Alternate Voices And Correlation

[CCRW]

BTW, when I first started here I referred to a blow out battle with Russell over the seventh heaven concept ... with me using a quote from TPJS as the foundation of my argument.  Which was totally rejected as non-doctrinal.

 

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65183-uchtdorf-on-grace/?p=1209484437

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65183-uchtdorf-on-grace/?p=1209484459

Edited April 25, 2015 by CCRW

[rpn]

 

From the 1992 article:

Correlation ensures that Church programs, materials, and

activities • Support and strengthen families in learning and living the gospel. • Are directed by the priesthood. • Use the

scriptures and the words of the prophets as the basis for teaching. • Comply with policies and meet standards approved by

the council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. • Are simple to comprehend and use. • Conserve

demands in effort, time, or money on Church members. • Encourage people to use local resources whenever appropriate

and authorized, rather than to make them totally dependent on Church headquarters

This suggests something far different from the other quote above from the same article.    Nothing here suggests that correlation is about restricting or even identifying what is or isn't doctrine.

 

And neither does simplification (and saving money by printing fewer manuals, though I'm sure that issue is becoming less important with digital resources too).

[CCRW]

This suggests something far different from the other quote above from the same article.    Nothing here suggests that correlation is about restricting or even identifying what is or isn't doctrine.

 

And neither does simplification (and saving money by printing fewer manuals, though I'm sure that issue is becoming less important with digital resources too).

 

The 1992 article is a simple summary, with even your quoted paragraph being a summary of the article.  I have no objections to that summary.  I quoted from the details section of the document.

 

The newer instruction manual (2002 I think it was) is a long chapter that details out all of the items (and them some) of the summary you quoted.  It was worth the 1/2 hour or more to read, recommended.

Based on that manual, the TPJS quote alone should totally settle the question of the OP.

 

Please realize I'm not trying to bash anyone or anything here.  One of my mentors could likely quote the whole of the TPJS.  In the past it has just been very hard for me to be in with a group of 50+ year old men with a life time of experience in the church and yet never even heard of the Lectures on Faith.  To try and share something with TPJS as an authoritative source that I learned through mentoring tends to end up with huge walls and very hard feelings.

Edited April 26, 2015 by CCRW

[sunstoned]

My last real real experience with correlated material was when I was the EQ instructor.  I was teaching out of the then new BY manual. I was disappointed by the selective omission of information.  But I shocked by the re-writing of BY quotes and other primary data that was being cited.  It is one thing to edit out information, but quite another to out and out change data from primary sources and to quote other data out of context is such was as to change the meaning.  I viewed this a dishonest, and this started me on my way out of the church.

[CV75]

In answer to the OP question 1. Is the Correlated Gospel something less than the "Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ".

***

cv75     no

Huh?

As far as I am concerned, my reply could be yes and/or no, depending on the several ways of defining each of the terms and what each of those definitions can mean.

[CCRW]

I'm getting that cv75 is like the very big quiet guy at the bar.  You have this verbose ccrw guy making all this noise and this terse single punch cv.

 

Are there things to learn breaking this down further?  Please continue if so.

[Avatar4321]

I'll be honest I am a bit confused why correlation is such a big deal. We have limited time and resources. Shouldn't we be using them to teach the basics of the gospel and not speculating? I don't know much of what church was like before correlation. I wasn't alive then. But I know I feel the spirit in our meetings. Elders quorum being one of the most spiritual I experience. I hate missing it. I love it. I was even healed once in elders quorum.

I'm not seeing how correlation hurts us. Can anyone explain this to me?

I mean no disrespect in asking this.

[smac97]

Hey Smac; Thanks for those links.  It was good to refresh my understanding from an official source.  It has been some time since I learned of this history from a different source. After reading the material in both of those links, it becomes very clear again that the “correlated gospel” (see first timeline quote below) is something less than the Restored Gospel.

Again, I am not sure what you mean by "Correlated Gospel."

And again, if your undefined reference to the "Correlated Gospel" is intended as a slur against the Church's general correlation efforts (and by now it's fairly clear that it is so intended), then your proposal for "a non-contentious discussion" is pretty hard to accept. You've started this discussion by poisoning the well.

So I'm not inclined to enter into a substantive discussion here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Please realize I'm not trying to bash anyone or anything here.

