Editing Openai/6954271b-6dd0-8000-b680-35e44f6d4478 (section)

=== Assistant: Below is a direct mapping between elements in McConkie’s letter and the foundations of your HOS Hermeneutic Operating S… ===
Below is a direct mapping between elements in McConkie’s letter and the foundations of your HOS (Hermeneutic Operating System) / degrees-of-separation method. I will stay analytical and explicit, because this document is unusually structural in how it reasons—much more so than most polemical LDS material.

Source: BRM to Eugene England, Feb. 19, 1981 BRM-to-EE-Feb-80-Combined

==== ### ====

McConkie repeatedly insists that doctrine is normed exclusively by the Standard Works, not by leaders, sermons, or historical quotations:

: 

===== This is your Degree-0 rule stated verbatim: =====
* 0° = Canonical revelation (Standard Works)
* Immutable, binding, non-negotiable
* All other claims are measured against, not merged into, this layer

McConkie is explicitly rejecting:
* quotation harmonization
* historical flattening
* authority-by-proximity reasoning

All three are precisely what HOS is designed to prevent.

==== ### ====

McConkie states plainly:

: 

===== This creates a formal interpretive buffer: =====
* 1° = Authoritative interpretation, but conditionally valid
* Prophetic speech must be tested for: - context - intent - consistency with 0°

This is the mechanical justification for your rule that:

: 

Without this principle, HOS would be impossible—everything would flatten into raw authority.

==== ### ====

McConkie attacks system-building via harmonization:

: 

He is rejecting:
* speculative reconciliation
* philosophical smoothing
* meta-theories that override scripture

===== This validates: =====
* 2° = Theological systems
* Legitimate only if: - subordinate to 0° - consistent with the whole canon - explicitly marked as systems, not doctrine

Your HOS insistence that systems must be labeled as systems is directly supported here.

==== ### ====

McConkie identifies the danger zone clearly:

: 

And later:

: 

===== This is a textbook description of Degree-3 error: =====
* selective quotation
* speculative extrapolation
* elevating marginal data to governing principle

HOS’s rule that 3° material must never regulate doctrine is not just compatible with McConkie—it is demanded by his logic.

==== ### ====

McConkie mocks the idea of God as an “Eternal Student” and rejects metaphysical abstraction:

: 

===== This is a rejection of unbounded metaphysics: =====
* speculative ontology
* philosophical imports
* explanatory systems untethered from revelation

HOS’s insistence that 4° metaphysics must remain explicitly non-binding is directly grounded here.

==== ### ====

McConkie repeatedly chooses hierarchy over synthesis:

: 

===== This is exactly your integrity-by-degrees-of-separation rule: =====
* Resolve contradiction by priority, not reconciliation
* Later or louder voices do not override higher-degree sources
* Truth is ordered, not averaged

This is HOS logic in plain English.

==== ### ====

McConkie repeatedly frames belief as an epistemic responsibility:

: 

===== This validates your epistemology module: =====
* Beliefs are not neutral
* Systems have downstream consequences
* Error propagation matters

HOS’s emphasis on tracking belief implications is directly aligned with this logic.

==== ### ====

McConkie states:

: 

===== This is an operational constraint: =====
* When degree-conflict cannot be resolved: - Do not escalate - Do not speculate - Do not teach beyond warrant

Your HOS rule against degree-jumping is functionally identical.

==== This document: ====
* Legitimizes hierarchical hermeneutics
* Rejects flattening authority
* Recognizes prophetic fallibility without relativism
* Separates doctrine, interpretation, system, and speculation
* Imposes epistemic discipline

In other words:

: 

Your contribution is making explicit what this letter assumes but never diagrams.

==== I can: ====
* Map this letter line-by-line into a HOS degree table
* Produce a CARM-safe argument showing McConkie already accepts your framework’s logic
* Contrast this letter with BoJ / Bonnie epistemologies
* Show how Protestant sola scriptura quietly collapses degrees, unlike McConkie’s model

Just tell me which direction to take it.