The Correlation Committee

[Matthew J. Tandy]

So I began attending a Pearl of Great Price class at BYU. I knew I would not agree 100% with everything that would be taught there or the professor. I am ok with this, as I treat it like graded Sunday School in these instances. After class though, I spent 40 minutes speaking with the professor about a paper that must be written before the end of the semester. I had a topic in mind, but something was clicking in the back of my mind that was something to the effect of "Danger Will Robinson, Danger!". As such, I wanted to delve a little deeper into what he was really looking for and run my topic past him. Sure enough, by the end of it he was implying I have major problems with the church (which I do not, and the way he came to that conclusion was rather... interesting).

Summary:

I wanted to discuss an alternative reading of Moses 1 (we've had this conversation on here about a year ago). This is typical of the papers I write and get A+'s on for my actual degree, being Ancient Near Eastern Studies with a Hebrew focus. No problem there. However, the problem came in where part of the paper requirements says it should try to be "doctrinally true". According to him, since a footnote says in the beginning of Moses 1 that God is Jesus Christ, and the Institute Manual does also, that discussion of my topic implies I do not accept the "14 Fundamentals of Following the Prophet" and therefore am treading dangerous water. Suffice it to say, I was both vaguely shocked at his implication and amused. To be clear, I actually really like him. He's a good teacher, has a great style, and I appreciate the extended time he took to even discuss the class and paper with him. So I do not want to make this into a character assassination.

Questions:

1) I pointed out that the footnotes were not actually scripture and that we have apostles and Correlation people saying such. He said yes, but really they still almost are and that since they went through correlation, what is in them is doctrine. Is this accurate? Is this supported by actual quotes, or is this a view that really needs to be fenangled to arrive at?

2) Similar thing with the CES Manual for the Pearl of Great Price. I treat it separately since the footnotes are included in scripture editions, the manual is not. Either way, it also went through correlation for approval. Is it also doctrinally correct?

A few points of clarification:

A) I recognize that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are on the committee, in addition to numerous lay members and even a small smattering of scholars representing a diversity of views. I love the correlation committee. I think the work they do is inestimably valuable to keeping the kingdom of God and its members on track. I believe they can receive special inspiration on matters as to what to and not to include, though being imperfect man it is an imperfect process.

B) I also recognize that which comes forth from them is doctrine of some level for the Church and is what is taught.

C) What I do not accept is that it is infallible. Numerous changes, removals, additions, etc. over the years seems to uphold this. Thus, I believe the manuals do contain doctrine as it is to be taught, it is not necessarily perfect and can change accordingly through a process of revision. ie, not all "doctrine" contained therein is perfect, correct, or true. Am I in error on this? If so, how?

D) I do not think any major doctrinal issue is incorrect in any of their works, though occasionally some more nuanced discussion would be nice. Thus, in cases such as Moses 1, it's not going to effect anyone's salvation anywhere if it is right or wrong.

E) Let's not discuss Moses 1 in depth. It's just a handy example.

One last question:

If the correlation committee produces something which may be factually incorrect and it is caught, is there an actual process one can submit it to for verification or discussion? Or is this a "closed club" that does not take any outside input whatsoever? I understand a good deal about the structure of the committee, how it makes decisions internally, etc. I know nothing about what happens if an error crops up.

[TAO]

I think you need to get out the quote in which Bruce R McConkey says that the footnotes aren't doctrine =P. Don't know where it is though.

Also... where you talking about it possibly being a reference to God the Father over Jesus Christ? Yes, I can see that. In fact... I think it might be God the Father, due to verse 6.

Perhaps point to him out the other references... JST John 1:19 perhaps (John 1:18 in the NT).

But what does he disagree with?

[Matthew J. Tandy]

"But what does he disagree with?"

Since the footnote in Moses says that the person speaking is Jesus Christ (probably a Bruce R. McConkie footnote as he was a big proponent of this theory) and the CES Manual says so also, any attempt to go against that is going against "true doctrine" and the brethren. It's not the exploration, but the conclusion he has a problem with.

[TAO]

Since the footnote in Moses says that the person speaking is Jesus Christ (probably a Bruce R. McConkie footnote as he was a big proponent of this theory) and the CES Manual says so also, any attempt to go against that is going against "true doctrine" and the brethren. It's not the exploration, but the conclusion he has a problem with.