Well, it seems like you are faulting the Church's correlation efforts. You are juxtaposing an undefined term, "correlated gospel," against "Restored Gospel." You have thus far declined to define this term, yet you clearly attach some significance to it.

 

One of my mentors could likely quote the whole of the TPJS.  In the past it has just been very hard for me to be in with a group of 50+ year old men with a life time of experience in the church and yet never even heard of the Lectures on Faith.  To try and share something with TPJS as an authoritative source that I learned through mentoring tends to end up with huge walls and very hard feelings.

I suppose it depends on the point and purpose one uses when citing TPJS. Frankly, I have a hard time conceptualizing Latter-day Saints taking exception to a quotation from TPJS. The Church itself cites it as a secondary, persuasive authority (see, e.g., here and here).  So unless we're talking about some sort of Merchant of Venice-type scenario, I don't think hard feelings would be generated by citing TPJS amongst the Saints.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

My last real real experience with correlated material was when I was the EQ instructor.  I was teaching out of the then new BY manual. I was disappointed by the selective omission of information.  But I shocked by the re-writing of BY quotes and other primary data that was being cited.  It is one thing to edit out information, but quite another to out and out change data from primary sources and to quote other data out of context is such was as to change the meaning.  I viewed this a dishonest, and this started me on my way out of the church.

 

CFR, please, regarding "the re-writing of BY quotes and other primary data that was being cited" and "out and out change data from primary sources and to quote other data out of context."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

I'm getting that cv75 is like the very big quiet guy at the bar.  You have this verbose ccrw guy making all this noise and this terse single punch cv.

 

Are there things to learn breaking this down further?  Please continue if so.

Well, defining your terms would be nice. I still don't know what "correlated gospel" means.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

I'll be honest I am a bit confused why correlation is such a big deal.

It's a convenient rhetorical stick with which to whack the Church. I think that's about all.

 

We have limited time and resources. Shouldn't we be using them to teach the basics of the gospel and not speculating? I don't know much of what church was like before correlation. I wasn't alive then. But I know I feel the spirit in our meetings. Elders quorum being one of the most spiritual I experience. I hate missing it. I love it. I was even healed once in elders quorum.

I'm not seeing how correlation hurts us. Can anyone explain this to me?

I mean no disrespect in asking this.

My sense of things is that most gripes about correlation usually fall into two categories of faultfinding against the Church:

Category 1: The LDS Church's efforts at "correlation" have resulted in a watered/dumbed down version of the Gospel, such that the Church is not now teaching the "Restored" Gospel, but instead a "correlated" Gospel. This is the category favored by the I-have-a-better-way-of-running-the-Church-if-only-the-codgers-in-Salt-Lake-would-listen-to-reason crowd.

Category 2: The LDS Church's efforts at "correlation" are an attempt to A) stifle inquiry amongst church members, B) suppress or distract from the Church's "real" history and doctrine, C) do something vaguely Orwellian and creepy, etc. This is the category favored by dissidents and outright critics.

I think the Church's correlation efforts have been generally sensible, appropriate, healthy, and in accordance with God's will. I suppose that's why I'm a little prickly at the juxtaposition of a "correlated" Gospel against the "Restored" Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[CCRW]

Again, I am not sure what you mean by "Correlated Gospel."

I have not yet studied out all of cv's scriptures, I need to give that more time.  But I did completely read your links.  Might I ask if you read the sunstone alternate voices presentation?  It appears you have not read my response to you closely or I thought I answered this and it was misunderstood. Right above "From Second Link" there is a quote, right above that is my answer, which was referenced to in the first paragraph: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65288-alternate-voices-and-correlation/?p=1209489860

And again, if your undefined reference to the "Correlated Gospel" is intended as a slur against the Church's general correlation efforts (and by now it's fairly clear that it is so intended)

You have made an assumption and judged me unfairly.  No one has asked me my intention in this thread.  I have written a bit about it in various places here since starting.  I would be glad to elaborate at any time.

 

Well, it seems like you are faulting the Church's correlation efforts.

I note in the following post, and if you followed the LoF thread that I did not want to off topic this with, you will hopefully see my harshest faulting.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65288-alternate-voices-and-correlation/?p=1209489505

 

You are juxtaposing an undefined term, "correlated gospel," against "Restored Gospel." You have thus far declined to define this term, yet you clearly attach some significance to it.

