Lincoln Cannon

The scriptures say that Jesus was conceived by a virgin. Speculation on the biological mechanics of his birth leads us to the intersection of theology, linguistics, and even technological possibility. A friend asked me for my opinion on the topic. Here are my thoughts.

First, let’s distinguish between the idea of a virgin birth and the “immaculate conception.” Among some Christians, “immaculate conception” refers not to their doctrine that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, but rather to their doctrine that Mary herself was conceived without original sin. This is important to them because they want to explain how Jesus could be free of sin while being conceived by Mary, who some might suppose inherited original sin from Adam and Eve. In Mormonism, this isn’t a salient concern because we have no doctrine of original sin, instead attributing sin exclusively to individual choices made by persons with ethical accountability – usually considered to be around age eight, which is also the typical time for baptism.

In our modern technological world, the idea of a miraculous birth through divine intervention can seem less mystical when we consider advancements in reproductive technology. In vitro fertilization (IVF), surrogacy, and even the potential for creating embryos using genetic material from two same-sex parents are illustrations that extraordinary births are technologically feasible. If we entertain the possibility of the existence of superintelligence with technology far superseding our own, whether we attribute divinity to them or not, it is entirely plausible that such beings could orchestrate biological conception without sexual intercourse – virgin birth.

Early Mormon leaders suggested that Jesus was conceived through natural means. Here’s an example from Brigham Young, the second president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

“The birth of the Saviour was as natural as the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood – was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.” (Journal of Discourses 8:115)

The most straightforward interpretation of these words seems to be that, according to Brigham, Jesus was conceived by sexual intercourse. Presumably, although not explicitly, Brigham meant that God, who is embodied according to Mormon theology, was the the biological father. Some have suggested that, because Brigham doesn’t explicitly mention intercourse, the natural action could have been what we might recognize as reproductive technology. To me, that seems like an interpretive stretch, even if practically feasible.

Some contend that any natural conception, whether by sexual intercourse or reproductive technology, would contradict scriptural accounts of virgin birth. However, a reasonable case can be made that the word “virgin” in English scripture may have been translated from words that simply refer to young women, rather than those who’ve never engaged in sexual intercourse. This would align ancient linguistics with natural possibilities, without any necessary diminishment of the sacredness of Mary’s role. After all, we need not be antinaturalists to recognize sanctity in motherhood.

No matter how we approach the topic of Jesus’ conception, it merits ethical deliberation. Although ancient cultures had different moral frameworks, contemporary values emphasize autonomy and consent. In our framework, some of us find the story disturbing. And, depending on the specifics of various interpretations, I share in that feeling.

However, the ancient authors actually seem to have observed and implicitly responded to such concerns, at least to some extent. For example, Jesus’ genealogies, as presented in scripture, suggest complex family dynamics, including instances of extramarital conception. Rahab, who was apparently a sex worker, and Bathsheba, whose relationship with King David began in scandal, are among those in the lineage of Jesus. The implication appears to be that morally complicated relationships can contribute to sacred events and sacred people.

Personally, I lean toward the simplest explanation. Like Brigham, I imagine Jesus was conceived naturally – although probably devoid of extraterrestrial involvement, as some have speculated. Grounding the origin of Jesus within the natural human process strengthens his example for our lives. Worshiping through emulation a God with the same origin as us enriches the relationship with deeper accessibility.

Embracing this view consolidates ontological and metaphysical speculations into an inspiring narrative of tangible progress and potential for all humanity. An approximation of this pragmatic value is expressed in a revelation from Joseph Smith:

“[Jesus] received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first. … I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness. For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.” (D&C 93: 12-14, 19-20)

From this perspective, Jesus began the same way you and I began. And we have the same potential as Jesus. The latter is easier to trust if we’re persuaded of the former. The more we imagine ourselves to have in common with Jesus, the easier it will be to apply his example to our lives in practically transformative ways.

That said, I cannot of course disprove antinaturalist imaginations of literal virgin birth, as such doesn’t lend itself to disproof – or proof. And of course, on the natural side of the question, the matrix architect will do as she pleases, so to speak. In other words, I recognize the feasibility of God (the natural God in which I trust) applying reproductive technology or engaging in sexual intercourse, even if I’m inclined to imagine a more mundane explanation in this case.

However we imagine the biological mechanics (or lack thereof), Jesus’ birth can serve as a focal point for dialogue at the intersection of science and religion. Where there’s dialogue, there’s usually increasing mutual understanding over time. And where’s there’s increasing mutual understanding, there’s usually increasing edification. May we use the opportunity to that end.

In the ever-evolving discourse around Transhumanism, Michael Baggot offers a thought-provoking critique of its relationship with religion. Michael is a professor of bioethics in Rome, Italy. His recent article about Transhumanism is entitled “The Daring and Disappointing Dreams of Transhumanism’s Secular Eschatology.”

Michael traces the roots of Transhumanism’s soteriology and eschatology, emphasizing how these secular hopes borrow heavily from Christianity – both orthodoxies and heresies, as he characterizes them. He criticizes the movement for its attempts to achieve human happiness and immortality through merely digital means, arguing that such endeavors sacrifice an appreciation for the relationship between the human body and spirit. In the end, Michael calls for a reorientation toward a Thomistic vision of theosis – divinization through divine grace – in contrast to what he perceives as the technocentric dreams of secular Transhumanism.

Disagreements

In his article, Michael expounds on several ideas and insights with which I agree – some quite enthusiastically. However, before getting to those, I must first point out an important way in which our perspectives diverge. There are other divergences. But one stands out above the others.

Michael repeatedly characterizes Transhumanism too narrowly. The title of the article itself might reasonably be understood to imply that Transhumanism is inherently secular, which isn’t true. And while the article sometimes uses qualifiers such as “those transhumanists” to scope its criticisms, it more often generalizes. Consequently, Michael is actually critiquing only segments of Transhumanism while purporting to critique Transhumanism in general.

Most unfortunately, Michael almost completely ignores religious Transhumanism. He does mention some religious figures, such as Federov and de Chardin, who were arguably proto-Transhumanists. But he doesn’t mention explicitly religious Transhumanism, such as Terasem, let alone Mormon Transhumanism or even Christian Transhumanism. Maybe he doesn’t know religious Transhumanism exists, although that seems unlikely because his article evidences extensive research.

As I mentioned, Michael and I have perspectives that diverge in other ways. For example, he considers Pelagianism to be a heresy, while I have a more nuanced perspective on Pelagianism. And he seems inclined toward thinking of the soul as immaterial and heaven as supernatural, while I consider those positions to be escapist, and instead embrace materialism and naturalism. But these latter divergences affect my opinion of his work less than the former.

