Mormon Transhumanist Association Opinions

The Second War in Heaven

Sat, 13 Apr 2024 18:00:00 -0600

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.

Aspire to Embodied Immortality

Sat, 30 Mar 2024 18:00:00 -0600

This Easter morning, while thinking about the hope of resurrection, a friend reached out to me with questions about Bible descriptions of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He had asserted to some Christians that “Jesus was resurrected with his own flesh and bones.” The Christians disagreed, observing “the Bible says, … ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven.” How might a proponent of embodied immortality respond?

Despite some Christian contestation, the idea of material embodied resurrection is rooted deeply in Christian tradition. And the idea has seen a modern resurgence, particularly in dialogue with Transhumanism. This dialogue is especially prevalent among Mormon Transhumanists, who champion the complementarity of theology and technology.

Central to the dialogue are interpretations of Biblical references to resurrection. Of course, as cited by some Christians to my friend, Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 15 are noteworthy. Here’s the whole passage from the Bible:

“I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.”

Luke 24 is also particularly noteworthy. There, Jesus describes his own resurrected body. Here’s the whole passage from the Bible:

“Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

There’s a difference between Paul’s description of immortality and that offered by Jesus. Paul mentions “blood” whereas Jesus mentions “bones.” At first, the difference might seem trivial, or perhaps contradictory. But the metaphysical implications may be profound.

Contemplating these passages of scripture, early Mormon leaders speculated that the difference between “flesh and blood” mortal existence and “flesh and bones” immortal existence may be displacement of blood by spirit. To understand their perspective well, keep in mind that Mormon scripture characterizes spirit as material, and equates or tightly associates spirit with light and intelligence. So their speculation wasn’t about a change to immateriality, but rather about changing the material structure of the body. Blood, they supposed, could be replaced with a more robust substance, which could yet serve an analogous anatomical function.

More recently, a modern president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Howard W. Hunter, expressed support for this idea of flesh and bone immortality. He claimed that resurrection would involve a renewed combination of spirit and body into a form that is “quickened by the spirit instead of blood.” Here’s the context of President Hunter’s remarks:

“There is a separation of the spirit and the body at the time of death. The resurrection will again unite the spirit with the body, and the body becomes a spiritual body, one of flesh and bones but quickened by the spirit instead of blood. Thus, our bodies after the resurrection, quickened by the spirit, shall become immortal and never die. This is the meaning of the statements of Paul that ‘there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body’ and ‘that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.’ The natural body is flesh and blood, but quickened by the spirit instead of blood, it can and will enter the kingdom.”

Hope in physical resurrection of the body does not negate the spiritual aspects of hope in an afterlife. To the contrary, such hope frames spirituality in decidedly practical terms, provoking our imagination toward substantial pathways from human to superhuman existence. For Mormons, this hope reflects and reinforces other doctrines that integrate the physical with the spiritual, such as the physical embodiment of God, and the potential of Earth itself to become heaven. Resurrection can be associated with the soul’s heavenly ascent while also being associated with sublime physical revitalization.

Transfiguration and resurrection to immortality, conceived in both spiritual and materialistic terms, is an essential part of Mormon Transhumanist thought. We advocate for radical life extension and even detailed computer emulation of the human brain and body. We aspire to applying technology in ways that will facilitate and expedite transcendence of traditional notions of aging and death. And yet these are not negations of God or heaven, but rather embodied expressions of God and heaven – real expressions of God and heaven.

For Mormon Transhumanists, the pursuit of eternal life is the quest for superhuman existence, superhuman in capacity and virtue, and superhuman in very substance. We don’t use “eternal life” as a euphemism for death, as some Christians do. To the contrary, we aspire to eternal life that is as real as light and as warm as love. As part of that, we aspire to embodied immortality, as exemplified by Jesus.

Finding your tribe

Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:39:00 -0600

What Is True and Good?

Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:00:00 -0600

Consequent to discussion about epistemology at a meetup of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, a friend asked me to remind her of my definitions of “truth” and “good.” This article will serve that purpose. It will also provide a brief account of esthetics. I use the concepts associated with these words, in relation to each other, as part of a holistic ontological matrix.

Epistemics

Let’s begin with “true.” As we discussed at the meetup, “true” has many meanings. My preferred definition is something like “shared knowledge,” or even “communal knowledge of experience of existence” – perhaps reminiscent of Joseph’s definition of “truth.” Truth is that which is to people-in-general as knowledge is to a single person, as experience is to a body, and as existence is to a world.

