New Teotihuacan Linguistic Study (Hansen & Helmke)

[Pyreaux]

There is some buzz over new archaeological details about the ancient city of Teotihuacan, and the work of Dr. Brian D. Stubbs in relation to the Book of Mormon narrative.

Teotihuacan Linguistic Study

A new archaeological study by Magnus Pharao Hansen and Christopher Helmke of the University of Copenhagen has deciphered the writing system in Teotihuacan murals, proposing it records an early form of the Uto-Aztecan language family.

The researchers' study, "The Language of Teotihuacan Writing," published in the journal Current Anthropology in late 2025, proposes that the glyphs and symbols on Teotihuacan's murals and artifacts actually constitute a true writing system. They argue that this system uses a combination of logograms (representing entire words, like a depiction of a coyote for 'coyote') and the rebus principle (using the sound of a pictured object to represent a different word or sound).

By reconstructing an earlier form of the Uto-Aztecan language (ancestral to Nahuatl—the language of the Aztecs—as well as Cora and Huichol), they have been able to align reconstructed ancient words with the visual symbols.

https://archaeologymag.com/2025/10/teotihuacan-murals-reveal-uto-aztecan-language/

https://news.ku.dk/all_news/2025/10/researchers-on-the-verge-of-solving-mexican-mystery/

What Is the Significance?

A Writing System Within the Book of Mormon Timeline

If confirmed, this is a significant breakthrough in Mesoamerican studies. It would decipher a Writing System and establish that Teotihuacan, flourishing from approximately 100 BCE to 600 CE, had a true writing system, placing it alongside the Maya.

It suggests that Uto-Aztecan speakers were present in the Valley of Mexico much earlier than previously thought, potentially making the builders of Teotihuacan the direct ancestors of the Aztecs, rather than the Aztecs being later migrants who arrived after the city's collapse.

They correlate with Book of Mormon's Timeframe. A written, thriving period of a major Uto-Aztecan language with the timeline of the Book of Mormon (roughly 600 BCE–400 CE).

Teotihuacan Language's Relationship with Semitic-Egyptian

Latter-day Saints relying on the work of linguist Dr. Brian D. Stubbs propose connections between Uto-Aztecan and Old World languages. Dr. Stubbs, a specialist in Near Eastern and Native American languages, has published extensively on this topic, most notably in his book 'Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan'.

His hypothesis posits that the Uto-Aztecan language family shows evidence of an ancient Semitic (specifically Hebrew/Aramaic) and Egyptian influence. Stubbs presents over 1,500 linguistic connections (cognates) between Semitic/Egyptian and Uto-Aztecan. Crucially, his work is claimed to move beyond mere word similarity by identifying systemic and consistent sound shifts (e.g., Semitic "b" sounds becoming "p" or "kw" in Uto-Aztecan) and morphological correspondences (grammatical structure) that meet or exceed the standards typically used by historical linguists to establish language relationships.

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. 

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/exploring-semitic-and-egyptian-in-uto-aztecan-languages/

https://scripturecentral.org/archive/periodicals/journal-article/was-there-hebrew-language-ancient-america-interview-brian-stubbs

Its More Book of Mormon Mesoamerican Geography Evidence

Latter-day Saints have been drawing a direct comparison between archaeological characteristics of Teotihuacan and descriptions of the "land northward" in the Book of Mormon, particularly the Book of Helaman (circa 50 BCE). There four specific parallels between the account in Helaman 3:3-11 and the archaeology of Teotihuacan.

1. Exceedingly Great Distance Northward: Teotihuacan is far north of the Mesoamerican regions often proposed for early Nephite civilization (like Southern Mexico/Guatemala). The city flourished around 100 BCE, consistent with the timeframe for the migration.

2. Large Bodies of Water and Many Rivers: The Valley of Mexico, where Teotihuacan is located, was historically a basin surrounded by a chain of large, interconnected lakes (e.g., Lake Texcoco).

3. Expert Working of Cement: The Book of Mormon mentions the people becoming "exceedingly expert in the working of cement." Teotihuacan is one of the earliest known cities in the Americas to use sophisticated, large-scale lime plaster and cement materials for structural construction, beginning around the first century BCE/CE.

4. Little Timber (Deforestation): Lime cement production requires vast amounts of wood to fire the limestone, which correlates with archaeological evidence suggesting Teotihuacan and the surrounding Valley of Mexico experienced significant deforestation during the city's rapid rise. This forced people to rely more on stone and cement as a building material, as the text describes.