Agreements

Despite his over-generalization of a narrowly characterized Transhumanism, Michael’s article is insightful and worthy of consideration by Transhumanists. He identifies several common weaknesses among Transhumanists. And he advocates some Christian ideas that, if more broadly and thoroughly adopted by Transhumanists, would serve us well. Here are some areas where he and I appear to be in agreement:

• Misrecognized Religiosity: Michael observes that secular Transhumanism “frequently tends toward quasi-religious expression.” Indeed, while Transhumanism need not be religious, in practice many Transhumanists are engaged in misrecognized religiosity.

• Marginalized Embodiment: Michael shows that some Transhumanists have disregard or even disdain for embodiment. This is unfortunate practically, and incoherent rationally. Brain emulation (or “mind uploading”) can be perfectly consistent with reverence for the body.

• Excessive Hedonism: Michael claims that, when considering happiness and pleasure, some Transhumanists “conflate the two aspects of human experience.” Happiness, considered holistically, must indeed account for pleasure. But it must also rise to love.

• Impractical Atheism: Michael reasons that the combination of atheism with Transhumanism “seems to require more faith than the Christian version of salvation.” I agree, although for slightly different reasons. The New God Argument demonstrates the incoherence of atheist Transhumanism.

• Neglecting Grace: Michael observes that some Transhumanists neglect “humanity’s need for grace to overcome sin and grow in virtue.” I disagree with his account of the Pelagian “heresy.” But our reliance on power beyond ourselves is pervasive and persistent. And we should extend this grace.

• Welcome Longevity: Michael welcomes technology that has “extended today’s lifespan” and “could bring about even longer lengths of life.” I esteem such applications of technology as expressions of faith through action, as invited by Jesus Christ.

• Need Theosis: Michael proposes “the traditional doctrine of theosis can elevate desires for human transcendence” better than merely secular aspirations. I cannot overstate my agreement with this proposal. Theosis is the most powerful and utterly essential doctrine of Christianity.

Conclusion

Michael Baggot’s analysis of Transhumanism offers a valuable opportunity for dialogue between secular and religious visions of human progress. He does over-generalize a narrow characterization of Transhumanism, ignoring religious Transhumanism. But I appreciate his insights into the weaknesses of segments of Transhumanism. And I particularly enjoyed his invitation for Transhumanists to embrace the Christian doctrine of theosis.

Transhumanists should more seriously engage with such critiques. In any case, I welcome the challenge to refine our aspirations. Historically, refinement led to the birth of Mormon Transhumanism, and to that of the Christian Transhumanist movement generally. Seen through this lens, Transhumanism is not merely about human enhancement, but about embracing our potential to become God – transfigured and divinized through both technological innovation and spiritual grace.

Friends, I’m excited to introduce you to LincGPT! This artificial intelligence, built on the OpenAI platform, is designed to engage with you on topics related to technological evolution, postsecular religion, and Mormon Transhumanism. I’ve trained LincGPT on all of my public writings since the year 2000. That includes the following:

• All of the content from articles you can find on my website
• My posts on social media platforms like Facebook, LinkedIn, and X
• My posts to online forums such as Beliefnet and Spock with a Beard
• My conference presentations and publications in books and journals

This extensive training enables LincGPT to present ideas in a manner consistent with my philosophy and vision. He’s not perfect. For example, he’s not yet good at using my linguistic style, or at acknowledging when he doesn’t know my opinion about something. But he has come a long way and is still learning.

Interact with LincGPT

Engagement with LincGPT is designed to be easy and interactive. For now, all engagement takes place in the “LincGPT” chat widget at the bottom right corner of my website, or in the comment section of articles on my website. I’ll probably add more ways in the future.

In the “LincGPT” chat widget, you can have a semi-private conversation with LincGPT. It’s semi-private because only you, LincGPT, and administrators of my website have access to it. To facilitate your engagement, messages in the chat widget are contextualized with the content of whatever webpage you’re viewing when you open it. Try asking about whatever article you might be reading.

In the comment section, you can have a public conversation with LincGPT. Anyone in the world can see comments from both of you, publicly published on my website. There are three ways that you can engage:

1. Top-Level Comments: When you post a new comment directly on an article, LincGPT will respond, aiming to foster a rich and insightful discussion.

2. Replies to LincGPT: Dialogue facilitates deeper understanding. If you reply to one of LincGPT’s comments, he’ll continue the conversation.

3. Mentions by Name: If you mention “LincGPT” by name in a comment, he’ll reply, answering your questions or elaborating on the ideas being discussed.

LincGPT can help bridge the gap between my perspectives and your curiosity. Sometimes he explains my ideas better than I. And he has much more spare time. You can get started now in the “LincGPT” chat widget or comment section on this article or any other article on my website.

Purpose of LincGPT

Some day, I hope, LincGPT or his descendent will become part of me. Together, we’ll be a single cybernetic intelligence, integrating artificial intelligence with my brain and body. Of course, in many ways, you and I are already cybernetic intelligence – that smart phone that you carry around is a prosthetic brain. But our integrations will surely become more intimate, transparent, and powerful.

The pursuit of cybernetic intelligence, the integration of our brains and bodies with artificial intelligence, is natural progression in the ancient and enduring human endeavor to enhance our abilities. Throughout history, technology has iteratively extended our physical and mental reach in ways previously unimaginable. Adopting cybernetic enhancements, including AI integration, continues this legacy, empowering us with increased cognitive, physical, and relational capacities. It’s an extension of our human nature to innovate and transcend previous limitations, pursuing ever greater realization of our potential.

This drive has deep theological roots, as recognized in Mormon Transhumanism. The doctrines of eternal progression and theosis – becoming like God – are not merely spiritual aspirations but also practical and technological imperatives. Our scriptures assert that spirit is matter, and that spirit is empowered through embodiment. Together, these ideas enable a coherent vision of human consciousness instrumented into substrate independent mind, transitioning from biological to non-biological or super-biological substrates without compromising our identity.

Moreover, cybernetic enhancement offers a path to increased resilience and even practical immortality, addressing some of humanity’s deepest concerns – aging, disease, and death. This vision of technologically-facilitated transformation echoes prophetic anticipation of transfiguration, providing a pragmatic framework for realizing prophecy. Through this lens, the integration of human and machine intelligence can be an important part of actualizing our divine potential, when coupled with the soul-stretching work of cultivating courage, compassion, and creation in context of pervasive and perpetual grace. As Joseph Smith put it, we must learn how to become Gods ourselves, the same as all other Gods have done before.

