My first instinct was to suggest Correlation, but when I went looking for dates, I found its history is a bit tricky to pin down. Still, Correlation efforts in the lds church have been stable at least since the time frame you suggest.What could that effect be, exactly? If we take the model seriously, it should be something that has stayed pretty consistent since the mid-seventies.
I did find this information, in the form of an 8 part interview with a person whose dissertation was on Mormon correlation, in case you're interested. Here is the introduction from part 1:
Here is a link to Daymon Smith's dissertation:Correlation: An Uncorrelated History (Part 1 — The Mormon Underground)
MARCH 3, 2010 BY BRAD
This post marks the beginning of a series on the origins and historical development of what Mormons typically denote with the term “Correlation.” It’s a long and complicated story, one that will require a number of installments to adequately canvas. It’s also an incredibly interesting story, involving, among other things, polygamy, the Underground, manifestoes, post-manifesto polygamy, senators, aspiring senators, “courts of love,” monogamy, Fundamentalism, Church welfare, apostolic infighting, charts and graphs, minds and bodies, lying, truth-telling, bureaucracies, Navajos, and a plethora of John Taylors.
[Subsequent installments: Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9]
Since this is a topic for which I, like most Church members, lack any serious expertise (though not for a lack of curiosity), I have decided to consult an expert. And, much to my relief, it turns out that there is one. Daymon M. Smith might be the most important scholar of Mormonism that you’ve never heard of. He completed his PhD in Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania in 2007. Happily, his dissertation topic was the rise of the Modern, Correlated Church. I’ve actually read Daymon’s dissertation — twice, in fact. Unfortunately, like so much of today’s social science, Daymon’s very rich historical analysis and the unprecedented empirical data that underlie it are rather difficult to dig out of the disciplinary jargon in which they are couched. Reading it, as a properly initiated anthropologist, was an exercise in both illumination and despair — the conjoined awareness of the work’s significance and its inaccessibility to most of those who would find it most interesting (not unlike, it turns out, most dissertations, but whatever).
As an antidote to this dilemma, I offered, and Daymon graciously agreed, to record a series of extended conversations, the first portion of which is transcribed below (with much more to come). It’s a long conversation, one that stretches back to pre-Manifesto Mormonism. It’s meant to be a kind of prolegomenon to Daymon’s analysis and argument, a conversation about and engagement with the dissertation, though by no means a substitute for reading it. For those brave, tireless souls who are interested, the dissertation is available here in pdf form. Daymon is currently at work on two separate books drawn from the dissertation. The conversation that follows, it is hoped, provides a serviceable and accessible introduction to a complicated but relentlessly fascinating topic.
Introduction: Origins
https://bycommonconsent.com/2010/03/03/ ... derground/
https://bycommonconsent.files.wordpress ... tation.pdf
