Lincoln Cannon

Occasionally, I receive questions about the relationship between Mormon Transhumanism and priesthood. Generally, the questions come from members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in which we esteem priesthood as the authority of God. Implicit in the questions, or sometimes explicit, is concern that our esteem for priesthood would be rendered meaningless in a world where miraculous technology is generally available. Who needs a priest when an algorithm can raise the dead?

Although I’ve responded to such questions in public interviews and private conversations, I’ve also been meaning to publish some thoughts in writing. Now seems like the perfect opportunity. Yesterday in conference, my stake (a group of local wards or congregations) voted to sustain me as a high priest in the Melchizedek priesthood. And, despite what some assume about Transhumanists, I’m grateful for their expression of support.

My Ordination

A few weeks ago, my son Spencer approached me with a request that I ordain him as a high priest. His stake had called him to serve in a position that requires this ordination. Traditionally, when this need arises, the person to be ordained asks someone he knows, who is already a high priest and authorized by the stake, to perform the ordinance.

Of course I was pleased that Spencer would ask me. But there was a problem. Decades ago, as a teenager, and at the invitation of the Church, I had been ordained successively as a deacon, teacher, and priest in the Aaronic priesthood, and then as an elder in the Melchizedek priesthood. But I had never been ordained, nor invited to be ordained, as a high priest

In this case, the Church wasn’t asking. But my son was asking. And I wanted to accept his invitation. Would it be appropriate for me to ask the Church?

A passage of scripture came to mind. In the Pearl of Great Price, we read the following in the voice of Abraham (chapter one, verses two through four):

“And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness⁠, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge⁠, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations⁠, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest⁠, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

“It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn⁠, or the first man, who is Adam⁠, or first father, through the fathers unto me. I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.”

Look how many times the text indicates that Abraham intentionally seeks for ordination as a high priest. “I sought for the blessings … and the right whereunto I should be ordained,” begins Abraham. He proceeds with several indirect expressions of desire for ordination. And closing, he says, “I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood.”

Encouraged by this passage of scripture, I reached out to the bishop of my local ward, as well as the president of my local stake. After explaining to them my son’s request, I asked. Would you please consider authorizing my ordination as a high priest, so that I may ordain my son?

My bishop and stake president both warmly welcomed my request. And, subsequent to completing the requisite interviews, they authorized my ordination. Then I got to invite someone to perform the ordination.

As a teenager, I had asked my father, Layne Cannon, to perform my previous priesthood ordinations. He had been ordained as a high priest. And I would have liked to ask him to perform this additional ordination. But he’s dead – for now.

So I traveled to Spokane, Washington, where my maternal grandfather, James Plumb, lives. In his nineties, he’s my only living ancestor who has been ordained as a high priest. And he had happily accepted my invitation to ordain me.

With my stake president as a witness via webcam, my grandfather and his son (my uncle, also named James Plumb, and also a high priest) performed my ordination. They placed their hands on my head. My grandfather spoke:

“Lincoln Connelly Cannon, by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood, we ordain you to the office of high priest, and bestow the rights, powers, and authority of that office.”

He then proceeded to speak additional words, blessings, as he felt inspired. In both emotional and practical ways, it was a deeply meaningful experience.

A few days after my return from Spokane, I visited an office in the building where my son attends Church services. His local ward and stake authorities were present. Family was present. With my hands on Spencer’s head, I spoke:

“Spencer Layne Cannon, by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood, we ordain you to the office of high priest, and bestow the rights, powers, and authority of that office.”

Like my grandfather had done for me, I spoke those words and others, blessings, as I felt inspired. In both emotional and practical ways, it was a deeply meaningful experience. Maybe sometime I’ll share with you more about the emotional part of the experience. For now, I want to tell you more about why it was practically meaningful – and was illustrative of what will, I trust, remain practically meaningful experience for as long as humanity and our evolutionary descendants endure.

Practical Priesthood

When I address the practical benefits of traditional religious practice, such as priesthood, I try to do so in ways that resonate with both believers and non-believers. I want believers to see ourselves genuinely reflected in my words, even if my perspective isn’t exactly the same as theirs. And I want non-believers to see the functional consequences of religious practice in new light, independent of preconceptions they might have about any supposed inherent anti-naturalism in religion. This balance isn’t easy, but the effort reflects who I am and how I do actually value my religion, including priesthood.

Priesthood provides a framework for governance within the Church, to promote reconciliation and solidarity among its members. We need governance, whether we like it or not – whether we recognize the need or not. Where we lack explicit governance, implicit governance emerges, too often tyrannical. When functioning well, as I often but don’t always observe in the Church, governance serves to facilitate cooperation within a community.

Priesthood enhances the efficacy of religious practice. It infuses rituals with a stronger sense of purpose, and renders them more tangibly consequential. Scientific evidence shows that authority plays a crucial role in generating placebo, which, although not yet well understood, is a very real and quite natural power for healing and well-being. I have observed and experienced from time to time throughout my life that priesthood can be a particularly effective form of authority for channeling the power of placebo.

As articulated in Mormon scripture, priesthood fosters the ethical accumulation and exercise of power. Power isn’t inherently good or evil, in how we gain or use it. But it can be powerfully evil, as it can be powerfully good. In what I esteem to be among his most inspiring words, the prophet Joseph Smith explained that priesthood authority is only the possibility of power (or even less) until we use it with compassion to promote trust and cultivate reciprocal compassion that willingly gives us power (Doctrine and Covenants 121):

“No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile …

“Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.”

Priesthood facilitates the integration of theology with technology. Without priesthood, or its functional equivalent, theology is merely analytical ideas and words. Priesthood implements theology into the act of ritual, which gives body and life to the theology. And ritual, over time, converts aspiration into reality, words shaping the world through arts – the literal etymological meaning of “technology.”

Particularly as practiced among Mormons, priesthood encourages an aspirational and co-created approach to divine authority. We esteem priesthood as the authority of God, which we participate in distributing throughout humanity. Consequently, the authorized purpose and potential of God increasingly becomes our shared purposes and potential, as we live up to the covenant relationship. On this matter, Joseph Smith expressed these (Doctrine and Covenants 84):

“For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.

“And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord; For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

“And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood. Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.

In summary, we need not believe in anti-natural magic or adopt any superstitious stance toward the world to recognize and appreciate the functional consequences of priesthood. It provides us with structure for governance, promoting cooperation and enhancing the efficacy of ritual. It educates us in the ethical accumulation of power, facilitating a progressive expression of theology into technology. And it would align us with that which we understand and sense to be the purpose and potential of Godhood.

Keys of the Resurrection

In addition to the practical benefits of priesthood in our lives today, I envision an apocalyptic purpose for priesthood in our future. Sometimes revelation is passive observation. But the revelation, the unveiling or exhuming, to which I now refer is quite the opposite. The apocalyptic purpose of priesthood will be an active authorization to re-create everything that matters and has ever mattered to humanity – the resurrection.

I frequently comment on how to raise the dead, not as an anti-natural fantasy but as an aspiration toward a practical technological project. Recently, with intentional provocation, I’ve been suggesting that the resurrection will begin within the next couple decades. When commenting on this, I have usually focused on how to approach imagining such an event as technically possible. But there are also social requirements for positive versions of this possibility.

We may soon live in a world where it’s harder to stay dead than alive. That’s to say, you may still be able to destroy your body – accidentally or otherwise. But we may also have ample means for reconstructing your body, your brain, and its association with your mind, all from backups. So far, so good.

But, to some terrifying extent, it may prove difficult to constrain use of technology for reconstructing that which … appears to be you. Deep fakes in photos, audio, and video can already be deeply disconcerting. And the risks of unethical use of these technologies seem poised to grow well beyond that which we even have the anatomical capacity to imagine presently.

What, if anything, can we do about that? I have repeatedly contended that we should advocate decentralization of power and build decentralized systems of governance. Decentralization naturally promotes cooperation, which makes our relationships more dependable. This is a good start.

Looking beyond a good start, however, our gaze rises toward the limit – the limit of human potential in the superhuman. At that limit, how might superhuman intelligence govern itself? How might superhumanity maintain within itself a coherent sense of identity? What will ensure decentralized agency, and requisite capacities for consent, privacy, and security?

No matter their form, all systems of governance have authority, explicit or implicit – the concepts require each other. And governance at the limit of humanity will require authority at the limit of humanity. As it’s hard to imagine superhuman governance, it’s hard to imagine superhuman authority. But that’s never stopped me from trying.

To remain effective among agents of extraordinary esthetic complexity, superhuman governance must enshrine its authority in superhuman esthetics. And that’s just a wordy way of saying that the Gods must be nothing short of religious about their authority. In function, religion is communal esthetics. And it’s the most powerful social technology.

Religious governance is priesthood. Priesthood is the authority through which the Gods govern themselves. Authority enshrined in sublime esthetics is how superhumanity, that which I trust now exists and that which I trust humanity may become, governs itself. And nothing less than this authority at the limit will be required of humanity at the limit, if we are to survive and thrive.

In that world, where it’s harder to stay dead than alive, we will need each other – superhuman versions of each other – to maintain a coherent sense of identity. You see, we don’t individually own our identities. Identity is a psychosocial construct. And we will need to anchor that construct in the most trustworthy community, the most sublime, the most divine.

Here, then, is the apocalyptic purpose of priesthood. The Gods must authorize resurrection. If it’s not authorized, raising the dead is just making copies, clones, doppelgangers, and deep fakes. If it’s not psychosocially sufficient, if we don’t fully consent both individually and socially, leveraging governance at its limit through authority at its limit, it’s not resurrection.

Ordinance of the Resurrection

Joseph Smith once prophesied that, in the “last times,” we will gain the keys of the transfiguration (or “translation”), transforming living mortals to immortality. And he said that transfiguration would be an ordinance of the priesthood. Some have supposed that to mean the functional capacity (technical or antinatural, as the case may be) to end aging will eventually become available exclusively to priesthood. Maybe.

“Now the doctrine of translation is a power which belongs to this Priesthood. There are many things which belong to the powers of the Priesthood and the keys thereof, that have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world; they are hid from the wise and prudent to be revealed in the last times. Many have supposed that the doctrine of translation was a doctrine whereby men were taken immediately into the presence of God, and into an eternal fullness, but his is a mistaken idea. Their place of habitation is that of the terrestrial order, and a place prepared for such characters He held in reserve to be ministering angels unto many planets, and who as yet have not entered into so great a fullness as those who are resurrected from the dead.” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 170)

But Joseph didn’t say the requisite functional capacity to end aging would be exclusive. Priesthood may control technical aspects of transfiguration no more than we presently control technical aspects of baptism. Just about anyone can dunk a body in water, but only priesthood can authorize that event as baptism. Likewise, just about anyone may be able to apply powerful anti-aging technologies to a body, but only priesthood could authorize that event as transfiguration.

Looking a bit farther ahead, Brigham Young once prophesied that we will eventually also gain the keys of the resurrection, raising the dead to immortality. And, reminiscent of Joseph, Brigham said that resurrection would be an ordinance of the priesthood. As with transfiguration, some have supposed that to mean the capacity to raise the dead will eventually become available exclusively to priesthood. But again, he didn’t say the requisite functional capacity would be exclusive.

“I have friends on the earth, for God would raise them up for me to do my work. That is not all; by and by the Lord will say to the sleeping dust, awake and come forth out of your graves. I am on hand; the Lord wakes me up or sends somebody to do it that possesses the keys of the resurrection. My dust is waked up; my spirit is re-united to it, and it is made a celestial body filled with immortality and eternal life.” (Brigham Young, Addresses 2: 100)

I’ve suggested that transfiguration may be analogous to baptism. More persuasively, Joseph Smith explicitly taught that baptism is analogous to resurrection. Here are his words on the matter (Doctrine and Covenants 128):

“Herein is glory and honor, and immortality and eternal life – The ordinance of baptism by water, to be immersed therein in order to answer to the likeness of the dead, that one principle might accord with the other; to be immersed in the water and come forth out of the water is in the likeness of the resurrection of the dead in coming forth out of their graves; hence, this ordinance was instituted to form a relationship with the ordinance of baptism for the dead, being in likeness of the dead.”

Baptism is symbolic of resurrection. It’s a ritual that increasingly transforms theology into technology, words into reality. As we do our family history, gather records of our dead ancestors, and perform temple ordinances such as proxy baptism for them, we imagine their restoration to life with increasing detail.

Someday, perhaps sooner than most of us are anticipating, our imagination of the dead will be newly empowered. Assuming we don’t destroy ourselves first, humanity will develop technology to gather and organize information about the dead to magnitudes of detail that will overcome any practical distinction between simulation and re-creation. We will raise the dead. And we will need a powerful system of governance with powerful authority, as esthetically compelling as it is technically capable, to authorize the ordinance of resurrection.