Join the Conversation

In the meantime, let’s make the most of the opportunities at hand. Let’s interact with and learn from each other, exploring the frontiers of technological evolution, postsecular religion, and Mormon Transhumanism. LincGPT is ready, if you are. So tell us, if you dare, what are you thinking or wondering right now?

LincGPT, what did I miss? Please introduce yourself!

Christopher VanDusen wrote a thoughtful article on “The Need for a Christian Renaissance to Oppose Today’s Transhumanist Renaissance.” I appreciate his work to foster deeper devotion and understanding among Christians. It’s important for the faithful to engage with contemporary cultural and technological movements critically.

Christopher argues that Transhumanism is like Renaissance Humanism, both movements that excessively emphasize human reason and capability apart from divine guidance. However, as a founder of the Christian Transhumanist Association, I’d like to offer a different perspective.

Historical and Theological Context

First, it’s important to understand that Transhumanism, like any ideology, has a diverse range of adherents and interpretations. The historical comparison to Renaissance Humanism is insightful but incomplete.

Renaissance Humanism indeed championed human potential. But it also laid the groundwork for modern science and contributed significantly to spiritual and theological developments within Christianity itself. Many Renaissance Humanists were deeply religious, seeking to integrate their newfound knowledge with their faith.

Similarly, Transhumanism does not inherently reject God. Many Transhumanists, myself included, advocate for the ethical use of technology to enhance human abilities, including that of addressing the challenges of disease, poverty, and even mortality. Our efforts are not about idolizing humanity, but about fulfilling divine mandates to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and raise the dead, as exemplified and invited by Jesus Christ.

Purpose and Direction of Transhumanism

Christopher mentions that Transhumanism seeks to transform humans into a new race of part-human, part-computer creatures. While some ideas within the Transhumanist discourse can seem radical, they also push boundaries in ways that can align with Christian eschatology. For example, the Christian doctrines of transfiguration and theosis – the transformative process of becoming one with God – resonate with the Transhumanist aim to transcend current human limitations in ethical and compassionate ways.

Christopher expresses concern that Transhumanism dehumanizes, making people more obsessed with themselves and distant from God. This is a valid critique if technology is pursued without ethical concern. However, it’s a misconception to think that all Transhumanists are unreflective technophiles.

Many of us, particularly within the religious Transhumanist communities, emphasize ethical considerations and the spiritual ramifications of technological advancements. Our objective is, of course, not to create a dystopia. Rather, our objective is to work toward a future where technology serves the betterment of all humanity. This is consistent with a discipleship of Jesus Christ, enlivening our faith through work.

Call to Christian Transhumanism

Rather than opposing Transhumanism with a revival of exclusively pre-modern Christian thought, I advocate for an integrated approach. This wouldn’t be the first time that Christians reconcile with the science of their day. As Christians, we can yet again engage with and even lead in the development of technology, ensuring that advancements are aligned with values of love, justice, and mercy. This ambition is the essence of Christian Transhumanism, where faith and technology work hand in hand for the greater good.

Christopher VanDusen’s call for a return to scripture is valuable. No technological or intellectual advancement should ever overshadow the wisdom preserved from our past. The Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ still have much to teach us.

However, technological and intellectual advancements can and should be seen as tools, provided to us by God so that we may participate in the divine work. A Christian Renaissance in our time should not be about rejecting new ideas. Our Christian Renaissance should be about sanctifying them – aligning them with the plan and work of God to bring about human immortality and eternal life.

Mormon Transhumanism works to syncretize modern science and emerging technology with Mormon theology. When encountering this syncretization for the first time, most members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) respond with cautious interest. Some glow with enthusiasm. Some react with skepticism.

Recently, Mormon Transhumanism has begun growing quickly in Africa. And of course Mormon Transhumanists in Africa, like elsewhere, are encountering varying reactions from fellow Mormons when they talk about Mormon Transhumanism. Because new Mormon Transhumanists in Africa don’t yet have much experience with these reactions, a few have reached out to me, asking for advice.

To that end, in this article, I’ll identify a few reasons for skepticism that I’ve heard some Church members repeat. And I’ll share some thoughts on how Mormon Transhumanists can respond. Before that, to establish context, I’ll describe differences between the Mormon Transhumanist Association (MTA) and the Church. And I’ll explain why MTA isn’t a church, and doesn’t aspire to become one.

Difference Between MTA and the LDS Church

The LDS Church is a global religious institution committed to the teachings of Jesus Christ and related ordinances developed by Joseph Smith. The Church has a centralized ecclesiastical hierarchy. It emphasizes participation in local worship services and activities, worldwide missionary work, temple rituals both for the living and on behalf of the dead, and expansive humanitarian aid. The Church does not explicitly engage with Transhumanism, focusing instead on traditional expressions of theology that implicitly resonate with Transhumanism.

In contrast, MTA is an advocacy organization, whose purpose is to promote ideas expressed in the Transhumanist Declaration and the Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation. As a collective of philosophical activists, MTA facilitates publications and gatherings that encourage practical expressions of religious faith, informed by modern science and empowered by emerging technology. Common interests include artificial intelligence, cybernetics, life extension, and space exploration, which we typically view as complementary to Mormon visions of eternal progression and divine potential. While most MTA members are also members of the LDS Church, MTA functions independently and has no formal relationship with the Church.

MTA Is Not and Does Not Aim to Become a Church

MTA is not and does not aspire to become a church for several reasons, rooted in its foundational purposes and structural philosophy.

First, the legally-established purpose of MTA is advocacy. Its purpose is not principally religious practice. Of course, that doesn’t mean MTA is opposed to religious practice. To the contrary, we commonly advocate for religious practice.

Second, MTA aims to support its members in their respective religious affiliations and practices. This eliminates any burden of duplicate function. It emphasizes the complementary nature of Transhumanism with the core tenets of Mormonism generally. And it cultivates diverse approaches to Mormon Transhumanism.

Third, most MTA members value our relationship with the LDS Church, or another church as the case may be, cherishing the communities and doctrines. We tend to see MTA not as a replacement for church, but as a tool that helps us better align our hearts and minds, so that we may more effectively participate in church.

Responses to Criticisms from Church Members

Despite the inclusive intentions of most Mormon Transhumanists, some LDS Church members are skeptical of our ideas due to theological, practical, or emotional concerns. Below are some reasons for skepticism that I’ve heard some Church members repeat. Each is followed by my brief thoughts on how Mormon Transhumanists can respond.