These correlations are frequently cited by proponents of a Mesoamerican geography model for the Book of Mormon as strong, specific, and unexpected archaeological evidence that aligns with the text's details.

Edited October 18, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Okrahomer]

19 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Latter-day Saints relying on the work of linguist Dr. Brian D. Stubbs propose connections between Uto-Aztecan and Old World languages. Dr. Stubbs, a specialist in Near Eastern and Native American languages, has published extensively on this topic, most notably in his book 'Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan'.

Has there been any reaction from Dr. Stubbs about this new Teotihuacan writing theory?  I visited this area a few years ago with two colleagues -- one from Peru and one from Mexico.  At one point, I lost track of the colleague from Peru.  I asked my other colleague if he knew where the Peruvian had gone.  He exclaimed:  "An Incan has invaded the Aztec city!"

Edited October 17, 2025 by Okrahomer

[Pyreaux]

16 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Has there been any reaction from Dr. Stubbs about this new Teotihuacan writing theory?  I visited this area a few years ago with two colleagues -- one from Peru and one from Mexico.  At one point, I lost track of the colleague from Peru.  I asked my other colleague if he knew where the Peruvian had gone.  He exclaimed:  "An Incan has invaded the Aztec city!"

Not yet, but I'm sure he will react. Dr. Stubbs addressed a critique of his own work that was published by Magnus Pharao Hansen in 2019 before this discovery. In 2020, Dr. Stubbs published a response titled "Answering the Critics in 44 Rebuttal Points," where he directly engaged with objections raised by Hansen regarding specific Nahuatl (an Aztecan/Uto-Aztecan language) word comparisons in Stubbs's work on Semitic/Egyptian-Uto-Aztecan connections.

Though Hansen's initial critique was not about the Teotihuacan writing system, but specifically challenged the validity of 14 Nahuatl items that Stubbs had compared to Old World words in his work, Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan.

In his published rebuttal, Stubbs demonstrated a gracious but firm defense of his methodology. He noted that he appreciated the dialogue, which led him to re-evaluate and, in some cases, strengthen his arguments. He specifically mentioned that Hansen's and another critic's investigations, "together eliminated one item, maybe two, leaving 1,526 matches," suggesting the overall body of evidence for his Semitic/Egyptian hypothesis remained largely intact.

Dr. Stubbs likely hasn't had a chance to formally weigh in on the Teotihuacan writing theory itself, he has publicly and positively engaged with Magnus Pharao Hansen's specific critiques on the linguistic data relevant to his own research on the Uto-Aztecan language family. The fact that both scholars work heavily with Uto-Aztecan languages and Nahuatl, and have publicly interacted on technical linguistic points, suggests an ongoing scholarly conversation in this specialized field.

Edited October 17, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Navidad]

I am not sure how this impacts BOM Historicity. Proto Uto Aztecan languages have been around the US southwest and northwest Mexico for thousands of years in an oral form. Are you suggesting that BOM people's interacted with Uto Aztecans of the south as did the Spanish Franciscans when they migrated here, using a Spanish model to create a UT Nahuatl orthography? If so. why did not that orthogrsphy exist into Hispanic times. It seems the Franciscan linguists would have piggy-backed on it? Or are you suggesting those who built Teotichuan list their written language due to invaders prior to the Spanish? I am trying to understand the connection and why it didn't survive into the 16th century? Thanks 

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure how this impacts BOM Historicity. Proto Uto Aztecan languages have been around the US southwest and northwest Mexico for thousands of years in an oral form. Are you suggesting that BOM people's interacted with Uto Aztecans of the south as did the Spanish Franciscans when they migrated here, using a Spanish model to create a UT Nahuatl orthography? If so. why did not that orthogrsphy exist into Hispanic times. It seems the Franciscan linguists would have piggy-backed on it? Or are you suggesting those who built Teotichuan list their written language due to invaders prior to the Spanish? I am trying to understand the connection and why it didn't survive into the 16th century? Thanks 

The key is the possible tie to ancient Egyptian.