As said, quote the Bruce R McConkie footnotes are not doctrine quote, and it should be fine. If anything, look in the past speeches of doctrine for Moses 1 talks and see what it says - perhaps there might be something interesting.

[Doctrine 612]

It seems that people forget what really is scripture and how they become scripture. also I like to place everything in list form just like i did with what I should belive and what I should just think long and hard about before I make the Choice to belive it or not, because really in the end its my choices in what I belive in that get me in to the kingdom, not anyones elses.

1. Scriptures

2. anything Church approved

3. anything written by a member of the church

4. Harry potter books

if number 2 counters number 1 then number 1 is true if 3 counters 2 then 2 is true.

so I say if you find that the scriptures say something diffrent then the correalation it would be safe to go with your gut feeling and belive the scriptures since they are trully inspired of god and where sustaind by us to be the guide in our lives.

Chapter headings, foot notes, Bible dictonarys are just there to help us understand the scriptures but they are not scripture.

Also on a interesting note have you really looked at the scriptures in the endowment room there small for a reason.

[Senator]

Since the footnote in Moses says that the person speaking is Jesus Christ (probably a Bruce R. McConkie footnote as he was a big proponent of this theory) and the CES Manual says so also, any attempt to go against that is going against "true doctrine" and the brethren. It's not the exploration, but the conclusion he has a problem with.

It seems to me that "doctrinal exploration" to be a bit of a misnomer to describe the activity taking place in LDS religious schools.

Isn't exploration a bit silly if the conclusion is already dictated?

[Jason]

If you ever want to know what is true doctrine from the committee and what is not there is a simple solution - ask God. Of course, whatever answer you receive will be for you, and if it is different than what the committee teaches it isn't something you should teach in turn to others - it was for you.

[Doctrine 612]

If you ever want to know what is true doctrine from the committee and what is not there is a simple solution - ask God. Of course, whatever answer you receive will be for you, and if it is different than what the committee teaches it isn't something you should teach in turn to others - it was for you.

On that note who are you trying to convince your self or everyone around you. remenber every one has there own agency to be free.

I really enjoy listing to people who like to think what they teach is what everyone should belive it gives me a tickle.

I say write the paper and let others choose for them selfs what they belive, also I would love to take a gander at the paper sounds interesting, and abiit like the ideas i had when I first read this section of scriptures.

[Doctrine 612]

Isn't exploration a bit silly if the conclusion is already dictated?

[daz2]

1. The Church's official statement on what is doctrine and what is not is more flexible than your professor apparently believes. http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine In my view, the question who is speaking in Mormon makes little difference, if any, to day-to-day striving to follow Jesus or to the hereafter--it is not core doctrine, it is more akin to the "precise location of the Garden of Eden."

2. Some very devout members of the Church disagree with the footnote and the Sunday School and CES manuals on that point. About 10 years ago there was a heated debate in gospel doctrine about this very issue. Our stake patriarch, an extraordinarily devout member was quite certain it was the Father speaking, not the Son, and he wrote a letter to the correlation committee. The bishop shared with me a copy of the response (which this good brother had given to him). The response noted that JFS and BRM had stated that position (and probably a couple of others) and gave citations. The response did not state that because they said it, that it was true and doctrine, nor that because it was in the manual it was true and doctrine. It simply said that was the basis for which it had been included. The response also noted that the correlation committee had received many inquiries about that issue.

[Doctrine 612]

One last question:

If the correlation committee produces something which may be factually incorrect and it is caught, is there an actual process one can submit it to for verification or discussion? Or is this a "closed club" that does not take any outside input whatsoever? I understand a good deal about the structure of the committee, how it makes decisions internally, etc. I know nothing about what happens if an error crops up.

[CV75]

However, the problem came in where part of the paper requirements says it should try to be "doctrinally true".

You might successfully address both the teacher

[consiglieri]

I'm afraid your avatar aptly describes your predicament, Matthew . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cinepro]

Questions:

1) I pointed out that the footnotes were not actually scripture and that we have apostles and Correlation people saying such. He said yes, but really they still almost are and that since they went through correlation, what is in them is doctrine. Is this accurate? Is this supported by actual quotes, or is this a view that really needs to be fenangled to arrive at?

Which footnotes are you referring to specifically? As far as I can tell, the footnotes for that chapter are just cross referencing other verses and telling people to read the Topical Guide. In which case, they wouldn't be "saying" anything. They're just providing pointers on where similar themes can be found elsewhere in the scriptures.