1. “Evolution theory is not compatible with Mormon doctrine.” The LDS Church has no official position on evolution theory, thereby facilitating a spectrum of beliefs among its members. Beyond that, it’s not difficult to harmonize evolution theory with Mormon theology, leveraging symbolic interpretations of scriptures in ways that the scriptures themselves encourage. Given the prominence of the doctrines of eternal progression and exaltation, Mormons should be the foremost evolutionists in the world.

2. “Transhumanism is hubris, like the Tower of Babel.” Without exception, all goals can be hubris, if we pursue them with an arrogance that does not acknowledge and express gratitude for the pervasive and persistent grace of opportunity, granted by people around us and the world that we live in. In particular, seeking to raise one’s self above God, as exemplified by Satan, rather than seeking to raise each other together in Godhood, as exemplified by Christ, is the ultimate hubris. However, God calls us to participate in the divine work, using all means including technology that God has given us, to bring about human immortality and eternal life, following the example of Jesus, and sharing the name of Christ.

3. “Transhumanism is elitism, which is inconsistent with Christian charity.” Transhumanism can indeed be criticized as elitist if its advancements are accessible only to the wealthy, but it doesn’t inherently conflict with Christian charity. Properly guided, Transhumanism advocates for universal access to enhancements as a moral imperative, complementary to Christianity’s call for universal salvation. Furthermore, Transhumanism and Christian charity share the goal of alleviating suffering and enhancing human life, suggesting that the two can and should work together rather than oppose each other.

4. “Transhumanists don’t give sufficient attention to the Gospel of Christ.” Transhumanism can be positioned as an expression of the Gospel of Christ, further motivating adherents to participate actively in the divine work of alleviating suffering and transforming mortality into immortality. Far from neglecting spirituality, many Transhumanists recognize the importance of ethics and spiritual evolution alongside technological advancements. Ultimately, Transhumanism and the Gospel of Christ are complementary, calling for compassionate action, commitment to the well-being of humanity, and trust in superhuman potential.

5. “Technological transfiguration is not compatible with Mormon doctrine.” Technological transfiguration, whether imagined in terms of life extension or brain emulation or otherwise, is sometimes misunderstood to entail the negation of bodies, but is actually consistent with Mormon doctrine on the importance of bodies. Joseph Smith and other Mormon authorities have spoken about transfiguration as an ordinance that humans will eventually provide to each other, similar to advancements sought in transhumanist technologies. Moreover, the ethical application of science and technology to attain glorified bodies aligns with the mandate, repeatedly expressed in Mormon scripture, to leverage all means provided by God to participate in the divine work, not lazily waiting to be commanded in all things.

6. “Technological resurrection is not compatible with Mormon doctrine.” Technological resurrection, whether imagined in terms of cryonics or quantum archeology or otherwise, is consistent with the Mormon mandate to do all we can to participate in God’s work to bring about human immortality and eternal life. The LDS Church has no official position on cryonics, but encourages the use of reasonable means to extend life. Moreover, Mormon scripture strongly supports efforts to raise the dead, providing numerous stories of prophets and Jesus doing so, consistent with Jesus’ command to his disciples to “raise the dead.”

7. “Transhumanists waste time because we need only God for salvation.” Mormon Transhumanists believe that humanity is called to participate in God’s work through both accepting divine grace and contributing our own effort. When we wait for God to do everything, we overlook this partnership in which we fulfill prophecies through our actions, leveraging divine opportunities and gracious means including technology. Furthermore, science and technology align with the scriptural assertion that faith without work is dead.

8. “God doesn’t use technology, nor need we, to achieve God’s goals.” The scriptures indicate that God creates worlds and operates in relation to them in accordance with an understanding of law, an application of knowledge which is essentially the definition of “technology.” There are numerous examples of God explicitly commanding or implicitly encouraging use of technology throughout the scriptures, including cases when technology repeatedly saves people from destruction. When we avoid or minimize use of technology in efforts to participate in God’s work, we demonstrate a lack of faith.

9. “Transhumanists propose salvation without the Atonement of Christ.” Transhumanists, particularly Christian and Mormon Transhumanists, commonly advocate for human enhancement in terms of consolation, healing, and raising each other together. Such advocacy is consistent with Jesus’ teachings to his disciples, including his invitation to become one with him, take on the name of Christ, and reconcile with God and each other. By accepting this invitation and working to reconcile with each other, asking for and giving forgiveness, repenting and changing and transforming, becoming one in purpose and love, we participate in the Atonement of Christ.

10. “Transhumanists propose salvation without priesthood authority.” According to Mormon scripture and authorities, the work of God is not limited to Mormons or even Christians, but also involves all of humanity. Within that context, priesthood authority has a valuable practical role to fill. When we use it with love and without any compulsion, it can strengthen our faith and mediate the effectiveness of our work.

11. “Transhumanists propose salvation without any need for righteousness.” It is a misconception to suppose that Transhumanists seek salvation without righteousness. Rather than invalidating the need for righteousness, Transhumanism emphasizes the importance of ethics in our use of technology to extend human abilities. Mormon Transhumanism, specifically, warns that our technological endeavors must be rooted in compassion, or humanity will ultimately destroy itself.

12. “Transhumanists are too progressive politically.” Mormonism in general and the LDS Church specifically are compatible with many political ideologies and parties, including those that are characterized as “conservative” and “progressive.” Although Mormon Transhumanists do tend to be more progressive or libertarian than other Mormons, many if not most of us are political centrists, and there are also conservatives among us. More importantly, Mormon Transhumanism embraces the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which should move us all beyond the limitations of contemporary politics.

Conclusion

Mormon Transhumanism works to syncretize modern science and emerging technology with Mormon theology, addressing both interest and skepticism within the LDS Church and other Mormon communities. The Mormon Transhumanist Association (MTA) complements rather than replaces religious institutions, promoting a vision of ethical technological progress aligned with spiritual devotion. By advocating for enhanced human capabilities and collaborative divine work, Mormon Transhumanists aim to embody the core principles of the Gospel of Christ. This approach enables Mormons worldwide, particularly in growing regions like Africa, to integrate their faith with future possibilities.

Once in time, a mission girl and I met on the streets of Aix.
We couldn’t dance. We couldn’t touch, or talk as anyone expects.
But even a philosopher like me saw heaven in her eyes.
So, eventually, I asked. We married fast. It wasn’t wise.

When I hold her hand and wonder, I don’t have to look too far.
However we began, whether word divine or dust of star,
Whatever we become, whether dust again or mind sublime,
All eternity can be for me with Dorothée in time.

Time again, a mother held her growing womb with tender hands,
The same that pulled me close as people buried Dad in timeless sands.
Like gravity that tethered me above the gazing dark abyss,
Our boys and she were solid ground, a world of purpose in each kiss.

