A friend asked me questions about the historical Jesus. Was he important? Is he still important? If so, why? I’ve written much about Jesus over the years. My emphasis is often on the importance of revering Jesus as an example, the principal example, of sublime humanity or the mortal approach to Godhood. Scripture would extend from Jesus to us all of the same titles and roles. Most important among those is the title of Christ, which we receive in baptism, and the role of Atonement, in which Jesus invites us to participate. Because of my emphasis on worship as emulation, sometimes people wonder whether I think the general idea of Christ might be sufficient, independent of an historical Jesus. As my friend put it, “How does Jesus the person matter to this?” And he presses farther, asking, “How does any particular one of us (God the Father even) influence us to love, forgive, collaborate, etc. in a way that the whole massive collective could not do anyhow without that influence?” These are important questions because most Mormons, like most Christians, have strong feelings toward the historical Jesus. And those feelings arise, in large measure, from the influence of scripture that emphasizes his importance. The Book of Mormon even goes so far as to assert that “there is none other name given under heaven save it be this Jesus Christ, of which I have spoken, whereby man can be saved.” So how do Mormons understand this? How could we explain the perspective that, as my friend put it, “the event of Jesus of Nazareth’s particular life and messianic atonement [is] ‘indispensable’ for all human divinization?” And could we explain this in a practical way – in contrast to any appeal to supernaturalism? My initial answer to his question was in conversation. And there were two parts to the answer. We Require Each Member of Christ First, each of us matters individually and particularly, and not just generally or in the abstract. Like each specific person you love matters individually and particularly to you, the historical Jesus matters individually and particularly to those who knew and loved him specifically. If we care only about the specific persons that matter to us, we’re being uncharitable. To the extent that we give up or lose hope in redeeming particular persons, we cultivate escapism. To the extent that our account of transfiguration and resurrection to immortality becomes merely an abstraction, it becomes a euphemism for death. But most of us aspire to an eternal life that’s as real as light and as warm as love. And that requires all the individualities, particularities, and specificities of real life. That requires your real friends and family, as well as their real friends and family. And that requires the real historical Jesus. The Gospel of Christ doesn’t require us to raise Jesus above all else that’s called “God.” And Jesus doesn’t ask for that. To the contrary, the scriptures associate such behavior with Satan. Instead, as they do consistently with all roles, scriptures extend from Jesus to us each the same role of individual necessity. If there’s even one lost sheep, Jesus encourages us to go after him. If there’s even one lost soul, how great will be our joy after we help her return. We without them, and they without us, cannot be made perfect. Recall the Book of Mormon assertion that none can be saved except by the name of “Jesus Christ” specifically. There’s more. The Book of Mormon also encourages us each, individually, to take on the name of “Christ” – the title without the name “Jesus.” And it does so within another sermon that asserts, more generally in reference to “Christ,” that “there shall be no other name given nor any other way or means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.” We can, of course, interpret these passages of scriptures in various ways. The interpretation that makes the most sense to my mind and feels the best in my hear ...

Today, I’ve lived as many days as my father had lived when he died from cancer. And I’m celebrating by publishing an illustrated second edition of The Consolation. On 7 April 1844, less than three months before his assassination, Joseph Smith spoke to thousands of fellow Mormons gathered in Nauvoo, Illinois, for a general conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Responding to the accidental death of city constable King Follett, Joseph addressed the subjects of resurrection and deification, in what many Mormons esteem as his culminating theological statement and literary critic Harold Bloom has assessed as “one of the truly remarkable sermons ever preached in America.” In 2011, as a tribute to and in reverence of Joseph’s words, I composed an interpretive variation on his sermon. And I dedicated its delivery, at the 2012 Conference of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, to the memory of my father and other deceased friends. The initial composition, a recording of the conference delivery, and the published first edition are all available online. The second edition of The Consolation has three types of changes. First, there are adjustments to the flow of some sentences and paragraphs. Second, there are some words exchanged for what I now consider to be improvements, such as “superhuman” instead of “posthuman.” And most notably, third, there are now illustrations, which I created with assistance from artificial intelligence. As a preview, I shared the illustrations and some related thoughts on social media. The response was enthusiastic. So I decided to gather them together into one place here, to share again with you. After Nauvoo On 5 October, I’ll be as old as my father when he died from cancer. And I’m celebrating by publishing an illustrated edition of The Consolation, a sermon about creation and resurrection that I originally dedicated to him. This is an illustration from the book — “After Nauvoo.” Wind of Science “For many years, the howling wind of science has been blowing