Elder Gilbert Interview with Peggy Fletcher Stack

[huckelberry]

Limnor to my understanding sin corrupted the human spirit primarily and body only as a derivative of that. I have always imagined dust being happily dusty now as before.

I think you are taking aim at the Mormon scenario in which sin is a choice we try to avoid by learning. If it, sin, corrupted our spirit we are in a plight deeper than an examination or test to pass (as you have clearly pointed out with Paul in Romans).

Mormons happily say we are punished for our own sins and not Adam's transgression rejecting The traditional view that we inherit Adam's corruption because what we are comes through our family back to Adam.

BY, (the most Mormon of all Mormons,) letting the cat out of the bag, said Adam was actually our father God, clarifying the position that it is our surroundings not our spirit which presents the possibility of sin.

Thanks Huck. I’m not entirely sure where I was going with this thought, but did want to understand better how the thinking works—it really wasn’t intended as a shot. The idea formed in my head when thinking about the plant in the Jonah story.

If your eternal intelligence is uncreated and co-eternal, and not inherently corrupt (as I understand it—it sounds like you are saying the spirit is corrupt?) then what exactly is the body doing?

Is the body necessary as a means to introduce weakness? Why would it be necessary to include death?

If corruption belongs only to the body, then the “real you” (intelligence) is clean, but if corruption belongs to intelligence, what would that mean?

I think I need to add a touch of clarification. I was comparing a traditional Christian idea to what I see in Mormon thinking. When I said I view our spirit as corrupted I was referring to my take on Paul and such as Augustine. This is a view rejected largely by Mormons. Mormons are happier with, "Adam fell that men might be and men are that they might have joy."

[Limnor]

I think I need to add a touch of clarification. I was comparing a traditional Christian idea to what I see in Mormon thinking. When I said I view our spirit as corrupted I was referring to my take on Paul and such as Augustine. This is a view rejected largely by Mormons. Mormons are happier with, "Adam fell that men might be and men are that they might have joy."

Thanks Huck. I suppose I’m just trying to take the metaphysics seriously for the sake of discussion. I think what I’m really interested in is the Mormon understanding of the difference between fallen nature and fallen environment and bringing it back to Jonah’s plant.

[Res Ipsa]

I think I need to add a touch of clarification. I was comparing a traditional Christian idea to what I see in Mormon thinking. When I said I view our spirit as corrupted I was referring to my take on Paul and such as Augustine. This is a view rejected largely by Mormons. Mormons are happier with, "Adam fell that men might be and men are that they might have joy."

Thanks Huck. I suppose I’m just trying to take the metaphysics seriously for the sake of discussion. I think what I’m really interested in is the Mormon understanding of the difference between fallen nature and fallen environment and bringing it back to Jonah’s plant.

Or Jonah’s gourd…. My understanding was that the world fell. We did not fall. Second article of faith.

[Limnor]

Thanks Huck. I suppose I’m just trying to take the metaphysics seriously for the sake of discussion. I think what I’m really interested in is the Mormon understanding of the difference between fallen nature and fallen environment and bringing it back to Jonah’s plant.

Or Jonah’s gourd…. My understanding was that the world fell. We did not fall. Second article of faith.

Yes, or gourd. So if the world fell, but humans did not fall, then why are humans subject to death? Why would embodiment within a fallen environment result in death if there were nothing inherently wrong with the body?

If the gourd metaphor represents humans, then there was something internal—the worm—that caused death. The gourd was corrupt internally. It wasn’t due to the environment around it that it died.

So I’m trying to understand where mortality actually enters Mormon thought. If humans did not fall, then is death due to exposure to the fallen environment? Or did embodiment come with something internally that made death possible? Is it just phases?” I guess I’m not sure how to locate the “worm,” so to speak.

And I’m probably beating the metaphor to death…

[Res Ipsa]

Or Jonah’s gourd…. My understanding was that the world fell. We did not fall. Second article of faith.

Yes, or gourd. So if the world fell, but humans did not fall, then why are humans subject to death? Why would embodiment within a fallen environment result in death if there were nothing inherently wrong with the body?

If the gourd metaphor represents humans, then there was something internal—the worm—that caused death. The gourd was corrupt internally. It wasn’t due to the environment around it that it died.

So I’m trying to understand where mortality actually enters Mormon thought. If humans did not fall, then is death due to exposure to the fallen environment? Or did embodiment come with something internally that made death possible? Is it just phases?” I guess I’m not sure how to locate the “worm,” so to speak.

And I’m probably beating the metaphor to death…

That’s a good question. I took a lot of things for granted without thinking them through. I’m tempted to say that death was a property of the world outside of the garden and that we became subject to death by being required to leave the garden. But I’m not sure I ever thought that through.

