quietcanon

Hi @manol, Thank you for this thoughtful reply. I appreciate you spelling out the potential downside so clearly. The canon itself is hierarchical, not flat. Class 1 (verbatim divine voice) and Class 2 (prophetic recounting of revelation) are meant to carry greater weight than Class 3 commentary. The tool is simply a way to keep that priority visible when later teachings appear to contradict or go beyond the canon. On the science point raised earlier in the thread: Class 1 scripture (such as the repeated language of “organize” and the distinction between spiritual and natural creation in Abraham and Moses) does not conflict with established scientific understanding. Many of the contradictions have come from Class 3 commentary that treated scripture as a scientific textbook rather than a record of spiritual realities. The hierarchy helps surface and set aside those Class 3 layers so they don’t override the higher classes. I agree that truth-seeking is ultimately a spiritual quest more than a mechanical process. The classification is offered only as a limited aid for sorting doctrinal sources when contradictions appear. It is not intended to replace personal spiritual discernment or the witness of the Spirit, nor to create a closed system. If it ever starts functioning that way, that would be a misuse of the very principle it draws from. I’m grateful you took the time to engage.

Hi @Calm, Thank you for the detailed comment and for the historical context on the evolution/creation discussions. I appreciate you engaging thoughtfully even though you haven’t read the full paper yet. The hierarchy in section 3 is not presented as a finished system that automatically resolves every interpretive dispute. Its purpose is narrower: when later teachings (Class 3) appear to conflict with the canon, it gives priority to Class 1 and Class 2 material as the authoritative standard. Joseph F. Smith’s 1897 statement is used as one historical example of that principle in action, not as the sole or infallible interpreter of the canon for all time. Your example of the early 20th-century discussions around evolution is actually a good illustration of how the framework can be applied. Joseph Fielding Smith’s strong anti-evolution stance and his claim of a single plain meaning were his personal synthesis (Class 3). Other apostles at the time, along with Talmage’s tabernacle address (which the Church promoted), took a different view that treated scripture as describing spiritual organization rather than a scientific textbook. Over time the Church’s institutional position moved closer to the latter approach. The hierarchy would classify JFS’s detailed claims about the mechanics of creation as commentary that does not override the canon’s own language (for example, the repeated use of “organize” in Abraham 4 or the distinction between spiritual and natural creation in Moses 2–3). The framework does not claim there is only one obvious interpretation of every canonical passage, nor does it eliminate the need for careful study, historical context, or personal spiritual confirmation. It simply offers a consistent way to weigh sources when deciding what counts as core doctrine versus later development. Different faithful readers can still reach different conclusions on secondary matters; the tool is meant to help keep those conclusions anchored in the canon rather than in any single leader’s synthesis. I’d welcome your thoughts if you read the paper, particularly on how the hierarchy applies to the Adam-God and divine-sonship topics. Happy to discuss specific passages.

Hi @manol, Thank you for taking the time to read the paper and for sharing your reflections so openly. I appreciate you laying out your personal hierarchy—it’s a thoughtful and sincere approach centered on the fruits described in Alma 32 and Moroni 7. Those passages are powerful, and direct spiritual experience is indeed central to how many of us navigate faith. The hierarchy in section 3 is offered as a narrower, practical tool: a way to sort sources of doctrinal teaching when apparent contradictions arise, especially between canon and later commentary. It is not intended to rank personal spiritual experience or to replace the witness of the Spirit in an individual’s life. The two perspectives can sit alongside each other—one helping evaluate what has been taught authoritatively across time, the other helping each person recognize what enlarges their soul and draws them to Christ. I’m glad the paper was useful for reflection.

Hi Calm, Thanks for the question. “Revelatory purity” was shorthand in my earlier comment for the idea of prioritizing the most direct forms of revelation. I should have used clearer language from the start. The framework in the papers (especially section 3 of https://write.as/quietcanon/the-adam-contradiction) is not an attempt to rank texts by some inherent “purity.” It is a practical classification tool inspired by Joseph F. Smith’s own 1897 approach: when teachings appear to conflict, give primary weight to Class 1 (verbatim statements presented as the direct voice of the Lord) and Class 2 (prophetic recounting of visions or revelations), and treat Class 3 material (later human commentary and synthesis) as interpretive rather than foundational. The goal is simply consistency with the canon when evaluating later developments. It is offered as one lens for personal study, not as a perfect or exhaustive system. If the wording “revelatory purity” created confusion, I apologize—that wasn’t the intent. Happy to look at any specific example where you think the approach runs into difficulty.