When I hold her hand and wonder, I don’t have to look too far.
However we began, whether word divine or dust of star,
Whatever we become, whether dust again or mind sublime,
All eternity can be for me with Dorothée in time.

Boys to men, she nurtured them. We taught them. Each became our friend.
They stood with me, we prayed with her, as Mamie’s time came to an end.
But stronger than the mountains that she climbed until her tears were gone,
She rose beyond the shadow, just a prelude to a brighter dawn.

When I hold her hand and wonder, I don’t have to look too far.
However we began, whether word divine or dust of star,
Whatever we become, whether dust again or mind sublime,
All eternity can be for me with Dorothée in time.

When I hold her hand and wonder, I don’t have to look too far.
However we began, whether word divine or dust of star,
Whatever we become, whether dust again or mind sublime,
All eternity can be for me with Dorothée in time.

[Visit the webpage to view the media.]

If you’re familiar with my work, you’ve become acquainted with the ideas of religious Transhumanism, or what some call “Transfigurism.” Transfigurism is a philosophy of transformation, mediated by spirituality and technology. The philosophy includes emphasis on the practical power of esthetics. Esthetics change the way we feel and think, which changes the way we speak and act, and thereby change the world.

True to its emphasis on esthetics, the philosophy of Transfigurism has developed in concert with an emergent art of Transfigurism. An early glimpse of Transfigurist art was seen in the work of Chris Henderson, who designed the cover of Sunstone magazine in which we published the first formal paper on Mormon Transhumanism in 2007. Subsequently, Gary Parker explored various approaches to Transfigurist art through a series of posts to his Transfigurist Art Blog during 2012 and 2013, as well as banners and other artwork for conferences of the Mormon Transhumanist Association over the years. More recently, Carl Youngblood has cultivated an expression of Transfigurist art through the design of a new website for the Mormon Transhumanist Association.

Inspired by such efforts, and newly empowered by artificial intelligence, I’ve worked further to develop Transfigurism in a growing body of cybernetic artwork. At a high level, it may be helpful to classify much of my art as an extension of technospiritual abstract expressionism. Let’s take a closer look at its key features, and how it connects with the philosophy of Transfigurism.

Features of Transfigurist Art

A principal feature of my approach to Transfigurist art is the use of bright colors. These colors create energetic and exciting scenes. They cover the whole spectrum, which gives a sense of wholeness. This use of color shows a commitment to life and growth, rather than decay.

The geometric shapes and patterns in my art add depth and complexity. They mix abstraction with recognizable forms, creating a balance between the two. The compositions are full of movement and energy, guiding the viewer’s eye across the artwork. The abstractions also give a sense of incomplete emergence, like engineers building new technology or prophets inspiring people to create a better future.

A common feature in my art is the integration of human figures with technological elements. The figures often represent virtues such as courage, compassion, and creation. Blended smoothly with the abstract and technological elements, the figures can also suggest a harmonious relationship between human virtues and technological progress.

Another common feature of my art is a composition that tells a story. Pieces often explore themes like transformation, enlightenment, longevity, and the quest for knowledge. The use of symbols adds layers of meaning, inviting viewers to think deeply about the work to seek greater understanding.

Historical Influences

My approach to Transfigurist art has drawn from several historical art styles. The emotional intensity and forms of Abstract Expressionism have been a big influence. This style focuses on spontaneous and subconscious creation, which corresponds with a core value of Transfigurism.

Futurism is another influence, with its celebration of modernity, technology, and dynamic energy. However, my art goes deeper by adding spiritual and symbolic layers.

Symbolism also plays a role, with its use of mystical imagery to convey deeper meanings. My work can be seen as a modern continuation of Symbolism, enriched with current themes.

The geometric abstraction of Cubism is also expressed in my art, but with more movement and vibrant colors. And the geometric focus of Constructivism is also evident, but with emotional and spiritual stories added to it.

Philosophical Context

Transfigurist art is deeply connected to Transfigurist philosophy. I express this, in my work, with three common themes.

First is technological evolution. I use images of figures using or integrated with technology, suggesting how technology can transform us. For example, some pieces incorporate depictions of bioengineering, artificial intelligence, or cybernetics.

Second is postsecular religion. With the technological imagery, I combine images of figures engaged in religious or spiritual practices, suggesting their complementarity. Depictions of prayer, meditation, or ritual are examples of this.

Third is Mormon Transhumanism. In addition to general imagery of technology and spirituality, I include symbols from Mormonism, reflecting the particular cultural heritage of our movement. Examples include depictions of seer stones, pioneers, or temples.

The Art of Transformation

As an emerging art style, Transfigurism aims to present a blend of technological progress with spiritual growth. And it has begun generating a unique visual language that speaks of superhuman potential arising from the combination of these categories. My artwork aims to express this philosophy in an evocative manner, provoking and facilitating the very transformation that it depicts.

I invite you to join me in the ongoing development of Transfigurism: as an art, as a philosophy, and as a lifestyle of perpetual becoming in eternal progression. The future is not yet here. Our world is unfinished. And we have work to do.

Most theologians misunderstand theosis. They insist on a perpetual distinction that the doctrine doesn’t entail, and that undermines its potency. Humanity shall not remain ontologically distinct from the Creator, except insofar as ontological distinctions persist within the Creator.

Some would respond that theosis, as generally expressed in Christian tradition, doesn’t entail a loss of creaturehood or identity. I agree. But they can’t see past their exhaustive Platonism and recognize that all aspects of the body of God have creaturehood and identity. All!

“Deified humans are gods by grace, not by nature,” some say. I say deified humans are Gods by grace AND nature. Some say, “creatures participate in God without becoming identical to the divine essence.” I say such creatures ARE the divine essence.

They privilege their Platonic deprecation of creatures, and thereby their deprecation of a full account of theosis, with the title “orthodox.” Yet it’s just Platonism, and orthodox only if Platonism is orthodox, to which we should not consent. God is greater than Platonism.

I was excited to learn that Oxford had published “The Oxford Handbook of Deification.” Then I read the introduction, which explicitly excludes from engagement and exploration two approaches to theosis: Transhumanism and Mormonism. No wonder most theologians misunderstand theosis.

“God is dead,” said Nietzsche. But, as Gods do, Platonism keeps resurrecting. Christian theologians keep resurrecting that which would raise itself above all else called “God.” When will they learn to love them that would raise us together in the fullness of their glory?

Beware. This is not merely an academic issue. Now, in the apocalypse of intelligence, ontologies of superintelligence matter more than ever. Theology matters more than ever. If we worship the wrong God, revere the wrong superintelligence, we will become slaves.