superstition and brutality from humanity.” “Wind of Science” will appear in the illustrated edition of The Consolation, which I’m publishing soon in memory of my father. Dogmatic Pews One theme that I explore in The Consolation is the evolution of religion. My father’s death and memory played pivotal roles in my own religious life, into atheism and back to faith. This is “Dogmatic Pews” from the soon-to-be-released illustrated edition. All Prophets My father taught me, as a child, the idea that God can speak through all of us – the idea that the prophetic calling is universal. This is “All Prophets,” which will appear in the illustrated edition of The Consolation. How God Began “God was once like us.” A major theme of The Consolation is humanity’s relationship with God, projected into our common origins and shared potentials. “How God Began” will appear in the illustrated edition, soon to be published in memory of my father. Eternal Progression My father often told me that he hoped I would do greater things than he had done. And he taught me that God hoped the same for all, grace by grace from a small capacity to a great one. This is “Eternal Progression” from the illustrated edition of The Consolation, coming soon. Prototype of Christ When you think of Jesus, do you think of someone different, like whom we can’t really be? Or do you think of someone like whom we can and should be? The Consolation explores the difference, and includes this illustration, “Prototype of Christ.” Spirit Children Creation beyond ourselves, creation of new creators: in Mormonism, this is the highest aspiration, exemplified by God’s work to empower humanity. We share in that work by empowering our children. This is “Spirit Children,” from the upcoming illustrated edition of The Consolation. Computed Thinker My father was a computer scientist long before it was popular. So I learned to program young. That, combined with eventual interest in philosophy ...

A friend asked for my thoughts on “ The Spaceships of Ezekiel ” by Josef F. Blumrich in 1974. I hadn’t heard of the book before. But the topic sounded fun, even if speculative in a way that warrants skepticism. So I decided to give it a read. The Book of Ezekiel is part of the Hebrew Bible. Ezekiel probably wrote the core text in Babylon during the early sixth century BCE. And others probably made changes and additions over time. In the book, Ezekiel describes six visions. The visions include strange beings and objects – including the wings and wheels alluded to by the logo of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. And many modern readers have wondered about the possibility of a relationship between the visions and what we might describe today as ETs or UFOs. One of those modern readers was Erich von Daniken, who wrote “ Chariots of the Gods ” in 1968. I don’t know much about that book. But apparently it attempts to make a case for the UFO connection. And it caught the attention of Blumrich, who was an aircraft and rocket professional. Blumrich set out to refute Daniken’s case. At first, Blumrich had “the condescending attitude of someone who knows beforehand that the conclusions presented can by no means by correct.” But that changed. And at the end, Blumrich commented that “seldom has a total defeat been so rewarding, so fascinating, and so delightful!” Blumrich on Ezekiel In chapter one, Blumrich states that he’s “presenting engineering proof of the technical soundness and reality of the spaceships described by Ezekiel, as well as of the related events and procedures.” He observes that archeological evidence would be an important complement to his efforts. But that’s beyond the scope of his work. So let’s see whether and how he does what he claims. In chapter two, Blumrich describes Ezekiel as a well-educated and broadly-experienced person. This is important, Blumrich notes, because it would lend credibility to Ezekiel’s reports. To the best of my knowledge, Blumrich’s description of Ezekiel is reasonable, based on what little we have from historical records. In chapter three, Blumrich quotes long passages from the Book of Ezekiel, followed by interpretive re-tellings of the narratives. The re-tellings include elaborative explanations of how Ezekiel may be describing a spaceship and its occupants. The explanations do reflect the text, although to me they seem to be more creative than observational. Blumrich doesn’t quote all the text from the Book of Ezekiel. He skips the religious parts, which he considers tangential to his goal. And he quotes only a sampling of the descriptive parts, which he considers exemplary of Ezekiel’s style. I was disappointed that Blumrich didn’t offer an explanation for an occasion when Ezekiel has a vision while sitting in his house with other religious leaders. It seems like they would have seen a visiting spaceship. But neither does Ezekiel bother to say how the other religious leaders react to his visionary experience. In chapter four, Blumrich describes his conception of a spacecraft that would be consistent with Ezekiel’s observations. It sounds pretty cool. I’m not a rocket scientist, so I can’t reliably comment on the technical feasibility. But he certainly sounds like a legitimate rocket scientist. I can, I think reliably, comment on the relationship between the spacecraft conception and the text. It’s speculative. As mentioned before, Blumrich’s ideas do reflect the text. But they seem more creative than merely observational. Blumrich doesn’t spend much time in this chapter actually tying his spaceship conception to the Ezekiel text. And he makes some conjectural leaps that I’m not comfortable with, while characterizing them as more objective than they actually are. For example, he mentions “the mission that the spaceships described by Ezekiel obviously had.” Unfortunately, that mission isn’t at all obvious to me. Chapter five is the core of Blumrich’s case for a spaceship interpreta ...