[Calm]

I missed a couple of posts and misunderstood the conversation, so deleting…

Edited October 19, 2025 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure how this impacts BOM Historicity. Proto Uto Aztecan languages have been around the US southwest and northwest Mexico for thousands of years in an oral form. Are you suggesting that BOM people's interacted with Uto Aztecans of the south as did the Spanish Franciscans when they migrated here, using a Spanish model to create a UT Nahuatl orthography? If so. why did not that orthogrsphy exist into Hispanic times. It seems the Franciscan linguists would have piggy-backed on it? Or are you suggesting those who built Teotichuan list their written language due to invaders prior to the Spanish? I am trying to understand the connection and why it didn't survive into the 16th century? Thanks 

The Proto-Uto-Aztecan (PUA) language, which later split into languages like Hopi, Shoshoni, and Nahuatl, has indeed been spoken for thousands of years. The theory suggests the linguistic influence (the loanwords and grammatical patterns) survived through oral transmission as the PUA language and its descendants evolved over millennia, but the written system did not.

If a writing system existed for an early Uto-Aztecan language, why didn't the Spanish find any trace of it that they could "piggy-back" on? The answer lies in the nature of the proposed ancient writings and the tumultuous history of the region.

The new theory suggests the written Teotihuacan script, which they believe recorded an early UA language, did not survive into the 16th century largely due to the collapse of the Teotihuacan civilization itself. Teotihuacan's political power and influence collapsed around A.D. 550. Writing systems, especially complex logophonetic ones like the one proposed, are often the domain of an elite class (priests, scribes, rulers). When the city fell, the specific intellectual tradition associated with that script was likely disrupted, abandoned, or intentionally destroyed.

The language (the early UA/Nahuatl) survived and spread, but the writing system became extinct, similar to how the Egyptian hieroglyphic script died out long before modern times, even though Coptic (a descendant from Ancient Egyptian) continued to be spoken.

If we assume the Book of Mormon language (Hebrew in Reformed Egyptian) was used by the ancestral group that influenced Proto-Uto-Aztecan speakers, there are a few reasons the writing wouldn't survive into the 16th century:

Location: The primary events and records described in the BOM are associated with areas that were likely further north and were completely abandoned by its purported end date (A.D. 421).

Format: While the primary records were on metal plates or hidden in the earth. If other records existed on more perishable materials (parchment, wood, paper), they would have naturally decayed over a millennium.

Integration: If Semitic/Egyptian speakers were a small group who integrated with a much larger local population (the ancestral Uto-Aztecans), their unique, foreign writing system would have been quickly swamped out by the local preference for oral tradition or other, simpler indigenous writing forms (like pictograms).

In essence, oral language is much more resilient than a formal writing system. The language survived and evolved (Uto-Aztecan), but the complex, elite-driven writing systems did not.

Edited October 19, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

Deleted

Edited October 19, 2025 by Calm

[morgan.deane]

On 10/17/2025 at 8:55 AM, Pyreaux said:

There is some buzz over new archaeological details about the ancient city of Teotihuacan, and the work of Dr. Brian D. Stubbs in relation to the Book of Mormon narrative.

Teotihuacan Linguistic Study

A new archaeological study by Magnus Pharao Hansen and Christopher Helmke of the University of Copenhagen has deciphered the writing system in Teotihuacan murals, proposing it records an early form of the Uto-Aztecan language family.

The researchers' study, "The Language of Teotihuacan Writing," published in the journal Current Anthropology in late 2025, proposes that the glyphs and symbols on Teotihuacan's murals and artifacts actually constitute a true writing system. They argue that this system uses a combination of logograms (representing entire words, like a depiction of a coyote for 'coyote') and the rebus principle (using the sound of a pictured object to represent a different word or sound).

By reconstructing an earlier form of the Uto-Aztecan language (ancestral to Nahuatl—the language of the Aztecs—as well as Cora and Huichol), they have been able to align reconstructed ancient words with the visual symbols.

https://archaeologymag.com/2025/10/teotihuacan-murals-reveal-uto-aztecan-language/

https://news.ku.dk/all_news/2025/10/researchers-on-the-verge-of-solving-mexican-mystery/

What Is the Significance?

A Writing System Within the Book of Mormon Timeline

If confirmed, this is a significant breakthrough in Mesoamerican studies. It would decipher a Writing System and establish that Teotihuacan, flourishing from approximately 100 BCE to 600 CE, had a true writing system, placing it alongside the Maya.

It suggests that Uto-Aztecan speakers were present in the Valley of Mexico much earlier than previously thought, potentially making the builders of Teotihuacan the direct ancestors of the Aztecs, rather than the Aztecs being later migrants who arrived after the city's collapse.