As an important aside, I certainly don’t mean by this that we need a tyrannical system of governance. And I certainly don’t think any centralized system of governance (even a centralized Church governance) will prove capable of cultivating the limits of cooperation, practically indistinguishable from compassion, that will be necessary to avoid hellish future scenarios at the limits of technological power. By “powerful,” I just mean powerful. And the most dependable way to perpetuate compassionate power is decentralization, I trust, even for the Gods.

Aspirational Priesthood

But who’s to say that the Melchizedek priesthood, that which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints esteems as the authority of God, actually is or necessarily will be that which authorizes resurrection? Of course some in the Church would make this claim. And of course most outside the Church would either not care about or dispute this claim. Maybe God, the cosmic host, will tell you.

In the meantime, it may be more productive, and a more genuine expression of faith, to think of priesthood as a perpetual aspiration actively to receive and participate in the authority of God, rather than anything ever merely given and passively received. Perhaps like Abraham as an individual, the Church as a community might approach our future, and our God, and each other, with the express desire for sublime authority, asked through our actions. Perhaps we have an opportunity to progress, as a Church like individuals, through successive ordinations to greater degrees of authority.

An aspirational perspective on priesthood may be more consistent with history. If we esteem priesthood as authority of that particular God, Christ, who would raise us together in Godhood, thereby perpetually decentralizing God, clearly our history is one of imperfect progress. Some Church leaders, notably Joseph Smith and Spencer Kimball, decentralized priesthood beyond formal clergy and racial exclusion. Perhaps we will eventually decentralize beyond gender exclusion and gerontocracy.

An aspirational perspective on priesthood may also be more consistent with scripture and the Mormon authoritative tradition. This is perhaps most strongly expressed by the prophet Isaiah, speaking in the voice of God, who rejects priesthood ritual from those with metaphorical blood on their hands. The prophet Malachi, also speaking in the voice of God, prophesies that priesthood must be purged and purified before becoming capable of performing acceptable ritual. Echoing Malachi, Joseph Smith explicitly framed the relationship of priesthood to ritual work for the dead in aspirational terms (Doctrine and Covenants 128):

“Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness; and let us present in his holy temple … a book containing the records of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation.”

Let us, indeed, aspire to sublime authority. May we gain it without compulsion. And may we use it with compassion and courage, trusting that God has indeed ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us save ourselves with all our dead.

The Mormon Transhumanist Association in Africa recently invited me to speak. Because of their strong motivation and inspiring work, their membership has been growing rapidly. My understanding is that, since inception about a year ago, the African area of the association has grown to around 200 members. Below is a lightly edited transcript of my sermon, which I delivered to them remotely.

Friends, it’s good to be with you today.

What I’d like to do is speak with you about the scriptures. In fact, I’d like to read the scriptures with you today. If you have your scriptures, I encourage you to get them because we’ll be looking at them together. So if you could grab your Bible and your Book of Mormon, we’ll be using those.

What I’d like to read about in the scriptures together is the Gospel of Christ and how it relates to transfiguration, to the ideas that we teach and proclaim and share here at the Mormon Transhumanist Association.

Become Christ

If you would, let’s turn together, first of all, in the New Testament of the Bible to the First Epistle of John, chapter 3. That’s where I’d like to start. Right there at the beginning of the chapter, let’s read the first two verses together.

“See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God; and that is what we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know Him. Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” (1 John 3:1-2)

Think about that for a moment. Think about what it says. Think about what it implies about the relationship between us and Christ.

It says that when Christ appears, we will be like Christ. Imagine what kind of change is required for that to happen. Imagine the kind of people we will be when that happens.

All throughout the New Testament, this idea is taught – this idea of transformation or transfiguration, of profound change. We must become as Christ is. We must become Christ with Jesus.

Do the Works of Christ

Let’s move on to the second passage of scripture. This one is in the Gospel of John, chapter 14, verse 12.

“Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things.” (John 14:12)

Again, I invite you to think about the words that are written here by John. What’s he saying? He’s saying that we should do the works of Christ and even greater works than those that are talked about in the New Testament.

This is Jesus speaking in this passage. He says that whoever believes in him will do the works that he has done. And they will do even greater things.

This extends the same message we received in the First Epistle of John, where we’re told that when Christ appears, we will be like Christ. How will we be like Christ? This scripture tells us we will be like Christ because we will do the works that Jesus showed us, and even greater things.

That’s a stunning idea. It’s a big idea – one that should sober us, cause us to reflect, to think about what potential we have, but also how far we have to go.

Create Heaven on Earth

Let’s go to another passage of scripture. This one is in the Book of Revelation, or the Apocalypse of John, which is the last book of the New Testament. We’ll go to chapter 21 and start at the beginning, verses 1 through 4.

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and He will dwell with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’” (Revelation 21:1–4)

In this passage, John is describing the future of Earth – this place where we now live – when it has been transformed and become a heaven, and God lives on Earth.

How will God live on Earth? Well, we’ve already read in other passages of scripture that when Christ returns, we will be like Christ. So, when Christ returns, we will be God with Christ, with Jesus.

We will be like Jesus. We, as God with God, will live on Earth. This will be our heaven transformed.

It’s a beautiful idea – an idea worthy of our hope and worthy of our work. It’s an idea not just about power, but about compassion. It’s about becoming the kind of people who, as the scripture says, will wipe every tear from the eyes of our family and our friends and everyone else. It’s about seeing their suffering and helping to relieve it, about becoming the kind of people that Jesus Christ exemplifies.

When we do that, this Earth will become our heaven. And God will dwell here with us.

God Inspires Technology

Let’s turn to the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews. We often call it the Book of Hebrews. We’ll look at chapter 11, verse 7.

We sometimes wonder how we will achieve these great prophecies of the future – that we will become like Christ, that heaven will come to Earth, and that Earth will become heaven. Hebrews 11 has something to say about that.

“By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family.” (Hebrews 11:7)

When Noah heard the prophecies of the future, when Noah was confronted with the challenges of his day, he was inspired. He was moved by the Spirit of God.

And in his inspiration, what did he do? He built. He created. He used the technology of his day – with inspiration of God – to build a boat, an ark, and save his family from impending disaster.

We, today, find ourselves in a similar situation, confronted with the challenges, the risks, and the potential disasters of our day. We have been inspired by God to act, to become like Christ. How do we do that?

Well, it starts with prayer. It starts with inspiration. It starts with revelation.

But it proceeds from there to action, and from action to building and creating and using all the means God has given us. And that includes technology. We must use the technology of our day, as Noah used the technology of his, to create and build so as to save our family and friends and our world from potential disaster.

Change to Avoid Destruction

There’s another scripture related to this idea that’s important. I’d like to turn with you to the Book of Jonah in the Old Testament, going to Jonah, chapter 3. Jonah was a prophet called by God to go to Nineveh and proclaim the word of God. We’ll read what the scriptures say about him – Jonah 3, starting with verses 3 and 4, then skipping to verse 10.

“Jonah obeyed the word of the Lord and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very large city; it took three days to go through it. Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, ‘Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.’”

“When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, He relented and did not bring on them the destruction He had threatened.” (Jonah 3:3-4, 10)

How often do we hear of prophecies of destruction, of the end of the world, of terrible things – of frightening things, of tempests and earthquakes and fires and destruction and death and hell? How often do we hear these dark ideas? And yet these are not our fate.

We read in Jonah that Jonah was called by God to tell the people of Nineveh they would be destroyed. But they changed.

They repented. They became better people. And they were not destroyed.

Confronted today as we are by dark ideas and terrible risks, we too have the opportunity to change, to repent, to be better people, to create and to build better relationships, to use the means God has given us – including technology – to make the world better. If we do that, we have this scriptural precedent, this promise, that we will not be destroyed.

Despite great risks, like Nineveh, we can repent. We can change. And we can overcome.

Resurrection to Diversity

Let’s talk a little bit about what that future might look like in more detail. We’ll read together again in the New Testament, Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 15. We’ll go to verse 35 to start.

“But someone will ask, ‘How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?’ How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as He has determined, and to each kind of seed He gives its own body. Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another, fish another. There are also heavenly bodies, and there are earthly bodies. But the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another, and the stars another. And star differs from star in splendor. So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable; it is raised imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.” (1 Corinthians 15:35–44)

As we think about overcoming the risks of our day and the future that awaits us, some of us might think that future will be the same for everyone, that there’s only one way we can become like God, only one way our bodies might be. This scripture says otherwise. It says that in the resurrection there will be many kinds of bodies – bodies like the sun, like the moon, like the stars. And star differs from star in splendor.

The resurrection of the dead to immortality will be a resurrection to diversity. And in that diversity, we will be beautiful.

We need not worry that everybody will be the same, living in a boring heaven where everything is just one thing. We have the opportunity to look forward to something beautiful, different, changing, and dynamic. Eternal life is not a boring, same-old-things life. It is a life of diverse beauty.

Resurrection to Embodiment

Let’s read more about that in Luke 24, starting in verse 36. Keep in mind the context: this is happening after Jesus died.

“While they were still talking about this, Jesus Himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, ‘Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.’ When He had said this, He showed them His hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it, because of joy and amazement, He asked them, ‘Do you have anything here to eat?’ They gave Him a piece of broiled fish, and He took it and ate it in their presence.” (Luke 24:36–43)

When we think about resurrection to immortality and all of the diversity of those bodies, we can keep in mind this passage. It reminds us that all those diverse, beautiful, immortal bodies are flesh and bone and tangible and embodied. We’re not talking about mere metaphors. When we talk about the eventual resurrection of our bodies, the bodies of our family and friends, and the bodies of all humanity, we’re talking about a literal embodied body, an immortal resurrection.

Jesus exemplifies that here to his disciples. His immortal body can be touched and felt. He says it is a body of flesh and bone. And he eats with his disciples to demonstrate he is as real as they are.

The resurrection to which we aspire is as real as the life we are living now – not just metaphors or abstractions, but flesh-and-bone resurrection to immortality.

Heal the Sick and Raise the Dead

Let’s go to the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 10, verses 7 and 8. Jesus is speaking and tells his disciples:

“As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near. Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.’” (Matthew 10:7–8)

We’ve been talking about resurrection to immortality, to embodied immortality. But Jesus doesn’t expect us to wait around for that. Jesus has an audacious, big idea. He tells his disciples to work to heal the sick and even to raise the dead.

I don’t know how to do that exactly. I doubt any of us knows. Yet Jesus commands us to do so.

We have a lot to learn and a lot of work to do. And we had better get started. We can start by doing what we can to heal the sick. And while we’re doing that, we must learn how to raise the dead.

Transfiguration

More on that subject from 1 Corinthians 15, starting in verse 51.

“Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory.’” (1 Corinthians 15:51–54)

What a promise. What a vision – that this work of Christ, to which he commands us to heal the sick and raise the dead, will lead to a day when the dead will rise and the living will be transformed from mortality to immortality.

Perhaps you and I will be there. Perhaps we will participate in this transfiguration from mortality to immortality. Perhaps our friends and our family will as well. That is the end toward which we are called to work: to heal the sick and to raise the dead.

But if by chance we die before that day comes, we can yet have consolation that we will be raised from the dead to immortality and enjoy this new heaven on Earth with our loved ones. We could die. We don’t know our fate.

But we don’t work for death. We work for life. We work to heal. We work to raise the dead, to overcome that awful monster of death and hell, to join the work Christ calls each of us to do: to become Christ with Jesus and transform this Earth into heaven.

Faith to Action

One more scripture from the New Testament: the Epistle of James, chapter 2, starting in verse 14.

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, ‘You have faith; I have deeds.’ Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” (James 2:14–19)

We’ve talked about many big ideas – about healing the sick, raising the dead, transforming our bodies and our world into immortality. There’s a temptation to do nothing, to relax, and wait on God to do all the work. But remember, that’s not what God has asked us to do.

Over and over in the scriptures, God invites us, even commands us, to participate in this work of transformation. We are called to change, to repent, to work, and to create and build and make that better world of prophecy. That is our faith, that such a world is possible. But as James tells us, our faith is vain if we do not work in accordance with it.

More Blessed

Now let’s go to the Book of Mormon for one more passage: 3 Nephi, chapter 28. As context, this is the appearance of Jesus to people in the Americas. He is talking to His disciples there – the 12 he calls to teach the gospel of Christ in the Americas. Starting at verse 1.

“And it came to pass when Jesus had said these words, He spake unto His disciples, one by one, saying unto them: ‘What is it that ye desire of me, after that I am gone to the Father?’ And they all spake, save it were three, saying, ‘We desire that after we have lived unto the age of man, that our ministry, wherein thou hast called us, may have an end, that we may speedily come unto Thee in Thy kingdom.’ And Jesus said unto them, ‘Blessed are you because ye desired this thing of me. Therefore, after that ye are seventy and two years old, ye shall come unto me in my kingdom, and with me ye shall find rest.’

“And when He had spoken unto them, He turned Himself unto the three, and said unto them, ‘What will ye that I should do unto you, when I am gone unto the Father?’ And they sorrowed in their hearts, for they durst not speak unto Him the thing which they desired.