This account of truth is objective. But it’s not objective in the subject-negating sense. Rather, it’s objective in the inter-subjective sense. It may be understood as consensus, although in the most holistic sense conceivable – abstracting across the possibility space of all individuals, experiences, and environments, without insisting on (or rejecting) any rigid monistic coherence among them.

Being inter-subjective, truth is also ultimately a feeling or esthetic, as are all concepts. I’ll elaborate on esthetics a bit more later. But for now, I’ll just point out that truth, in the only way you or I could ever experience or know it, is something like a shared confidence. And truth, like knowledge, can prove over time to have been misplaced confidence.

The confidence of truth transcends the individual, while still necessarily accounting for the confidence of individuals. I can have knowledge of (or confidence in) that which is not true in the most holistic sense. But it’s yet true in the most holistic sense that I know as I know, that some incoherence between knowledge and truth is part of truth. Something analogous is also the case within a single person and her body, as knowledge and experience aren’t ever entirely coherent.

Finally, I’ll emphasize that truth is not merely discovered, and not merely the result of reconciling passive observation. Truth is as much created as it is discovered. We can change each other’s knowledge, each other’s experience, and even the bodies and worlds in which we exist. And truth, to remain true, must account for all changes, suggesting the mechanism by which prophetic provocation may interact with truth.

Ethics

Now, let’s look at “good.” Like “true,” “good” has many meanings. My preferred definition of good is something like “shared joy,” or even “communal joy of pleasure of order,” to parallel the structure of my definition of “truth.” Good is that which is to people-in-general as joy is to a single person, as pleasure is to a body, and as order is to a world.

Good is inseparably connected to our shared rules, individual wills, anatomical desires, and environmental laws. Good is reconciliation (or atonement) of wills, within a context of desires and laws. But, as with truth, this reconciliation shouldn’t be understood as anything less that the most holistic conceivable. It’s not mere tolerance of pervasive egotistical hedonism.

Reconciliation, as the scriptures put it, must be “infinite and eternal.” Anything less is not good, but rather evil to some extent. Analogously, to the extent that wills and desires and laws are not reconciled, there is misery and pain and chaos. This doesn’t necessarily prescribe eventual annihilation of evil (which would simultaneously be annihilation of good), but only recognition of conceptual relationships and aspiration to a perpetual process.

Esthetics

“True” and “good” are both deeply related to esthetics. Truth reconciles knowledge, which reconciles experience, which, in the most raw sense, is essentially esthetics. As I mentioned previously, knowledge is ultimately confidence, no matter what else we might suppose it to be. After much effort at epistemic justifications, it’s often misrecognized as something like infallibility.

Likewise, goodness reconciles joy, which reconciles pleasure. And of course pleasure is essentially esthetics. In all our effort at ethical justifications, we are always and ultimately still appealing to feelings, at least implicitly, even if we suppose ourselves to be doing otherwise.

There is a special case of esthetics, an exceptional feeling (or even an exceptional composite of feelings), which I call the “sublime esthetic” – beauty at practical experiential limits. It’s not necessarily the same as that which is true or good in the most holistic senses of these concepts. Something can feel sublime and yet be associated with propositions that are broadly considered false. And something can feel sublime while being broadly considered evil.

The sublime esthetic is a functional name for that what the scriptures call the “Holy Ghost” or “Spirit of God.” Intentionally, it doesn’t entail anything metaphysical, nor does it connote common interpretations of “spirit” or “ghost,” so as to avoid baggage with which tradition often burdens the traditional terms. But it does have practical qualifications, notably holistic edification. With this as context, I can offer an example of how these concepts work together to illuminate the meaning of words in a practical way.

Moroni’s Challenge

For Mormons, a particularly notable reference to both “true” and “good” occurs in the last chapter of the Book of Mormon. There, Moroni challenges the reader to ponder and pray about “these things,” which is usually understood as a reference to the Book of Mormon as a whole. He claims that, if we do so “in the name of Christ, … with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ,” God will “manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.” And he further claims that, “by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.”

Moroni’s use of “truth” in this passage, as judged by context, cannot reasonably be considered a reference to merely past and present truths, the kinds of truth that one can only discover. There are some complex textual reasons for this. But the most obvious comes in the very next verse. Moroni asserts that “whatsoever thing is good is just and true.”

At first, this may sound like nonsense. Is he saying that goodness and truth are the same thing? Aren’t many evils true, in the sense that we all experience and know evil? And, if so, wouldn’t that imply that good and evil are the same thing, which would be a fundamental incoherence in the application of these concepts?

We could choose to stop here. Some people do. Some are inclined to satisfy a desire to dismiss the whole Book of Mormon as nonsense. But for those of us who are inclined to satisfy a desire to take the Book of Mormon as seriously as we can, to read it in good faith as Moroni urges, there’s a reasonable path forward.