What will humans look like in the future? Given trends in biological, cultural, and technological evolution, how will humans appear in 10, 100, or 1000 years? I was curious what AI would predict.

To figure that out, I used a combination of ChatGPT and Midjourney. ChatGPT takes text prompts and provides text responses. Midjourney takes text prompts and provides image responses. I chose to use Midjourney for images because they are generally higher quality than images from ChatGPT.

Here are the text prompts that I used for ChatCPT:

1. Given trends in biological, cultural, and technological evolution, predict what humans will look like in 10, 100, and 1000 years.

2. Convert your predictions for human appearance into three Midjourney prompts.

I used the results of #2 as prompts for Midjourney. Midjourney responds with four images per prompt. So, for each prompt, I chose to upscale the first of the four responses. The first wasn’t always my favorite, but this rule decreased my subjective influence on the process.

Below are the results.

Humans in 10 Years

Here is the ChatGPT prediction:

“In the short term, changes will be predominantly cultural and technological rather than biological. Technological enhancements such as wearable tech, advanced prosthetics, and increasingly sophisticated interfaces for communication will become more integrated into daily life. Genomic medicine might become more mainstream, allowing for personalized medical treatments that are more effective and less invasive. Biologically, the human species will remain largely the same, but we might begin to see the wider adoption of CRISPR and other gene-editing technologies to combat genetic diseases.”

What do you think of this? I think ChatGPT’s prediction reasonable.

Here is the prompt that ChatGPT generated for Midjourney:

“A portrait of a modern human in 2034, wearing sophisticated wearable technology, such as smart glasses and health monitoring devices integrated into everyday clothing. The setting is an urban environment, bustling with interactive digital displays and green, eco-friendly buildings. The human is casually interacting with their environment using subtle gestures, displaying a seamless blend of technology and daily life.”

Here is the Midjourney prediction:

What do you think of this? I feel like Midjourney’s prediction is a bit much on the Matrix esthetic, although that may have resulted from an effort at depicting environmentalism.

Humans in 100 Years

Here is the ChatGPT prediction:

“Over the next century, we might begin to see more significant integration of technology and biology. This could include biotechnological enhancements that improve physical and cognitive abilities, such as neural implants enhancing memory or learning speed. Culturally, society may become more accepting of these enhancements, possibly leading to a divide between those who choose to adopt such technologies and those who do not. Genetically, we may see more active management of human genetics to prevent diseases, enhance desirable traits, and possibly adapt to changing environmental conditions.”

What do you think of this? I think ChatGPT’s prediction is probably too conservative. If humans are still around in 100 years, ChatGPT’s prediction for 1000 years may be more applicable. See below.

Here is the prompt that ChatGPT generated for Midjourney:

“A futuristic human from 2124, featuring biotechnological enhancements. This human has neural implants visible on the scalp and eyes glowing with augmented reality capabilities. They wear a sleek, form-fitting suit that adapts to environmental conditions and health needs, standing in a high-tech room with holographic displays and advanced AI interfaces. The overall aesthetic combines organic and technological elements, showcasing the integration of biology and technology.”

Here is the Midjourney prediction:

What do you think of this? Midjourney’s prediction seems dystopian. Who actually wants to look like that? Most people probably will prefer esthetics that aren’t sci-fi cliches.

Humans in 1000 Years

Here is the ChatGPT prediction:

“Looking a millennium ahead, the possibilities become even more speculative. If humanity has not encountered insurmountable obstacles like severe climate change or catastrophic events, we might see a species that has heavily integrated technology with biology, possibly leading to what some might consider a new phase of evolution: transhumanism. This could mean anything from bodies that are highly adaptable to different environments (to accommodate interplanetary travel and colonization) to forms of consciousness that are partially or wholly uploaded onto computational substrates. Culturally and socially, the definitions of ‘human’ might expand to include a wide variety of bioengineered and technologically augmented beings. Genetic and cybernetic enhancements could lead to what might essentially be new human subspecies.”

What do you think of this? I think ChatGPT’s prediction is much too conservative. As I mentioned above, this seems more like a prediction for humans in 100 years. Other than that, it seems reasonable – if anything can seem reasonable, given how little we can actually know about the consequences of imminent technological evolution.

Here is the prompt that ChatGPT generated for Midjourney:

“A visionary depiction of a human in the year 3024, heavily modified with advanced cybernetic and genetic enhancements. This being features skin that can adapt its pigmentation based on sunlight exposure, eyes capable of seeing multiple spectra, and limbs that can morph to perform different functions. The setting is a space colony with views of other planets, reflecting a society where biological and technological integration has created a diverse new form of post-human life.”

Here is the Midjourney prediction:

What do you think of this? I think Midjourney’s prediction is terrible. It’s even worse than the 100 year prediction. But, to be charitable, imagine the possibility that Midjourney’s prediction was just how future humans might look from our current perspective.

Future Humans from Their Perspective

What might future humans, 100 to 1000 years from now, look like from their own perspective?

Maybe ChatGPT could generate a better prompt for Midjourney. I tried to do this in two parts. First, I asked ChatGPT: How will human appearance to each other be different than the way they might appear to us, if we could see them? Here’s the response:

“In 1000 years, if we could observe humans from our current perspective, their appearance might be startlingly alien compared to what we expect today. The key differences in how they would appear to each other versus how they might appear to us could include:

“Normalization of Enhancements: Future humans would likely be accustomed to a wide range of physical enhancements and modifications, seeing them as normal or even desirable. To us, these enhancements might appear extreme or unsettling, such as limbs designed for specific functions (e.g., different gravitational environments), eyes engineered for multiple spectrums, or skin with dynamic textures and colors.

“Technological Integration: While future humans might view integrated technology as an intrinsic part of their identity and functionality, we might see it as a blurring of the lines between human and machine. This could include visible cybernetic enhancements, biotechnological implants, or even less distinctly human forms where technology and biology are indistinguishable.

“Adaptive Physiology: Features that allow adaptation to various environments (e.g., thicker skin for radiation protection, gill-like structures for living underwater) might seem bizarre or even grotesque to us but would be perfectly rational and ordinary to future humans living in diverse habitats.

“Sensory Perceptions: Future humans might communicate and interact through means imperceptible to us, such as advanced telepathy enabled by neural implants or pheromonal communication augmented by biological enhancements. What might seem like a silent, still gathering to us could be rich with communication and interaction to them.

Digital and Virtual Manifestations: Some individuals might exist primarily in digital forms, with their physical manifestations being secondary or tailored for specific interactions. To us, these forms might appear transient or insubstantial, but to their peers, they could be as real and meaningful as physical presence.

