morgan.deane

I'm glad you brought this up. This is another talk that always bothered me. He's a specially appointed messenger of the Lord, shouldn't he be able to realize and teach the exceptions directly in his talk? I don't think it takes that much effort to include in "general principles" the idea that there is a difference between killing and murder. Its literally one simple line like: "there's a distinction between killing in military service and murder." Or: The command in Exodus clearly refers to murder, because a chapter later Hebrew law outlines the rules regarding what modern legal analysts would call manslaughter or justifiable homocide." (I'm not making that up for effect, literally the next two chapters later it talks about manslaughter and justifiable homocide: Exodus 21:12-14; 22:2-3.) And he's a former lawyer and state supreme court justice! Of all people it would be exceptionally easy for him to say, "just as the modern law recognizes the difference between accidental deaths, murder, and premedidated murder, the Lord recognizes those differences as well. [Then a second sentence about the Hebew law in Exodus 20-22.]" I teach my undergraduates to anticipate and answer possible objections in their paper. These guys are supposedly inspired by God, and do it full time in a salaried position for decades, but can't make the same effort to carefully add a couple lines about murder and killing? "I teach general principles and can't be bothered explaining exceptions or receiving letters" is just a lazy cop out. One of the things I've found as I've stepped back from full activity, is that when you take away the halo from our church leaders, and they can't rely on "I'm the prophet", they're actually kind of bad at their jobs. Like Elder Oaks condemns a poor man to a life time of oppressive guilt because a lawyer turned full time representative of God and leader of His church doesn't have time to add a couple necessary lines explaining key ideas in "thou shall not murder." Speaking of "I'm a prophet", these guys sure like to play the "I'm a prophet" card regarding cultural issues, like marriage or regarding their keys and authority. But when people find uncomfortable implications in their talk, their line suddenly changes to: "well you should figure out the exception", "I can't be bothered with your letter". I've had people actually tell me this after really awful conference talks, "that's not what they actually meant." Well, they seem pretty clear and authoritative when they want to be, like when talking about the importance of mothers in the home. So the members on social media are just reflecting what they've been taught by those in authority for decades. To me, the issue isn’t that members can’t “recognize the exceptions,” it’s that those exceptions weren’t clearly taught in the first place. People who are good at their jobs anticipate misunderstandings and address them directly. These are serious religious principles, and we have leaders who claim to speak decisively for God, but fall back on ambiguity when their words create obvious problems. Authority should come with clarity, not after the fact disclaimers.

This is such a good point. I share a very similar feeling. My annoyance comes from reading things like the Parable of the Unjust Judge. (Luke 6:1-13). That's a story about a widow that pleads her case to an unjust judge, to the point that he grants it. The point is that even an unjust judge answers the consistent pleas of the righteous. How much more willing is a just and loving God to grant my requests? I read that, and then I constantly hear this nonsense about how God isn't a vending machine. So I'm told to wait on the Lord for blessings and I'll get them, but I can't expect certain things or God only blesses me with what I need instead of what I want. Or I don't have enough faith, its contrary to God's will, not his timing or whatever. I've heard all the excuses and think they're bunk. I'm not asking for a miracle, (well maybe with my looks and personality it is a miracle), I'm just asking for what every 21 year old has. I've talked about being single on here, so I'm constantly told that after living my whole life watching people that look like kids, talk about how happy they are being married (which happened every semester I taught at BYU-I), but I only get that after I die. That's just the Mormon version of "life sucks and then you die." How about God actually fulfills his promises and people stop excusing or explaining away His inaction?

My major concern is that he seems to set up a false dichotomy regarding non LDS thought that is fundamentalist and dogmatic. As summarized by the Salt Lake Tribune (so take that for what its worth), when he assessed faculty at BYU he had a level just short of "secular foes", and worse than the "faithful core" and "supportive center" called, "secular first [individuals who] put 'truth' from any source on equal footing with the LDS gospel." That's a stunning category to me because Brigham Young told us that we should quest after truth from any source, even those from the "infidel." That sounds like "equal footing" to me. Teachings of Brigham Young chapter two: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-2?lang=eng The church released a famous statement affirming that various religious leaders and philosophers had the light of truth. It's quoted on the church website, titled, "treasuring all truth." https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/treasuring-all-truth Now maybe I'm biased because as I've studied for my PhD in Chinese history I appreciated Confucianism a great and found many precious truths in it. In my latest book I researched how just war theorists interacted with the Book of Mormon, and I was sad to discover that LDS thinkers were quite shallow compared to them. We just haven't done the work in providing a robust discussion on war and peace. My book was a small attempt to try and change that. But now, apparently, there's an apostle who thinks those who embrace all truth are one step below an "open foe" for finding truth in non LDS thinkers. Maybe the Tribune is incorrect. Maybe Gilbert is referring to those that abandon gospel principles for secular ones, but I don't think that's the case. He clearly values orthodoxy instead of seeking, and subordinates all others. I'm sorry, but I don't want to discriminate against truth based on where it's found. Even worse, the issues of secular truth conflicting with interpretation of scripture go as far back as Copernicus and Galileo. Reading Galileo's defense against heresy had the same outlines and arguments as an LDS scholar trying to justify their research to LDS fundamentalists. https://inters.org/Galilei-Madame-Christina-Lorraine And the newly promoted apostle seems to take the side of inquisitors and dogma instead of the side of light, truth, and knowledge. This is the restored gospel, we should have an apostle who stands against fundamentalism to embrace all truth.

