Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Well, I did a quick google search for "Church Correlation Committee" and quickly found a few:

Robert Woodford (here, about 3/4 of the way down)
Janet Peterson (here)
Arnold K. Garr (here)
Hoyt William Brewster Jr. (here)
Wendell J. Ashton (here, about 1/4 of the way down; former member—deceased)
President Harold B. Lee (here and here; former chairman—deceased)
Robert J. Matthews (here; probably no longer serving in that capacity)
Monte S. Nyman (here; probably no longer serving in that capacity)
Ruth Cannon (here; former member)
Max Berryessa (here; former member)
Elaine Cannon (here—but this isn't a very reliable source)
Elder M. Russell Ballard (here; current status on the committee unknown)
Elder Charles Didier (here; current status on the committee unknown)
Derek A. Cuthbert (here; current status on the committee unknown)
Rex C. Reeve, Sr. (here; current status on the committee unknown)
President Spencer W. Kimball (here; former chairman—deceased)
And the various brethren mentioned in the Ensign article Ƥ. Ɗ. Kirĸe suggested, including Daniel H. Ludlow, who is still apparently serving as the executive secretary

In this 1962 talk by Gordon B. Hinckley he discusses several other members of the committee: the CES director, Sunday School President, Primary President, Young Men's President, Young Women's President, Presiding Bishop, and four members of the Quorum of the Twelve. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism article also has some excellent information about the committee, its origins, and its function.

So it seems to me that the Church doesn't feel it has anything to hide—on several occasions the Church has identified members of the committee or members of the committee have identified themselves. So why is it that when the topic comes up, everyone else tries to be so secretive about it? "Hey! That's none of your business! Stop worrying about that!" This "cloak-and-dagger" attitude makes the committee seem like a behind-the-scenes conspiracy running the Church instead of a group of dedicated Saints who try to keep the publications of the Church consistent. Some great things have come from the committee—the three-hour block schedule and standardized lesson manuals, to name a few.

Those first four names came up on the first page of my google search. So, why not list those in the response? Why not call one of those people and ask them if they'd be willing to disclose the names of the other members on the committee? And if not, then they could at least come back and say so.

You sound like you are a little disappointed in KirKe's response. I understand how you feel. From time to time I’m rather disappointed in the Board myself. However, for the most part I think they do try hard to give good answers.

I suppose KirKe could have given you the names of some of the members of the Church Correlation Committee. I don’t think he meant to imply that there was anything secret or “cloak and dagger” about who they are.

I think KirKe was focused on the second and third questions you asked originally. That seems to be the more important part of your questions. You seem to imply criticism of the Church, as though the Church has a commandment to ask you for your approval of each and every member of the Committee. That’s probably not what you meant to imply, but that’s how I read your questions. Perhaps if you had asked in a different way you would have gotten a different answer.

Anyway, this is your first post. Welcome to the 100 Hour Board Message Board.

Thanks for the welcome! I agree that sometimes their responses seem rushed and not very well thought through. But what the heck, they're volunteers. I guess I shouldn't get too peeved about it.

Looking back, I can see how that third question did seem a little antagonistic. I didn't mean it to be. And Ƥ. Ɗ. Kirĸe did make a good point that the Church doesn't keep a public list of any of the committees. I doubt whether the leadership of the Church care whether that kind of information is out there or not. But I bet if I'd asked who the current head of the Missionary Department was, I doubt I'd receive the same kind of defensiveness from other members. For some reason a lot of people think the Correlation Committee (and the Stregthening Church Members Committee) need to be clandestine. I guess that makes sense, though, since we've come under public criticism for both of those committees. It's just, I'm inclined to say, let the public criticize. It's my understanding that there is Scriptural precedent for the existence of both committees and they both perform vital functions for the Church. We've been criticized for many other things (our opposition to the ERA, to gay marriage, for withholding the priesthood from women, &c.). Why should we care what they say about our committees? We should just let the world clamor all it wants; the stone will roll forth regardless.

