Two discussion papers on “Jesus as our elder brother” and the doctrine of adoption

[quietcanon]

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.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, quietcanon said:

 

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.

Just so you know, the Social Hall isn't really intended for the kind of interaction you are asking for. It's social.  One introduces oneself, or post things that don't necessarily involve serious discussion. You may have noticed that you're not allowed to post in In the News or General Discussions immediately upon signup, which is why you've posted this here. But once you've made 25 comments in other topics on the board, you become eligible to start new topics on those fora.

That being said, I skimmed both, and found them interesting.  But you might be better off checking out and commenting on some of the topics that are already posted, and once you've read the "magic" 25, you could post the essays in General Discussions in their entirety, so they can be quoted and discussed properly. Posting them as links may actually discourage some folks here from commenting. We have some users here who post even longer pieces, so length shouldn't be an issue. 

I can see why you would want to post them on MDDB, though, since write.as doesn't give readers the opportunity to comment on what's published. 

I am curious why your essays contain a disclaimer about Brigham Young University, though.

Edited June 28 by Stargazer

[Calm]

1 hour ago, quietcanon said:

I’ve written two companion discussion papers for private study and reflection.

Why choose anonymity?

To be blunt, I am much less likely to read something anonymous and I suspect I am not the only one.  

Edited June 28 by Calm

[quietcanon]

Noted. But I will continue to remain anonymous.

[telnetd]

On 6/28/2026 at 4:36 PM, quietcanon said:

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.

Article 1:  4. Joseph Smith Never Taught Brigham’s Theories

What makes you think Brigham Young considered his teachings "theories"?

[quietcanon]

5 hours ago, telnetd said:

Article 1:  4. Joseph Smith Never Taught Brigham’s Theories

What makes you think Brigham Young considered his teachings "theories"?

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

[quietcanon]

On 6/28/2026 at 2:46 PM, Stargazer said:

Just so you know...

Good advice and insight. Thank you.

[The Nehor]

On 6/28/2026 at 3:36 PM, quietcanon said:

They’re offered only as resources for thoughtful personal study.

Oh okay.

Quote

 

7.         The Path Forward: Pedagogy and Curriculum Reframing

For BYU faculty and institutional educators, implementing this scripture-first model requires no fundamental dismantling of existing instructional manuals. Rather, it demands a deliberate pedagogical shift from secondary commentary to textual analysis of canonized materials based on their source voice.

 

Ummmm……I think you are being a little disingenuous about your ambitions here.

Also, your classification system for revelation doesn’t really work that well in practice. Also saw a few other errors.

Edited July 6 by The Nehor

[telnetd]

On 7/5/2026 at 5:49 PM, quietcanon said:

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

<deleted response>. You answered already.

Edited July 7 by telnetd

[quietcanon]

On 7/6/2026 at 9:10 AM, The Nehor said:

Ummmm……I think you are being a little disingenuous about your ambitions here.

Also, your classification system for revelation doesn’t really work that well in practice. Also saw a few other errors.

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.

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, quietcanon said:

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.

You say you are only intending this for use in personal study but then you start talking about how CES should use it.

I don’t think this classification system works in practice. Any time a prophet claims to be speaking for God in the first person is assumed to be more pure? That is a pretty arbitrary standard and prioritizes a lot of the Old Testament.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, quietcanon said:

revelatory purity

How do you establish “revelatory purity”?

[JLHPROF]

Well the number one issue is limiting truth to canon.

Canon is imperfect, and much revealed truth never made it into official canon.

As far as Joseph's teachings his understanding developed and changed throughout his life as more was revealed.

He started as Trinitarian, later Binatarian, then Social Trinitarian (where the Church stopped). His full teachings of theosis didn't even develop until near his death.

The idea that Brigham disagreed with Joseph's teachings leads to the question - from which period?

[quietcanon]

52 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well the number one issue is limiting truth to canon.

Canon is imperfect, and much revealed truth never made it into official canon.

As far as Joseph's teachings his understanding developed and changed throughout his life as more was revealed.