They correlate with Book of Mormon's Timeframe. A written, thriving period of a major Uto-Aztecan language with the timeline of the Book of Mormon (roughly 600 BCE–400 CE).

Teotihuacan Language's Relationship with Semitic-Egyptian

Latter-day Saints relying on the work of linguist Dr. Brian D. Stubbs propose connections between Uto-Aztecan and Old World languages. Dr. Stubbs, a specialist in Near Eastern and Native American languages, has published extensively on this topic, most notably in his book 'Exploring the Explanatory Power of Semitic and Egyptian in Uto-Aztecan'.

His hypothesis posits that the Uto-Aztecan language family shows evidence of an ancient Semitic (specifically Hebrew/Aramaic) and Egyptian influence. Stubbs presents over 1,500 linguistic connections (cognates) between Semitic/Egyptian and Uto-Aztecan. Crucially, his work is claimed to move beyond mere word similarity by identifying systemic and consistent sound shifts (e.g., Semitic "b" sounds becoming "p" or "kw" in Uto-Aztecan) and morphological correspondences (grammatical structure) that meet or exceed the standards typically used by historical linguists to establish language relationships.

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. 

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/exploring-semitic-and-egyptian-in-uto-aztecan-languages/

https://scripturecentral.org/archive/periodicals/journal-article/was-there-hebrew-language-ancient-america-interview-brian-stubbs

Its More Book of Mormon Mesoamerican Geography Evidence

Latter-day Saints have been drawing a direct comparison between archaeological characteristics of Teotihuacan and descriptions of the "land northward" in the Book of Mormon, particularly the Book of Helaman (circa 50 BCE). There four specific parallels between the account in Helaman 3:3-11 and the archaeology of Teotihuacan.

1. Exceedingly Great Distance Northward: Teotihuacan is far north of the Mesoamerican regions often proposed for early Nephite civilization (like Southern Mexico/Guatemala). The city flourished around 100 BCE, consistent with the timeframe for the migration.

2. Large Bodies of Water and Many Rivers: The Valley of Mexico, where Teotihuacan is located, was historically a basin surrounded by a chain of large, interconnected lakes (e.g., Lake Texcoco).

3. Expert Working of Cement: The Book of Mormon mentions the people becoming "exceedingly expert in the working of cement." Teotihuacan is one of the earliest known cities in the Americas to use sophisticated, large-scale lime plaster and cement materials for structural construction, beginning around the first century BCE/CE.

4. Little Timber (Deforestation): Lime cement production requires vast amounts of wood to fire the limestone, which correlates with archaeological evidence suggesting Teotihuacan and the surrounding Valley of Mexico experienced significant deforestation during the city's rapid rise. This forced people to rely more on stone and cement as a building material, as the text describes.

These correlations are frequently cited by proponents of a Mesoamerican geography model for the Book of Mormon as strong, specific, and unexpected archaeological evidence that aligns with the text's details.

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.

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, morgan.deane said:

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.

I find the news and information from A.I. searches, but I always have to check and entirely rewrite and reformat most everything it says. What you've noticed is while writing, I actively try to adopt A.I.'s format on purpose because it's something I already try to do. I always wrote and create subheadings for my posts on my own, long before A.I. existed, so I'd say A.I. copies me. I try to balance and space out paragraphs the same way it does.

Notice how every post of mine is (edited)? Because it's not pasted, I'm always having to fix, rewrite, add to, and polish my posts. If you ever saw the original post, you'd see every error, and how the paragraph is actively being altered and polished. Though I do try to mimic or incorporate caveat lines like the A.I. makes.

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I actively try to adopt A.I.'s format on purpose because it's something I already try to do

Formatting it that way makes it easy to read, for which I am grateful, but I was wondering before if you stuck your work into AI to polish it before posting.  Not complaining, just feedback as I suspect these days you can get negative reactions from sounding too formal or whatever is the vibe of AI writing.

I edit and re-edit my posts over and over, even years after posting if I happen to come across an error.  Had some very impressive English teachers who dinged me for minor errors (and I had one memorable argument over whether “colour” was an acceptable spelling…urgh, still annoys me big time she didn’t allow it when it was all over my library books, in the dictionary as an alternative spelling, and always looked more natural, more right to me).  That and having a sister who was an English Lit prof—who is even more obsessive than I am—drives me to read and reread to ensure perfection.  Relaxed on grammar issues mostly though, thank goodness.  And I put my punctuation where I want it these days.  Just spelling still rules me with an iron fist.  So much time wasted over the years looking up correct usage, etc, lol.

