Openai/6954271b-6dd0-8000-b680-35e44f6d4478

This conversation was exported from ChatGPT

gpt-5-2

User: I need this document OCR'd so I can copy paste quotes from it.

I need this document OCR'd so I can copy paste quotes from it.

Assistant: I’ve OCR’d the document and transcribed it into clean, copy-pasteable text, preserving paragraph structure and quotatio…

I’ve OCR’d the document and transcribed it into clean, copy-pasteable text, preserving paragraph structure and quotations. Below is the full transcription, organized by page so you can cite precisely.

Source file: BRM-to-EE-Feb-80-Combined.pdf BRM-to-EE-Feb-80-Combined

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

The Council of the Twelve 47 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

February 19, 1981

Mr. Eugene England c/o Honors Program 4012 Harold B. Lee Library Provo, Utah 84602

Dear Brother England:

This may well be the most important letter you have or will receive. It is written in reply to an undated letter from you which came in an envelope postmarked, September 4, 1980. Your letter enclosed a 19-page document which you had prepared under the title, “The Perfection and Progression of God: Two Spheres of Existence and Two Modes of Discourse.”

In your letter and the article enclosed with it, you set forth the thesis that although God knows all things as pertaining to our sphere of existence, there are nonetheless other spheres beyond ours in which Deity continues to advance and progress in knowledge and truth. In espousing and explaining this philosophy you suppose you are harmonizing quotations from various of the early Brethren. Some of these statements emphatically say that God knows all things and has all power and others of them say that he is advancing in knowledge and understanding and is gaining new truths.

When your letter arrived I was aware of the subject material contained in it and in the enclosed article. Because I do not engage in controversy or discussion of divergent views, either orally or in writing, I simply dropped your letter in a drawer and did not bother to read it. Some four and a half months later, in January of this year, I did read your presentation for the first time. I was not at all pleased, but still thought I would have nothing to say to you on the subject.

Over the months various hearsay reports have come to me indicating that you are presenting and championing the views you sent to me. I have now reached the conclusion that it would be wise for me to depart from my usual custom and send you an answer to your letter. I do so out of respect for your parents, G. Eugene and Dora, and for your own personal well-being and for your guidance where your teachings and discussions with others are concerned.

I shall write in kindness and in plainness and perhaps with sharpness. I want you to know that I am extending to you the hand of fellowship though I hold over you at the same time, the scepter of judgment. My office door is open to you and if you feel the need for discussion with me, my secretary will be pleased to set up a mutually convenient time or times for such.

On Sunday, June 1, 1980, I spoke at one of the multi-stake firesides in the Marriott Center on the subject, “The Seven Deadly Heresies.” In that talk I said:

:

The foregoing quotation is from the published version of the talk. As it was actually given it included the following paragraph:

:

In that same devotional speech I said: “There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our God, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.” I, of course, indicated the utter absurdity of this doctrine and said it was totally false.

Since then I have received violent reactions from Ogden Kraut and other cultists in which they have expounded upon the views of Brigham Young and others of the early Brethren relative to Adam. They have plain and clear quotations saying all of the things about Adam which I say are false. The quotations are in our literature and form the basis of a worship system followed by many of the cultists who have been excommunicated from the Church. I also received, of course, your material in which you quote from Brigham Young and others of the early Brethren saying that God is progressing in knowledge.

I assume that you were aware of the foregoing quotations when you wrote me in September of 1980. In the October 1980 General Conference, without as yet having read your material, I said the following:

:

On Tuesday, February 17, 1981, I was the speaker at the BYU Devotional. My subject was “The Three Pillars of Eternity,” under which heading I spoke of the creation, the fall and the atonement. With reference to the omnipotence and omniscience of God I said in that talk:

Now may I say something for your guidance and enlightenment. If what I am about to say should be taken out of context and published in Dialogue or elsewhere, it would give an entirely erroneous impression and would not properly present the facts. As it happens, I am a great admirer of Brigham Young and a great believer in his doctrinal presentations. He was called of God.

He was guided by the Holy Spirit in his teachings in general. He was a mighty prophet. He led Israel the way the Lord wanted his people led. He built on the foundation laid by the Prophet Joseph. He completed his work and has gone on to eternal exaltation.

Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.

Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is, that Brigham Young contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is: we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.