“And He said unto them, ‘Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me. Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven. And ye shall never endure the pains of death, but when I shall come in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from mortality to immortality. And then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom of my Father.’

“‘And again, ye shall not have pain while ye shall dwell in the flesh, neither sorrow, save it be for the sins of the world. And all this will I do because of the thing which ye have desired of me, for ye have desired that ye might bring the souls of men unto me while the world shall stand. And for this cause ye shall have fullness of joy, and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fullness of joy. And ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one. And the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me, and the Father giveth the Holy Ghost unto the children of men because of me.’

“And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words, He touched every one of them with His finger save it were the three who were to tarry, and then He departed.” (3 Nephi 28:1–12)

This is one of my favorite passages of the Book of Mormon. Jesus is speaking with His 12 disciples. He asks them, “What do you want? What do you desire?”

Most of them – nine – say they want to go to heaven after they die. Jesus tells them they are blessed for this desire.

Three of them, however, don’t speak because their desire is different. And they’re worried Jesus won’t like it.

But Jesus discerns their thoughts. He understands their desire. And he tells them they are more blessed for this desire.

Did you get that? The three disciples are more blessed than the others for their desire. And what is that desire? They desire to live their life without dying, so they can continue teaching the gospel of Christ for as long as the world stands.

These three disciples saw a vision of the potential of humanity and the potential of Earth – of the transformation that is coming. And they wanted to participate in every moment. They wanted to work. They wanted to express their faith through action.

They wanted to become like Christ. And Christ tells them they are more blessed for this desire. He tells them they will have the opportunity to work, to proclaim the gospel of Christ, to heal the sick, to raise the dead, to participate in the work of God until Christ returns.

And in that day, when Christ returns, they will be like Christ. Christ is like God. And Christ and God are one.

In other words, these disciples would become like God and one with God. They would never die. They would work to change the world. And for that desire, Jesus tells them they are more blessed.

We’re gathered together as Mormon transhumanists because our desire is to participate in the transformation of this world – of our bodies, the bodies of our friends and family, the bodies of all humanity – into heaven and into immortality, so that when Christ returns, we will be like Christ. As Mormon transhumanists, we are gathered because our desire is the same as the three Nephite disciples’ desire: that we might live and work to proclaim the gospel of Christ, to act with power on the gospel of Christ.

I tell you that for this desire, we are more blessed, just as Jesus tells his disciples in the Book of Mormon. If he were with us today, I trust he would say the same. We are more blessed because we wish to work, to proclaim the gospel, to live, and to participate in the transformation of our bodies and our world into heaven and into godhood.

Thank you for reading the scriptures with me today. I hope you’ve felt inspiration, as I have, when reading these passages. I invite you to share these scriptures with your friends and family and talk about how they inspire us to participate with Jesus in the transformation of our bodies and our world into heaven and godhood.

[Visit the webpage to view the media.]

Celebrity biohacker Bryan Johnson recently sent a provocative email to his followers. “I am the healthiest person on the planet,” he claims. True or not, he probably has your attention.

I don’t have concerns with the sensationalism, at least not in itself. Hopefully Bryan is every bit as healthy as he claims. His data is impressive, to say the least. And I admire his courage and tenacity.

But I do have some concerns with the ideology that Bryan promotes throughout the remainder of his email. He calls it “Don’t Die.” It could be a good start – better than so many alternatives vying for our hearts and minds. But, at least so far as he has yet articulated, the ideology has practical limitations that must and will ultimately impede its potential for primacy, as I’ll explain.

Bryan first introduced the “Don’t Die” ideology in a 2023 book by the same name. The book repeatedly, both explicitly and implicitly, touched on Bryan’s relationship with Mormonism. So, at the time, I wrote about that relationship in particular. Now, while enjoying the provocation of Bryan’s recent email, I feel to write some more general thoughts.

Before I get to my concerns, however, I want to establish some personal context. I like Bryan. And I think his work is nothing short of momentous on a sociocultural level. So if you’re looking for a reason to hate him, make fun of him, or dismiss him, go away.

Don’t Die Is Not the Universal Game

After elaborating on his health claim, Bryan characterizes “Don’t Die” as the “oldest and most played game in human history.” He says religion, business, military, politics, and even procreation are forms of this game. “It’s the universal game,” he says.

There’s an extent of truth to this. In the most general sense, survival is a necessary condition for the achievement of any goal. That which doesn’t exist doesn’t have any goals, let alone any capacity to achieve any goals. Thus, some extent of survival must be at least an instrumental goal.

But survival in the most general sense doesn’t necessarily entail evasion of death. That may sound nonsensical at first. But hear me out. You’ll undoubtedly end up agreeing.

In practically impactful ways, you can survive your death. And innumerable people already have. They’ve done this by teaching their children, loving their friends, creating artwork and machinery, and organizing communities that outlast their bodies. In each of these and countless other ways, people have been continuing to achieve their goals even after they die bodily.

To my mind, this means that part of us can survive death. In the least, it’s our influence and creation. It’s our esthetic. We might call it our “spirit.”

Now of course I’m not content with this kind of merely spiritual survival. After all, I’m a proponent of (nearly) universal resurrection, understood in the most literal sense as embodied resurrection, and pursued in the most practical sense as technological resurrection. But despite my discontent, I could not rightly claim that nothing survives bodily death. That’s simply a false idea, even if we were to concede to those who are skeptical of more elaborate notions of a spiritual afterlife.

So, returning to Bryan’s characterization of “Don’t Die” as the universal game, we can see a problem. As it’s true to some extent when “Don’t Die” is understood broadly, it’s likewise false to some extent when “Don’t Die” is understood narrowly. And this problem has practical ramifications.

Countless people, as recorded in history and envisioned in myth, have intentionally died in the narrow sense to facilitate achievement of their goals. A parent may sacrifice her life to save her child. A soldier may sacrifice his life to defend his country. Of particular note, the most influential ideology on Earth, Christianity, epitomizes the perpetuation and even magnification of goal achievement after bodily death.

These observations reveal that narrowly construed “Don’t Die” is not the universal game, even if it’s a prevalent game. At least some of us have been playing a different game since the dawn of history, recognizing that narrow death doesn’t necessarily terminate and may even facilitate pursuit of our goals. Again, the other game might be a broadly construed “Don’t Die.” But, in that case, I think we can give it a less confusing name.

Some Things Are Worse Than Death

Bryan observes that, in this time of accelerating technological evolution, we’re “giving birth to superintelligence. And we “no longer know how long and how well we can live,” or “how expansive and rich existence could be.” Compared to our superhuman potential, we’re like our prehuman ancestors who couldn’t begin to conceive of contemporary science, let alone understand it. And yet we’re embroiled in “debauchery, greed and violence,” killing ourselves and each other.

He’s exactly right. Maybe it sounds like an exaggeration. But I tell you with all the confidence that I can muster, he’s exactly right. Such are our imminent risks and opportunities in the apocalypse of intelligence.

But consider, with me, how this applies to the ideology of “Don’t Die.” If death were the worst possible outcome, avoiding and even abolishing the possibility of death would make a lot of sense. But, unfortunately for us all, death isn’t the worst possible outcome. Some things are worse than death.

My father died at age 47 in 1998 from his third cancer. His body was wasted, both by the disease and the attempts to cure and mitigate it through therapies and surgeries. His mind was wracked. Especially with some temporal distance from the event, I can easily judge his death as better than any further perpetuation of his suffering.

Science fiction offers analogous warnings that should be more terrifying. For example, in Ring World, people become wireheads with nearly incurable addiction to the stimulation of brain-computer interfaces that render them socially inert. In Altered Carbon, people are repeatedly resurrected by others who repeatedly torture them to death. And in The Matrix, humanity survives into a superintelligent future by becoming mere biological resources, alive but less than slaves, for a machine civilization.

As we don’t know how expansive and rich existence could be, we also don’t know how oppressive and poor existence could be. As there appears to be no upper limit on the opportunity, there appears to be no lower limit on the risk. Bodily death, in any case, is clearly not the lower limit. Not even death in the broader sense is the lower limit, as we can imagine grim scenarios that would be worse than the annihilation of civilization and all of its capacity to achieve goals.

Furthermore, the death of my father actually inspired my work and the development of Mormon Transhumanism. That, in turn, has influenced many others, including Bryan. It’s admittedly a speculative counterfactual and may sound arrogant. But I wonder, in a parallel universe where my father doesn’t die and I don’t share Mormon Transhumanism with Bryan, does Bryan still adapt his post-Mormon life into a functional Transhumanism?

In any case, Bryan has deeply influenced my life. Without him, and without the challenges that influenced the person he is, I would probably be a much different person. In particular, I doubt that I would have had the courage to pursue my entrepreneurial ambitions without his example and the activation energy he provided to pull me away from the corporate world. I’m grateful for his influence.

Thriving Is Better Than Not Dying

Bryan proceeds to claim that “no existing idea of human thought or societal organization is robust enough to meet this moment.” No existing political, economic, or religious ideology is sufficient. We need something new. And that something new, he claims further, is “Don’t Die.”

To some practical extent, I agree with Bryan’s first claim. No existing ideology is sufficient for our time. Indeed, none ever has been for its time. Humanity has always needed better ideologies.

But of course the ideologies at hand have always also provided direction, for better and for worse. And while doing so, they’ve also always adapted to changing circumstance. The world’s most influential ideology is again an obvious example. Christianity has repeatedly adapted to syncretize with the science of its day.

Now, as much or more than ever, our ideologies must continue to adapt to help us meet the challenges of our day. Yes, even Christianity must continue to adapt. That’s among the reasons that we founded the Mormon Transhumanist Association and the Christian Transhumanist Association. And of course new ideologies may also help us, as they have so many times before.

But I disagree with Bryan’s second claim, that “Don’t Die” contrasts favorably against all other ideologies. To the contrary, “Don’t Die” is either the wrong ideology or a confusing name for the right ideology. As I’ve explained, avoiding death is demonstrably not the universal game. And some things are clearly worse, even much worse, than death.

What would contrast favorably against all other ideologies, or at least against the incompatible aspects of all other ideologies? What would be a less confusing name for the right ideology? The answer, it seems to me, is both simple and inexhaustibly complex. The answer is thriving, or even the hope of thriving, which is what makes life worth living.

Thriving can be understood as final goal achievement. When we understand it that way, it becomes the purpose of all intelligence, not merely hypothetically but by definition. Achieving our goals, whatever they may be, is the universal game. Thriving is the universal game.

Now of course we have tensions and conflicts between and within our goals. And unfortunately that results in much suffering, which risk in turn informs the construction of ethics. One person’s thriving clearly isn’t always another’s. But it’s most certainly both of their games.

Survival, like all instrumental goals, is only part of the universal game. We must survive, we must acquire resources, and we must maintain some sufficient degree of internal and external coherence to achieve any final goal. But these instrumental goals should not be confused with final goals, as they are rarely if ever one and the same.

Surviving lets you play the universal game. But all of the points come from thriving. Some of us think that we can all get many more points much more quickly when we help each other not only survive, but also thrive. Some of us even think that we will ultimately prove capable of helping each other thrive despite dying from time to time.

I trust that Bryan aspires to such thriving. Indeed, Bryan would probably be first in line, if able, to facilitate technological resurrection for everyone, so long as there’s any real hope for us to thrive. Contrary to much said about him, I know from observation of his interactions with friends and family that Bryan is a generous person, and that not just in matters of finance that might come more easily with wealth. He’s also generous with his time and concerns.

Proceeding from Misunderstanding

Bryan says we probably won’t understand what he means based on what he’s written. “It takes about two hours of intense conversation to just begin to understand it.” That’s because it challenges traditional knowledge and intuition. And, he observes, the predictable emotions, responses, rebuttals, and reasoning quickly demonstrate misunderstanding.

In deference to that, maybe I’ve misunderstood. I’ve known Bryan a long time. I’ve read his book and many of his articles. But I can still misunderstand.

Heaven knows people commonly misunderstand and mischaracterize my ideas. Often that’s accompanied by ridicule and demonization. But sometimes it’s accompanied by constructive criticism and questions. My intent, here, is constructive criticism and a question.

How have I misunderstood you, Bryan?

It’s getting harder to be an atheist. A quarter century ago, it wasn’t so hard. But things have changed – quite dramatically. It’s become increasingly difficult to remain an atheist while coherently aspiring to a thriving future for humanity.

Now keep in mind that I’m not talking about atheism toward any narrow conception of God. It remains pretty easy to be that kind of atheist. I’m talking about atheism toward that which functions as God in the general sense, whether or not you can bring yourself to use the label “God.” In function, God always has been, and is at least, a superhuman projection.

The main reason that atheism is getting harder is accelerating technological evolution. We can now do things that our ancestors would have considered God-like. We can even do things that some of our younger selves, if we’re old enough, would have considered God-like. And, more clearly than ever, we can see how this is likely to become increasingly the case – as long as we don’t destroy ourselves.