He started as Trinitarian, later Binatarian, then Social Trinitarian (where the Church stopped). His full teachings of theosis didn't even develop until near his death.

The idea that Brigham disagreed with Joseph's teachings leads to the question - from which period?

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.

[quietcanon]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You say you are only intending this for use in personal study but then you start talking about how CES should use it.

I don’t think this classification system works in practice. Any time a prophet claims to be speaking for God in the first person is assumed to be more pure? That is a pretty arbitrary standard and prioritizes a lot of the Old Testament.

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.

[quietcanon]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

How do you establish “revelatory purity”?

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.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, quietcanon said:

They do argue, however, that the canon (Class 1 and Class 2 material) provides the authoritative standard against which later teachings are measured.

The problem is whose interpretation of canon is this standard?

For example, Joseph F. Smith, who you state promoted the standard you present, called Talmage and Widstoe, two scientists, and another apostle who was an engineer whose name I always forget.  These three and the other apostles were directed to work closely with another scientist at BYU to study evolution and other scientific descriptions of creation with Talmage giving an address in the Tabernacle on the subject iirc that was then highly promoted by the Church at the time.  

At the same time Joseph Fielding Smith published an article in the Utah Genealogy Society’s magazine iirc condemning such teachings as false doctrine.  This was the minority view among the Apostles at the time with three being anti evolution and the rest supported of a more scientific paradigm, not treating scripture as a science textbook, but JFS lived longer than the other apostles and his influence on this grew and survived longer.  He even claimed Talmadge’s publication was unauthorized even though it had been published by the Church.  Thus his view became the dominant one and was perpetuated as doctrine by him as well as Bruce R McConkie and their followers to the point there was some rather foolish nonLDS stuff (because Joseph Fielding Smith chose to depend on others and not fellow apostles for his beliefs about creation) printed in the Genesis section for the relevant institute manual and even today there are members who condemn LDS professors and BYU as a whole for teaching evolution, etc. 

https://benspackman.com/2023/08/the-power-of-good-historiography-or-how-joseph-fielding-smith-unwittingly-undermined-joseph-fielding-smith/ (I didn’t review this link and other articles by Ben before I posted the above from memory, so I may have some minor details wrong).

How would you resolve this conflict in interpretation on what is our actual doctrine surrounding creation given the insistence of JFS there was only one plain interpretation of scripture all should arrive at from what had been revealed?

BTW, I have not read your paper yet, I might if your answer to this question interests me and shows a less simplistic view than it currently appears to me you are promoting, which given the very limited data I have examined—just what is in this thread—I recognize I may be mistaken.

Edited Sunday at 10:57 PM by Calm

[manol]

This is going to be somewhat tangential; apologies in advance.

I read @quietcanon's first paper.  Here is a copy-and-paste from Section 3 of that paper (pasted between the * * *'s below):

*  *  *

Authoritative Scripture Hierarchy (Joseph F. Smith Standard)

Joseph F. Smith’s 1897 private refutation of Adam-God established the principle: revelation-based scripture, not prophetic commentary, is the Church’s standard. The Book of Mormon demands it: “Have they not read the scriptures?” (3 Nephi 27:4-5).

• Class 1 (supreme): God’s words verbatim—“saith the Lord.” Inviolable except by God (D&C 1:38; 3 Nephi 24:1).

• Class 2: Messenger’s own words recounting visions/revelations—authoritative yet subject to later clarification (3 Nephi 23:1).

• Class 3 (lowest): Commentary, policy, and leader teachings—most error-prone and revisable.[8]

*  *  *

Reading this hierarchy made me think about what my personal “hierarchy of sources” might be. While scripture enters into the picture, imo the fact that something has been canonized does not make it automatically authoritative. So consider the following to just be a snapshot of one random fringer's opinion taken at one point in time; I make no other claims:

Class 1 (supreme): That which enlarges my soul, enlightens my understanding, and is delicious to me (Alma 32:28); and/or that which leads me to do good and love God and believe in Christ (Moroni 7:13-16); and/or that which fills me with the pure love of Christ (Moroni 7:46-48); and/or direct experience of the Divine (whether or not it can be put into words).  Actually I think all of these things constitute "direct experience of the Divine." 