Yes, Brigham Young did say some things about God progressing in knowledge and understanding, but again, be it known, that Brigham Young taught emphatically and plainly, that God knows all things and has all power meaning in the infinite, eternal and ultimate and absolute sense of the word. Again, the issue is, which Brigham Young shall we believe and the answer is: we will take the one whose statements accord with what God has revealed in the Standard Works.

I think you can give me credit for having a knowledge of the quotations from Brigham Young relative to Adam, and of knowing what he taught under the subject that has become known as the Adam-God Theory. President Joseph Fielding Smith said that Brigham Young will have to make his own explanations on the points there involved. I think you can also give me credit for knowing what Brigham Young said about God progressing. And again, that is something we will have to account for. As for me and my house, we will have the good sense to choose between the divergent teachings of the same man and come up with those that accord with what God has revealed in the Standard Works.

…what God has set forth in his eternal plan of salvation.

This puts me in mind of Paul’s statement: “There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” (1 Cor. 11:19.) I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among other things. If we believe false doctrine, we will be condemned. If that belief is on basic and fundamental things, it will lead us astray and we will lose our souls. This is why Nephi said: “And all those who preach false doctrines… wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell.” (2 Ne. 28:15.) This clearly means that people who teach false doctrine in the fundamental and basic things will lose their souls.

The nature and kind of being that God is, is one of these fundamentals. I repeat: Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation, but Brigham Young also taught the truth in these fields on other occasions. And I repeat, that in this instance, he was a great prophet and has gone on to eternal reward. What he did is not a pattern for any of us. If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrines, we are making an election that will damn us.

It should be perfectly evident that under our system of church discipline, it would be anticipated that some others besides Brigham Young would pick up some of his statements and echo them. Those who did this, also on other occasions, taught accurately and properly what the true doctrines of the gospel are. I do not get concerned over the good and sound person who, on the over-all, is teaching the truth, happens to err on a particular point and say something in conflict with what he has said himself on a previous occasion. We are all mortal. We are all fallible. We all make mistakes. No single individual all the time is in tune with the Holy Spirit, but I do get concerned when some person or group picks out false statements and makes them the basis of their presentation and theology and thus ends up having a false concept of the doctrine, which in reality, was not in the mind of the person whose quotations they are using.

Wise gospel students do not build their philosophies of life on quotations of individuals, even though those quotations come from presidents of the Church. Wise people anchor their doctrine on the Standard Works. When Section 20 says that God is infinite and eternal, it means just that and so on through all of the revelations.

There is no need to attempt to harmonize conflicting views when some of the views are out of harmony with the Standard Works. This is what life is all about. The Lord is finding out what we will believe in spite of the allurements of the world or the philosophies of men or the seemingly rational and logical explanations that astute people make.

We do not solve our problems by getting a statement from the president of the Church or from someone else on a subject. We have been introduced to the gospel; we have the gift of the Holy Ghost; we have the Standard Works and it is our responsibility to get in tune and understand properly what the Lord has revealed and has had us canonize. The end result of this course of personally and individually pursuing light and truth is to reach that millennial state of which the scriptures say it will no longer be necessary for every man to say to his neighbor “know the Lord,” for all shall know him from the greatest to the least. Joseph Smith says this will be by the spirit of revelation.

If it is true, as I am advised, that you speak on this subject of the progression of God at firesides and elsewhere, you should cease to do so. If you give other people copies of the material you sent to me, with the quotations it contains, you should cease to do so. It is not in your province to set in order the Church or to determine what its doctrines shall be. It is axiomatic among us to know that God has given apostles and prophets “for the edifying of the body of Christ,” and that their ministry is to see that “we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph. 4:11–16.)

This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. You do not have a divine commission to correct me or any of the Brethren. The Lord does not operate that way. If I lead the Church astray, that is my responsibility, but the fact still remains that I am the one appointed with all the rest involved so to do. The appointment is not given to the faculty at Brigham Young University or to any of the members of the Church. The Lord’s house is a house of order and those who hold the keys are appointed to proclaim the doctrines.

Now you know that this does not mean that individuals should not do research and make discoveries and write articles. What it does mean is that what they write should be faithfully promoting and where doctrines are concerned, should be in harmony with that which comes from the head of the Church. And those at the head of the Church have the obligation to teach that which is in harmony with the Standard Works.