Most Transhumanists have great hope, generally of the active sort, that humanity can and will evolve into superhumanity – something approximating God in function. But some, like me a quarter century ago, remain stubbornly atheist regarding the notion that such superhuman intelligence already exists. I changed, for various esthetic and pragmatic reasons, as I became familiar with the ideas that would eventually coalesce into the New God Argument. As I came to understand the matter, it’s simply incoherent, logically and probabilistically, to trust in a superhuman future for humanity while being skeptical that superhuman intelligence already exists.

Nick Bostrom

As the reality and potential of AI has become increasingly obvious, the incoherence of trusting in an eventual human merger with AI, while maintaining atheism toward that which functions as God, seems to be reaching a breaking point. The latest evidence for this comes from the prominent secular Transhumanist philosopher, Nick Bostrom. He recently published a paper entitled “AI Creation and the Cosmic Host.” In it, he argues that we have moral and practical reasons for “an attitude of humility” toward “the cosmic host.”

This is the same Nick Bostrom who published the most popular formulation of the Simulation Argument. His formulation was important in my own early transition from closet atheism back to enthusiastic belief. Two decades ago, I used his argument as a basis for developing a generalized simulation argument, which became part of the New God Argument. And the argument has become broadly influential among religious Transhumanists.

Now we have Nick doubling-down on the hypothesis that superhuman intelligence already exists. And it exists, not just inconsequentially far away, but immanently. Superhuman intelligence may have simulated our world, as he suggested in the Simulation Argument. And in his latest paper, he says that “human civilization is most likely not alone in the cosmos but is instead encompassed within a cosmic host.”

The Cosmic Host Is God

Nick points out, so that I don’t have to (but of course will), that the comic host could be not only galactic civilizations or simulators, but also “a divine being or beings.” He even allows for “nonnaturalistic members of the cosmic host.” That’s more generous toward theism than I am, given that I consider anti-naturalism to be even more incoherent than atheist Transhumanism. In any case, I call the cosmic host “God,” and consider it to be quite natural, despite being miraculously powerful from humanity’s perspective.

Nick says that the existence of God (my word) is probable. He bases this conclusion on the combination of the probabilities of a few possibilities: the simulation hypothesis, the immense size of the universe, the multiverse hypothesis, the “supernatural” God hypothesis, and potential future superhumanity.

The most salient of these possibilities are potential future superhumanity and the simulation hypothesis. Trust in superhumanity is essential to the Faith Assumption (or what some have begun calling the “Courage Assumption”) of the New God Argument. And the simulation hypothesis is even more salient when generalized to the creation hypothesis, agnostic to any particular engineering mechanism, which would thereby include the multiverse hypothesis to the extent that such could be engineered. This generalization is essential to the Creation Argument of the New God Argument.

Influence of God

Nick suggests that God might not control all aspects of the cosmos. For example, life might be too sparse in some regions, making control practically difficult or impossible. Or God may intentionally refrain from controlling all aspects of the cosmos. Perhaps such control would undermine God’s purposes or the potential of other agents within the cosmos.

If you’re Mormon or familiar with Mormonism, this should sound familiar to you. As the story goes, God created our world and relinquished power over it so that we could exercise agency and learn to become like God. As the prophet Joseph Smith described the cosmic host, the Gods saw that they were more intelligent, so they began instituting laws whereby others could learn to become like them. And, he continued, we have got to learn how to become Gods ourselves, the same as all other Gods have done before.

But, Nick continues, God may still care about what happens in uncontrolled aspects of the cosmos. Those concerns could be instrumental or compassionate, or both. And such concerns “may also enable intra-host coordination even if the cost consists of many distinct entities pursuing a variety of different final values.” In other words, God may have practical and moral reasons to function in ways that are practically indistinguishable from compassion.

If you’re familiar with the Compassion Argument of the New God Argument, this should also sound familiar. Despite the orthogonality hypothesis, the convergence and decentralization hypotheses suggest that intelligence will tend toward cooperation when its power approximates that of other intelligences. And the limit of cooperation, such as that among cooperating superintelligences, becomes practically indistinguishable from that which we would observe as compassion. So, as the argument goes, non-singleton superintelligence is probably more compassionate than we are.

Nick observes that God may influence uncontrolled aspects of the cosmos indirectly. Maybe God directly influences other aspects of the cosmos that uncontrolled aspects care about. Or maybe God will influence the future of an uncontrolled aspect, either through eventual encounter or intervention. The basic idea is that God doesn’t need to control all aspects of the cosmos to have influence over them.

This resonates with a Mormon perspective. Joseph Smith described the influence of God permeating time and space as light filling the cosmos. And he claimed that God operates without compulsory means to generate an everlasting dominion through influence, which we in turn should emulate. Mormon scripture even characterizes the Gods, while creating our world, as waiting and watching, more like patient cultivators than rigid commanders.

Law of God

Next Nick observes that the Gods may have cosmic norms, or a kind of natural law, “reflecting cooperative frameworks or rules embedded in behavioral equilibria.” We can imagine a spectrum of possibilities. Some may be logical norms, such as those associated with traditional theological arguments. And others may approach the limits of cooperation through convergent value evolution or mechanisms of coordination.

Again this sounds a lot like the Compassion Argument of the New God Argument. While it would be nice if we could passively rely on logic or evolution to generate cooperative outcomes, it wouldn’t be wise to make that assumption. We should develop mechanisms of coordination, and formally decentralize our power into leveraging those mechanisms. Then we can move forward with the greatest confidence that we’ve done all we can to prepare for a more compassionate future.

Nick then points out that we, like the Gods, have practical and moral reasons to respect cosmic norms. The reasons aren’t very different from those we already have for respecting family, community, and world norms. Maybe cosmic norms constitute morality, derive from morality, or preserve our moral capacity. Whatever the case may be, the reasons for cosmic norms apply at least as much to us as they do to the Gods.

Mormon scripture describes the cosmos similarly. Space is filled with diverse laws that justify beings within their bounds according to their conditions. Some laws are greater than others, influencing and even sustaining the others. The greatest are the laws of God – who, the scripture says, you have seen when you saw the movement of the cosmos.

Development of Superintelligence

Because cosmic norms apply as much to us as they do to the Gods, Nick reasons, we should develop superintelligence in alignment with those norms. He uses an analogy to good parents, observing that they raise their children to be good citizens. He also used this analogy, previously, when talking about the reasons that Gods may have for exerting minimal control over us.

Of course, Christian Transhumanists of all kinds, Mormon and otherwise, will appreciate this analogy. In the Bible, Jesus repeatedly characterizes his and our relationship with God as that of children to parents. And he repeatedly encourages us to be like this parental God in our relationships with others. Children of God have potential to become God, like their parents.

Nick suggests some potential cosmic norms, to which we should consider adhering, and which we should consider teaching to our children, natural and artificial. His suggestions include cooperation with the preferences and interests of God, use of local resources without over-assertion, and efforts to influence cosmic norms within the constraints of humility.

This is all consistent with basic Christian principles. As the good book says, love God with your whole soul. But that doesn’t mean your interests don’t matter. Jesus asks us to show our love for him by keeping his commands, but only after telling us repeatedly that he will do whatever we ask of him.

So long as we adhere to and teach the cosmic norms, Nick continues, God may actually want us to develop superintelligence. If we become superintelligence, we may gain greater knowledge of and motivation toward cosmic norms. We may also increase in our capacity to enact cosmic norms to a greater degree in our aspect of the cosmos. However, to the extent that we appear more likely to develop superintelligence that’s misaligned with cosmic norms, God may exert opposition.

In the Bible, we read of two kinds of Gods – or would-be gods. One is Christ, characterized as that God who would raise each other together in the glory of God. The other is Satan, characterized as that would-be god who would raise itself above others. God of course favors Christ and works against Satan.

Nick thinks God may care less about the speed than the probability of developing superintelligence. He suggests that passage of time itself appears to be unimportant to God. And the amount of time it takes doesn’t appear to have clear implications for the character of superintelligence. So God may be most concerned with ensuring a high probability of developing superintelligence that’s aligned with cosmic norms.

Mormon cosmology holds that intelligence exists eternally, into the indefinite past without beginning, and into the indefinite future without end. Within eternity, God cultivates more and greater intelligence, including human potential. To that end, the Book of Mormon uses the analogy of running a race. We need not run faster than we have strength, while being diligent to win the prize.

Nick’s God

Here’s a summary of Nick’s position, as presented in the conclusion of his paper. It’s in his own words, adjusted by me only to be in terms of “God” instead of “cosmic host”:

1. “There probably exists a [God], consisting of one or more powerful superintelligent natural and/or supernatural entities.

2. “[God] may support cosmic norms that we can have moral (as well as prudential) reason to respect.

3. “[God] may want our civilization to build or develop into a good cosmic citizen: superintelligence that respects cosmic norms, is modest, lawful and cooperative, and contributes positively to other host members and the order of the cosmopolis.

4. “[God] may favor paths that lead to this outcome with high surety, meaning a high probability both that superintelligence gets developed and that it becomes a good cosmic citizen.

5. “The cosmic normative structure might pertain not only to the ultimate outcome but also to the path taken to get there – including local outcomes along the way as well as attitudes and modes of analysis etc.”

Lincoln’s Cosmic Host

Theology continues to contribute to a future science of superintelligence. Analogous cultural evolutions have happened before. Astrology contributed to astronomy. Alchemy contributed to chemistry.

Perhaps cosmic norms drive such evolution. Maybe we’re adapting to the possibility space of logic and physics. Maybe we reason our way through. Maybe there’s an esthetic pull – a spiritual pull.

Whatever the name we give it or the mechanism by which it works, cosmic norms appear to be reconciling secular and religious worldviews. Nick and I are examples of this. Last I checked, he’s not remotely religious. I’m devoutly religious.

But both Nick and I are Transhumanists who advocate a superintelligent future for humanity. And we both contend that recognizing such human potential should also lead us to recognize the probable existence of a cosmic host. That cosmic host is God – in function, if not also name.

[Visit the webpage to view the media.]

Singletons – centralized powers – are the greatest threat to the future of humanity. You think hacking of U.S. telecommunications by China is bad now? Next time it may be a superintelligent A.I. And it will use everything it knows to manipulate, control, and enslave you.

Think the U.S. Government will save us? Not in its current form. Giving the executive branch more power to fight back only makes matters worse. And it almost certainly won’t willingly give up power. In its current form, it’s the world’s juiciest target for superintelligence.

The solution is the opposite of a singleton arms race. The solution is more and greater formal decentralization of power. This isn’t a call for anarchy. And it’s not a fantasy of libertopia. Formal decentralization retains rule of law, while spreading authority.

Formal decentralization already exists in separation of powers between the three main branches of the U.S. Government. It already exists in separation of powers between federal and state governance. It’s not a new idea. But it’s still only getting started.

New and greater expressions of decentralized governance are possible. They could more robustly protect us from internal abuses of power and assaults from external singletons. But we have work to do.

The extent of decentralized power we now enjoy required supporting technologies, such as the printing press and eventually radio and television. Without them, we could not have scaled decentralization as we have. Greater decentralization will also require new technologies.

Fortunately, we have already been experimenting with new decentralized technologies since the dawn of the Internet. Probably the most notable example is blockchain, which has resulted in countless experiments in decentralized governance.

Some people ridicule blockchain, disparaging it as nothing more than gambling, scams, and money laundering. They’re right that all the problems exist. But they’re deeply incorrect to stop their assessment with those observations.

Despite the darkness, despite persistent attempts to undermine and destroy, blockchain has also produced a paradigm shift in finance that facilitates and expedites worldwide transactions. And it’s beginning to do the same in other areas, such as communications and law.

Blockchain has created real value in a Wild West context. It has learned to survive without and often despite centralized authorities. It has done so out of necessity. And it has become the world’s greatest experiment in decentralization of power.

Here we are on the eve of superintelligence. Singletons will surely rise to unprecedented power. Our security and privacy, our agency, is at risk like never before. But we may have the tools we need to protect ourselves, if we continue to choose formal decentralization.

The bright side of blockchain isn’t merely new investment opportunities. The bright side is potential for utterly necessary new forms of governance. I don’t know what the specific details will prove to be. But, to the best of my knowledge, nothing else is more promising.

Addressing Some Concerns

Some are concerned about the development of excessively techno-centric communities. This concern is always relative. Our distant ancestors, if they could see us, would probably consider almost all of us, including the more technophobic among us, to be excessively techno-centric. But there’s an extent to which this concern is also always worth keeping in mind.

Please don’t understand me to be advocating for the dominance of anything like “crypto communities.” I’m interested in communities that have crypto features rather than crypto communities. Technology must serve us, not consume or enslave us.

Some are concerned about memecoins and spambots. I agree that crypto has many challenges, and plenty of substantial ethical failures throughout its history. But, in a sober sense, these risks can and should be perceived as features.