2) Similar thing with the CES Manual for the Pearl of Great Price. I treat it separately since the footnotes are included in scripture editions, the manual is not. Either way, it also went through correlation for approval. Is it also doctrinally correct?

Here's what the manual actually says:

MOSES 1:1

[Zakuska]

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

[TAO]

I suppose that is also a possibility, the Son speaking for the Father. Definitely something I'll think about.

[Pahoran]

So I began attending a Pearl of Great Price class at BYU. I knew I would not agree 100% with everything that would be taught there or the professor. I am ok with this, as I treat it like graded Sunday School in these instances. After class though, I spent 40 minutes speaking with the professor about a paper that must be written before the end of the semester. I had a topic in mind, but something was clicking in the back of my mind that was something to the effect of "Danger Will Robinson, Danger!". As such, I wanted to delve a little deeper into what he was really looking for and run my topic past him. Sure enough, by the end of it he was implying I have major problems with the church (which I do not, and the way he came to that conclusion was rather... interesting).

Summary:

I wanted to discuss an alternative reading of Moses 1 (we've had this conversation on here about a year ago). This is typical of the papers I write and get A+'s on for my actual degree, being Ancient Near Eastern Studies with a Hebrew focus. No problem there. However, the problem came in where part of the paper requirements says it should try to be "doctrinally true". According to him, since a footnote says in the beginning of Moses 1 that God is Jesus Christ, and the Institute Manual does also, that discussion of my topic implies I do not accept the "14 Fundamentals of Following the Prophet" and therefore am treading dangerous water. Suffice it to say, I was both vaguely shocked at his implication and amused. To be clear, I actually really like him. He's a good teacher, has a great style, and I appreciate the extended time he took to even discuss the class and paper with him. So I do not want to make this into a character assassination.

Questions:

1) I pointed out that the footnotes were not actually scripture and that we have apostles and Correlation people saying such. He said yes, but really they still almost are and that since they went through correlation, what is in them is doctrine. Is this accurate? Is this supported by actual quotes, or is this a view that really needs to be fenangled to arrive at?

2) Similar thing with the CES Manual for the Pearl of Great Price. I treat it separately since the footnotes are included in scripture editions, the manual is not. Either way, it also went through correlation for approval. Is it also doctrinally correct?

A few points of clarification:

A) I recognize that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are on the committee, in addition to numerous lay members and even a small smattering of scholars representing a diversity of views. I love the correlation committee. I think the work they do is inestimably valuable to keeping the kingdom of God and its members on track. I believe they can receive special inspiration on matters as to what to and not to include, though being imperfect man it is an imperfect process.

B) I also recognize that which comes forth from them is doctrine of some level for the Church and is what is taught.

C) What I do not accept is that it is infallible. Numerous changes, removals, additions, etc. over the years seems to uphold this. Thus, I believe the manuals do contain doctrine as it is to be taught, it is not necessarily perfect and can change accordingly through a process of revision. ie, not all "doctrine" contained therein is perfect, correct, or true. Am I in error on this? If so, how?

D) I do not think any major doctrinal issue is incorrect in any of their works, though occasionally some more nuanced discussion would be nice. Thus, in cases such as Moses 1, it's not going to effect anyone's salvation anywhere if it is right or wrong.

E) Let's not discuss Moses 1 in depth. It's just a handy example.

One last question:

If the correlation committee produces something which may be factually incorrect and it is caught, is there an actual process one can submit it to for verification or discussion? Or is this a "closed club" that does not take any outside input whatsoever? I understand a good deal about the structure of the committee, how it makes decisions internally, etc. I know nothing about what happens if an error crops up.

You're right that there's no presumption of infallibility that attaches to the work of the CC. With that in mind, my first thought on reading your post was, "Write your paper the way you see it, and let the chips fall where they may."

However, I've had another thought.

It's my understanding that the BYU religion courses are essentially the same as Institute courses; and an Institute class isn't about scholarship in the same sense as your ANE studies are. There's a statement of Hilary that Nibley was fond of quoting: Scripturae enim non in legendo sunt, sed in intelligendo. As a document with an ancient origin, the Book of Moses can be studied using the full range of scholarly tools that your studies have provided; but as a book of LDS scripture, its meaning is not what the words say, but what the interpretive community of the Saints understand it to mean.