[Morley]

[MG] has maintained that God uses ends justifies the means all the time. My retort is that no God worthy of the position would do such a thing. End justifies the means is one of MG's crooked lines that God uses to draw straight.

To clarify, when we say the "ends justifies the means" we may be looking at things a bit differently. I bring it back to agency and free will. The means is 'free will'. The ends is the outcome of the crooked lines that human beings travel. God justifies the means and the end through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. What does this mean? Simply, that as humans travel the road of life and make mistakes, correct themselves, and move towards becoming all that they can be, the end justifies the means to get there.

And those that believe in Christianity and Jesus' power to save have a leg up in the sense that they have a 'sneak preview' of the way God makes crooked lines straight.

I've said many times, we live in a natural world. It is what it is. It is a world in which we can actually choose between opposites and everything in between. There are the exceptions. That's part and parcel of the fallen/natural world.

I maintain that it couldn't/can't be any other way and still fully allow for free agents. And more importantly, the growth that goes along with being free to choose.

So "the end justifies the means" really isn't what I think you're making it out to be.

Even as a non believer you are still a beneficiary of that plan of agency and choice. We tend to take it for granted at times, don't we?

Regards,
MG

Pretty amusing. Let's look at the entirety of my post.

I don't think that it's that MG's a troll as much as it's that he's an end justifies the means type of fellow. I think he believes since his end intentions are good (defending the Church), it's okay if he skirts what he sees as unjust rules and then kind of lies about it.

MG and I disagree on this approach. He has said that ends justifies the means is often necessary to accomplish the greater good--while I think that it's the fetid justification for virtually every form of immorality that exists.

He has maintained that God uses ends justifies the means all the time. My retort is that no God worthy of the position would do such a thing. End justifies the means is one of MG's crooked lines that God uses to draw straight.

My tendency is to distrust anyone who justifies their own behavior--or their religion--with that philosophy.

I think it's pretty clear that what I'm saying is that you, MG, feel justified in violating the rules of ethical conduct by invoking ends justifies the means. Specifically, you do this in regards to using AI on this board. That's pretty crappy. I'm also saying that you justify the transgressions your church leaders and of their interpretation of God by invoking ends justifies the means. Also pretty crappy.

The only employment of free agency in any of this is the choice that you're making to to tell yourself it's okay when you, MG, continue to deceive and play fast-and-loose with the rules. The rules apply to everyone else but you, because you think you're on the side of God. (By the way, you're not.) The rules apply to every other person but your Church leaders, because they're on the side of God. (Again, by the way, in these instances, they're not.)

You're sure that you're defending the Church and God, so what does it matter if you do so in ways that transgress any kind of ethical social interaction? What does it matter if you lie and cheat, if it's all in the name of what you consider to be a good end purpose?

Ends justifies the means arguments are either employed after the fact to justify some not-so-shining moment in history or they're despicably used in the present to rationalize knowingly violating an ethical norm or a law. They have nothing to do with either God or heaven's bestowal of free agency.

You seem to think that the invocation of 'free agency' is some kind of 'get out of jail free' card that you can play to Trump any argument. It's not.

That you would rationalize your behavior by invoking the example of Atonement of Jesus Christ is frankly stomach-churning. You make a mockery of Christian theology and of LDS Church teachings when you do that. Ah, come on--even you have to realize that that's the worst kind of blasphemy.

[MetaProf]

In the following interview Elder Gilbert comes across across as a humble servant of the Lord. Some of the things covered in the wide ranging interview were:

1. The church is a 'big tent' church while at the same time under obligation to emphasize the fact that Jesus gave commandments to be followed.
2. Elder Gilbert made clear that he is not the arbiter of orthodoxy. That safety comes from being grounded in church doctrine and following the living prophet.
3. Women are continuing to play an important part in the administration of the church at both the local and general level. He gave an example of an instance where revelation had been given to a Young Women's President and that he needed to listen to her council.
4. He describes his call as being a combination of overwhelming "fear and joy' likening it to the apostles running to Christ.
5. He showcased Utah as being an innovator in how to work with and treat immigrants. He mentioned the Utah Compact and "Utah Solution" as rooted in LDS doctrine.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2026/02 ... h-new-LDS/

if that link doesn't work, try this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FPwhJhBJ-A&t=1s

He came across as being a sincere and humble man.

Regards,
MG

I don't come around here very often, but Jesus H. Christ this sounds mental, gymnast, when compared to actual reality.