Classes 2 & 3: Everything else.

To repeat, I am by no means recommending that you or anyone else even remotely consider adopting something akin to this heirarchy, but @quietcanon I would like to thank you for making me think about it enough to spell it out for myself. 

Edited Monday at 01:21 AM by manol

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, manol said:

This is going to be somewhat tangential; apologies in advance.

I read @quietcanon's first paper.  Here is a copy-and-paste from Section 3 of that paper (pasted between the * * *'s below):

*  *  *

Authoritative Scripture Hierarchy (Joseph F. Smith Standard)

Joseph F. Smith’s 1897 private refutation of Adam-God established the principle: revelation-based scripture, not prophetic commentary, is the Church’s standard. The Book of Mormon demands it: “Have they not read the scriptures?” (3 Nephi 27:4-5).

• Class 1 (supreme): God’s words verbatim—“saith the Lord.” Inviolable except by God (D&C 1:38; 3 Nephi 24:1).

• Class 2: Messenger’s own words recounting visions/revelations—authoritative yet subject to later clarification (3 Nephi 23:1).

• Class 3 (lowest): Commentary, policy, and leader teachings—most error-prone and revisable.[8]

*  *  *

Reading this hierarchy made me think about what my personal “hierarchy of sources” might be. While scripture enters into the picture, imo the fact that something has been canonized does not make it automatically authoritative. Consider the following to be a snapshot of one random fringer's opinion taken at one point in time; I make no other claims:

Class 1 (supreme): That which enlarges my soul, enlightens my understanding, and is delicious to me (Alma 32:28); and/or that which leads me to do good and love God and believe in Christ (Moroni 7:13-16); and/or that which fills me with the pure love of Christ (Moroni 7:46-48); and/or direct experience of the Divine (whether or not it can be put into words).  Actually I think all of these  things constitute "direct experience of the Divine." 

Classes 2 & 3: Everything else.

To repeat, I am by no means recommending that you or anyone else even remotely consider adopting something akin to this heirarchy, but @quietcanon I would like to thank you for making me think about it enough to spell it out for myself. 

I am with you in how I categorize my sources for my personal use.  
 

In discussion with others about the Church’s teachings and doctrines, I abide by leadership’s*** definition:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

(so they apparently changed the title of the article, but wisely left the url the same to avoid breaking links)

***yes, this is the newsroom and the PR dept is only overseen, not staffed by Apostles, so I don’t take everything that comes from the newsroom as the ultimate word on a topic.  But given this article’s purpose and discussions around it, my assumption is this got vetted by not only the legal department as well as the higherups in the Newsroom, but also by actual apostles and highly, highly probable that the First Presidency was very hands on with it, given the article’s importance in presenting to nonLDS as well as LDS what counts as doctrine (if written poorly, that could have negative impacts on lawsuits as well as how reporters describe our teachings, etc).

Edited Monday at 01:32 AM by Calm

[quietcanon]

2 hours ago, manol said:

This is going to be somewhat tangential; apologies in advance.

... but @quietcanon I would like to thank you for making me think about it enough to spell it out for myself. 

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.

[quietcanon]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

The problem is whose interpretation of canon is this standard? ... BTW, I have not read your paper yet, I might if your answer to this question interests me and shows a less simplistic view than it currently appears to me you are promoting, which given the very limited data I have examined—just what is in this thread—I recognize I may be mistaken.

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.

[manol]

14 hours ago, quietcanon said:

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.

Okay, that makes sense.

I can see the utility of having a tool such as the Joseph F. Smith Standard for sorting sources in a discussion about which teachings are or are not Church doctrine, with the in-context caveat that said Standard is only a Class 3 authority by its own standard. 