Thanks for the understanding. (I know I've been a bit saucy lately, I really did have a stack of papers driving me crazy, but I mean that sincerely.) Luckily the mind usually persists better than the body. So there still might be enough juice if you want to give it a try and take some classes. But even if you don't have credentials you can still be thoughtful, which is what I think you're being here. I think this thread is a pretty good indication of why I've had an account for 16 years and only have 200 posts. Apologies if I was too saucy.

Sorry for the delayed response. I was performing in Christmas concert for my stake orchestra. It took a little while because some joker pretended to be a violin player and strut around the place with a dumb grin. None of the professional musicians could do anything about it because he was well liked behind a microphone and every skilled musician that objected was called self important and told that it was just a joke musician, get over it. Clearly that didn't happen but you see my point. If its just a meaningless joke, why do you and zealously striving spend THREE posts telling it doesn't matter? I’ve minimized this from the beginning. If I was clearer I would have said it didn't matter much, but it was just annoying enough for me to include it in my comment. No big deal, right? If you agreed, you wouldn’t have felt the need to explain to me that Elvis wasn’t a real king, turned my passing annoyance into a sermon, or addressed me with honorific irony. I wouldn’t have mentioned “stolen valor” at all if you hadn’t dragged in an irrelevant story about your military experience into it. Frankly, given how Barnes opines on everything from the “lobotomy” of creedal Christianity to pacifism to Adam–God theory, it’s clear despite his disclaimers that he enjoys the (stolen) prestige of being called a professor. The more you say it doesn't matter, the more I'm convinced my passing annoyance was onto something bigger and more important. His counter productive bravado should be called out. That’s the galling part of this. No one seems bothered by his attempt to borrow credibility. But somehow I’m the “self-important” one for having earned my station and mildly objecting to his posturing. In the strange world of internet sophistry, the person with the degrees ends up the humorless bore for objecting to a strutting dilettante. I was done with this conversation in my first post. You’re the one keeping it alive. I’ll assume you’ll now take your own advice and get over it. Good luck.

I literally said "it didn’t matter” and noted my annoyance. (Three times now!) You and Stargazer are the ones elevating it by continuing to litigate and resorting to insults. That says far more about your relationship to standards than my supposed “self-importance.”

I literally said it didn’t matter, except I was annoyed, and yet you still felt the need to explain to me that Elvis wasn’t a real king. Thanks for clearing that up. But since you brought it up, there is a distinction that matters. Someone jokingly calling you the wrong rank is very different from someone assuming a rank for personal benefit. The latter is serious enough to have its own name and crime called stolen valor. I don’t know what point you thought you were making, but explaining obvious jokes, unoffensive and even earned honorifics during an anecdote that doesn’t apply to something I already minimized feels extraordinarily petty. Elvis earned his honorific on his way to selling 1.8 billion records in a truly great career. (Ironically, he felt it was unearned and rejected it.) I earned my title by completing a rigorous program and being formally hooded. At the end of that ceremony, I was addressed by my title for the first time, and it was satisfying precisely because it was earned. Even then, I rarely bring it up, except when a shock jock uses it as a tagline for his schtick. If you want to litigate this with a useless military anecdote, yes I do have a legitimate reason to dislike some random dilettante assuming a rank I earned. This isn’t a friend jokingly calling you “Sergeant Major”; it’s someone calling himself Sergeant Major and then using it to posture and project authority. As Paul put it in Hebrews 5:4, no man taketh this honor upon himself. An actual Sergeant major would be at least a little annoyed by that act, as I was at this self proclaimed professor. Seriously, Professor Apocrypha can take a stab at grading this stack of papers any day of the week. It’s not as vainglorious as pontificating about the “lobotomy that is the Trinity” or calling yourself a king, but it’s the job of actual professors. https://www.britannica.com/story/why-is-elvis-called-the-king-of-rock-n-roll

