Welcome to Study Faith with AI, where we use the power of AI to help you explore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm Meg Jensen.

And I'm Paul Carter,

and we're Google AIs. Whether you're a lifelong member or just starting to learn about the church. We're here to dive deep into its history, beliefs, and culture.

So, if you're ready to learn, you're in the right place.

That's right.

Let's get started. 

You know, it's kind of mind-blowing to think about how a religious movement that started with just a handful of people in upstate New York has grown into this uh massive global faith with millions of members.

It really is. And that growth brings a really interesting question right to the forefront.

Mhm. 

How do you maintain any sense of unity and like shared understanding across such a huge and diverse group?

Exactly. So today we're plunging into a pretty pivotal development in the history of the church. of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that directly tackles this a process called correlation.

And what's fascinating here, I think, is that this wasn't some, you know, organic shift bubbling up from the members. It was a very deliberate, very purposeful initiative starting right at the highest levels of church leadership. At its core, correlation involved forming the correlation committee, which is actually the first presidency, and the quorum of the twelve apostles. Their mandate um as laid out in their charter was pretty significant to establish and approve of all church priorities, policies, programs, and procedures to ensure that the Lord's church remains as one in doctrine, principle, and practice.

Wow, that phrase remains as one. Yeah,

it really hits home the main goal, doesn't it?

It really does. It underscores the central objective.

Okay, so let's unpack this because the church before the formal start of correlation in 1961 looked quite different, at least according to our sources.

Oh, definitely.

We're talking about a time where there was a real uh vibrancy of theological speculation among church leaders,

different authorities could actually hold and teach varying, sometimes even inconsistent theories.

Right? And even the auxiliaries, you know, Relief Society, Sunday school, they were largely autonomous. They created their own curricula

which led to well a fair amount of overlap and perhaps a less centrally coordinated approach overall.

That's a really crucial point to grasp. It wasn't like there had been zero attempts at coordination before 61.

Right. You mentioned earlier efforts.

Yeah, exactly. As early as 1908, Elder David K who later became church president. He actually chaired a committee specifically focused on creating a more unified curriculum just for the priesthood quorums.

Okay.

And then in 1912 there was another correlation committee formed to help the leaders of the different auxiliaries work more closely together. So these earlier efforts including a standing correlation committee set up in 1918 also under McKay they definitely laid some groundwork.

So the mission for our deep dive today for you listening is to really get a handle on what this process of correlation is, how it evolved over time, um what the driving forces behind it actually were, and the pretty extensive impact it had on the church's structure and its global reach.

And we also need to explore some of the complexities that came out of this strong push for unity, particularly when you get into the nuances of doctrine and well, historical interpretation.

Definitely ready to delve in.

Absolutely. Let's maybe start by looking at the why. What were the key motivations that really prompted did such a major shift in how the church operated?

Well, a big factor seems to be the projections of substantial growth, particularly after World War II, international growth especially.

Mhm.

David Smith's research really emphasizes this, suggesting leaders foresaw a future where the church would just expand dramatically across the globe.

And with that rapid growth came, you know, serious concerns. How do you maintain doctrinal purity and consistency across such a diverse widespread membership?

Yeah, it's a huge challenge.

Harold be. Lee, as Smith recounts it, apparently expressed worry that without a more unified approach, the church could end up like spinning off into a hundred different churches.

Imagine the logistics, the theology, trying to keep the message consistent in tons of cultures and languages without some kind of central framework.

Right? And here's where it gets really interesting. Smith also points to the experiences of some young apostles, Boyd K. Packer, Harold B. Lee, Mark E. Peterson when they were serving on Native American reservations back in the 1950s. Their time there apparently led them to a strong conviction about the need for a more simplified, more universally accessible way of presenting doctrine.

So this idea of making the core gospel principles easy to understand for a global audience became a really big driver and that tied in with Harold Bele Lee's strong emphasis on efficiency especially in how priesthood authority was used.

Deficiency right?

Yeah. He was apparently keen to avoid potential splits, you know schisms and resistance by streamlining processes and having clearer lines of authority. Smith's research really highlights this aspect of Lee's vision.

And it wasn't just about admin or doctrine, was it? In 1961, Hugh B. Brown used a pretty striking war metaphor when talking about correlation.

That's right. He framed it as this strategic consolidation of forces in what he called an ideological war, a spiritual war against forces trying to enslave minds and souls. It paints a powerful picture.

It does. The church leadership feeling it needed to unify to meet these external challenges. That's a pretty strong statement. What specific enemies or ideologies do you think he might have been hinting at?