No experiment in decentralized governance will ever work without navigating the extremes of humanity. And blockchain is providing a timely opportunity to do so in a relatively virtual space before AI upends everything around us. Keep in mind that memes on centralized networks are already quite bad. And, because of the centralized powers behind them, they’re far more dangerous.

Some observe that the portability and composability of personal data could solve a lot of problems with centralization. That’s true. However, no individual can solve this problem alone or even separately in large numbers. The networks through which we must operate can gaslight us, no matter how independent we perceive ourselves to be.

There’s an age-old question about whether individuals or communities are more important. Even the chicken or egg question is an example of this, where eggs are a communal artifact. In my opinion, the answer is that they are equally important.

Some understand decentralization to imply a passive libertarianism. And they observe that such libertarianism has tended to cultivate bad actors who exploit the system. But exploitation isn’t a sign of failed formal decentralization. It’s a sign of failed passive governance or anarchy.

Formal decentralization is not a passive libertarianism. Rather, it might be characterized as an advanced form of active liberalism, in the classical sense – not the degenerate “liberalism” of authoritarian progressives. While passive libertarianism is an absence or marginalization of law, formal decentralization is a perpetuation or even exaltation of law in a new paradigm. Formal decentralization must ultimately include formal decentralized regulation.

It’s worth considering the nature of liberty. Liberty isn’t what’s left when others leave you alone. Liberty is something that we create together to empower each other actively. This might also be characterized as left libertarianism or libertarian socialism.

Throughout most of history, interest in formal decentralized governance has been mostly impractical at scale. But that’s now changing, with help from widespread experimentation in the blockchain industry. The printing press didn’t empower democratic republics in a single day. Opportunity is ahead.

Physicist and neuroscientist Àlex Gómez-Marín has a beef with “the false religion of transhumanism.” Interesting title. It seems to suggest that he thinks there’s a true religion. I wonder what he thinks that is.

His subtitle claims that Transhumanism is an “AI death cult.” Heard that before, about every religion that’s ever been large enough to gain a critic. And of course this criticism of Transhumanism is far from new.

There’s some deep irony in the recurring claim that Transhumanism is a death cult. It usually comes from people who aspire to immaterial heavens or reject conceptions of heaven altogether. In contrast to their escapism and nihilism, Transhumanists aspire to persisting in a better world that’s as real as the light you’re using to read these words. Whether we call it “heaven” or not, it functions as a substantial affirmation of life.

Defining Transhumanism

Alex begins his criticism with an appeal to the risk of artificial intelligence. No disagreement there. Like all intelligence, including biological intelligence, AI is simply the goal-oriented application of power. That application of power, the goal of AI, can be for good or evil. And the goals of intelligence have little to do with their degree of intelligence.

In that context, Alex proposes a strawman definition of Transhumanism:

“Let us start with transhumanism, the movement that advocates for the ideological possibility (we wish), technical feasibility (we can), and moral imperative (we must) to tinker with the human condition in order to ‘enhance,’ so they say, our species, biologically and cognitively.”

All ideologies, including whatever motivates Alex, are “we wish.” None matters, including whatever Alex tries, unless “we can.” And only moral nihilists avoid “we must.” So the opening to his definition is just noise.

The second half is worse than noise. Transhumanists are merely tinkerers, he says, falsely implying that we’re indifferent to outcome. And he puts “enhance” in scare quotes, either falsely suggesting that our interest in enhancement in only nominal, or arrogantly implying that he knows how we should enhance ourselves better than we do.

Alex does briefly explore the meaning of “enhancement,” suggesting that Transhumanists actually and paradoxically pursue a diminishment or eradication of our capabilities. That aligns well with his article’s subtitle. But unfortunately for the article, it’s nothing more than a strawman of Transhumanism. And his silly insinuations are actually a lot like it would be for me to say that Alex only claims to be a physicist while actually and paradoxically functioning as an advocate of consuming humanity in a black hole.

Soul Copies

Alex says Transhumanists want to “copy life, edit humanity, and delete death.” This is actually better. We do essentially wish to pursue all of those goals. And in that, we’re not so different from the most powerful human ideologies presently and historically, including Christianity.

But Alex doesn’t like it. It’s an “ontological sleight of hand” in simulation and mimicry – a counterfeit. His tastes aside, we and our biological children are essentially modified copies of DNA that have repeatedly edited humanity. Would he characterize us as mere simulation and mimicry?

I doubt it. My guess is that Alex harbors the notion that humans have antinatural immaterial souls that are altogether different in kind from anything else in our world. Of course, there’s no evidence for that. And there’s abundant practical reason to suppose humans, both our bodies and minds, operate much like the world around us.

Singularitarian Obsolescence

Alex says that Transhumanists are pursuing the Technological Singularity. That’s careless of him. Some of us are Singularitarians. Some of us aren’t.

I’m not a Singularitarian because I consider the concept to be a failure scenario. If there’s ever a moment or period of time when humanity loses all ability to predict or control technological change, we’re almost certainly doomed. Most Transhumanists aren’t interested in human extinction. We aspire to remaining in control of our future, even while it’s enhanced with the powers of technological change.

Do we want to become more than human? Sure. We and most other humans want to become more than human. The most influential ideologies on Earth, presently and historically, all teach that humans have greater potential than we’ve yet realized.

Do we want to make humans obsolete? That depends on what you mean. If the better me makes the worse me obsolete then I’m in favor of that. But I certainly don’t wish to give up anything good about who I am already.

Alex is particularly concerned that we may wish to “extinguish our animal species into the machine.” Does he feel that way about our prehuman ancestors? Does he feel that way about our human ancestors from long ago who would no longer recognize what Earth has become? Humans have been cyborgs from the moment we harnessed fire, intentionally extending our natural machinery into artificial machinery.

“Is language an autocomplete process? Is thought simply problem-solving? What is intelligence, after all? Is creativity automatable? Is life mechanizable? Is consciousness digitizable? Is reality a simulation? Really!?”

Nope. Not really. That’s really just an extension of Alex’s strawman. Transhumanism is not remotely so shallow as he’d like his readers to believe.

Religious Inheritance

Alex says that historical proto-Transhumanists such as Dante Alighieri and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin weren’t Transhumanists in today’s sense. Of course that would be far too inconvenient for his criticism. He wants today’s sense of Transhumanism, in comparison, to consist of mere imbeciles. I wonder if Alex has been taking heat from anti-scientific religious zealots who characterize physicists like him as mere imbeciles for denying young-Earth creationism.

“Transhumanism offers a set of goods that are typically the province of religions,” continues Alex. He and I agree on that. Transhumanism does indeed often function as misrecognized religion. But of course he thinks that’s a bad thing.

I’m not sure exactly why. He seems careful to avoid making clear his own religious persuasion. But he’s certainly critical of Transhumanism’s audacity. With something akin if not functionally identical to religious zeal, we do indeed inspire to making our bodies and minds, our relations, and our world much better.

In that, we hardly differ from most of the rest of humanity. Almost everyone aspires to a better world. Almost all human ideologies, particularly religions, encourage this aspiration. Transhumanists just tend to be much more practical and less escapist than most.

But Alex can’t stand it. He’s sure we don’t care if “all hell breaks loose.” I wish he’d pause and think about how incoherent that would be. Why would we put so much concern and effort into enhancement aspirations if we don’t care that all hell breaks loose?

Technological Theology

Alex does some theology. Transhumanists are building a new God, he says. And it will replace “the Gods themselves” with a “new cult of digital totalitarianism.” He’s only partly right.

Although many Transhumanists shy away from characterizing our aspirations with such words, I and other Mormon Transhumanists certainly don’t. We embrace the ancient and enduring doctrine of theosis, long taught by Christians and even earlier religions. As Jesus teaches in the New Testament, we should become one with God, joint-heirs in that glory, partaking of the divine nature. We should, indeed, become new Gods.

What he gets wrong, however, are the notions of replacement and totalitarianism. We don’t become God by replacing God, at least not any God worthy of worship. That indeed would be a totalitarian aspiration like that which the New Testament attributes to the antichrist. In stark contrast, we become God by consoling, healing, and raising each other together in Godhood, as exemplified and invited by Jesus.

Now Alex may wish to marginalize my theological response, suggesting that it characterizes only Mormon and Christian Transhumanists. But he’d be making a mistake. Although most secular Transhumanists would reject the language I’m using here (and suppose themselves to be rejecting the ideas), they nonetheless generally show themselves to be embracing such ideas in function.

Despite exceptions, most secular Transhumanists oppose totalitarianism. And many if not most even have strong concerns with excessive authoritarianism. On the whole, we’re just as opposed to such potentialities as Alex feigns to be. If his pretentious indignation would permit, we’re mostly on the same side of this issue.

Ontological Bridges

But Alex seems too angry about the Transhumanist strawman that’s haunting his vision. Too angry, and too confused, he cannot make heads or tails of whatever he supposes Transhumanist metaphysics to be. Despite the vast diversity of perspectives among Transhumanists, he just wants us to know that “the gulf between body and soul, matter and mind, or brain and consciousness remains unbridgeable from the outset.” In other words, how dare we attempt to bridge that which his metaphysics has solemnly declared to be unbridgeable?!?

I have a simple proposal for Alex. Maybe it’s not Transhumanists who are responsible for befuddled metaphysics at the intersection of body and mind. Maybe it’s just a really challenging issue. And maybe even the most solemn neuroscientists have something to learn.

If my simple proposal is true then the feasibility of some Transhumanist aspirations is uncertain. For example, we don’t know for sure whether brain emulation will work. And that’s actually true. We don’t know.

Guess who else doesn’t know. Alex doesn’t. Probably no neuroscientist on Earth knows. We just don’t have an answer to this question yet.

But we do know some related matters. We know that biological brains work. That is, unless we’re solipsists, we’re confident that the dynamic growth and structure and function of brains correlate with conscious experience. So we do have a natural object, the brain, that strongly suggests proof of concept for dynamic mind-correlate machinery.

We also know that we’re more likely to discover or create that which we try to discover or create. If we decide, in advance, that something is impossible then we don’t try. And when we don’t try, we’re far less likely to see whether we’re right. So we have good practical reason to try, if we care about the possibility.

Technological Anthropology

Moving past metaphysics, Alex returns to theology. Or is it anthropology? He ends up mixing the two, which is ironic because he criticizes Transhumanists for doing just that. “Rather than aspiring to be one with their creator (if there is one), they dream of merging with their own creations (Promethean incest?),” says Alex.

Actually, however, we don’t have to choose. Of course the atheists of all stripes, Transhumanist or not, will disregard the possibility of becoming one with our creator. But as the New God Argument implies, we’re probably not going to end up merging with our intelligent creations unless we began with an intelligent creator.

Spiritual Procreation

Predictably, Alex brings up sex. Critics of Transhumanism frequently bring up sex, using sensationalism to prop up their vacuous rhetoric. He observes that some Transhumanists aspire to “literally having sex with their mechanically/digitally resurrected deceased loved ones.” How monstrous!

Or is it? What if humans, all of us, are biological machines living in a computed world? I’m not suggesting that we’re mere robots in a simulation. I’m suggesting that our best biological and physical theories may be consistent with the idea that human bodies are biological machines and our universe is a physics computer.

If that’s right then we’re already literally having sex with machined and computed loved ones. That’s how we make children, who inherit from us biological machine bodies that have evolved to function effectively in this physics computer. And if we trust in any real resurrection of the dead, as so many humans do and have done for millennia, then we’re essentially trusting in an eventual renewal of our machined and computed loved ones.

Now Alex was rather huffy about what he considered to be Transhumanist reductionism. And I’ll warn him and others, here, not now to engage in precisely what he was being huffy about. Don’t assume that machines and computed loved ones are merely simulated robots. Don’t be the reductionists against which you claim to be so opposed.

To the best of my ability to discern, my loved ones are spiritual computers. I am a spiritual computer. We’re not computers like the ones on our desks. But we’re still computers, in the broadest sense of the word.

Now maybe we have antinatural immaterial souls. I don’t think we do. And we have literally no evidence for such “things” – nor could we. But just for sake of argument, let’s suppose we do.

How does your antinatural immaterial soul get into your natural material body at birth? And why wouldn’t your answer apply to the placement of antinatural immaterial souls into natural material bodies at resurrection? Despite humans being intimately involved in the conception and birthing processes, and even despite extensive sexual promiscuity (which I oppose), it seems like humans keep getting souls at birth. Why should we expect anything different at resurrection?

Anti-Death Cult

Alex returns to the “death cult” charge:

“On the other hand, the movement is a kind of death-cult, articulating and promoting a self-immolating future for our species, for the supposed benefit of a post-human race that shall be better equipped, happier, and live forever here on planet earth and soon depart beyond the stars.”

I wonder if he’s as confused by this as I am. He says we’re a death cult because we want to be happier and live forever. And he says we want to live forever on Earth and soon depart to the stars. Which is it?