Damasta wrote:I agree that sometimes their responses seem rushed and not very well thought through.

That's because sometimes our responses are rushed and not very well thought through. Don't tell anyone though. It's the secret shame of the Board.

And welcome to the message board.

Going back to one of your comments, Damasta, I got to thinking about whether I had ever served on a "secret" committees. I have not, but I have served on the stake demographics committee. Who the members of the committee are is not a secret, but there are some reasons to give committee members a low profile. As soon as someone finds out you are on the committee they begin to bombard you with questions like, "Oh, is the stake going to reorganize the boundaries?" This sets in motion a lot of needless and harmful speculation. Many people take boundary changes very seriously. Some people stop coming to church over it. There are many hard feelings. Some make decisions on which house to buy based on speculation on boundary changes. While the stake president or a member of the High Council wouldn't mind telling you who the committee members are, you probably aren't going to hear an announcement of a ward boundary change accompanied by a statement like, "And the members who served on the committee are...."

I don't know. I never cared to learn who was on the Correlation Committee. I figured that not living in Utah I wouldn't know them anyway. But I guess it might make a difference to someone.

Wait . .. hold up . . . you ask a very difficult question that requires loads of research, decide to just go do it yourself (since, if you were being honest with yourself, you had those resources all along), and then attack the noob and the Board in general? BOO.

Portia wrote:Wait . .. hold up . . . you ask a very difficult question that requires loads of research, decide to just go do it yourself (since, if you were being honest with yourself, you had those resources all along), and then attack the noob and the Board in general? BOO.

Wait...hold up...you just found out that a new reader has come to the Board message board, discussed a question they asked, and you attack the noob?

I am so confused and unconcerned

Whistler wrote:I am so confused and unconcerned

You made me laugh, Whistler.

haha, ditto to VB's last comment.

Wait...which noob did I attack?

Damasta wrote:Wait...which noob did I attack?

My guess is that Portia claims that you, Damasta, attacked KirKe.

Humble Master wondered why Portia attacked you, as a newbie.

Ah. I had no idea that Ƥ. Ɗ. Kirĸe was a noob....

Good Article, I love it, I agree this ideal. thank you for you sharing

wtf?

edhardy is a bot just waiting to spam the forum.

edhardy the spam-bot makes me think of this:
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2009/04 ... -ed-hardy/

Nerdgirl, Good Article, I love it, I agree this ideal. thank you for you sharing.

So the Church Correlation Committee has reappeared on the Board and I have a few things to say about the new question:

1. When I was in a singles ward my bishop invited a woman to come give us a special Sunday School lesson. I forget her name, but he (the bishop) introduced her as someone who "writes talks for several of the apostles, including President Hinckley." So at least in some cases, no, the General Authorities don't write their own talks 100%. Though this was never discussed by my bishop nor by the woman in question, I feel safe in saying that those General Authorities who make use of her probably give her the topic and maybe even suggest a general outline. And I'm sure they look the talk(s) over beforehand to assure that they're accurate as well as to add in anything they feel prompted to.

2. I've also heard, as Mico hints at, that the CCC reviews all General Conference talks, but I can't substantiate that. And they certainly have no sway over unwritten, off-the-cuff remarks nor "I had some remarks prepared but the Spirit constrains me that I should talk about..." (though I've certainly never heard any of those in during General Conference during my lifetime). However, Mico's statement "...I am fairly certain that general authorities and other people who give talks in Conference do not have problems with their talks being doctrinally sound..." is true, but misleading with regard to the CCC. I took a New Testament class from professor Stephen E. Robinson who (by his own claims) has spent a lot of time with the Apostles, including attending some of their meetings. He mentioned in class that the General Authorities have clashed several times with the CCC. For example, a few years ago the CCC decided to remove all usages of the word "God" from all Church publications and broadcasts. Instead, it had to be designated which God you meant—Father, Son, or Holy Ghost. I can understand their intent (clarity), but I'd hesitate to insist to a Prophet and Apostle of the Lord that he shouldn't use the word "God"...