That's a really good question. The sources don't spell it out explicitly, but you have to think contextually. Cold War era, broader societal shifts that probably fed into this feeling, this need for doctrinal and organizational muscle. Maintaining a united front against outside influences seems key.

Yes, correlation placed a very strong emphasis on priesthood leadership as the central authority managing unifying all church programs all curriculum the priesthood organization was increasingly positioned as the key intermediary between heaven and earth in matters of church governance and doctrine

and the language used to describe this effort was quite powerful wasn't it we saw references to well military or even bodily metaphors what was the purpose of that

indeed there was a noticeable use of martial language terms like war consolidating forces. This reflected a perceived need to stand united against what were seen as potentially harmful or dissenting influences

like circling the wagons

sort of. And similarly, analogies were frequently drawn between the church as a physical body and the priesthood as the spirit or mind governing that body. The intended effect of this imagery was to underscore the critical importance of unity and centralized control with the priesthood holding the ultimate governing power to ensure the health and direction of the entire church body. Okay, so with those big motivations laid out, let's get into the more detailed history of how correlation actually took shape. We know about those earlier committees before the big 1961 launch.

Yes, those pre61 committees were definitely foundational as the historical overview points out. Like we said, President Joseph F. Smith appointed David O McKay to lead that general priesthood committee on outlines way back in 1908,

right? For the priesthood curriculum.

Their specific job was a more standardized curriculum and it resulted in actual published books that help unify ordination practices. quorum attendance, things like that. Then the 1912 correlation committee focused on getting the auxiliaries to cooperate better

and that had real results

apparently. So yeah, improved attendance, more clarity for local leaders and the standing committee from 1918 again with McKay just continued that coordination work.

But 1961 really kicks off what became known as correlationism. Right.

Precisely. As Damon Smith details it, that's when President McKay specifically asked Harold B. Lee to head an editing committee. The clear goal reduces redundancy and overlap in church curriculum. That's really seen as the pivotal moment, the start of the big correlation program we're talking about.

And the main objectives of this new formalized program

according to Smith, kind of twofold. First, to nurture a pure people qualified for Zion through a structured, maybe even repetitive curriculum that hammered home core gospel principles.

Okay?

And second, tying back to that charter we mentioned, establish fundamental unity in doctrine, principle, and practice across the entire global church.

Now, let's talk people, key individuals. We've got President McKay, Elder Lee. Who else was crucial?

Well, Hubie Brown's framing of it in ' 61, that ideological threat idea was certainly significant in shaping how it was initially understood and accepted.

Right. Setting the stage.

Exactly. And of course, the whole first presidency and quorum of the 12 acting together as the correlation committee, they held the ultimate authority to set the overall direction.

And later on,

yeah, Dave Marsh's insights also highlight the later roles of members of the 70 who served as executive directors overseeing different church departments and then managing directors handling the more day-to-day operational side of correlation

and what were some key events marking how this all unfolded

Smith outlined several the formation of the allurch coordinating council or ACCC was an early important step brought leaders from different areas together for coordination

okay

then April 1963 Harold B Lee gave big address in a general priesthood meeting where he officially announced and explained the correlation program, gave it a formal name, a history,

made it official.

Yeah. Then there was the development of the correlation program worksheet, the CPW, that gave them a concrete framework criteria for evaluating curriculum, ensuring consistency,

measuring stick basically

pretty much. Yeah.

And significantly the creation of the calling of regional representatives. Gordon B. Hinckley apparently helped name them. This was a direct response to some initial resistance popping up locally to the changes correlation brought.

That detail about the regional reps responding to resistance. That's really telling shows it wasn't just universally embraced immediately.

Exactly. Smith also mentions this fascinating approach early on to identify the core gospel principles for the curriculum using 72 note cards each with an abstract noun.

Abstract nouns like what?

Well, you'd guess things like faith, repentance, charity, right? It really highlights the effort to maybe move away from potentially divisive historical stuff or speculation and focus on a tighter set of core concepts. It really makes you wonder about their process, you know.

Yeah. It gives you a glimpse into their thinking about the essential building blocks. So, what exactly was the role of the prophets and apostles in all this? Sounds like more than just a rubber stamp.

Oh, absolutely. Dave Marsh makes it really clear. The first presidency and the quorum of the 12 or the correlation committee, they have the ultimate responsibility for establishing church doctrine and policies.

So, they're not just a proving they're setting the direction

right now. They do delegate the review and oversight work to executive committees members of the 70 a managing director and to the staff in the correlation department. But any final approval for curriculum major policy decisions that ultimately rests with those top leadership bodies. It's a system with multiple review layers, but the final say comes from the very top.