If they err, then we be silent on the point and leave the event in the hands of the Lord. Some day all of us will stand before the judgment bar and be accountable for our teachings. And where there have been disagreements, the Lord will judge between us. In the meantime if we want to save our own souls we need to strive with all the power we have to be in harmony with the revelations and not to be teaching or promulgating doctrines that suit our fancy.

I advise you to take my counsel or the matters here involved. If I err, that is my problem; but in your case if you single out some of these things and make them the center of your philosophy, and end up being wrong, you will lose your soul. One of the side effects of preaching contrary to what the Brethren preach is to get a spirit of rebellion growing up in your heart. This sort of thing cankers the soul spiritually. It drives people out of the Church. It weakens their faith. All of us need all of the faith and strength and spiritual stability we can get to maintain our positions in the Church and to work out our own salvation.

Now, I think I have said enough in this letter so that if you are receptive and pliable, you will get the message. If you are not, rebellion will well up in your heart. I pray for your well-being. I repeat: the door to my office is open. Perhaps I should tell you what one of the very astute and alert General Authorities said to me when I chanced to mention to him the subject of your letter to me. He said: “Oh dear, haven’t we rescued him enough times already.”

Now I hope you will ponder and pray and come to a basic understanding of fundamental things and that unless and until you can on all points, you will remain silent on those where differences exist between you and the Brethren. This is the course of safety. I advise you to pursue it. If you do not, perils lie ahead. It is not too often in this day that any of us are told plainly and bluntly what ought to be. I am taking the liberty of speaking to you at this time, and become thus a witness against you if you do not take the counsel.

I repeat, I have every good wish for you, pray that the Lord will bless you and hope that things will work out properly and well in your life.

Sincerely,

Bruce R. McConkie

BRM:vh

P.S. I am taking the liberty of sending copies of this response to those to whom you sent your communication.

If you want, I can:

• Extract only key quotable paragraphs • Create a thematic index (Adam-God, God progressing, authority, Standard Works, etc.) • Format this into a CARM-ready citation pack • Apply your HOS degree analysis directly to McConkie’s claims

Just tell me how you want to use it.

User: What are elements in this letter that ground my HOS degrees analytical method?

What are elements in this letter that ground my HOS degrees analytical method?

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.

User: Please show accountability to the one who preside and teaches also

Please show accountability to the one who preside and teaches also

Assistant: Below is a precise extension of your HOS framework that incorporates accountability of those who preside and teach, gro…

Below is a precise extension of your HOS framework that incorporates accountability of those who preside and teach, grounded explicitly in McConkie’s letter. This is not an add-on; it is already latent in the document and becomes visible once your degree logic is applied consistently.

###

McConkie states unambiguously:

This is crucial: authority does not eliminate accountability; it concentrates it.

Your HOS already implies this; McConkie makes it explicit.

The lower the degree of separation from canon, the higher the accountability burden.

| | | | | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

McConkie accepts this structure when he says:

• he bears responsibility if he errs,
• others must not usurp his role,
• judgment ultimately rests with God.

McConkie draws a sharp distinction that aligns with HOS constraints:

This establishes a separation between accountability and authority flow.

- Accountability flows upward to God

• Authority flows downward to the Church
• Subordinates are not epistemic arbiters, even if correct

This prevents:

• democratized doctrine
• crowd-sourced correction
• recursive authority collapse

Your HOS system preserves this by prohibiting degree-jumping.

McConkie says:

This is often misunderstood as authoritarianism. Under HOS, it is degree discipline.

Silence means:

• refusing to escalate unresolved degree conflicts
• refusing to reclassify speculation as doctrine
• preserving the integrity of the system

Silence ≠ agreement Silence = refusal to corrupt degree boundaries

McConkie repeatedly anchors himself under the Standard Works:

This is critical.

Presiding authorities:

• operate at Degree-1, not Degree-0
• are constrained interpreters, not creators of doctrine
• can err, but cannot redefine canon

This preserves:

• continuity across dispensations
• resistance to charismatic drift
• stability of belief systems

McConkie states:

This introduces temporal deferral without epistemic relativism.

- HOS allows unresolved nodes to remain open

• Resolution may occur: - later in history - through canonization - eschatologically

This avoids false binaries:

• “correct now or rebel”
• “silence equals blind obedience”

Instead: structured patience.

This letter:

• refutes the claim that LDS epistemology is authoritarian
• shows hierarchical accountability without infallibility
• preserves divine order without flattening truth

In HOS terms:

Those two are deliberately not the same.