Quote

Though I do try to mimic or incorporate caveat lines like the A.I. makes.

Are you trying to mimic AI with this?  Not sure what you mean here.

[InCognitus]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

That and having a sister who was an English Lit prof—who is even more obsessive than I am—drives me to read and reread to ensure perfection.  Relaxed on grammar issues mostly though, thank goodness.  And I put my punctuation where I want it these days.  Just spelling still rules me with an iron fist.  So much time wasted over the years looking up correct usage, etc, lol.

I miss @Scott Lloyd around here for this and many other reasons  

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Formatting it that way makes it easy to read, for which I am grateful, but I was wondering before if you stuck your work into AI to polish it before posting.  Not complaining, just feedback as I suspect these days you can get negative reactions from sounding too formal or whatever is the vibe of AI writing.

I edit and re-edit my posts over and over, even years after posting if I happen to come across an error.  Had some very impressive English teachers who dinged me for minor errors (and I had one memorable argument over whether “colour” was an acceptable spelling…urgh, still annoys me big time she didn’t allow it when it was all over my library books, in the dictionary as an alternative spelling, and always looked more natural, more right to me).  That and having a sister who was an English Lit prof—who is even more obsessive than I am—drives me to read and reread to ensure perfection.  Relaxed on grammar issues mostly though, thank goodness.  And I put my punctuation where I want it these days.  Just spelling still rules me with an iron fist.  So much time wasted over the years looking up correct usage, etc, lol.

I've tried to. Its just free A.I., it never anticipates what I'm going for. It never gives the information I want, until the 5th time asking, by then it's just littered piecemeal throughout. It quicky forgets or tells me something doesn't exist when I know it does. However, format-wise it gives me a starting point, but I'll have to flush out, or abridge, or pick out information I get. I basically craft my own A.I. reply that I would have wanted in the first place, but it never actually made for me.

I recall you asked once how I have all these verses ready and formatted on the fly. I get them from my personal prewritten notes I keep. Along with assorted paraphrased lines or facts usually from books, they are always ready to go. Even when I don't have them, I parrot it off the top of my head. That's usually when you'll CFR me. I usually produce something near verbatim to it. Its like I'm writing a book I would want to read but doesn't actually exist as single book. Then rewritten again into a post. In a way it is and yet isn't original.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you trying to mimic AI with this?  Not sure what you mean here.

Not intentionally, but I was trying to give a caveat, just like A.I. does. I often note or glean such notes and disclaimers to myself, to anticipate objections. If a caveat line sounds purely like A.I. wrote it, it could have, because I do often save and use those lines.

Edited October 19, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

50 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Even when I don't have them, I parrot it off the top of my head. That's usually when you'll CFR me. I usually produce something near verbatim to it

That makes sense.  What a fantastic memory.

Quote

I often note or glean such notes and disclaimers to myself, to anticipate objections.

Me too.  Whether I want to or not, I always read my writing thinking ‘what is someone looking to dismiss what I say going to zero in on?’, so I might come across as less confident than I am in a particular position/belief.  But you don’t with your caveats, just shows to me you don’t assume perfect knowledge and stay open to being wrong, so maybe it’s the same with my stuff….which would be good because that is my goal, to be open to correction even when I know I am right.  

My memory is poor these days, so I guess my writing is naturally less repetitive (maybe it just appears that way to me).  Your writing isn’t so much repetitive as consistent though.  

I also had one teacher who pounded into us to avoid repetition of words and phrases to make our work more interesting, so even now 50 years later, I just can’t let myself use the same word too often (except of course the basic building blocks that one has to use).  I used to keep a thesaurus by my side when writing even the most trivial thing…then thesaurus.com got bookmarked.  I was hoping Alexa would substitute for actually having to open a new tab to search, but it’s too limited.  This compulsion for variety in wording helped me acquire a decent size vocabulary at least.

Edited October 19, 2025 by Calm

[morgan.deane]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

 I actively try to adopt A.I.'s format on purpose because it's something I already try to do... so I'd say A.I. copies me. I try to balance and space out paragraphs the same way it does.

 

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! 

[Pyreaux]

37 minutes ago, morgan.deane said:

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! 

It seems like a fine line, if something wasn't written by A.I. but none the less if you depended on A.I. for the information and so that some word choices used ultimately derived from the A.I, then did A.I. basically write it anyway? I don't want to rely on AI-assisted writing, though I am trying to use it effectively to find information. I don't assume everyone on the board has heard about people or references, like UK Tony.