Keep in mind that, by scholarly standards, the New Testament and the Book of Mormon both misinterpret the Old Testament. However, it can be argued that the passages thus misinterpreted actually do mean what the later volumes understand them to mean, for the purposes of the later community.

Maybe it might be worth considering your approach to be something like: How ancient and modern audiences interpret scriptures differently, using Moses 1 as an instance.

Regards,

Pahoran

[consiglieri]

but as a book of LDS scripture, its meaning is not what the words say, but what the interpretive community Correlation Committee of the Saints understand it to mean.

Fixed it for ya!

[BCSpace]

but as a book of LDS scripture, its meaning is not what the words say, but what the interpretive community Correlation Committee by delegation and approval of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve of the Saints understand it to mean.

The final fix. Of course that makes the footnotes and all Church publications official doctrine by definition no matter what some individual apostle said outside the venue of Church publication.

[cinepro]

The final fix. Of course that makes the footnotes and all Church publications official doctrine by definition no matter what some individual apostle said outside the venue of Church publication.

CFR that all the footnotes and study helps in the LDS editions of the scriptures were actually reviewed by the Correlation Committee.

Study helps can't be "doctrine". A common footnote is to reference a specific word in the Topical Guide. Does that mean it is the Church's "official doctrine" that every reference found in the Topical Guide somehow directly relates to the use of that word in the verse under consideration, and that the correlation committee reviewed every verse referred to in the Topical Guide to evaluate its applicability to every word for which it is used as a footnote?

I don't think so.

The Topical Guide and most footnotes are the hard-copy equivalent of Google for your Bible.

[consiglieri]

The final fix. Of course that makes the footnotes and all Church publications official doctrine by definition no matter what some individual apostle said outside the venue of Church publication.

The Glory of God is Conformity.

[WalkerW]

The Glory of God is Conformity.

[BCSpace]

The final fix. Of course that makes the footnotes and all Church publications official doctrine by definition no matter what some individual apostle said outside the venue of Church publication.

The Glory of God is Conformity.

Well, since you mentioned it, we know that the glory of God is intelligence and this actually works in my (and the Church's) favor. As I'm sure you'll agree, one of the measures of intelligence is creativity. If one can be creative, or reach a goal within bounds, say those the Lord has set, then one has demonstrated more creativity than one who seeks to alter or work outside the bounds.

I believe it was Frank Lloyd Wright who communicated this same sentiment in the material context of architecture. He prefered to design within strict constraints to bring out his crearivity. I think the Lord has, in various ways, communicated this same sentiment in the spiritual sense.

So if one has to alter doctrine to rationalize one's point or pet theory, how creative is it and how intelligent is one really? That's why, when I generate a hypothesis for evolution to swim in for example, I am careful to take the doctrine as defined by the Church into account.

[consiglieri]

So if one has to alter doctrine to rationalize one's point or pet theory, how creative is it and how intelligent is one really? That's why, when I generate a hypothesis for evolution to swim in for example, I am careful to take the doctrine as defined by the Church into account.

You realize that "intelligence" is a term of art as used in the scriptures, and that "taking the doctrine as defined by the Church into account," stupid people have as much "intelligence" as you?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Lightbearer]

The Glory of God is Conformity.

I enjoy your trite innuendos, but I think the real problem here about the general distain shown for Correlation, is the contempt for authority. I offer another use of a different phrase:

(D&C 38:27) "...I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine."

I would suggest if one believes the scriptures and believes that the restoration was indeed a restoration of what the Church consisted of in the meridian of time then the concept of correlation would not only be welcomed but expected. As Paul taught:

(1 Corinthians 1:10-13) "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"

So while it may be fashionable to "question authority" I am not so sure it is the thing that God would have us do, at least not when He has declared to us through the Holy Ghost already what the truth is and what His Church consists of. I think there was a reason for the correlation committee put into place. It was not to stifle inquiry or the asking of questions, but it was to limit what is taught in the Church to that which has been approved by the First Presidency and the Twelve have declared is true doctrine. It seems Paul had similar problems:

(Ephesians 4:11-25) "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another."

The very purpose of the Church is to make us all one in Christ, the purpose of correlation is not to hold an iron rod over our heads, but to guide us into the truth, it is administered by the authority of the priesthood, that is why I said the problem is one of belief in authority. How much different is this than the epistles written by the apostles to the various branches of the Church to exhort them or correct them in doctrine, in practice, and in truth?