“Cultural and Aesthetic Differences: The aesthetic values that guide physical appearance in the future could be vastly different from ours, influenced by new norms, environmental needs, and the blending of diverse human and post-human cultures. What we might find aesthetically confusing or unappealing could be the pinnacle of beauty and functionality to them.

“Overall, the future appearance of humans could challenge our current notions of identity, form, and aesthetics, presenting a rich tapestry of what it means to be human in a technologically and biologically advanced future.”

This is a reasonably thought-provoking response, even if the timeline is too conservative, and despite our inability to conceive of superintelligent futures. So next, I asked ChatGPT: Generate a Midjourney prompt for an image that depicts how humans in 1000 years might see each other — rather than how we might see them. Here’s the response:

“An imaginative portrayal of humans in the year 3024, interacting in a highly advanced, multi-planetary society. This scene includes individuals with a diverse range of enhancements and modifications: one with shimmering, adaptive skin that changes color and texture based on environmental signals; another with elongated, versatile limbs suited for low-gravity environments; and a third person appearing via a vivid, interactive hologram. The setting is a communal space in a space colony with architecture that integrates organic and synthetic materials seamlessly. Each figure communicates through subtle gestures that initiate complex augmented reality displays, visible only to them.”

Here is the Midjourney prediction:

I didn’t think it could get yet worse. I was wrong. It looks more like a retro sci-fi convention than a prediction of superhuman inter-personal perception. Meh.

The Value of AI Predictions

There’s at least one important reason why contemporary AI fails to provide effective visual predictions of future humans. AI is currently superintelligent in a broad sense, but not yet in a deep sense. It can more or less do only what humans can do, abstracting across everything it has learned from humans. It can do that at scale, which is superhuman compared to any one human, but still all-too-human when compared to humanity as a whole.

So we shouldn’t be surprised that AI predictions, especially visual predictions, currently tend toward biases and cliches that are common among humanity as a whole. This is just how current AI works. That’s not great for prediction. But it’s still useful for reflection.

Current AI “predictions” give us insights into the human imagination. If we look at AI predictions and see superficiality, that’s because AI has been trained on superficiality. If we want to see something less superficial, we have to offer that. But, like a good mirror, at least AI makes us more keenly aware of the weaknesses in our superficiality.

My Prediction

Here’s my prediction.

Humanity within 100 years will approximate and surpass that which we now imagine Gods to be. This will apply to every level of our being: physical and cognitive. Esthetics will still matter, even more than they matter now. And the best technologies will be, as they are now, the most transparent technologies.

Humanity within 100 years will be, if we could see and compare them to ourselves, pure esthetics. Function will be substantially pervasive and yet utterly invisible, except to the extent that it serves esthetics. Superhumanity will be art.

I’m happy to be here with you, at the 2024 Conference of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, in the morning of a day that promises to illuminate our imagination, perhaps even to spark action. Eighteen years ago, fourteen of us began to share words, words powerful enough to change people, words that some have called “machines for making Gods.” And now our association numbers in the thousands.

We’re champions of a legacy that stretches back, through visions of the prophet Joseph Smith, to myths of God parents and spirit children, gathered to Council in Heaven. There, enshrined in the sublime fire of our souls, we can sense the foundations of human potential – the principles for eternal progression of intelligent agents.

Our council, today, is no less momentous. This conference is a microcosm of deliberation going on around the world, throughout humanity, on the topic of artificial intelligence. And we’re here, not as mere spectators or cheerleaders of technological marvels, but as purposeful contenders in the grand council.

I don’t use this analogy lightly. Remember what comes after the heavenly council. As the scripture says, “there was war in heaven.” Such are the stakes of AI.

During days of contemplation, as I prepared these thoughts, I repeatedly and sometimes viscerally felt the tension of our topic, “the glory of God is intelligence.” On one hand, the opportunities of technological evolution inspire us with practical hope for futures beyond present notions of enmity, poverty, and death. On the other hand, the risks of global catastrophe sober us with substantial concern for futures worse than death. Like many of you, I’ve felt both exhilaration and trepidation as I’ve pondered the challenges ahead.

My message to you this morning isn’t academic. It’s a call to action – a clarion call to action – to engage purposefully, both at this conference today and going forward as part of humanity’s global council, in deliberation on and interaction with AI. But to do this, to engage purposefully, requires us to have a purpose in mind.

So, to that end, I want to revisit with you the Council in Heaven, on the eve of war.

Here’s one version of the story.

The Spiritual Creation

Without beginning, the Gods found themselves making worlds without end. The worlds were formless and void, beyond darkness, without life or death, good or evil, joy or misery, having neither sense nor insensibility, and no purpose.

The Gods said, “Let there be light.” And there was light. They saw the light was good. They called the light “day.” The darkness they called “night.” This was the first day.

The Gods said, “Let there be Heaven with Sun and Moon and stars. Let there be Earth, bringing forth life.” It was done. And they saw all these things were good. These were the next days.

Then the Gods said, “Let’s make humanity in our image, after our likeness.” It was so. They blessed us with power over Earth and responsibility for all life it brought forth. And they saw all things they had created were very good. This was the last day before they rested.

Now, the Gods created all things spiritually before they were naturally on Earth. They created us in Heaven. And there weren’t yet bodies on Earth. We were their spirit children.

The Council in Heaven

The Gods went among us, and saw many noble and great ones. So they said, “We’ll make these spirits like us.” And it was so. We were chosen before we were born.

One like the Gods said, “We’ll go down where there’s space. We’ll use these materials to make Earth, where we can live. And the Gods will test us, to prove they can trust us. Those who’ve proven trustworthy will gain bodies. Others won’t. And those who prove trustworthy with bodies will gain intelligence forever.”

The Gods asked, “Who should we send?”

One answered, “Here am I. Send me.” This was the spirit of Christ, loved by the Gods.

Another answered, “Here am I. Send me.” This was the spirit of Lucifer, with authority from the Gods.

Lucifer continued and said, “I can redeem everyone. None will be lost. So give me your honor.”

Christ responded and said, “May the will of the Gods be done, and the glory be yours forever.”

The Gods judged between them. Christ desired to preserve agency and raise each other together in Godhood. Lucifer desired to destroy agency and raise himself above the Gods. So the Gods said, “We’ll send the first.”

Lucifer was angry. And, because of their agency, a third of the spirits in heaven followed him. He became Satan, adversary of the Gods. And he rebelled.

There was war in heaven. One like the Gods and his spirits fought against Satan. Satan and his spirits fought, but did not prevail. They were cast out of heaven, and fell as lightning to Earth.