First, we can interpret Moroni to mean that there’s something of a unidirectional relation of identity between truth and goodness, rather than a bidirectional relation of identity. In other words, all goodness can be true without all truth being good. Truth can circumscribe both good and evil, while good is only one kind of truth. This solves the conceptual incoherence problem.

But it presents another problem. We can easily imagine good that isn’t true, at least in the present and past. For example, humanity is pervasively aging and dying, yet the scriptures encourage us to look forward to a day when death will be vanquished. We may feel that it’s a good idea, but it’s not yet true in the fullest sense that we may trust it will be some day.

The solution to this problem is to remember that truth is not merely something to discover. It’s also something to create, and even to destroy. Evil truths may be among those to destroy. Good truths may be among those to create.

To avoid confusion between good truths in the present and good truths in the future, we would usually refer to the former as “true” and the latter as something like “trustworthy.” That which would be good, if we could create it, is worthy of our trust. Future good is trustworthy. This in turn presents some additional, more subtle, conceptual challenges that we could explore fruitfully, but with substantial cost in time.

For sake of brevity, I’ll suggest that the best interpretation of Moroni’s challenge is that he’s claiming that you can know that the Book of Mormon is true in the sense that it’s worthy of your trust. By pondering and praying about its message in faith, which ultimately means acting on its message as an experiment to experience the results, you can gain confidence that its worthy of your trust. You can gain confidence that living in accordance with its message will generate a desirable result.

As characterized by the scriptures, the desirable result is ultimately transformation into Christ, as exemplified and invited by Jesus. Along the way, reflecting my own experience, the result is dependable cultivation of the sublime esthetic. For me, it’s a growing sense of illumination and connectivity and purpose, reinforcing itself in a virtuous cycle. It’s often subtle and mostly psychological, but it’s sometimes powerful and physically moving.

Conclusion

“True” and “good” are interconnected with esthetics in an ontological matrix that transcends traditional notions of objectivity or simple notions of imperative. Truth is both discovered and created, a communal confidence in a shared account of experience, actual and potential. Goodness is shared joy and pleasure, stemming from the reconciliation of wills and desires, or that which the scriptures call “atonement.” The sublime esthetic is a functional description of the Holy Spirit, provoking us to create good truths.

The Church on Artificial Intelligence

Wed, 13 Mar 2024 18:00:00 -0600

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published some statements about artificial intelligence (AI). The Church is by far the largest Mormon denomination – and that of which I’m a member. Its statements influence the perspectives and actions of millions of Mormons worldwide. Friends called the Church’s statements to my attention, asking for my thoughts.

A press release from the Church on its use of AI provides guiding principles introduced by Elder Gerrit W. Gong of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Elder John C. Pingree of the Seventy. They shared these principles with employees of the Church worldwide, aiming to cultivate ethical use of AI. Here’s a summary of the principles:

Spiritual Connection: AI should support and not replace the connection between humanity and God, and be used in ways that are constructive, maintaining standards of the Church.
Transparency: The Church will be clear when using AI to interact with people, and provide attribution for content created with AI to avoid misunderstanding.
Privacy and Security: The Church commits to using AI in a manner that protects sacred and personal information.
Accountability: The Church will use AI in accordance with its policies and applicable laws, with regular testing and review of AI outputs to ensure compliance and truthfulness.

The press release quotes Elder Gong, emphasizing balance in response to the potential of AI, avoiding extremes of unwarranted enthusiasm or undue alarmism. It quotes Elder Pingree, suggesting that the principles may also serve as helpful guidelines to members and friends of the Church as we navigate a world increasingly influenced by AI. The press release notes that the Church sees AI as having significant potential in family history work, process automation, and language translation. And it notes AI risk, especially associated with deepfakes.

Matthew Watkins, a Church employee who attended the meeting from which the press release originated, shared on X (formerly Twitter) some insider observations about the Church’s meeting about AI. By this account, Elder Gong demonstrated a good understanding of AI technology, including both opportunities and risks. Apparently, Elder Gong even shared a deepfake trained on his own speeches.

The Deseret News, owned by the Church, also published a news article on the Church’s statements about AI, with some additional insights. Elder Gong observed that emerging technology has always facilitated the work of the Church. He reminded Church employees about President Russell M. Nelson’s 2018 claim that inspired discernment will be essential for spiritual survival in the near future. And Elder Gong made this particularly intriguing statement – highlighted to me by Chris Bradford, a former president of the Mormon Transhumanist Association:

“We are going to need not be fearful. But embrace the possibilities in a careful way … because the intent, I believe, is for us to take our soul — which is composed of a physical body and a spirit — and bring body and spirit, the physicality with the spiritual, together in new ways that can be a blessing to all of us as children of our Father in Heaven.”