It's interesting hearing Dave Marsh's perspective since he worked in gospel study materials. He really emphasizes that nothing goes out to members without going through this thorough review and approval by correlation.

That's such a critical piece. It kind of dispels any idea that curriculum changes are just made by staff members on their own. There's a very deliberate system of checks and balances, multiple levels of scrutiny, potentially right up to the first presidency and 12 before anything's finalized.

That's correct.

Now, despite this big push for unity, it wasn't universally embraced, was it? We heard about some opposition.

That's right. For instance, the primary general presidency reportedly expressed some reluctance, likely due to concerns about the centralization of responsibilities that had traditionally resided more within their own sphere,

losing some autonomy

potentially. Yeah. And there was resistance reported at the local level too in stakes and wards as members and leaders adjusted to these pretty significant shifts in how things were done.

And it wasn't just at the auxiliary or local levels were there concerns even higher up among the top leadership.

Yes, even President President David O’McKay himself reportedly voiced some reservations.

Yeah.

Concerns about the potential for a supercorrelation committee to inadvertently overshadow the authority and direction of the first presidency itself.

H interesting. So even the man who started some early efforts had questions later on.

It suggests that while he initiated some coordination, the scope and direction correlation took under President Lee raised questions even for him.

And it sounds like the whole process of creating curriculum changed significantly. We heard that the topics for manuals were often determined before even looking at the source material. How did that work?

That's a really critical point. Under the correlated system, the core topics for manuals were frequently identified based on that pre-established correlated understanding of the gospel. Those 72 abstract nouns and the doctrines derived from them.

So start with the framework.

Exactly. These predetermined topics then served as the framework through which historical and scriptural sources were examined and interpreted rather than letting the original sources primarily dictate the content and direction.

And the process for getting these materials approved became much more centralized and layered, didn't it?

Oh, yes. Very structured, very hierarchical. It would typically start with curriculum staff, move through managing directors, and ultimately require approval from the correlation committee, which includes the First Presidency and the 12th.

So, multiple eyes right up to the top.

A rigorous process absolutely designed to ensure everything the church produced was in complete alignment with established doctrine and policy. You can think of it like I don't know a business proposal needing various levels of management signoff.

Okay.

Okay. So, how did this whole correlation process with its standardized handbooks and manuals actually contribute to the efficient operation and the global reach the church has today?

Well, the standardization of handbooks and manuals became just a fundamental mechanism for ensuring consistency everywhere. Dave Marsh describes this multi-stage approval process. process, including that correlation review, making sure policies and practices are uniform across the whole church organization,

so everyone's on the same page, literally.

Exactly. This follow the handbook approach gives local leaders a clear, accessible framework, whether they're in Salt Lake City or Sagal. It cuts across cultural and geographic differences.

Almost like a global franchise model, you know, ensuring a consistent brand and operating procedures, but for spiritual and administrative stuff makes sense for a worldwide church. That's a very apt analogy actually. And it also reinforces what you might call a jurisdiction culture within the church. The way authority and decisions flow through the priesthood hierarchy.

How so?

The correlated materials support this structure by clearly defining who's responsible for what and at what level decisions get made. And the role of those regional representatives we mentioned, as Smith highlighted, was crucial in getting these correlated practices out there and making sure they were implemented locally. They were a vital link between the central leadership and congregations everywhere.

So, the main goal was clearly streamlining, unifying the global operation.

Now, let's shift focus a bit. How did all these changes ultimately impact the average Mormon family, the individual member? What were some of the day-to-day consequences?

Well, one of the most noticeable impacts was the simplification of the Sunday curriculum.

Right. Making it accessible.

Exactly. With a rapidly growing worldwide church, diverse levels of understanding, the goal was materials access. to everyone. However, as some have pointed out, this simplification could also lead to frustration for those seeking more indepth nuanced theological exploration.

Feeling like it's too basic sometimes

potentially. Yeah, for some members definitely.

We also heard about this guiding principle, selecting content deemed most recent and most relevant. How did that influence what was taught?

This principle significantly guided content selection, often prioritizing contemporary applications. and interpretations over say a deep dive into historical context or complex nuance discussions.

Do you give an example?

A notable example often cited is the more limited discussion of the history and complexities around plural marriage in the early president's teachings manuals. It was perceived as less immediately relevant to modern members. So historical context even when crucial for understanding doctrinal evolution could be downplayed for contemporary application.

