and a deep knowledge of the Gospel should be the test of fitness for the
preparation of the materials involved in this assignment. As we have already
said: worldly knowledge has its place, but it may not be substituted for
revealed truth, nor the inspired utterance of God's prophets. Ethics and
philosophy are found in the Gospel, but it is far more than these; whenever
either or both of these are used, they must be used with great care and
caution, and for the sole purpose of indicating that human wisdom, when sound,
supports the divine Gospel truths. All secular knowledge used should be so set
forth as to support the Gospel truths.
The discussion of
mysteries and of doctrines upon which there is not a recognized accepted view,
should be avoided. The aim should be to present the simple truths of the
Restored Gospel in as plain and understandable a way as possible. Care should
be taken that the Gospel teachings are not cast in an ethical mold. Ethics are
man-made and vary with man's concepts and development; the Gospel is God's
truth and is unchanging through the eternities. Teaching the Gospel as if it
were an ethical code will breed questions in the minds of the youth as to the
relationship of the Gospel to ethics, to the possible destruction of faith in
the divinity of the Gospel.
Setting the question of diplomacy in
respect to other faiths aside, it is interesting to note the concern expressed
that doubt not be engendered in the youth of the Church. The express purpose of
church education and curriculum is to build faith, not doubt, in students.
Today, there are some prominent educators that seem to disagree with President
Grant and his counselors and they argue that doubt has merit, is good, and should
even be celebrated. It is in such a case, when the winds of false doctrine blow
around us, that Church Correlation becomes so very necessary. The high value
placed in the teachings of modern prophets is also notable, especially in light
of current material studied in priesthood and Relief Society classes. It seems the
same value is now placed on prophetic teachings as when this letter was sent.
Elder L. Tom Perry emphasized the
importance that the First Presidency places on keeping church doctrine pure.
The concluding portion of this paragraph that is in quotation marks evidently quotes
a letter written by the First Presidency and directed to all general
authorities:
The Lord surely understood the need
to keep His doctrines pure and to trust its interpretation to only one source.
Of course, we are all admonished to study and gain as much knowledge as we can
possibly obtain in this life. We are encouraged to discuss and exchange ideas
one with another to further our understanding. However, the Lord has only one
source for the declaration of His basic fundamental doctrines. Even as General
Authorities of the Church, we are instructed: “In order to preserve the
uniformity of doctrinal and policy interpretation, you are asked to refer to
the Office of the First Presidency for consideration [of] any doctrinal or
policy questions which are not clearly defined in the scriptures or in the
General Handbook of Instructions.”[8]
This is, of
course, the answer for all of the bloggers, doubters, dissidents, and scholars of
many stripes who loudly wonder whether they can “discuss and exchange ideas one
with another”—even in a public forum such as the internet. It’s when such
discussion and exchange becomes camouflage for personal apostasy that concern
arises.
Church
Correlation certainly isn’t perfect, and some of the arguments and criticisms raised
about it have merit, but it still fills a great need and provides a safe and
solid foundation for spiritual learning.
[1]
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Correlation_of_the_Church_Administration;
see also https://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-forty-three-an-era-of-correlation-and-consolidation?lang=eng
[2](“All-Church
Coordinating Council Meeting,” 18 May 1993, 3; http://www.zionsbest.com/face.html
[3]
This letter and those quoted below are all from, James R. Clark, comp., Messages of the First Presidency (Salt
Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), volume 6. All volumes are available on Gospelink
for subscribers.
[4]
“Alternate Voices,” Ensign, May 1989, 28; https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/alternate-voices?lang=eng
[5]
The most comprehensive and complete compilation of quotations from church
leaders and scholars that exists is my compilation, Determining Doctrine: A Reference Guide for Evaluating Doctrinal Truth,
published by Eborn Books in 2005. This volume contains hundreds of organized
statements teaching the nuances of where to find doctrinal truth—the living
prophets and the scriptures being pre-eminent.
[6]
https://institute.lds.org/bc/content/institute/materials/english/student-manuals/religion-333-teachings-of-the-living-prophets-student-manualeng.pdf
[7]
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine
[8]
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1994/10/heed-the-prophets-voice?lang=eng
No comments:
Post a Comment