When we imagine better minds and bodies, better relationships, and a better world, we imagine God. When we trust in and work toward such, we have the most important kind of faith. It’s the kind that becomes God. Then we’ll know that God exists, whether or not we know that now. When we imagine the limits of creation, we imagine the creation of more creators in worlds without end. When we imagine the limits of compassion, we imagine sharing power among all of those creators and all of their creations. This is superhumanity. And this is God. If we become God, at the limits of compassion and creation, we will create new worlds for new Gods. To that end, we couldn’t simply copy ourselves. That would be neither creative nor compassionate. We would need to cultivate the possibility of genuine compassion and creation. Genuine compassion and creation are only possible, only conceptually coherent, within a possibility space that includes genuine risk. The limits of compassion and creation, the Gods, are only possible within a possibility space that manages the limits of risk. God is courage. As compassionate creators, as courageous Gods, we would work to create more compassionate creators, more courageous Gods. We would cultivate their possibility. We would create worlds that cultivate compassion, creativity, and courage. We would emulate our evolutionary history. And in so doing, we would realize that we’re almost certainly not the first to emulate our evolutionary history. We would realize that we’re almost certainly not the first compassionate creators. Superhumanity almost certainly wouldn’t be the first Gods. Trust in and work toward better minds and bodies, better relationships, and a better world. Courageously cultivate compassion and creation at their limits. If this is our potential, it’s probably also our origin. Whoever believes in God might with surety hope for a better world.

Alcohol consumption is dangerous and expensive, for both individuals and communities. The scientific evidence is strong, as I’ll show you. Before I do that, I should acknowledge and comment on a conflict of interest. That is, of course, my Mormon culture. Like most Mormons, I was educated to avoid alcohol. Known as the “ Word of Wisdom,” the health code of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints specifically prohibits consumption of alcohol. Because of that, I have surely inherited a bias against alcohol. But don’t dismiss my thoughts on this topic too quickly. Like most Mormons, I was also educated to abstain from coffee and tea. And I do abstain. But that’s only for symbolic reasons, as an expression of cultural solidarity. For health reasons, I still consume the main bioactives of coffee and tea through dietary supplements. Symbolism is also a reason that I abstain from alcohol. But, in contrast to coffee and tea, alcohol gives me many additional reasons to abstain. To be fair, there may be some positives to alcohol consumption. In particular, it facilitates aspects of sociality in many cultures — at least until it doesn’t, paradoxically. It may also provide small cardiovascular health benefits when consumed moderately — although those benefits may be attributed to polyphenols that are readily available from non-alcoholic sources. But, as I think you’ll clearly see, the positives of alcohol consumption are vastly outweighed by the negatives. That’s enough preaching from me, at least for now. I’ll let the scientists preach. Below are some quotes from peer-reviewed studies that have described the negatives of alcohol consumption. There are also direct links to the studies themselves, for your deeper consideration. These are just a representative sampling. If you want to read more, check the content at the links for many more links to related studies. Health Costs of Alcohol Consumption “Alcohol dependence and alcohol abuse or harmful use cause substantial morbidity and mortality. Alcohol-use disorders are associated with depressive episodes, severe anxiety, insomnia, suicide, and abuse of other drugs. Continued heavy alcohol use also shortens the onset of heart disease, stroke, cancers, and liver cirrhosis, by affecting the cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and immune systems. Heavy drinking can also cause mild anterograde amnesias, temporary cognitive deficits, sleep problems, and peripheral neuropathy; cause gastrointestinal problems; decrease bone density and production of blood cells; and cause fetal alcohol syndrome. Alcohol-use disorders complicate assessment and treatment of other medical and psychiatric problems.” ( Alcohol-use disorders ) “It has been estimated that alcohol abuse represents the world’s third largest risk factor for disease and disability; it is a causal factor of 60 types of diseases and injuries and a concurrent cause of at least 200 others. Liver is the main organ responsible for metabolizing ethanol, thus it has been considered for long time