But I really didn’t know much about the correlation efforts until I got into the Blogernacle a few months ago. How many times has something like this happened in Church history? It seems that something similar happened in Kirtland when Jospeh tried to put a stop to all the uncontrolable charismatic manifestations (speaking in tongues, etc). I would also be interested to go back and look at the folklore record to see how — if at all — the correlation effected folk transmition

And BTW Mark — “The dead language grammar Nazi?” Really? I thought the recent BCC correlation had but the axe on these kinds of handles. Ah — sigh.

Thus the fourth sunday lesson in Priesthood and Relief Society. And, each Conference Ensign contains a list of talks organized by topic for the youth. At least, as I recall.

If correlation were to blame, we wouldn’t have poor Sacrament Meeting talks – only poor lessons.

Having said that, it is important to add one qualifier: If someone is looking for deeply nuanced and intellectually stimulating lessons, then most church meetings are not going to fit that description. (I have had some Gospel Doctrine teachers who were amazing, but even some of their lessons have been hijacked into mediocrity.) I have been in quite a few that were both nuanced and stimulating, but they usually were limited in attendance and self-selected in some way. They were NOT general meetings open to any average member, where incredible diversity of understanding is the norm. Correlation in these more narrow meetings would be pointless and disastrous.

I participate here and in selective circles (and by relishing the written word) to gain nuance and intellectual insight. I don’t go to ward meetings to do so. I go there to have my spirit lifted, and, frankly, that happens to some degree almost every week – at least once and usually multiple times, even when not one talk or lessons would be considered close to professional.

correlation = poor quality lessons

Is there a reason why we can’t have thought-provoking, easy to teach, stimulating lessons . . . that are the same all over the church?

Mark, I’m shocked! Following the preposition pro, the ablative case is required, and correlation is clearly a Latin feminine of the third declension. So, please: pro correlatione sua.

Dear Br. or Sr. Nazi, as the case may be:

Sorry for the shock, and I’m happy to acknowledge that of course you are absolutely correct. Nonetheless, the title as it now stands, with its mixed up cases and incorrect declensions, reminds me of my younger self when I was serving a mission, and therefore has a certain sentimental appeal.