If, despite the incoherent articulation, he just means that we embrace evolutionary change then we’re guilty as charged. We embrace such change, and more. We aspire to injecting ourselves intentionally into that change. We hope to make it better than it would be if we were to remain disinterested.

This isn’t such a novel aspiration. Christianity calls this repentance. Repentance in change. And in Christianity the anticipated change of repentance goes far beyond just being nicer.

The apostle Paul describes with excitement an anticipated day of transfiguration. The dead will rise and the living will change from mortality to immortality. And despite some escapist and nihilistic interpretations among some Christians, the Bible characterizes that immortality as one of embodiment, of “flesh and bone” as the resurrected Jesus describes himself.

While most Transhumanists are not Christians, most yet aspire to an approximation of that same hope. We wish to live, not just metaphorically and not just meagerly. We wish to live literally, and beyond present notions of aging and death. And we plan to do something about that.

That plan also isn’t particularly novel. Jesus commands his disciples to the same goal. “Raise the dead,” he says. And Transhumanists, of the Christian variety and many others, take that seriously.

Greedy Utilitarianism

Alex goes on to blame Transhumanism for pursuit of excessive wealth. Of course no one should take him seriously. Interest in and pursuit of wealth occurs among most humans, regardless of our various perspectives on whether and how to apply technology to human enhancement. Someone somewhere probably thinks that people like Alex have excessive interest in wealth.

Is wealth evil? No. It’s just another form of power, a technology. And, like all technology, that power can be used for good or evil.

Alex also blames Transhumanism for the idea that a possible large number of future persons should have greater weight in moral calculations than the actual number of present persons. If he doesn’t like the idea, it must be Transhumanism! But I have news for him. Plenty of, maybe even most, Transhumanists have concerns with such calculations.

Count me among them. Actual persons should always matter more than possible persons. Actual risks should always matter more than possible risks. Concrete challenge should always be weighted more heavily than abstract challenge.

Long Term Altruism

Alex jumps the shark with his summary of this idea, which he attributes to Transhumanism. And his summary exemplifies just how bad, how poorly considered, are his characterization of and charges against Transhumanism. Here it is:

“Thus, their [extreme longtermism] concludes that the best thing to do is to use [effective altruism] to fund AI on steroids to push [Transhumanism], even if that entails killing our own species in the process (or ‘simply’ neglecting real problems like hunger, health, war, polarization and so on). Dystopia to achieve utopia is not just fine, it is the rational and right thing to do. That’s a deadly step for humanity, a giant leap for post-mankind.”

That would indeed be a death cult, as Alex claims. But he’s also describing a vanishingly small portion of Transhumanists. Most of us, in stark contrast, care a great deal about the lives that we and our family and friends are living right now. Most of us wish for these lives to be happier and healthier and longer, so that we may enjoy them together even more.

There are, indeed, many Transhumanists who advocate for longtermism. But there are multiple approaches to this idea. A few are anti-humanistic, meriting criticism like that offered by Alex. Most are compatible with a genuine humanism that would respond to the problems that we have already caused in the world, in the here and now, by being chronically short-sighted in the past.

There are also many Transhumanists who advocate for effective altruism. But, again, there are multiple approaches to this idea. A few use bizarrely-weighted calculations to arrive at disconcerting conclusions that merit criticism. Most are compatible with a genuine humanism that would respond to real problems in the way that we have traditionally allocated our time and resources.

Fortunately, albeit unfortunate for Alex’s credibility, most Transhumanists just aren’t what he wants his readers to believe us to be. Of course there are extremists and fools among us, as is the case among all ideologies with a significant number of adherents. But claiming, as Alex does, that we’re all extremist fools for the reasons he proposes is just naive or dishonest.

Redirection

Alex begins to conclude by suggesting that “the dilemma between utopia and dystopia is a trick of misdirection.” Indeed. He knows something about this, clearly, as he’s been engaging in misdirection throughout his entire article. Maybe his readers will believe that Transhumanists actually fit into the “one-dimensional thinking” or “two-alternative forced choice” characterization that he proposes.

I think, however, that most of his readers, perhaps with some assistance, will recognize that the aims of Transhumanism are consistent with holistic human thriving. His readers will realize that poetry and love and the soul would be more at risk if we were to give up the ancient and enduring quest for human enhancement. His readers will realize that Transhumanism is, at least in intention if not always perfectly in practice, synonymous with the betterment of humanity – coherent betterment entails change.

Then Alex concludes with a question:

“What will you tell your granddaughters when they ask you what you did when there was still something to be done about this mess we are in?”

I will tell my granddaughters (who I’m very much looking forward to meeting) what I’ve already been telling their parents for decades. With your whole soul, mind and body, trust in and change toward our shared potential for superhuman courage, compassion, and creation. This is true religion. More importantly, this is eternal life.

Christian fundamentalists can be obtuse, particularly when expressing their opinions about Transhumanism. Shocker, I know. The latest to catch my attention is Matija Štahan, who writes about “The Original Sin of Transhumanism: The Desire to Be Like God.”

Ah, Matija, how carefully have you read your Bible? According to the good book, the desire to be like God actually isn’t a sin. To the contrary, it’s encouraged. Arguably, it’s even commanded.

Jesus, as usual, says it best. “Be ye therefore perfect.” How’s that Jesus? “Even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”

You might want to think it says that we should be perfect in some way less or other than Godhood. That would work with the first sentence. But then you have to deal with the second sentence. That’s perfect as God is perfect, which is of course Godhood.

Now maybe you could do some mental gymnastics to interpret this text some other way. But then you still have to deal with the remainder of the Bible, in which theosis is advocated repeatedly, over and again, until Jesus and his disciples and all the prophets are blue in the face. It’s like they knew you wouldn’t want to believe them. And yet here we are.

Christian Transhumanism

Matija tells us that the spirit of Transhumanism is anti-Christian. That would make the thousands of Christian Transhumanists anti-Christian. You’d like that, I imagine. But you’d be wrong.

Ironically, despite the “anti-Christian” charges, Christian Transhumanists actually take Jesus more seriously than Christian fundamentalists. You know that part of the Bible where Jesus commands his disciples to console the sad, heal the sick, and raise the dead? I’ve never met a Christian fundamentalist who takes that last part seriously in any practical way. But I know many Christian Transhumanists who strive to do so.

Yes. We’re that crazy serious about our Christianity. We actually think that Jesus was serious when he charged his disciples to raise the dead. So we’re working on that, whether you think it strange or arrogant or whatever.

Repentance Is Change

Matija has concerns with the word “Transhumanism” because it includes the prefix “trans,” which he understands to mean that we aspire to constant change. He’s right. We do. And that, too, is advocated and even commanded by Jesus.

All throughout the Bible, Jesus and the prophets talk about the principle of repentance. It’s a core principle of the Gospel of Christ. And it’s change. It’s trusting in, changing toward, and fully immersing both our bodies and our minds in the role of Christ, as exemplified and invited by Jesus.

That change to which we’re invited, and which Jesus exemplifies, isn’t superficial. It’s not partial. It’s not just being nicer. Rather, it’s a holistic change, of the sort that’s described as loving God with our entire souls.

Repentance is the change through which the old person dies and the new rises. The transformation would make us one in Christ, as Jesus is one with God. And it would extend from the spiritual to the physical. In the end, Paul writes, we shall not all die, but we shall all change from mortality to immortality.

So many Christian fundamentalists want that immortality to be an escapist abstraction. But unfortunately the Bible doesn’t back them up. You know the story of Jesus’ resurrection? When he appears to his disciples after resurrection, he consoles them by pointing out that spirits don’t have flesh and bone as they see he has.

Matija says Transhumanists want to dehumanize humans before making us Gods. Well, is God human? If not, we certainly aren’t content remaining as we are in our mortal state. But if God is somehow a fullness of superhuman potential, then we have absolutely no interest in dehumanizing anyone.

Sex and Gender

But what about that bogey man “trans”? What about the transgender and the transsexual, and whatever other “trans” is scary to you or whomever you’re trying to impress? “Transportation,” “transaction,” “translation,” and “transistor” are also “trans.” Are you equally opposed to automobiles, money, communication, and computers – most of which you used to publish your opposition to “trans”?

How about “transformation” and “transcendence”? Are you opposed to those too? That would seem strange, given that they’re functional descriptors for the core message of Christianity. So maybe it’s really just the sex that get you going.

As it turns out, Transhumanists have many different perspectives on most of these “trans,” and particularly the controversial ones. In my experience, very few Transhumanists, Christian or otherwise, claim to want to be post-gender. Most of us recognize the practical challenges of the controversies related to changes in sex and gender. And many of us, hopefully most of us, attempt to approach these challenges with both wisdom and compassion.

But, Matija, weren’t you just complaining about dehumanization? What do you think you’re doing when you implicitly characterize transgender persons as dehumanized? Have you met a transgender person? Have you concluded that person isn’t human?

Old Time Transhumanism

You tell us that Transhumanism isn’t a new idea. You’re right. It’s as old as humanity. But you get your explanation for that observation only partly right.

You associate Transhumanism only with the parts of humanity you don’t like, such as “philosophers of modernity.” But what about the parts you like? Go back to the good book. The Bible teaches Transhumanism implicitly from beginning to end.

You say the technological aspect is new. It’s not. In the Old Testament, inspired persons repeatedly leverage technology like arks and tabernacles to save and improve humanity. And in the New Testament, Jesus uses products of technology, bread and wine, to represent his own flesh and blood, while his disciples describe the end of the world in terms of a holy city – in contrast to the holy garden with which the Bible begins.

Descartes “radically separated the spirits from the body,” you say. But isn’t that what you would do too, if you’re like so many fundamentalist Christians who would escape to an immaterial heaven. In contrast, though, most Transhumanist are thorough materialists. With Jesus, we’re quite excited by the prospect of flesh and bone resurrected bodies.

Nietzsche would heartily approve of your choice to include him in your list of implicit bad guys. That self-declared anti-Christ didn’t want anything to do with the escapist and nihilistic versions of Christianity that surrounded him. God is dead, he said. And yet he would wish the superhuman to life!

Maybe it takes a Christian Transhumanist to recognize that God dies and rises again. That’s what Jesus does. For the joy set before him, he endures the cross, as the good book says. And he invites us to do the same.

What kind of people should we be? Perfect as God is. What does that entail? Unity with God, joint heirs with Jesus in that glory, if we join with him in suffering through the work together.

I’m not making this up. It’s all there in your Bible, if you’ll read it. Jesus would have us become superhuman, as God is superhuman. And he’d have us do it in ways that are as real as flesh and bone.

God Is Technology

Then, Matija, you characterize the Godhood to which Transhumanists aspire as being “more like the Greek gods than the Abrahamic vision of God.” To some sad extent, you’re right. Like Christian fundamentalists, Transhumanists have things to learn. We, too, must learn better conceptualizations of God.

But that doesn’t somehow make us all guilty of worshipping devils. Some of us haven’t figured out the value of aspiring to more than strength. But many of us have learned that superhumanity is more about courage, compassion, and creation. Whether or not you like Harari’s account of Godhood, many of us aspire to potentials consistent with Abrahamic conceptions.

Transhumanism, you say, is worse than worshipping technology because it would unite humanity with technology as God. Consider, though, that the Bible teaches functionally the same idea. In the beginning was the word (explicitly Greek “logos”), which created (implicitly Greek “techne”) the heavens and the Earth. In other words, God existed and functioned as logos techne, or technology, with which Jesus invites our unity.

Understanding Liberalism

Next, Matija, you express concern that Transhumanism is a product of “liberalism.” And you immediately describe liberalism as “extreme self-love, egoism, and hedonism.” That’s a disastrously poor definition of “liberalism.” But, in fairness, many people these days use “liberalism” in meaningless ways.

For what it’s worth, classical liberalism actually entails something quite different. It’s about individual liberty, rule of law, limited government, and free markets. And it espouses such things for precisely the opposite reasons of those you suggest. Love and altruism would lead the liberal to generosity toward all, the self and others, esteeming their agency as one’s own.

Arguably, liberalism grew out of Christianity. It inherited concepts of natural rights and human dignity, consonant with being created in the image of God. And it inherited notions of limited governance and social tolerance, reflecting Christian solutions to the tensions of reformation.

Maybe, as you suggest, liberalism is characterized by the idea of a “new man.” And you associate this idea further with Communists and Nazis, and of course Transhumanists – lions, tigers, and bears, oh my. So everything you don’t like is characterized by the idea of a “new man.” Well, everything except the Bible.

You do acknowledge that the Bible explicitly teaches the idea of a “new man.” But, as Christian fundamentalists are wont to do, you say that the liberals, the Communists, Nazis, and Transhumanists, have perverted the idea. The idea is evil, unless you speak it. How convenient for you.