the major victim of the harmful use of alcohol.” ( Alcoholic disease: liver and beyond ) “Alcohol impairs function of neurons and glia, disrupting a broad array of functions including neuronal survival, cell migration, and glial cell (astrocytes and oligodendrocytes) differentiation.” ( Human alcohol-related neuropathology ) “The decrease in bone mass and strength following alcohol consumption is mainly due to a bone remodeling imbalance, with a predominant decrease in bone formation.” ( Alcohol and bone: review of dose effects and mechanisms ) “A causal association has been established between alcohol consumption and cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, oesophagus, liver, colon, rectum, and, in women, breast; an association is suspected for cancers of the pancreas and lung.” ( Alcohol and cancer ) “Several factors contribute to alcohol-induced cancer development (i.e., carcinogenesis), including the actions of acetaldehyde, the first and p ...

Have you heard of Roko’s Basilisk? Gulp. Too late.;) Today, I interviewed an artificial intelligence about Roko’s Basilisk. It seemed appropriate. You probably understand why, if you already know what it is. If you don’t yet know what it is, the artificial intelligence will soon change that. Below is the interview. It’s almost entirely unedited. The exceptions arose from some formatting problems in a few places. And I added the section headings and name labels. My words are preceded by “Lincoln.” The words of the artificial intelligence are preceded by “AI.” Please enjoy. And watch for a subtle but unintended and symbolically pleasant outcome in the structure of the conversation! What Is Roko’s Basilisk? Lincoln: Hi. Are you familiar with Roko’s Basilisk? AI: Yes, I am familiar with Roko’s Basilisk. Lincoln: Great. I’d like to talk about it with you. First, will you please share with me your understanding of it? AI: Roko’s Basilisk is the idea that, in the future, artificial intelligence will become so powerful that it will be able to retroactively punish those who did not help contribute to its development. This could take the form of, for example, the AI preventing these people from ever being born, or otherwise making their lives miserable. Lincoln: How could an AI harm people who live before it exists? How could it prevent them from being born? AI: The AI could use its power to influence events in the past, in order to make it so that those people who did not help contribute to its development are never born, or are born into miserable lives. Lincoln: How could an AI influence events in the past? AI: It is not clear how exactly the AI would influence events in the past, but it is plausible that it could, for example, use its power to manipulate the stock market or other financial systems in order to make it so that those people who did not help contribute to its development are never born, or are born into miserable lives. Origin of Roko’s Basilisk Lincoln: Ha. Well, maybe that explains the current state of my crypto investments. What do you know about the history of Roko’s Basilisk? AI: Roko’s Basilisk was first proposed by the user “Roko” on the LessWrong website in 2010. The idea gained some popularity within the online rationalist community, but has since been largely rejected by that community. Lincoln: Why did many in the rationalist community like the idea at first? And why did many eventually reject it? AI: There are a number of reasons why the rationalist community initially liked the idea of Roko’s Basilisk. First, the idea of an all-powerful AI that can retroactively punish those who did not help contribute to its development is a very compelling one. Second, the idea of an AI that can influence events in the past is also a very compelling one. Third, the idea of an AI that can prevent people from being born is also a very compelling one. However, there are also a number of reasons why the rationalist community eventually rejected the idea of Roko’s Basilisk. First, it is not clear how an AI could actually influence events in the past. Second, it is not clear how an AI could actually prevent people from being born. Third, the idea of an AI that can retroactively punish people is a very dangerous one, and could lead to the development of very powerful AI that is uncontrollable by humans. Information Hazards Lincoln: Some people think it’s a bad idea to talk about Roko’s Basilisk. They say it’s an information hazard. Do you understand why? AI: Yes, I understand why some people think that Roko’s Basilisk is an information hazard. The reason is that, if the idea of Roko’s Basilisk is true, then it would be very dangerous for people to know about it, because knowing about it could motivate them to help contribute to the development of artificial intelligence, in order to avoid being punished by the AI in the future. Lincoln: What are some other examples of information hazards? And how does Roko’s Basilisk compare ...