If the blue in the previous quote comment of yours does not clear this up, holler and I'll try and be more clear.

I suppose it depends on the point and purpose one uses when citing TPJS. Frankly, I have a hard time conceptualizing Latter-day Saints taking exception to a quotation from TPJS. The Church itself cites it as a secondary, persuasive authority (see, e.g., here and here).  So unless we're talking about some sort of Merchant of Venice-type scenario, I don't think hard feelings would be generated by citing TPJS amongst the Saints.

Once again, it appears you may not have spent the time to read/follow my posts in this thread, or I needed to be more verbose in this post on this topic: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65288-alternate-voices-and-correlation/?p=1209489863

 

Edited April 26, 2015 by CCRW

[Tacenda]

Just saw a thread on another board that general authorities and even church security personnel are being told to hand over any journals etc. And apostles told not to keep one. They mention how Quinn wouldn't have been able to write what he did without the early prophets journals. I guess therefore the reason to keep these out of view, talk about correlation. And here I thought we're suppose to keep a journal. Is this hogwash? Even though there were a few first hand, now second hand stories.

[CCRW]

Avatar,

Thanks for joining in.

 

I'll be honest I am a bit confused why correlation is such a big deal. We have limited time and resources. Shouldn't we be using them to teach the basics of the gospel and not speculating?

Like I mentioned to smac, if you followed the OP links and were following the LoF thread along with this post: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65288-alternate-voices-and-correlation/?p=1209489505 it will hopefully help express why its important to me.  I have a longer story about the GGGrandson of WW Phelps, a Target and a correlated  lesson ... the last one I was at 13 years ago (I walked out when this happened).  In trying to go back at this time, this will be one of the hardest things for me.  Can I be an alternate voice, but not be disruptive, not be a fifth columnist, but be able to add value.  I hope that there may be others like me that will/are having this same stumbling block.

 

I don't know much of what church was like before correlation.

Check out the suggested podcast, ignore the last one, the first 3 or so on post manifesto polygamy and correlation are fantastic

 

I'm not seeing how correlation hurts us. Can anyone explain this to me?

I propose that at some point repetition to the point of indoctrination might be the only thing about correlation that would hurt anyone.

I mean no disrespect in asking this.

none at all taken

[sunstoned]

 

CFR, please, regarding "the re-writing of BY quotes and other primary data that was being cited" and "out and out change data from primary sources and to quote other data out of context."

Thanks,

-Smac

Here ya go......

 

The absence of any mention of polygamy.  BY timeline in first lesson complete with all important dates, but leaves out all of his 50+ marriages except to his first legality married wife.

 

All references to “wives” were changed to “wife” (pages 164, 165, 174, 198, 229)

 

Page 139 in BY lesson manual:

 

The original text in the Journal of Discourses (where quote was referenced) reads:

 

You read in the revelation alluded to that when the Twelve were called and ordained, they possessed the same power and authority as the three First Presidents; and in reading further you find that there must needs be appendages and helps growing out of this Priesthood. The Seventies possess the same power and authority; they hold the keys of establishing, building up, regulating, ordaining, and setting in order the kingdom of God in all its perfections upon the earth. We have a Quorum of High Priests, and there are a great many of them. They are a local body--they tarry at home; but the Seventies travel and preach; so also do the High Priests, when they are called upon. They possess precisely the same Priesthood that the Seventies and the Twelve and the First Presidency possess; but are they ordained to officiate in all the authority, powers, and keys of this Priesthood? No, they are not. Still they are High Priests of God; and if they magnify their Priesthood, they will receive at some time all the authority and power that it is possible for man to receive.

 

 

 The correlation committee elected to alter the sentence:

 

"The Seventies possess the same power and authority; they hold the keys of establishing, building up, regulating, ordaining, and setting in order the kingdom of God in all its perfections upon the earth."

 

So that it reads:

 

 

The Seventies possess the same power and authority; [they receive delegated authority by assignment for the] establishing, building up, regulating, ordaining and setting in order the Kingdom of God in all its perfections upon the earth.

 

 

 

If they want to minimize the scope of the authority of the lesser quorums then state it outright.  Don’t misquote BY and put words in his mouth.