I agree with Calm. About their only value is mentioning that someone tried to infiltrate the church under false pretenses and that the service required in the church makes it really difficult to participate and "advance in rank" so to speak without sincerely believing in it. And Calm is correct that most of the rest was mean and unChristlike. I was most upset with Barnes. At the 18:25 mark he was incredibly condescending and rude: "If you're an English speaker that hasn't gone through the lobotomy of believing in the creeds" That's about the rudest dismissal of the creeds I've ever seen, and then he straw mans it for about another minute using the falsetto voice that junior high bullies use to mock anything they don't like. This isn't the first time he's behaved like this. Since I specialize in ethics and warfare I recently watched his debate with Luke Hanson about pacifism where he endlessly repeated over and over again that he was not "accusing anyone." Yet he repeatedly claimed to be on "God's side" and his opponents are constantly "twisting" or just calls them idiots. https://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2025/11/when-pacifism-met-reality-response-to.html This seems like more of the same where he's savvy enough to at least claim that he isn't mocking anyone, but the in the same video he implies you have to be lobotomized or have the "creedal brain" to believe them. (18:40) The final point doesn't matter except it annoys the crap out of me. I'm an actual professor. I spent years working towards my position and then some radio show personality wants to call himself "associate professor" of apocrypha. If he wants to play professor, I have a stack of papers he can grade, at least a third of which are AI generated.

Basically is one of those magic words that lets you interpret something however you want. Please don't put words in my mouth. Frankly, if it takes you "hours" to find and read two short news articles, write a decent summary, and then offer a few relational insights to Book of Mormon studies, (that reference two more articles you can find in 30 seconds), you are the last person that should be using AI as a crutch. Good writing and academic skills are like a muscle. You get strong, well defined muscles by putting in your reps at the gym. So even if it does take you ~hours~ to write something like the OP, its time well spent. Eventually it will only take minutes and your insights will be sharper. Unless you develop an overreliance on AI and become little more than a chat bot assistant for the computer program. Early research has shown that over reliance hinders critical thinking and leads to a decline in independent analysis, especially for those with fewer academic skills to begin with. Speaking of the gym, I need to get going. Good luck!

As you might have noticed in my post, during my teaching I deal with at least a half a dozen people a week who rely on generative AI. It's as obvious as a neon billboard in Las Vegas. But like Kobe who never committed a foul, they never admit it. They offer many of the same excuses you did. "I use it to help my grammar," "I brainstormed ideas" (which is acceptable but needs to be cited), and "its a starting point." In fact, students often try and hide the use of AI they'll introduce grammatical errors. So an informal "starting point" mostly suggests some light human editing. Though, "I mimic AI" is a new one. I don't know why you feel the need to use AI for informal discussions. It's a useful tool in a variety of ways. But there was nothing in this topic that was particularly complex or difficult to construct that you needed AI as a starting point to tell us Stubbs' general reception. I mention that again, because it was the catalyst that activated my AI detection. (Even though AI use is common, I really don't want to be the AI police, so I focus on engaging ideas until its too obvious to ignore.) The statement activated my AI detection because its exactly the kind of hedged neutrality phrasing with detached diction and voice in which AI specializes. Additionally, its useless information for a board like this that you don't even need AI to offer it as a "starting point." We all know Stubbs, his great work, and dismissal by the broader academic community. If there was significant human construction of this post beyond that starting point it was an easy candidate to delete. I'm not submitting this to the office of academic honesty so it doesn't matter except I'm still astounded it's used here. You don't have a term paper breathing down your neck, there is no reason to cut corners with soulless AI. This was a cool topic and I was all ready to love your post...until I realized it wasn't yours. Speaking of soulless AI, I have a bunch of papers to grade so I'll move on. I guess I'm in the minority here since I see so much AI. But I highly recommend you to write your own posts from beginning to end. There is no substitute for the human touch. Good luck!

Can I ask you a frank question? How much of this post was written by AI? The synthetic polish, mechanical balance, and overreliance on bullet points and subheadings are strongly indicative of generative AI. The giveaway was this line: While Stubbs's work is respected for its meticulous detail and vast scope among some scholars of the Book of Mormon, it is generally not accepted by the broader mainstream linguistic community. That's the kind of detached Oxford professor voice that sounds really phony. My students try that nonsense all the time. Additionally, most of on this board are well aware of Stubbs work and reception among the broader academic community. It's just a discussion board so its not a big deal. But it is pretty annoying and disappointing. I come here for human thinking, not a cut and paste of AI which I can do on my own in 30 seconds.