The guiding principles outlined by the Church’s leaders reflect values rooted deeply in Mormon faith. Faith without work is dead, as the Bible puts it. Mormons have always been avid adopters of technology, actively contributing to innovation, in our effort to participate in the work of God. And, of course, such work should accord with wisdom and inspiration, exemplifying honesty, cooperation with ethical governance, and compassion for all.

Mormons generally embrace a doctrine of eternal progression. The doctrine holds that growth and learning are essential aspects of human nature, now and forever – even if and when we attain to superhuman or divine capacity. So it’s not surprising that the Church has adopted a constructive stance toward AI, positioning it as an ally rather than a foe. If AI can help us grow and learn, we should consider it to be among the means of eternal progression, even among the means of eventual exaltation into Godhood.

The Church’s statements align with Mormon Transhumanism, envisioning a future in which humans transcend biological limitations via technology, blending scientific reasoning with spiritual enlightenment. Mormon Transhumanists esteem technological advancements that promise to transform human capacity, including but not limited to AI, as fulfillment of prophecy. They empower our active hope in a better world, beyond present notions of enmity, poverty, and death.

The critical issue, then, is not the compatibility of AI and Mormonism, but rather advocacy for ethical application of AI. The principles offered by Elder Gong and Elder Pingree, emphasizing transparency and security and accountability, are a good start to what must be persistent deliberation on the subject, among Church members and among humanity at large. As exemplified by these Church leaders, we can engage in such deliberation in ways that recognize both the opportunities and the risks of AI.

Finally, I want to comment briefly on the statement from Elder Gong that I characterized as “intriguing.” It’s intriguing, in part, because it seems that he wanted to say more than he was comfortable saying, or perhaps more than he was prepared to say at the time. He said we should “bring body and spirit … together in new ways.” I think he was hinting at spiritual procreation, that our work to develop artificial intelligence is repetition of God’s work to create us, participation in the eternal work of God to bring about immortality and eternal life – without beginning, spirit children maturing into new Gods, worlds without end.

If this topic interests you, come to the 2024 Conference of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. The theme is “The Glory of God Is Intelligence.” Speakers will address topics at the intersection of theology and technology, with emphasis on artificial intelligence. I’ll be speaking about the Second War in Heaven!

How to Conduct Future Shock

Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:00:00 -0700

After watching a demonstration of Sora, Tyler Perry canceled plans for an $800 million expansion of his movie studio. “It’s shocking to me.”

Sora is an AI that converts text into video. It’s the latest iteration of development from OpenAI, the creators of ChatGPT. If you haven’t yet seen what it can do, take a look at Sora’s demonstration videos. Even for many who aren’t experts in the film industry, who may not intimately know the complexity of the art, it’s shocking.

Referring to the film industry, Perry observed, “I just don’t see how we survive.”

For better and worse, it’s just the beginning. Artificial intelligence will continue to change our world in unprecedented, unexpected, and challenging ways. And the rate of change will probably accelerate, as long as we survive it. Future shock is coming for you.

“Future Shock” is a term that was popularized by Alvin Toffler in his 1970 book of the same name. It’s a psychological state of individuals or entire societies that are subject to an overload of rapid social and technological change. Its symptoms can include disorientation, stress, and the straining of social norms. It may feel like being forcefully and relentlessly thrust through change that seems increasingly convoluted.

Future shock is coming for us all, even those of us who are anticipating it. But understanding and anticipating it, and developing strategies to cope with it, can be helpful. To that end, some world views are better positioned than others.

Transhumanism is a cultural movement that advocates for the ethical use of technology to enhance human abilities, potentially extending life, expanding physical capabilities, and accelerating human intelligence. Transhumanists view technology as a means to overcome present human limitations. Singularitarianism, a subset of Transhumanism, specifically focuses on speculation associated with eventual creation of artificial intelligence that exceeds all human capabilities. Known as the Technological Singularity, the emergence of superhuman intelligence is anticipated to thrust humanity into a period of rapid and perhaps uncontrollable change.

Anticipation of future shock is built in to Transhumanist and Singularitarian world views. Turbulent change brought about by technological evolution, as Toffler predicted, is nearly the definition of Transhumanism, or at least an inseparable practical consequence of our aspirations.

But, for Transhumanists, such change isn’t only a source of fear. Of course there can be, and arguably should be, some reasonable amount of fear. After all, Transhumanism is about ethics and not merely technological cheerleading. Rather, turbulent change through technological evolution is also a source of excitement, reinforcing our hope for transcending present limits, improving lives, and potentially even conquering death itself.