 

Page 140 of BY lesson manual

 

 The word "Presiding" was inserted by the correlation committee.  It is clear from the original statements that BY was not talking about the office of Presiding Bishop.  He was talking about bishops of wards.  The committee has also removed from this sentence the fact that the Bishop has the authority to use the "Urim and Thummim".  These changes give a completely different meaning from the original. It seems the corralation committee is uncomfortable with the idea that the Bishop of a ward can use use the Urim and Thummim. 

 

Page 14 of BY lesson manual:

 

Full quote found in Discourses of Brigham Young (DBY), 1977 edition, page 197, states:

 

There are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles, now what is our duty. To prepare tabernacles for them; to take a course that will not tend to drive those spirits into families of the wicked, where they will be trained in wickedness, debauchery, and every species of crime. It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can.

 

This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth.

 

 

 

Correlation Committee altered quote to read:

 

"There are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles, now what is our duty.  It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can".

 

 

 

The manual eliminates the paragraph referring to doctrine of plurality of wives, which changes the entire meaning of the original.  While the doctrine might have changed.  It is wrong to change and misquote original citations.  If I would have done this in my graduate work, I would have been dismissed for dishonesty.

 

The following links where this information was retrieved also contain additional examples alterations of original cited references in the BY lesson manual:

 

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19980514&id=8r8fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EdgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5794,1667414&hl=en

 

http://mit.irr.org/new-manual-sanitizes-lds-history

[smac97]

I have not yet studied out all of cv's scriptures, I need to give that more time.

With respect, you shouldn't need to read through cv's scriptural citations in order to present a definition of the term "Correlated Gospel." You started this thread using that term, but you have yet to define it. Why is that?

You have juxtaposed the "Correlated Gospel" (which, I think we are supposed to infer, is what the LDS Church teaches) against the "Restored Gospel" (which is what the LDS Church is supposed to teach).

You started this thread with what I think is a loaded, well-poisoning question and without defining an important term. And you also started this thread with a desire to have "a non-contentious discussion."  I am having difficulty reconciling these things.

You also started this thread with an implicit accusation against the Church (that it is teaching something other than the "Restored Gospel"), and have proceeded to make that accusation explicit by declaring (not merely asking, mind you, but asserting) "that the 'correlated gospel' ... is something less than the Restored Gospel." Here you made your accusation rather plain. The Church is teaching something "less than" what it is supposed to be teaching.  I find that problematic and disconcerting.

 

Might I ask if you read the sunstone alternate voices presentation?

No. I skimmed through it. I did not see the term "Correlated Gospel" in it, nor did I see a definition for it.

 

It appears you have not read my response to you closely or I thought I answered this and it was misunderstood.

I read your post. I did not see you define the term "Correlated Gospel." I have asked you to do so several times, but you have not yet done so.

 

You have made an assumption and judged me unfairly. No one has asked me my intention in this thread.

I have read your posts. You have implicitly accused the Church of teaching a "Correlated Gospel," which you have since asserted is - in your words - "something less than the Restored Gospel." I find that problematic and objectionable.

I am happy to retract any unfair conclusions I have drawn. But please define the term "Correlated Gospel."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Coreyb]

If I may, I think what CCRW means by the "correlated gospel" is those doctrines and teaching as well as historical narratives of the Mormon tradition that were initially chosen and "make it through" the priesthood correlation committee and thus appear in church publications that carry the imprimatur of TCOJCOLDS and are seen as official, which to some is synonymous with "true".

[CCRW]

It's a convenient rhetorical stick with which to whack the Church. I think that's about all.

I believe that this is generally true, but please judge me, not the stereotype.

My sense of things is that most gripes about correlation usually fall into two categories of faultfinding against the Church:

Category 1: The LDS Church's efforts at "correlation" have resulted in a watered/dumbed down version of the Gospel, such that the Church is not now teaching the "Restored" Gospel, but instead a "correlated" Gospel. This is the category favored by the I-have-a-better-way-of-running-the-Church-if-only-the-codgers-in-Salt-Lake-would-listen-to-reason crowd.

The OP question clearly asks exactly this question, hopefully with out any of the snark.  In this case its: "This is the category favored by the I-wonder-if-I-could-be-a-welcome-alternate-voice crowd."

 

Category 2: The LDS Church's efforts at "correlation" are an attempt to A) stifle inquiry amongst church members, B) suppress or distract from the Church's "real" history and doctrine, C) do something vaguely Orwellian and creepy, etc. This is the category favored by dissidents and outright critics.