Hi The Nehor, Thanks for the feedback and for engaging with the ideas. The classification isn’t presented as a rigid “purity ranking” that automatically makes one text superior in every way. It’s a practical tool, inspired by Joseph F. Smith’s own 1897 standard for evaluating teachings (especially when they conflict), to help distinguish between the direct voice of revelation and later human synthesis. Section 3 of the paper spells this out. You’re right that I framed the papers primarily as tools for personal study and reflection. The brief suggestion about CES use in the “Path Forward” section is just that—a suggestion for how the same clarity might help curriculum avoid mixing levels of authority. It’s not a requirement or a claim that the system is already official. On whether it works in practice: the first-person “saith the Lord” (or equivalent) language is treated as Class 1 not because it’s arbitrary, but because that is how scripture itself describes the highest form of revelation (see D&C 1:38 and the pattern throughout the canon). It doesn’t dismiss everything else or prioritize the Old Testament exclusively—Class 1 and 2 material appears across the standard works, including modern revelation. The system is simply a way to notice when a later teaching (Class 3) introduces elements that aren’t found in the canonized record and to resolve apparent contradictions without discarding the canon. I don’t claim it solves every question or that prophets never speak in different modes. It’s offered as one consistent lens for study. If you have a specific example where you think the classification breaks down or leads to a poor conclusion, I’d be interested to look at it.

Hi JLHPROF, Thank you for the thoughtful comment. The papers do not claim that all truth is limited to canon, nor that revelation ceased with Joseph. They do argue, however, that the canon (Class 1 and Class 2 material) provides the authoritative standard against which later teachings are measured. Section 3 of https://write.as/quietcanon/the-adam-contradiction outlines the Joseph F. Smith approach: when Class 3 commentary conflicts with the canon, the canon takes precedence. This framework allows for ongoing revelation while guarding against unchecked development or contradiction. Joseph’s understanding certainly developed over time, as the papers acknowledge. The analysis focuses on what was canonized—the revelations and visions that were recorded, sustained, and preserved as authoritative scripture—rather than every sermon or private teaching. Within that canonized record, the specific elements of Brigham’s 1852 synthesis (Adam as God the Father, humanity as literal spirit children of God the Father, and Jesus as Only Begotten only in the flesh) do not appear in any period of Joseph’s ministry. They are introduced after his death. The papers therefore conclude that these doctrines are best understood as later interpretive developments rather than extensions of Joseph’s canonized teachings. The companion paper at https://write.as/quietcanon/the-foundations-of-divine-sonship explores how a canon-first reading supports covenant adoption through Christ instead of universal biological spirit sonship. I’d be glad to look at any specific passages you have in mind.

Not to deny, but what do you think the ambitions are? I think you mean it's a classification system on scripture based on revelatory purity. And, it should be self evident.

Good advice and insight. Thank you.

I'd recommend giving him the blessing in the name of Jesus Christ.

Re-read the paper. It never claims Brigham considered his doctrines theories.

I would say the seed is truth, planted by faith.

Happy 4th!

Noted. But I will continue to remain anonymous.

I’ve written two companion discussion papers for private study and reflection. They approach these topics from a canon-first perspective using a simple hierarchical framework (prioritizing the direct divine voice in scripture, followed by inspired voices, while treating later human commentary as valuable but open to re-examination).The papers are: The Adam Contradiction: Re-examining Jesus as “Our Elder Brother” and the Doctrine of Adoption → https://write.as/quietcanon/the-adam-contradiction The Foundations of Divine Sonship: Moving from Biological Literalism to a Covenant-Centered Restoration → https://write.as/quietcanon/the-foundations-of-divine-sonship They’re offered only as resources for thoughtful personal study. I’d be interested in any feedback or discussion from those who read them.