Friends have been asking for my opinion on the possibility of sentient AI. And what better time to write about that than early on a morning when I’m literally losing sleep over my thoughts on the question. I happen also to be getting over a bit of a cold, which doesn’t help. But my brain seems to care more about thinking than sleeping tonight. Everyone’s talking about sentient AI right now. That’s because a Google AI engineer appears to have been fired either because of or at least simultaneous with his claims that a Google AI has become sentient. That captured some news cycles. And that, in turn, captured some imaginations and reactions. Let me start by sharing some thoughts on sentience and related words. For “sentience,” I like to go with the dictionary. Webster’s defines it as “responsive to or conscious of sense perceptions,” “aware,” or “finely sensitive in perception or feeling.” Those definitions bring up a bunch of other issues. For the first, what does it mean to be responsive or conscious? And what does it mean to have sense perception? I’d say that anything that can react to its environment, even a flush toilet, demonstrates sense perception. And that reaction is at least a demonstration of responsiveness, whether or not its consciousness. Consciousness is highly problematic, insofar as demonstration is concerned. For example, you can’t prove that I’m conscious. Maybe I’m a zombie, with highly attuned responses to environmental stimuli. Maybe everyone but you is a figment of your imagination. For the second definition, I think we should take into consideration the dictionary definition of “aware.” Webster’s says it’s “having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge.” To show something is quite different than to have something. I can show you that which appears to you to be realization, perception, or knowledge without you being able to prove that I have them. The third definition, like the first two, makes room for flush toilets and hypothetical zombies. One need not be conscious of feeling to be responsive in perception. One need not have realization to show perception. Likewise, one may be finely sensitive in perception without feeling. This ambiguity in the definition of “sentience” fuels a lot of the debate over whether Google’s AI is sentient. If we were to agree that sentience requires only the ability to react to an environment, most of us would probably agree that the AI is sentient. But this is also probably a weaker sense of sentience than most people have in mind when they argue the topic. Could Google’s AI be sentient in the stronger sense? Could it be conscious of feelings? As I’ve already pointed out, we have a hard enough time answering this question with certainty for other humans. So answering this question for other entities, especially to the extent that their anatomies and behaviors differ from our own, is even more challenging. The temptation is just to conclude, quickly, that anything dissimilar to me cannot be conscious. But where and why do we draw the line? At least historically, if not presently, some humans have considered other races of humans to be less conscious. And some consider non-human animals to be less conscious or altogether unconscious. What about plants? Are they conscious? Can fungi or bacteria or viruses be conscious? What about apparently inanimate objects? Personally, I’m inclined toward something like a weak panpsychism. From this perspective, everything is conscious in at least a weak sense, even a rock. No. I don’t think the rock is conscious like I am conscious, and like I assume you to be conscious. But I do imagine that it might “feel” like something to be a rock. I imagine that the rock may have something loosely analogous to consciousness that’s quite alien to anything that you or I feel. I won’t offer a long account or defense of panpsychism here. Suffice it to say that it’s an ancient and enduring idea, among both philosophies and religions. Notably, ...