Yes, I suppose my response to glen also falls into this category.  I don't believe its some malice effort coming down from the top but instead a stagnation from the endless repetition of Aaronic level concepts.  Members get comfortable and lazy as it were and are not stimulated to do the required external study (see the smacs manual quote about higher education).

I think the Church's correlation efforts have been generally sensible, appropriate, healthy, and in accordance with God's will. I suppose that's why I'm a little prickly at the juxtaposition of a "correlated" Gospel against the "Restored" Gospel.

I agree with this statement.  Correlation HAD to happen.  In reading that student manual, I was amazed at how extensive correlation is ... its massive, way beyond the scope of Sunday curriculum.

Edited April 26, 2015 by CCRW

[Avatar4321]

I don't see how leaving plural marriage out of the lessons is somehow lying. We don't teach it nor is it currently applicable. Of course, I don't assume the worst.

[sunstoned]

changing  original  Quotes  is the Problem.

[smac97]

If I may, I think what CCRW means by the "correlated gospel" is those doctrines and teaching as well as historical narratives of the Mormon tradition that were initially chosen and "make it through" the priesthood correlation committee and thus appear in church publications that carry the imprimatur of TCOJCOLDS and are seen as official, which to some is synonymous with "true".

 

I do not accept this.  The LDS Church is a record-keeping Church.  It has a huge amount of historical/doctrinal documentation from which to develop curricula for courses of instruction authorized by the Church (basically, Church meetings and seminary/institute courses).  Not all of the available historical/doctrinal documentation is of equal value and applicability, and in any event there simply are not enough hours in the day to present all of it.  Hence one of the primary objectives of correlation is “so that the Church might reap the maximum harvest from the devotion of the faith, intelligence, skill and knowledge of our various Auxiliary Organizations and Priesthood Committees.”

 

So some distillation / abridgment / summarizing / encapsulating / putting-it-in-a-nutshell is obviously necessary.  No, scratch that.  Massive amounts of distillation / abridgment / summarizing / encapsulating / putting-it-in-a-nutshell is necessary.  This will, unfortunately, leave the Church exposed to criticism no matter what it includes or excludes in its published materials.  That is the pernicious thing about faultfinding: you'll pretty much always succeed at it.

 

But back to the accusation that the Church is not teaching the Restored Gospel, and is instead teaching an as-yet-to-be-defined-but-"something-less-than-the-Restored-Gospel" thing called the "Correlated Gospel."  (And let's not kid ourselves: The risible term being used here and juxtaposed against, and being declared as "less than" the Restored Gospel, is a slur against the Church.  That's all.)

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

It's a convenient rhetorical stick with which to whack the Church. I think that's about all.

I believe that this is generally true, but please judge me, not the stereotype.

I'll judge your words, not you or a stereotype. That said, you seem to be accusing the Church of promulgating a "Correlated Gospel," which you are noticeably refusing to define, but which you have declared is "something less than" the Restored Gospel. And yet we are supposed to believe that your rhetoric about correlation is not to be construed as "a convenient rhetorical stick with which to whack the Church?" So you are doing what, exactly? Praising the Church's correlation efforts?

 

Category 1: The LDS Church's efforts at "correlation" have resulted in a watered/dumbed down version of the Gospel, such that the Church is not now teaching the "Restored" Gospel, but instead a "correlated" Gospel. This is the category favored by the I-have-a-better-way-of-running-the-Church-if-only-the-codgers-in-Salt-Lake-would-listen-to-reason crowd.

The OP question clearly asks exactly this question, hopefully with out any of the snark.

So my assessment of this thread appears to have been . . . spot on.

 

In this case its: "This is the category favored by the I-wonder-if-I-could-be-a-welcome-alternate-voice crowd."

"Alternate voice" to whom?

 

Category 2: The LDS Church's efforts at "correlation" are an attempt to A) stifle inquiry amongst church members, B) suppress or distract from the Church's "real" history and doctrine, C) do something vaguely Orwellian and creepy, etc. This is the category favored by dissidents and outright critics.

Yes, I suppose my response to glen also falls into this category.

So again, my assessment was spot-on.