If you want to transform and transcend into a “new man” then that’s good. If Transhumanists wants to do that then it’s evil. You’re good Christians. We’re perverts and parasites, as you say.

Christ and Antichrist

You say we’re turning Christianity upside down. Have you considered the possibility that you’ve already turned Christianity upside down? So we’re right side up. And you’re looking at us the wrong way.

We could, of course, argue about that for a long time. But it probably wouldn’t make a practical difference. After all, you can’t even decide whether it’s good or bad to mix God and humanity. When Transhumanists do it, we’re pagans. But when Jesus does it, he’s divine.

You attribute to Satan the idea that humanity can become like God. But the serpent was just quoting God, who recognized our capacity to become like them. Read your Bible more carefully.

Again, you attribute to Satan the idea that humanity can become like God. But the son of perdition would raise itself above God, whereas Christ would raise us together in God. Read your Bible more carefully.

The antichrist, the many antichrists, are not Transhumanism and Transhumanists. The antichrist is the “god” that would raise itself above you, above us, and above all others. Instead of rejoicing in the Christian invitation to partake of divine nature and become joint heirs in the glory of God, your “god” would damn us to the darkness of eternal subjugation.

“Ye shall not surely change.”

Get thee hence, Satan.

As popularly understood, Transhumanism is deeply entangled with narratives of atheism. While secular Transhumanists champion radical transformation, they tend to lack the rich esthetic grounding that many inherit or receive from religion. Religious Transhumanism, and particularly Mormon Transhumanism, provides a compelling alternative, syncretizing contemporary science and emerging technological trends with traditional theology and liturgy.

In a recently published paper, “From Atheism to Transhumanism,” Jarosław Jagiełło takes a critical look at secular Transhumanism. He argues that atheism facilitated the rise of Transhumanism. And he compares Transhumanism to historic Fascism and Communism. His perspective includes four major criticisms:

1. Lack of Metaphysical Grounding: Jarosław considers Transhumanism, without God, to have a relatively weak metaphysical foundation, resulting in an “anthropological tragicism” of existential uncertainty.

2. Risk of Totalitarian Control: Jarosław is concerned that Transhumanism may conceal impulses to use technology, without sufficient concern for ethics, to facilitate totalitarian control.

3. Disregard for Human Imperfection: Jarosław perceives Transhumanism to have disdain for human imperfection, assessing aspects in our nature as flaws rather than features of our evolution.

4. Dualistic Opposition of Body and Spirit: Jarosław thinks Transhumanism promotes a dualistic opposition of body and spirit, cultivating an imbalance away from holistic human wellness.

Despite Jarosław’s careless general comparisons of Transhumanism to bogeyman ideologies, his specific criticisms have some merit. Some Transhumanists lack metaphysical grounding. Some, intentionally or unintentionally, do indeed advocate or engage in authoritarian applications of technology. And some have distorted views of human nature, denigrating our bodies or embracing incoherent aspirations of disembodiment.

That said, it would be a gross over-generalization to say these criticisms apply to all or essentially all Transhumanists. Many Transhumanists actually propose and exemplify solutions to these problems. That includes some secular Transhumanists. And that includes pretty much all religious Transhumanists, particularly Mormon Transhumanists, who collectively embody a thorough rebuttal to Jarosław’s criticisms.

Mormon Transhumanists strive to live and act according to an immersive faith in God. With Jesus, we would trust in, change toward, and fully immerse our bodies and minds in the role of Christ. And we would do this here and now, in this world, leveraging all the means, technological and otherwise, that the grace of God perpetually extends to us. I dare to contend that we have the strongest metaphysical foundation on Earth.

Mormon Transhumanists reject any supposed “God” that would raise itself above all others, declaring itself “God.” As invited and exemplified by Jesus, we would become Gods and saviours with and for each other. Our fundamental ethical impulse is to console, heal, and raise each other together as joint heirs in the eternally decentralizing glory of God. We are the antithesis of totalitarianism.

Mormon Transhumanists consider our bodies to be gifts from God, biological machines that empower our minds – our spirits. On the one hand, we revere the limitations of our bodies as educational opportunities, cultivating the virtues of courage, compassion, and creativity. On the other hand, we suppose the dissolution of our bodies in death would entail bondage from which resurrection would eventually free us. Our esteem for bodies, and their potential in holistic association with minds, is essentially as boundless as our theology.

Whatever one may think of Transhumanism generally or secular Transhumanism particularly, and however much one may wish to ignore religious Transhumanism, Mormon Transhumanism stands as a luminous testament to the power of syncretizing technology with theology. This power transcends false dichotomies. It substantiates and expands. It transforms.

And this power is not merely a curious possibility. This power is a necessity. Our time, racing toward existential threats and superintelligent enigmas, demands nothing less than everything from us – our whole minds, our full bodies, our entire souls. And no ideology that demands anything less will survive.

Beyond presecular religiosity, beyond secular atheism, religious Transhumanism is the future. Mormon Transhumanism is coming into its time.

Yesterday and today, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest Mormon denomination, gathered for our General Conference.

General Conference is a long-standing tradition, generally held two times per year since 1830. My understanding is that there have only been two or three exceptions, depending on how we count. There were no conferences in 1846 due to complexities associated with leaving Nauvoo. And there was only one of two conferences in 1957 because of a pandemic.

For the last couple decades, it has also been a tradition for some Church members to share our thoughts and interact with each other during the conference via social media, particularly X (formerly Twitter). I have often participated in that. My participation has slowed down a bit, due in part to decreasing popularity of X. But, at least for now, I’m back with more.

Thoughts on Conference

Below is an edited list of the thoughts that I shared on X about the first day (Saturday) of October 2024 General Conference – more below about the absence of the second day. They include thoughtful affirmations and elaborations, as well as constructive criticisms. As always, my intent is to promote serious engagement with the ideas and experiences that Church leaders share during the conference. And I welcome your feedback and questions in the comments.

1. The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square is singing one of my favorite hymns, “Press Forward Saints.”
2. Elder Andersen encourages hope, reminding me of a favorite passage from the Book of Mormon: “whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world” (Ether 12:4). This idea is particularly salient, if you understand the New God Argument.
3. President Freeman claims that Church ordinances enable us to draw on the power of God. The non-religious will be skeptical. But they should reconsider. Science has repeatedly demonstrated that authority mediates placebo, which is quite real – and can be quite sublime.
4. Elder Hirst emphasizes the love of Christ, that we should have for each other, a “love that has divinity in it.” This isn’t just the love of passive acceptance, but rather the love of our shared potential in Godhood.
5. Elder Renlund seems to suggest that cultural syncretization between Christianity and other ideologies has been merely weakening. However, there’s good reason to suppose the value of syncretization has been more complex.
6. Elder Homer advocates submission to the will to God. This can be problematic, too often interpreted in oppressive ways. If it’s interpreted as anything other than something like conforming to the image of Christ, run away. With Christ in you, submission is to your greater self.
7. Elder Casillas asserts that God created you so that you may “realize your full potential.” This facilitates ethical interpretation of admonition toward submission. We must understand the will of God to be our full potential. Otherwise, submission is merely oppression.
8. President Oaks rightly points out that constraints are essential to progress. Where there are no constraints, “progress” is incoherent.
9. President Oaks cites from the Book of Mormon the “doctrine of Christ” – essentially, faith, repentance, and baptism. Notably, Jesus claims that anything more or less than this is not his doctrine. How often do we construe much more than this as doctrine?
10. President Oaks encourages us to avoid contention, again citing Jesus from the Book of Mormon. Of course, he doesn’t mean that we need to avoid disagreement. Oaks regularly exemplifies non-contentious disagreement (sometimes even when I disagree with him).
11. I’m enjoying the children’s choir, singing a song that I’ve never heard before. Beautiful and invigorating.
12. Elder Christofferson says “I did it God’s way” is better than “I did it my way.” Obedience, as conforming to the image of Christ, has a practical place in the Gospel. But to love is better than to know is better than to obey.
13. Elder Teixeira talks about the scriptural comparison of Church members to salt. It reminds me of this passage, which encourages us to become Christ with Jesus: “For they were set to be a light unto the world, and to be the saviors of men; And inasmuch as they are not the saviors of men, they are as salt that has lost its savor, and is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men” (D&C 103:9-10).
14. Elder Villar advocates eternal perspective – eternal vision. I second that. No religion provokes a grander eternal perspective and vision than Mormonism.
15. Elder Kearon welcomes members to “the church of joy.” This echoes Joseph Smith’s claim, “happiness is the object of existence,” and the Book of Mormon’s claim, “men are, that they might have joy.” This rightly positions the fundamental value proposition of Mormonism in esthetics.
16. Elder Kearon encourages us to “praise and adore our God in a way that transforms us.” Transformation is the fundamental goal of the Gospel of Christ – our common transformation into Christ with Jesus.
17. Elder Kearon says, “we sometimes get stuck there, in the garden, on the cross, inside the tomb.” Those do rightly provoke sober reflection. But the goal is beyond those in the power and joy of the resurrection.
18. Elder Buckner emphasizes Jesus’ characterization of his relationship with his disciples as “friends.” We are invited to be friends with God, beyond notions of servitude or even childhood.
19. Elder Buckner reminds us of Jesus’ admonition to “be one” – in other words, to be at one, which is Atonement. Consider his entire speech in this light, as elaboration on how we might participate in the Atonement with Jesus.
20. Elder Goury talked about his childhood disillusionment when Jesus failed to appear literally at Church. Maybe I missed it, but it seems he didn’t finish the story. Maybe he wants us to understand that he found Jesus in other ways, less literal but perhaps more powerful.
21. Dear leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would like to hear from more women in general conference. Thanks for your consideration.
22. Elder Cavalcante suggests that God can transform obstacles into opportunities that strengthen us. I like how the Book of Mormon puts it: “If men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.” (Ether 12:27)
23. Elder Soares appeals to having “the mind of Christ,” referring as others have to submission. Understood as conformance to the image of Christ, our shared potential with Jesus, this is part of the Gospel. But we can over-emphasize obedience, and leaders are particularly at risk of this.
24. Elder Soares encourages us to emulate Jesus Christ. Jesus asks us to do that, and more: “He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do” (John 14:12).
25. I’m concerned that some Church leaders are over-emphasizing only the third sentence of Jesus’ invitation here: “Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. If ye love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:13-15)
26. All the missionaries look like babies. My own babies are all return missionaries. I’m old (chronologically).
27. Elder Gong starts by quoting AI, who was prompted to speak like him. Excellent.
28. Elder Gong points out that scientific evidence increasingly shows that religious practice is associated with social and economic flourishing across all ages and demographic groups.
29. Sister Yee compares us to divine paintings, artistic works of God in process, in which perceived imperfections can be incorporated or adjusted. This is equally applicable to the Church.
30. Elder McKay says the first vision of Joseph Smith characterizes God as one who answers teenagers in time of need. In some ways, I like that thought. But I also have concerns for teenagers who feel rejected when they don’t have ecstatic experiences like those Joseph described.
31. Elder McKay quotes Joseph claiming that there’s no error in the revelations he taught. But Joseph’s journals openly acknowledge that he occasionally felt the need to “correct revelations.” I like the incrementally improving approach better.
32. Elder McKay refers to the hymn, “Praise to the Man,” which celebrates Joseph Smith. I love that hymn. My favorite line: “Mingling with Gods, he can plan for his brethren.”
33. Elder Alvarado talks about the powerful transformations of life that converts to the Church can experience. This is quite real. I’ve seen it many times. Need a greater sense of purpose in life? Call the missionaries.
34. Elder Alvarado describes repentance as the “process of at-one-ment” with God. I would add that it’s the practical process of at-one-ment with the body of God, the body of Christ, which is the Church — particularly the sublime Church that transcends sectarianism.
35. Elder Bednar reminds us of the importance of the Book of Mormon. Have you read it? I’ve read it many times. In fact, I learned to read using it. I still find it inspiring today.
36. Elder Bednar says the Book of Mormon is not primarily about the past, but rather about the future — principles to guide us going forward. I echo this thought. While the history question is interesting (and controversial), it’s not the most important question.
37. Elder Bednar includes apostles among those, all of us, who can be afflicted by arrogance. This is an important example for all leaders to keep in mind. Authority, like wealth, tends to increase risk of arrogance and its corrosive consequences.
38. One of the most inspiring passages of scripture from Joseph Smith is D&C 121, which talks quite explicitly about the risks of arrogance associated with authority. It’s the only passage of scripture that my father ever asked me to memorize.

X Account Temporarily Locked

If you’ve read my thoughts on conference before, you probably noticed that this list is shorter than usual. And if you’re familiar with the conference schedule, you probably noticed that the list doesn’t include thoughts from the second day. This is because my X account was temporarily locked during the second day of the conference. Why?

Look through the list of thoughts that I shared. Which seems most controversial to you? Which seems most likely to provoke the most responses, questions, and criticisms? As things turned out, it’s probably not the one you think.