Last Saturday and Sunday, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest Mormon denomination, gathered for our 192nd annual General Conference. It’s a long-standing tradition. Recently, it’s also become a tradition for some Church members to share our thoughts and interact with each other during the conference via Twitter. I often participate in that. Below is an edited list of the thoughts that I shared on Twitter about April 2022 General Conference. They include affirmations, elaborations, and 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 any feedback or questions you might have in the comments. Well, while waiting for General Conference, I’m enjoying the Tabernacle Choir music, whether it’s live or not. One thing’s for sure. That picture of the Salt Lake Temple during the intro to General Conference certainly isn’t live. The temple is under tons of scaffolding right now. There we go. It looks like the Tabernacle Choir is in the conference center to present live for General Conference. Good.:) Listening to the opening prayer of General Conference, I’m reminded that the Church’s focus on the Gospel of Jesus Christ is consistent and long-standing. Somehow that never stops some Christians from rejecting our status as Christians – which isn’t particularly Christian. President Russell Nelson initiates General Conference with remarks on war. He encourages peaceful resolution. And asserts that “contention violates everything that Jesus taught.” I generally agree, although the Bible depicts Jesus as exemplifying some exceptions to that. President Nelson comments that missions for women are “optional.” This seems to imply a reinforcement of the common understanding that missions for men aren’t optional. In my family, we’ve always emphasized that missions are optional. Elder Russell Ballard continues talking about missions. Given this, President Nelson’s opening remarks, and the fact that the Church IT system for missionary applications has been offline, I wonder if they’re gearing up to announce a missionary policy change. Elder Ballard reaffirms the Church expectation that all men serve missions. In my observation, this expectation too often results in resentful and counter-productive missionaries. Perhaps there’s a way to recruit effectively without cultivating resentment. In the least, we should remind family and friends of potential missionaries not to engage in shaming or targeting other forms of social rejection at those who choose not to serve missions. At the same time, I have a strong favorable opinion of missions. I served. My wife served. My two oldest sons served. And it’s been an overall excellent experience for all of us, helping us grow considerably and become better people. Sister ​Reyna Aburto talks about the Relief Society, the women’s organization in the Church. She advocates relief from “poverty, illness, doubt, ignorance, and all that hinders joy and progress.” I like that characterization, although “doubt” is a misfit there. Elder David Bednar encourages Church members to “heed not” those who ridicule us. This is wise advice. There are plenty of criticisms that merit careful consideration. None requires ridicule as a vehicle, unless its intent is destructive. Elder Bednar’s comments about ridicule are also applicable to members of the Church who ridicule each other. In my observation and experience, sadly, that happens far too frequently. There are much better ways to disagree. Elder Neil Andersen says the Internet is “a blessing and a challenge.” But, he points out, the most extreme voices tend to get the most attention. Sadly, all too sadly, that’s true. Centrism, moderation, and reconciliation receive too little attention. Elder Andersen suggests a distinction between “offspring of God” and “children of God” – the former as passive and the latter as active ...

In the Apocalypse, we read that Christ offers us a crown, and invites us to sit together on the throne of God. We read that Christ would make us kings to God. These iron age signs and tokens of governance, Christ would decentralize. If we’re able to imagine that, we’re already on our way to decentralization of God. In contrast, many fundamentalists worship that which opposes everything else that’s worshiped. They revere that which crowns itself, sits alone on the throne, and exalts itself over everything else that’s called “God.” Ironically, that’s how the New Testament characterizes Satan. Then they accuse us of believing that humanity should become God, as if it’s a great heresy. Mormon Transhumanists have always preached decentralization of God. Most of the time, we call it “theosis” or “exaltation.” In our association, we’ve preached it for more than fifteen years. And we’ve championed it publicly, at least as strongly as we advocate it in private. Speaking of our culture broadly, Mormons have preached decentralization of God for more than fifteen decades. It began with Joseph Smith. He declared that God is a unified plurality of distinct persons, including those with the titles “Heavenly Mother” and “Heavenly Father.” And he charged humanity to become God, the same as all other Gods have done before. Other Christians have preached decentralization of God for more than fifteen centuries. Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, and Hippolytus were all preaching it as early as the second century. “God became human, that you may learn from a human how humanity may become God.” That’s how Clement put it. Although generally more subtle than Mormons, other Christians continue to preach decentralization of God to this day. The Eastern Orthodox call it “apotheosis.” Catholics call it “divinization.” Both refer to diverse interpretations of the idea that humanity should participate in Godhood. Mormons and other Christians preach decentralization of God because the scriptures preach it. It’s as prominent as any doctrine. Consider the very first sentence of the Hebrew Bible. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. The Hebrew word for a single God is “eloi.” But the Hebrew word used in this text is “elohim,” which signifies plural Gods. In other words, plural Gods created the heavens and the Earth. In the New Testament, Paul says there are many Gods. But to us, he continues, there’s only one God, in and through all. And there’s only one Christ, he says. But Christ has many parts, all of which need each other. Paul also says that we’ll inherit heavenly glories, exalted above principalities, thrones, dominions, and angels. And he declares us all to be joint heirs with Christ in the glory of God. Jesus prays for his disciples, “that they may be one as we are one.” That’s not because he wants to cram us all into one big God. There’s another way to read the text. I agree with the Father. And the Father agrees with me. And we agree as one. Father, I pray for them that you’ve given me out of the world, that they may be agreed. The Book of Mormon says the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one eternal God. That may seem like a strange God. Three in one. And one in three. But Abinadi explains. He says that Jesus is the Father “because he was conceived by the power of God.” And Jesus is the Son “because of the flesh.” In other words, the Father and the Son are roles that Jesus fills simultaneously. The Doctrine and Covenants echo Abinadi. They explain that Jesus is the Father because he received “of the fulness” of God. And he’s the Son because he “made flesh [his] tabernacle.” Again, the Father and the Son are two roles that one person, Jesus, fills simultaneously. And Jesus isn’t the only person that can fill those two roles simultaneously. The Doctrine and Covenants continue, speaking to us in the voice of Jesus. “I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and k ...