 

I don't believe its some malice effort coming down from the top but instead a stagnation from the endless repetition of Aaronic level concepts. Members get comfortable and lazy as it were and are not stimulated to do the required external study (see the smacs manual quote about higher education).

First, I do not know what "Aaronic level concepts" means. I assume they are analogous to the "milk" part of the "milk before meat" precept taught in D&C 19:22, 1 Cor. 3:2, Hebrews 5:12, Isaiah 28:10-13, D&C 98:12, 2 Nephi 28:30, D&C 128:21, etc.

Second, I think there is no shortage of "meat" available to the Saints, both in correlated and non-correlated materials.

Third, to the extent your criticism of the Saints being "lazy" has merit, I reject the notion that such laziness has been caused by the Church's correlation efforts.

-Smac

Edited April 26, 2015 by smac97

[Coreyb]

I am not sure what you don't accept, because you seem to have accepted everything I wrote. But let me ask, is everything contained in official literature eternal truth concerning the Gospel? Is there revealed truths concerning the Gospel that are not contained in official manuals? If you answer yes to either I think perhaps you agree at least partially that they (the restored and correlated gospels) are not perfectly synonymous with each other.

[CCRW]

With respect, you shouldn't need to read through cv's scriptural citations in order to present a definition of the term "Correlated Gospel." You started this thread using that term, but you have yet to define it. Why is that?

Good heavens smac, the very paragraph that you speak of here has the answer and the link for you to read.  But let me just copy it over here for you:

 

very first paragraph

... "it becomes very clear again that the 'correlated gospel' (see first timeline quote below)"

 

My definition:

There is a timeline towards the bottom, note that the curriculum was the very first thing addressed.  However this has evolved from 54 years ago until today is what I consider “the correlated gospel”.

 

“1961 Church council established to correlate curriculum and activities for children, youth, and adults”

So, in 1961 the very first effort of correlation as we know it today, was focused on Curriculum  i.e. what is taught in church meetings.  I assume that over the 54 years since then, the Curriculum arm of the Correlation department has evolved this to what we have today.  This Curriculum is what I refer to as the Correlated Gospel.  At least for the focus of this thread.  I personally believe that in say the last 10 years or so, this may have also trickled over into GC talks, being driven by social issues like prop8, feminism, legal reasons, internationalization etc.

You have juxtaposed the "Correlated Gospel" (which, I think we are supposed to infer, is what the LDS Church teaches) against the "Restored Gospel" (which is what the LDS Church is supposed to teach).

I believe I have declared the correlated gospel to be a subset of the Restored Gospel

You started this thread with what I think is a loaded, well-poisoning question and without defining an important term. And you also started this thread with a desire to have "a non-contentious discussion."  I am having difficulty reconciling these things.

You also started this thread with an implicit accusation against the Church (that it is teaching something other than the "Restored Gospel")

 

No I did not, if fact I think a couple times now I've said its teaching exactly what the Aaronic level Church should be teaching.

 

, and have proceeded to make that accusation explicit by declaring (not merely asking, mind you, but asserting) "that the 'correlated gospel' ... is something less than the Restored Gospel."

smac, I don't think you are being fair to me here:

Questions:

1. Is the Correlated Gospel something less than the "Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ".

2. If so, why and does it matter?

 

I asked for everyone's yes/no answer and opened it up for everyone's input.  I went so far as to keep a vote as it were.  Yes I shared my opinion 

 

Here you made your accusation rather plain. The Church is teaching something "less than" what it is supposed to be teaching.  I find that problematic and disconcerting.

This is false, See all my Aaronic comments

 

No. I skimmed through it. I did not see the term "Correlated Gospel" in it, nor did I see a definition for it.

Scott stated that he was summing up his thoughts on this via the Oaks "the thinking has been done" talk (see OP links).  The very first paragraph of the sunstone talk details some very good information in this regard.  If God indeed calls "Alternate Voices" maybe part of its purpose is to stimulate members to seek further light and knowledge (i.e. see the higher education quote for an example).
 

I read your post. I did not see you define the term "Correlated Gospel." I have asked you to do so several times, but you have not yet done so.

Solved above I hope

I have read your posts. You have implicitly accused the Church of teaching a "Correlated Gospel," which you have since asserted is - in your words - "something less than the Restored Gospel." I find that problematic and objectionable.

Repetitive, answered a few times I hope
 

Thanks for your patience smac.