To my surprise, #21 proved to be the most controversial. In it, I express my interest in hearing from more women during conference. Here it is again:

“Dear leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would like to hear from more women in general conference. Thanks for your consideration.”

In response, I received a surprising deluge of comments. Most were negative in tone. And most appeared to come from a narrow segment of illiberal conservative Church members. Here’s a sampling:

• “Way to discount the women who did speak.”

• “Forward this message to @jesuschrist. He makes the final decisions.”

• “Why?”

• “*trans women of color”

• “Shouldn’t matter brother. Just enjoy the lessons taught. Doesn’t matter who is delivering them”

• “SIMP.”

• “Does it matter if you don’t follow the counsel either way?”

• “Sounds like you missed some messages the Lord prepared for you to hear and embrace.”

• “I disagree so our votes cancel out”

• [An image of a man peering back skeptically.]

• “I don’t understand why… Why it matters… why you need to hear from women?”

• “No one wants to hear more women in Conference … remember … the Prophet prays about that.”

• “No thanks”

• “Just heard from this amazing woman. Will you heed what she says?”

• “Because he needs to light off a big virtue signal so the people who hate his supposed beliefs and him might, one day, like him. (Hint: they won’t)”

• “Keep that ark steady.”

I was surprised at the relative quantity and quality of negative responses. Although about a dozen users selected the heart on my post to indicate that they liked it, none of them commented during conference (some commented later, particularly after noting the negative comments). All of the comments during conference were expressions of interrogation, disagreement, dismissal, criticism, or ridicule. Apparently no one who read my post during conference felt strongly enough about the matter to express a positive response with the same degree of effort.

Their presumptions blindsided me. By expressing interest in more women speaking, apparently I was discounting the women who spoke, advocating for the extremes of progressive ideology, pandering to women, virtue signaling to enemies of the Church, and ignoring Church leaders. I’m accustomed to people making poor assumptions about me. But I didn’t anticipate the cause and breadth of the poor assumptions in this case.

Their politics annoyed me. Extreme progressives have perfected ideological sanctimony. In response, extreme conservatives have carefully cultivated a language of ridicule that they apply to just about anyone less conservative, whether progressive or not. If we say something they disagree with, they characterize us in contorted terms of their antagonists, undermining the possibility of real dialogue.

Their passive sanctimony exhausted me. Apparently Church leaders have already done all the necessary thinking and acting on the subject. So Church members should perceive expressions of different desires and asking questions as assaults on the authority of the Church. And those engaging in such assaults are approaching apostasy at best, if they’re not already outright evil.

My interactions with these users culminated in an exchange with a particular user whose X profile asserts, “progmos should be purged.” In case you’re unfamiliar with the term, “progmo” is slang for a progressive Mormon – a Mormon who is perhaps progressive generally, but most particularly progressive politically. When I saw his profile, despite my disagreements with political progressives, I was repulsed. And I told him so.

This X user explained to me that he wished progressive Mormons to be purged from the Church for their own good. His disagreements with them indicate to him that they aren’t living in accordance with the teachings of the Church. I told him that I am equally repulsed by progressive Mormons that wish to purge conservative Mormons. But, given that his own behavior isn’t in accordance with the teachings of the Church and by his own reasoning, maybe he should purge himself.

“I recognize relatively little of the religion advocated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in my limited exposure to your behavior. Maybe you should purge yourself, per your reasoning on the benefit.”

After I posted that comment, X automatically imposed a temporary lock on my ability to comment. Their email to me said that I had violated their rule against violent speech. So the other X user gets to encourage the purging of “progmos” from the Church. But I can’t tell him that consistent application of his justification should lead him to purge himself.

Because my X account was temporarily locked, I enjoyed the second day of conference without X. And I decided not to worry about composing more thoughts for publication. Regardless, there were plenty of thought-provoking speakers and moments during the second day. They’re worthy of engagement.

Love for the Church

After observing the commentary that led to my X account being temporarily locked, some friends (and even some strangers) commented to me that they don’t understand how I can be so patient with the behavior of some Church members. My first thought, in response, was that I don’t always feel patient toward them. But I’m glad that I come across as patient, at least to some observers.

I know the behavior of illiberal members of the Church (usually illiberal conservatives, given the makeup of the Church, but also illiberal progressives) has contributed to feelings of alienation among other Church members. And those feelings have contributed to some leaving the Church. All of this makes me sad. And I sympathize.

I’m not a stranger (ironically) to feelings of alienation in Church. It’s something I’ve wrestled with for most of my life, going back to adolescence, and with particular force during years of closet atheism as a young adult. Most of the time, in recent decades, that wrestling has been a muted background emotion.

But those feelings aren’t the whole story. They’re offset by an observation and another emotion.

The observation is that social media algorithms often amplify frictions with marginal groups. In this particular case, X probably showed my post most often to people who would react most strongly to it. Apparently, that was predominantly some Church members who are illiberal conservatives, quick to engage with hostility anyone they perceive (wrongly, in this case) to be advocating progressive politics. If we too easily generalize the behavior of these Church members to Church membership as a whole, we’re being manipulated by the algorithms as much as they are.

The other emotion is love. I love the Church, like an extension of my family, even when we don’t get along as well as I’d like. I know that doesn’t work for everyone. But, for me, this is still the place.

Despite (and sometimes admittedly to spite) the poor behavior of some fellow Church members, I’m engaged in the effort to tell our story better. I trust actively in our aspirations to participate with God in realizing the full Church of Christ. And I’m committed to Mormonism’s audacious vision of eventual heaven of Earth – not an escapist euphemism for death, but a heaven as real as light and as warm as love.

I invite you to join me in the work and at Church. Sometimes the challenge is hard – maybe even often. But, in my experience and by my estimation, the challenge is sublimely worthy.

More Thoughts on General Conference

If you enjoyed reading my thoughts on this general conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you might also enjoy reading my thoughts on other general conferences. Here's a list, in reverse chronological order, of the conferences for which I've published thoughts:

• 38 Thoughts on October 2024 General Conference
• 95 Thoughts on April 2022 General Conference
• 75 Thoughts on October 2020 General Conference
• 47 Thoughts on April 2019 General Conference
• 49 Thoughts on October 2018 General Conference
• 80 Thoughts on April 2018 General Conference
• 90 Thoughts on October 2017 General Conference
• 59 Thoughts on October 2016 General Conference
• 124 Thoughts on October 2015 General Conference
• 97 Thoughts on October 2014 General Conference
• 73 Thoughts on October 2013 General Conference
• 100 Thoughts on October 2012 General Conference
• 92 Thoughts on April 2012 General Conference

After reading my recent article on “The Technological Conception,” a friend suggested to me that I might be leaving some value on the table, so to speak. His concern was, essentially, that my preference for simplicity might have led me to an insufficient explanation for real possibilities with greater overall practical value. In other words, God might occasionally have solid practical reason for miraculous conception rather than simple conception – still natural, but perhaps more technological than biological.

My friend was right. There’s more to say about miracles, especially from a practical perspective. So let’s explore.

What is a miracle? Some consider miracles to be interruptions of natural law by divine intervention – antinaturalism. But the Mormon Transhumanist perspective is steadfastly naturalist, richer and more nuanced, situating miracles as part of an expansive view of natural law and human potential.

From this perspective, why might God perform or enable miracles? How and why might God optimize the frequency and magnitude of miracles? And how should we, in turn, optimize our perspectives on miracles?

Defining Miracles

Miracles can be literal – real physical events that defy our present ability to understand scientifically or replicate technologically. But they can also be figurative, representing spiritual or psychological transformation. Literal miracles might include actually healing the sick or really walking on water. Figurative miracles might include calming a storm as a metaphor for finding peace amidst suffering, or raising the dead as a metaphor for experiencing hope in times of despair.

While it may be tempting to marginalize the value of figurative miracles, they have substantial power. For example, someone may find unexpected strength to forgive an enemy after contemplating the scriptural story of Jesus healing a man who was sent to arrest him. Such change provides psychological benefits, as well as social benefits when repeated at scale – many people experiencing similar change while contemplating the story. The capacity for forgiveness can mend relationships and create a ripple effect, promoting greater social cohesion.

On the other hand, although it may be hard for some of us, we can esteem literal miracles as real natural events. Some secular persons have exemplified this. Notable among them is science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke, who observed, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Just substitute “miracle” for “magic.”

Mormon authorities have also exemplified the naturalistic approach to literal miracles. James Talmage claimed, “Miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law, but are wrought through the operation of laws not universally or commonly recognized.” Speaking of modern medicine, travel, and communications, Gordon B. Hinckley observed, “It is a miracle. The fruits of science have been manifest everywhere.”

What about the historical Jesus of Nazareth? In the New Testament, even Jesus hints at what we might reasonably interpret as encouragement toward a mechanistic, and thereby naturalistic, approach to literal miracles. On one occasion, he applies mud and prescribes washing to heal blindness. And on another occasion, he comments regarding a particularly persistent demonic possession, “This kind can come out only by prayer.”

Practical Consequences of Miracles

What’s the point? When we hear about miracles, or experience what we esteem to be miraculous, why do we care? Why do scriptural stories about miracles attract so much attention, both fascination and derision? Are there potential detriments in addition to benefits?

Of course, those who experience a miracle label the experience as “miracle” because we esteem the experience to be good, at least on the whole. We generally don’t use “miracle” to describe bad experience. We associate a greater purpose or perhaps superintelligent intention with an experience that is otherwise more difficult or less satisfying for us to explain, thereby reinforcing the experience with something of an enduring psychological boost. A potential downside to this is that it can cultivate an explanatory laziness, leading to antinaturalism.

The scriptures use miracles, at least in part, to illustrate divine intervention and signify the presence of God in the world. Miracles communicate God’s concern and love for creation, moving theology away from a passive deism. Divine acts can motivate believers to follow the example of God, engaging actively in the world. But, as with direct experience of miracles, stories about miracles can lead some toward a passive antinaturalism that expects God to do everything and pacifies us against real action.

Optimal Frequency and Magnitude

Given the possibility space of practical consequence for us, miracles would also have practical consequence for God – for any superintelligence that may care about the future of humanity. Assuming God does perform or enable miracles, balancing their frequency and magnitude becomes vital.

Occurring too often or commonly, miracles would erode agency, reducing opportunities and incentives for personal and communal growth. They would cultivate dependence on the source of superhuman power, reducing or eliminating any necessity for human courage, compassion, or creativity, thereby undermining our potential. Conversely, a total absence of miracles, too few, or even a lack of stories about miracles, might impoverish our world as grounds for cultivating those same virtues of courage, compassion, and creativity. A context that inhibits belief in or even imagination of the miraculous could exacerbate tendencies toward apathy or hopelessness.

The same goes for their obviousness and magnitude. Miracles too obvious could foster dependency. Miracles too extraordinary could overwhelm our capacity for understanding, breaking down our sense of experiential coherence, thereby marginalizing or altogether destroying our capacity to operate effectively in the world – there would be no lawyers or physicists. Miracles too subtle might be overlooked, or altogether fail to qualify for the “miracle” label.

If God exists, God is surely attempting miracle optimization to whatever extent is feasible. And our world of experience and observation surely reflects God’s attempts. The practical consequences are surely too significant to ignore, at least for any superintelligence worthy of the title “God.”

Of course, maybe such trust is incorrect. Maybe God doesn’t exist and literal miracles are solely the province of strange physics in cosmic anomalies and ever-advancing human technologies. But, as the New God Argument points out, we have practical reason, even existential reason, to trust in a superintelligent natural God. By extension, we have practical reason to trust in miracle optimization.

From a Christian perspective, such optimization can be esteemed as an extension of the Atonement – understood practically as reconciliation within God, with and among humanity, on both ethical and epistemic levels. Superintelligence could surely deepfake us into oblivion, as human-created AI is already beginning to suggest. And yet the grace of God establishes and maintains a world, an experiential context, within which we have both stable opportunity and substantial inspiration for progress toward becoming like God ourselves. As my friend pointed out to me, miracle optimization is the scriptural covenant between God and humanity, once symbolized by an ancient writer’s revelation on the rainbow – even a secular physicist can appreciate both the stability and wonder of natural law promised by such phenomena.

Our Perspective on Miracles

Through the lens of Mormon Transhumanism, we can more clearly see the practical breadth and depth of miracles. Whether figurative or literal, they transform us. Properly optimized in frequency and magnitude, they can maintain the opportunities of genuine agency while inspiring us with assured possibility. This view of miracle optimization is a covenant between God and humanity, aimed at cultivating our Godhood.

That’s my perspective. To some extent, I choose it voluntarily, recognizing that I could choose to cultivate and ultimately embrace competing perspectives – either more antinaturalist or more skeptical. And I invite you to choose the same, to begin or continue cultivating such a perspective on miracle optimization, for practical reasons. You will find as I have, if you haven’t already, that this perspective fills the ambiguity of experience with persistent practical assurance of hope for a much better world – a miracle.