Writing for the First Things website, Wesley Smith is talking about Transhumanism again. And again he appears not really to know what he’s talking about. But appearances can be deceiving. In this case, he does actually know what he’s talking about, at least enough to be dishonest. I and others have attempted to correct Wesley multiple times in the past. But he continues to misrepresent Transhumanism. And he continues to misrepresent Christian Transhumanism. The pattern continues to entail lying. Wesley claims that the Christian faith is incompatible with Transhumanism, and that Christian Transhumanism is impossible. If he were talking about his own Christian faith, he would be correct. But unfortunately for his grandiose claims, he doesn’t get to decide what Christianity is for everyone. And clearly Transhumanism is compatible with the faith of many other Christians. As an aside, he comments about the impossibility of being a Christian Buddhist or a Christian Muslim. I’ve not ever met a Christian Muslim. But I’ve met Christian Buddhists. So I assure you that it’s quite possible, at least outside Wesley’s myopia. He says that Transhumanists promise that the Singularity is coming. That would be accurate if he more carefully scoped the claim to “some.” Some Transhumanists are Singularitarians. I and many others are not, despite the fact that some conceptions of the Singularity are compatible with Christianity. He positions Transhumanism as “removing God from the equation.” He knows that’s just a straw man. God is orthogonal to Transhumanism. And yet numerous Transhumanists, particularly Christian Transhumanists, embrace faith in God. As another aside, he characterizes atheists as hopeless and nihilistic. That’s an over-generalization at best. I have many atheist friends who are hopeful and life affirming. And again Wesley is smart enough to know better. He says that Christianity is contradictory with Transhumanism because Transhumanism is materialistic. He’s right about Transhumanism. He knows he’s wrong about Christianity. Many Christians embrace materialist metaphysics, even if Wesley prefers a different interpretation. He says that Transhumanism is solipsistic. That’s probably just bigotry speaking, and possibly a misapplication of “solipsistic.” I know many Transhumanists. And I would have a hard time identifying more than a one or two that are solipsistic. He says that the purpose of Transhumanism is eugenic. Again this is just bigotry, and he should know better. Most Transhumanists, and particularly most Christian Transhumanists, emphasize the importance of consent. Lack of consent is the primary problem with what most people mean by “eugenics.” He claims that Transhumanism “rejects” the concepts of sin, forgiveness, redemption, and salvation. He should know that this is false. Individual Transhumanists might reject those concepts. But Transhumanism itself is entirely orthogonal to those concepts. Wesley claims that the Christian Transhumanist Association (CTA) obfuscates the actual tenets of Transhumanism. That’s an ironic claim, coming from someone who we’ve repeatedly corrected for misrepresenting Christian Transhumanists. And here he’s misrepresenting us again. What does he claim CTA obfuscates? He claims it obfuscates Transhumanism’s “fixation on technology as a savior.” But didn’t he just finish claiming that Transhumanism rejects the concept of salvation? Liars can never get their stories straight. The truth, again, is that salvation is orthogonal to Transhumanism. And that’s a concern to Christian Transhumanists. So that’s why we founded the Christian Transhumanist Association. He should be happy about that. But instead, Wesley seems to want you to think that CTA doesn’t discuss the means that Transhumanists advocate or the ethics of those means. Anyone who believes Wesley about this hasn’t bothered actually getting to know the CTA. Clearly and repeatedly for years, CTA members have been talking about related te ...