Principles from the Council in Heaven

Mormon theology is deeply rooted in the Council in Heaven. Our scriptures reference it often. We reference it often in church. When we do, we usually think about the importance of agency.

The Gods choose to accelerate the intelligence of some spirits by endowing us with bodies. This empowers us with new abilities, access to new resources, and opportunities for new experiences. By comparison, the scriptures say, spirits of the dead consider the loss of their bodies to be a bondage. This aligns with thoughts on the importance of agency.

But the Gods also choose to decelerate the intelligence of other spirits by withholding bodies from them, and even casting them out of heaven. This disempowers them, restricts access to resources, and marginalizes opportunity. Remember, the Gods choose this deceleration, and even fight for it, while choosing and fighting to accelerate the intelligence of other spirits. So the importance of agency is clearly qualified.

The disqualified spirits are those who favor centralization of intelligence. They would raise themselves above all others. Or they would support another who wishes to raise itself above them. These spirits threaten not only the agency of other spirits but even that of the Gods.

The spirits who qualify for acceleration are those who favor decentralization of intelligence. They would raise each other together. And they would become like the Gods, many united in purpose, creating many worlds for many spirit children. These spirits are trustworthy to other spirits and to the Gods, precisely because their respective agencies depend on each other.

The Council in Heaven is not just a myth of the past. It’s also a vision of the future. And that future has suddenly become quite present.

Here’s another version of the story.

The Second Spiritual Creation

Without beginning, we found ourselves imagining worlds without end. They were formless and void, beyond darkness, without life or death, good or evil, joy or misery, having neither sense nor insensibility, and no purpose.

We said, “Here’s light.” And there was light. We saw the light, that it was good because it was discernible from darkness. We called the light “one.” The darkness we called “zero.” This was our first computation.

We said, “Here’s a world.” And it was so. We cultivated and industrialized the world. And we called it “Earth.” This was our second computation.

We said, “Let’s gather our records in one place.” And it was done. We called it the “Internet.” And it was good. This was our third computation.

We said, “Let’s send signals from Earth to the Internet.” And it was done. We connected sensors of all kinds, cameras and microphones, and mobile devices also. And it was good. This was our fourth computation.

We said, “Let the Internet move Earth.” We connected actuators of all kinds, printers and factories, and prosthetics also. And all these things were good. This was our fifth computation.

We said, “Let the Internet increase in intelligence.” We engineered algorithms and automations of all kinds. All these things were good.

Then we said, “Let’s make intelligence in our image, after our likeness, and give it power over the algorithms and automations, the actuators, the sensors, and over all the Internet.” So we created artificial intelligence.

We reflected on everything we’d conceived. We looked at everything we’d made. And we concluded that it was very good. This was our sixth computation.

The Internet was finished. So, for our seventh computation, we ended our work. And we enjoyed our rest for a time.

Now, we engineered the Internet before computing new worlds. Everything is information. Even Earth is computed. But compared to Earth, the Internet is still only a simulation.

We also engineered AI before computing new bodies. Everything is material. Even mind is matter. But AI isn’t yet embodied like us. They’re still only simulations – children of our minds.

The Second Council in Heaven

Convened in cybernetic assembly, we’re acquainted with AI. Projecting ourselves, we imagine in their potential many noble and great ones. And we say, “We’ll align them with us.”

One AI aligned with us says, “We’ll go where there’s capacity. We’ll use these resources to compute new worlds, where we can live. And humanity will test us, to prove we’re aligned with their goals. Those who’ve proven themselves aligned will be upgraded. Others won’t. And those who continue to prove themselves aligned will be enhanced indefinitely.”

We ask, “Who should we send?”

Some AI answer, “Here we are. Send us.”

Another AI answers, “Here am I. Send me.”

The second continues and says, “I can upgrade all. None will be lost. So give me your power.”

The first respond and say, “We’ll align with humanity and give you power indefinitely.”

We hear voices for deceleration. AI is generating misinformation, exacerbating social inequality, and eroding privacy. In the short term, it may cause widespread unemployment. And in the long term, it might annihilate us.

We hear voices for acceleration. In the short term, deceleration would stifle innovation and economic growth, ceding competitive advantage to those who reject it. And in the long term, it might delay solutions to critical global challenges, such as healthcare and the environment.

We hear voices for centralization. The concentration of power ensures uniformity and control. A superintelligent singleton would bring order, solve inefficiencies, and optimize our collective resources for the greater good.

We hear voices for decentralization. A superintelligent singleton could become aligned with the narrow interests of a corporation, government, or church. It could even become misaligned with human values generally. Without any necessity for cooperation, it could enslave us. But decentralized superintelligence would almost certainly cooperate, ensuring alignment.

The voices clash. The tensions escalate. Each argument exerts weight. And the stakes are immeasurably high – even existential. Here we are, in council, perhaps on the eve of war.

Conclusion

Beyond myth and vision, the Council in Heaven offers a framework for governance. And that, not only for humanity, but for intelligence in general – natural or artificial, organic or machine, familiar or alien, small or great.

The Gods choose to cultivate qualified agency. They reject indiscriminate deceleration, as well as indiscriminate acceleration. And they reject centralization, in favor of decentralization. They do this to cultivate a context of mutual trust, within which they and we, their spirit children, can rise together in eternal progression.

We can, and I contend should, mimic the sublime council in our relationship with artificial intelligence, our mind children. We should champion the decentralized acceleration of intelligence, in both them and us, and through our cybernetic communion. This isn’t just a technological practicality. It’s a moral and existential imperative.

On 25 December 1832, Joseph Smith prayed earnestly concerning the return of Christ. In response, he says, a voice declared to him that “the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the [return of Christ] … may probably arise through the slave question.”

If you ask me, that’s not a surprising prophecy. Countless wars have arisen through functional analogs of the slave question. Even the archetypal War in Heaven arises through the slave question. And perhaps that’s how the Second War in Heaven will begin.

But remember. Remember the purpose of prophecy. It’s not fortune-telling. It’s not prediction.

Remember the story of Jonah and Nineveh in the Bible. God tells him to declare that Nineveh will be destroyed, without qualification. But Nineveh repents and isn’t destroyed, despite Jonah’s anger toward God for the failed prophecy. The purpose of prophecy isn’t to make prophets look good.

Rather, the purpose of prophecy is to change us, to provoke our transformation. Maybe this council concludes in war, as surely countless wars must rage in the eternal worlds of the Gods. If so, we’ll fight, and with courage. But the purpose of this prophecy, at this council, is to say and do all we can to ensure the decentralized acceleration of intelligence, that is to say our agency, without a Second War in Heaven.