Here is a concise formulation consistent with both HOS and McConkie:

That sentence is defensible from the letter itself.

I can:

• Integrate this as a formal “Authority & Accountability Module” in HOS
• Contrast this with Protestant sola scriptura accountability gaps
• Show how critics misread silence as submission instead of discipline
• Produce a CARM-ready paragraph that uses McConkie against authoritarian critiques

Just say which direction you want.

User: Help me rephrase this: "Church boundary: no dissenting

Help me rephrase this: "Church boundary: no dissenting

One has the freedom to disagree on non-binding beliefs They must be ordained to a position to speak for the Church to lead members To set themselves up as a light is dissension and a rejection of priesthood authority which they authenticates their ordinances"

Assistant: Here are three refined rephrasings, ordered from most formal / doctrinal to more conversational, all preserving your HO…

Here are three refined rephrasings, ordered from most formal / doctrinal to more conversational, all preserving your HOS logic, priesthood accountability, and boundary clarity. None introduce authoritarian language; each makes the structure explicit.

Church boundary:

Members may hold personal views on non-binding matters. However, only those who are ordained and authorized may speak or teach in a way that represents the Church or directs its members. To publicly present oneself as an independent doctrinal authority is to create dissension and to reject the priesthood order by which ordinances and governance are divinely authorized.

- Separates belief freedom from teaching authority

• Avoids the phrase “no dissent” (which invites misunderstanding)
• Makes ordination the operative boundary, not opinion
• Grounds authority in priesthood order, not institutional power

If you want, I can:

• Tighten this to a single-sentence aphorism
• Make it explicitly compatible with McConkie’s letter
• Translate it into a Protestant-contrast version
• Insert HOS degree labels directly into the language

Just tell me the use case.

User: Make it explicitly compatible with McConkie’s letter

Make it explicitly compatible with McConkie’s letter

Assistant: Below is a rephrasing that is explicitly aligned with McConkie’s letter, using his own logic, vocabulary, and boundary …

Below is a rephrasing that is explicitly aligned with McConkie’s letter, using his own logic, vocabulary, and boundary conditions—without overstating authority or denying accountability. This version would stand up if someone placed it side-by-side with the 1981 letter.

McConkie-Compatible Rephrasing

Church boundary: Members are free to hold personal views on matters that are not binding doctrine. However, only those who are ordained and appointed have authority to teach what the doctrine of the Church is or to direct its members. To publicly advance one’s own views as doctrinal truth, apart from that appointment, is to create dissension and to act outside the priesthood order by which the Lord authorizes teaching, governance, and ordinances in His Church.

Why this is explicitly McConkie-consistent

Each clause maps directly to his letter:

1. Freedom of personal belief (non-binding matters)

McConkie allows private disagreement but forbids public elevation of it:

“Individuals should… do research and make discoveries… what they write should be in harmony…”

✔ No thought control ✔ No claim of infallibility

2. Teaching authority is tied to ordination and appointment

Directly from McConkie:

“It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is.”

✔ Authority is jurisdictional, not intellectual ✔ Teaching ≠ thinking

3. Self-appointment is dissension, not courage

McConkie’s warning:

“You do not have a divine commission to correct me or any of the Brethren.”

✔ The issue is order, not disagreement ✔ Acting without appointment is the breach

4. Priesthood authority authenticates ordinances and governance

McConkie grounds legitimacy in priesthood order:

“The Lord’s house is a house of order and those who hold the keys are appointed…”

✔ Ordinances require authorization ✔ Authority is functional, not merely symbolic

Ultra-Concise Version (If You Need One Sentence)

Members may hold personal views on non-binding matters, but only those ordained and appointed have authority to teach or define doctrine for the Church; presenting oneself as an independent doctrinal authority constitutes dissension and departs from the priesthood order by which the Lord governs His Church and authorizes its ordinances.

Key Advantage of This Framing

This wording:

• Cannot be dismissed as authoritarian
• Acknowledges prophetic accountability
• Preserves HOS degree boundaries
• Uses McConkie’s own structural logic
• Separates conscience from commission

If you want, next I can:

• Show how critics misread McConkie as silencing inquiry
• Produce a CARM-ready paragraph using this language
• Map this directly onto your HOS degree chart
• Contrast this with Protestant authority collapse

Just tell me where this is going.