[MG 2.0]

To clarify, when we say the "ends justifies the means" we may be looking at things a bit differently. I bring it back to agency and free will. The means is 'free will'. The ends is the outcome of the crooked lines that human beings travel. God justifies the means and the end through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. What does this mean? Simply, that as humans travel the road of life and make mistakes, correct themselves, and move towards becoming all that they can be, the end justifies the means to get there.

And those that believe in Christianity and Jesus' power to save have a leg up in the sense that they have a 'sneak preview' of the way God makes crooked lines straight.

I've said many times, we live in a natural world. It is what it is. It is a world in which we can actually choose between opposites and everything in between. There are the exceptions. That's part and parcel of the fallen/natural world.

I maintain that it couldn't/can't be any other way and still fully allow for free agents. And more importantly, the growth that goes along with being free to choose.

So "the end justifies the means" really isn't what I think you're making it out to be.

Even as a non believer you are still a beneficiary of that plan of agency and choice. We tend to take it for granted at times, don't we?

Regards,
MG

Pretty amusing. Let's look at the entirety of my post.

I don't think that it's that MG's a troll as much as it's that he's an end justifies the means type of fellow. I think he believes since his end intentions are good (defending the Church), it's okay if he skirts what he sees as unjust rules and then kind of lies about it.

MG and I disagree on this approach. He has said that ends justifies the means is often necessary to accomplish the greater good--while I think that it's the fetid justification for virtually every form of immorality that exists.

He has maintained that God uses ends justifies the means all the time. My retort is that no God worthy of the position would do such a thing. End justifies the means is one of MG's crooked lines that God uses to draw straight.

My tendency is to distrust anyone who justifies their own behavior--or their religion--with that philosophy.

I think it's pretty clear that what I'm saying is that you, MG, feel justified in violating the rules of ethical conduct by invoking ends justifies the means. Specifically, you do this in regards to using AI on this board. That's pretty crappy. I'm also saying that you justify the transgressions your church leaders and of their interpretation of God by invoking ends justifies the means. Also pretty crappy.

The only employment of free agency in any of this is the choice that you're making to to tell yourself it's okay when you, MG, continue to deceive and play fast-and-loose with the rules. The rules apply to everyone else but you, because you think you're on the side of God. (By the way, you're not.) The rules apply to every other person but your Church leaders, because they're on the side of God. (Again, by the way, in these instances, they're not.)

You're sure that you're defending the Church and God, so what does it matter if you do so in ways that transgress any kind of ethical social interaction? What does it matter if you lie and cheat, if it's all in the name of what you consider to be a good end purpose?

Ends justifies the means arguments are either employed after the fact to justify some not-so-shining moment in history or they're despicably used in the present to rationalize knowingly violating an ethical norm or a law. They have nothing to do with either God or heaven's bestowal of free agency.

You seem to think that the invocation of 'free agency' is some kind of 'get out of jail free' card that you can play to Trump any argument. It's not.

That you would rationalize your behavior by invoking the example of Atonement of Jesus Christ is frankly stomach-churning. You make a mockery of Christian theology and of LDS Church teachings when you do that. Ah, come on--even you have to realize that that's the worst kind of blasphemy.

Thanks for your response, Morley. I will let my words stand as they are. You are free, of course, to take any interpretive position you would like to.

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

In the following interview Elder Gilbert comes across across as a humble servant of the Lord. Some of the things covered in the wide ranging interview were:

1. The church is a 'big tent' church while at the same time under obligation to emphasize the fact that Jesus gave commandments to be followed.
2. Elder Gilbert made clear that he is not the arbiter of orthodoxy. That safety comes from being grounded in church doctrine and following the living prophet.
3. Women are continuing to play an important part in the administration of the church at both the local and general level. He gave an example of an instance where revelation had been given to a Young Women's President and that he needed to listen to her council.
4. He describes his call as being a combination of overwhelming "fear and joy' likening it to the apostles running to Christ.
5. He showcased Utah as being an innovator in how to work with and treat immigrants. He mentioned the Utah Compact and "Utah Solution" as rooted in LDS doctrine.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2026/02 ... h-new-LDS/

if that link doesn't work, try this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FPwhJhBJ-A&t=1s

He came across as being a sincere and humble man.

Regards,
MG

I don't come around here very often, but Jesus H. Christ this sounds mental, gymnast, when compared to actual reality.

It is intentional. It isn't coming from a place of a sincere wish to have any kind of good faith conversation.

[MG 2.0]

I don't come around here very often, but...[heck]...this sounds mental, gymnast, when compared to actual reality.

It is intentional. It isn't coming from a place of a sincere wish to have any kind of good faith conversation.

Not true.

Actual reality?

Regards,
MG