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I don't assume everyone on the board has heard about people or references, like UK Tony.

Tony is who I thought of, because he is newer to the board, not a member, but interested in many things LDS.

And iirc, we haven’t talked about Brian Stubbs for awhile, so for those who get exposure only to academic ideas here, it might be something new.

I can see both Morgan’s POV because I felt cheated when I considered your post as possibly AI generated and yours because of habits of writing.

[InCognitus]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

I can see both Morgan’s POV because I felt cheated when I considered your post as possibly AI generated and yours because of habits of writing.

I can also sympathize with the pain of having to be a teacher and grading research papers in this age of AI.  I can't fully imagine what that's like and what teachers must go through these days to figure all that out.

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 hours ago, morgan.deane said:

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! 

Sooo...

You basically just called him a liar and highly recommended that he spends countless hours chasing down resources to write an "original" post from scratch instead of using AI as a research assistant.

[Devobah]

13 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I can also sympathize with the pain of having to be a teacher and grading research papers in this age of AI.  I can't fully imagine what that's like and what teachers must go through these days to figure all that out.

Most teachers use a checker for such things. The problem with that is the checkers are very much imperfect. Plus there’s “humanizer” AI to get around that. It really just comes around to knowing your students, how they talk and how they write. Or you can quiz them on their work and have them tell you about it. Some teachers quiz their students on the vocabulary found in the paper. It’s really a hassle. There’s even people on Tik Tok that are in college helping people get around their work using AI. It’s becoming a major problem. 

[morgan.deane]

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Sooo...

You basically just called him a liar and highly recommended that he spends countless hours chasing down resources to write an "original" post from scratch instead of using AI as a research assistant.

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! 


 

[Navidad]

I apologize for all the typographical errors in my recent posts. In my recent stress and tiredness, I have become sloppy and lazy in posting. As many of you know, the remaining Mexican Mormon colonies have had terrible flooding as of late. Last Sunday it finally caught up with me. A day after arriving home from Phoenix, our house was flooded and our beautiful property badly damaged. The stress of the past month has caught up with me. No excuses, but I have not been as careful in checking my posts as I should. Mea culpa. 

[JVW]

I just wanted to pop in and say that Pyreaux is one of my favorite posters on this forum. I have learned some wild things from him and I assume that he's a remarkable person based on how much information he seems to have available to recall on any given topic. I also trust what he writes so I hope he never lies to me.

I also hate AI and if anyone ever tries to force me to use it I will exercise my first amendment right to "freedom of religion/conscience" to escape having to use it. My disdain of AI will probably, eventually cause me to become uncompetitive in my field because AI is all the rage right now in the tech world, but if I have to become a farmer one day then so be it. I think AI is human's creating a god after their own image and in addition to that, I hate not being able to not do something and AI has been forced everywhere. As a result, even though I don't want to use it, I use it every day. Point in fact, it has an imprint on Pyreaux's posts and I can't opt out of that.

[JVW]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I apologize for all the typographical errors in my recent posts. In my recent stress and tiredness, I have become sloppy and lazy in posting. As many of you know, the remaining Mexican Mormon colonies have had terrible flooding as of late. Last Sunday it finally caught up with me. A day after arriving home from Phoenix, our house was flooded and our beautiful property badly damaged. The stress of the past month has caught up with me. No excuses, but I have not been as careful in checking my posts as I should. Mea culpa. 

You should put more typographical errors in your posts. You're allowed to be human. I hope God will bless you in this terrible situation. I'm so sorry that happened to you.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

apologize for all the typographical errors in my recent posts

I obsess about my own errors, I don’t pay attention to them in others unless the errors make reading confusing, which I don’t remember happening with your posts recently.  I have no memory of your errors.  They must not have caused reading difficulties.  If I even noticed them, they were quickly forgotten.  I try to remind myself if others’ errors don’t bother me, then my errors probably don’t bother others, so I should relax but it doesn’t help.  I am too programmed by my history.

Cleaning up mud and broken debris on your property and dealing with the heartbreak of loss of memories (assuming this may have happened to you like it often does with floods) on top of your wife’s health….no need to worry about muddy writing here.  If it bugs you that much, in a couple of months when life has slowed down you can always review and edit.   

Edited October 20, 2025 by Calm