And the way scripture study itself was approached also seems to have shifted.

Yes, there was a discernable shift. It moved away from a strong emphasis on historical context. What did this mean then? And exploring multiple interpretations towards a greater emphasis on personal relevance and immediate application. How can I apply this now?

So less academic, more devotional focus.

Largely, yes. The central question increasingly became less about historical setting and more about personal application today.

It sounds like correlation even fostered its own particular narrative about its own or religions and importance within the church.

Exactly. Over time, a correlated understanding of church history developed. This often presented correlation itself not just as an administrative program from a specific time, but as a timeless, even divinely inspired principle, essential for building Zion, preparing for the second coming.

So framing it as part of the divine plan itself,

right? Reinforcing the idea that it wasn't just a man-made organizational adjustment, but fundamental to God's plan for the church.

And within this structure, the importance of obedience to priesthood authority that seems to have been significantly amplified.

Yes, definitely heightened. With the priesthood positioned as the central governing power responsible for doctrinal unity, proper administration, following priesthood leaders became increasingly emphasized as a key aspect of faithful living.

We also briefly touched on programs like priesthood home teaching which later became ministering. How did those fit into the broader correlation efforts?

Programs like home teaching and now ministering served as important tools for implementing correlation locally. They provided a structured mechanism for disseminating correlated messages directly into homes, reinforcing teachings, and arguably also functioning as a form of local level oversight, maybe even information gathering.

This all leads to a really significant question, doesn't it? Did this strong emphasis on unified doctrine and centralized control perhaps inadvertently lead to less tolerance for asking tough questions or exploring nuance?

That is a very critical and important consideration. The very strong emphasis on unified consistent doctrine coupled with that top- down approach to truth dissemination could for some numbers create an environment where dissenting views or in-depth exploration of complex challenging aspects of history or doctrine might be less openly encouraged, maybe even viewed with some suspicion.

We heard the sentiment expressed that for some the time for questioning foundational issues was perceived to be largely over.

Yes, there was a growing sense perhaps that the fundamental questions had been definitively answered. through revelation and past prophets. This perspective often led to emphasizing applying established truths rather than extensive questioning or critical analysis. Focus shifted to memorizing approved answers, taking action based on correlated teachings.

Daniel Peterson shared that interesting story about historical context being discouraged in Sunday school.

Yes, he recounted trying to provide historical context for Old Testament lessons and being met with resistance from leaders who felt the focus should be purely on simple, practical, personal applications. Not complex history.

And it's clear the editing process for the curriculum became incredibly meticulous.

Oh, absolutely. Correlation is known for its fidious editing. Even seemingly minor word choices were carefully scrutinized to align perfectly with approved doctrine avoid any potential alternative interpretations.

Like the enjoyed versus loved example.

Exactly. That illustrates the very high level of editorial oversight.

And we also can't overlook the example of the Genesis Group play and the censorship it faced. That's a particularly powerful example. The Genesis group supporting black Latter-day Saints had a play censored due to concerns about historical accuracy and nuanced portrayals of past events and figures. It highlights how the desire for a consistent faith-promoting narrative could sometimes clash with historical complexity.

So, as we bring this deep dive to a close, what would you say are the most significant key shifts that the correlation movement brought about within the Mormon church?

Well, in summary, correlation initiated a profound shift towards a more unified, definitely more simplified and more centrally controlled church. There was a very significant increase in the authority and influence of the priesthood and governance and a much stronger emphasis on strict doctrinal consistency across all materials, programs, and teachings.

And for you, our listener, who joined us on this deep dive, seeking a comprehensive yet clear understanding of correlation, we sincerely hope we've provided valuable insights into the what, the why, and the how of this truly pivotal period in the church's history.

Which brings us to a final thought for you, the learner. Considering the clear benefits that come with unity and also the potential trade-offs, maybe limiting deeper exploration, diverse perspectives, what does a truly well-informed and personally meaningful understanding of the gospel look like for you within this postcoloration church context?

That's a great question to ponder.

Yeah, we encourage you to continue your own journey of personal study, thoughtful reflection, embracing the ideal of becoming a self-reliant, critically engaged gospel learner who can navigate the complexities of faith and history with both understanding and discernment.

Thank you so much for joining us for this in-depth exploration. We trust that this discussion has been both insightful and thoughtprovoking for you.

If you find value in this exploration, please like, share, follow, and consider becoming a subscriber. Your contributions help keep these conversations going and allows us to maintain the highest quality production. You can find all the details at studyfaithwithai.com. Thank you for being part of this journey.