Imo the problem with making something like this Standard a yardstick for evaluating truth is that doing so can become formulaic instead of a spiritual quest.  We can end up focusing on who said what when, where and how reliably is it recorded, what was their rank at the time, and if they are dead has someone of equal or higher rank said differently since then?  And we can end up with a closed system wherein truth is only allowed entry via pre-approved channels, and can only rise to the level of authority permitted by the formula.  If truth comes knocking by some other door, it may not even be noticed.  Imo there's a good chance this is happening right now. 

I think the search for truth is supposed to be a spiritual quest moreso than a logical application of a flow chart.  But I could be wrong! 

So in my opinion the Joseph F. Smith Standard can be useful in a discussion that presupposes its suitability for answering whatever the question at hand may be, such as whether a particular teaching is doctrinal, but I think it falls short in receptivity to truth-on-its-own-merits. 

Edited Monday at 06:15 PM by manol

[quietcanon]

11 hours ago, manol said:

Okay, that makes sense.

I can see the utility of having a tool such as the Joseph F. Smith Standard for sorting sources in a discussion about which teachings are or are not Church doctrine, with the in-context caveat that said Standard is only a Class 3 authority by its own standard. 

Imo the problem with making something like this Standard a yardstick for evaluating truth is that doing so can become formulaic instead of a spiritual quest.  We can end up focusing on who said what when, where and how reliably is it recorded, what was their rank at the time, and if they are dead has someone of equal or higher rank said differently since then?  And we can end up with a closed system wherein truth is only allowed entry via pre-approved channels, and can only rise to the level of authority permitted by the formula.  If truth comes knocking by some other door, it may not even be noticed.  Imo there's a good chance this is happening right now. 

I think the search for truth is supposed to be a spiritual quest moreso than a logical application of a flow chart.  But I could be wrong! 

So in my opinion the Joseph F. Smith Standard can be useful in a discussion that presupposes its suitability for answering whatever the question at hand may be, such as whether a particular teaching is doctrinal, but I think it falls short in receptivity to truth-on-its-own-merits. 

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.

[manol]

16 hours ago, quietcanon said:

Thank you for this thoughtful reply. I appreciate you spelling out the potential downside so clearly.

I have no idea who you are, but want to acknowledge and thank you for so consistently being a peacemaker. You were not at all defensive when I came in with a criticism from way out in left field, and imo that stands out in stark contrast with the way internet conversations usually go. 

Returning to the Joseph Fielding Smith Standard: Seems to me its validity largely hangs on canonical “thus saith the Lord” statements being what they purport to be.  Is the correctness of such statements ever evaluated, and if so, how?

Or, is the correctness of relevant canonical “thus saith the Lord” statements simply accepted as fact, the context for the Standard's application being LDS religious studies?  I can see that being the case since everybody participating will have (theoretically) accepted the same canon.  

 

16 hours ago, quietcanon said:

It [the Joseph Fielding Smith standard) 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 might be coloring too far outside the lines here, but it does appear to me that the system is closed, at least to some extent. Let me give three examples:

1.  Suppose one or more Samuel-the-Lamanite-type individuals show up from outside the Church heirarchy, having been inspired to deliver a corrective message for the Church.

2.  Suppose thousands of people die, experience a portion of the afterlife, are resuscitated, and return having been instructed by beings on the other side to share what they experienced.

3.  Suppose one or more individuals outside the Church heirarchy receive communication from the Divine intended to be shared with a wide audience.

In each of these cases it seems to me that the system is effectively closed to their input ever meeting the criteria for being considered "authoritative".

 

16 hours ago, quietcanon said:

I’m grateful you took the time to engage.

I'm grateful for you and for the manner in which you have engaged with me. You have my respect.

Edited Tuesday at 08:41 PM by manol

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, manol said:

have no idea who you are, but want to acknowledge and thank you for so consistently being a peacemaker. You were not at all defensive when I came in with a criticism from way out in left field, and imo that stands out in stark contrast with the way internet conversations usually go. 

I agree the conversation has been refreshingly peaceful even though there are disagreements.