Anticipation of future shock is also built in to Mormon world views, particularly in prophecies related to the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. In Mormon theology, the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times refers to the present epoch, when the work of God is accelerating. According to the prophecies, God will restore all the truths and blessings of past epochs, while revealing “many great and important things” to facilitate future epochs. Much like the accelerating change anticipated by Singularitarians, Mormons envision a swift and comprehensive unfolding of God’s work.

Indeed, we can draw specific parallels between Transhumanist ideas and Mormon theology. For example, Joseph Smith’s teachings on eternal progression and human potential to become like God resonate with the Transhumanist vision of self-directed evolution and enhancement. And the millennial era of peace and abundant life, as prophesied in Mormonism, bears striking similarities with Singularitarian hopes for a post-scarcity future, featuring radically improved living conditions and extended life spans.

Perhaps the most striking parallel is the Mormon concept of worlds without end, and the idea of living in a computed reality, as argued by Transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom. Like computer simulations that replicate our world with increasing detail, our mortal life is an emulation of God’s life, designed to help us become like God in both compassionate and creative capacities. That includes the capacity to participate with God in the ongoing creation of worlds without end, the eternal cultivation of creators.

So how can we cope with Future Shock? Mormon Transhumanism suggests an integration of secular and spiritual adaptations. On the secular side, this involves promoting education and understanding of technological evolution, advocating for ethical development and use of technology, and persistent improvement of socioeconomic systems toward universal distribution of the benefits of technology.

From a spiritual perspective, faith communities like the Mormon Transhumanist Association offer a foundation for interpreting and even operationalizing rapid change in a way that facilitates comfort, inspires hope, and increases our capacity for purposeful action. By incorporating seismic shifts of technological evolution into a well-established ideological framework, we can navigate future shock in a manner that is constructive, productive, and spiritually rewarding.

As our world accelerates toward futures that will be shocking, and sometimes frightening, an ability to reconcile our trajectory with the powerful esthetics of religious tradition may prove to be an antidote to the worst of future shock. Mormon Transhumanism is an invitation to curiosity, speculation, and creation, with courage and compassion. It’s not a map for our journey into the future, but it’s a blueprint, the spiritual creation that precedes the physical.

Not for the passive or fatalistic, Mormon Transhumanism is for those who would terraform that which others may eventually map. It’s for those who would not merely cope, but rather conduct future shock. Mormon Transhumanism is for those who would become Gods, the same as all other Gods have done before.

Great Works Begin with Small Tools

Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:00:00 -0700

During Sunday School, I led the congregation in a discussion about chapters 16 through 18 of First Nephi in the Book of Mormon. While preparing for and during the discussion, I was again inspired by the way these chapters repeatedly position technology in service of divine goals.

Lehi finds a brass compass or Liahona, of “curious workmanship,” which serves to guide his family through the wilderness, pointing the right path forward. Nephi fashions a bow, and follows instruction from the Liahona to find prey, saving his family from starvation. God commands Nephi to build a ship, also of “curious workmanship,” despite lacking experience or even knowledge of shipbuilding, using tools he also crafts himself. These episodes depict progress, spiritual and practical, that is dependent on readiness to employ new tools and technologies, guided by inspiration, and aligned with our divine potential.

The Liahona is, of course, reminiscent of modern technological breakthroughs that guide us. The GPS in our mobile device shows us the blind alleys and the quickest routes, while detailed weather forecasts assist in our travel plans. AI tools have even begun to help us identify and diagnose disease. Like the Liahona, these artifacts of modern technology offer guidance, support, and aid during our journey through life.

Life often resembles the arduous journey that Lehi’s family takes through the wilderness. It is full of unexpected turns, stumbling blocks, and a constant need for adaptation and resilience. The trek through the wilderness in these chapters can be seen as a metaphor for life, where we navigate through challenges, learn from our mistakes, and hopefully, grow wiser and kinder in the process.

Taking the metaphor farther, we can understand the sea at the end of the journey through the wilderness as a poignant symbol for death – something that appears far too great for us to overcome. And we can understand the ship to be a symbol of technologies that may one day facilitate ordinances of transfiguration and resurrection. Just as the ship, built through divine inspiration and human skill, carries Lehi’s family safely across the mighty sea, so may future technologies of “curious workmanship” help us transcend mortality.

The Mormon tradition emphasizes the idea that “the glory of God is intelligence,” encouraging education, learning, and the application of knowledge – including technology and its creative uses. This isn’t a passive waiting for salvation, but rather an active engagement with the means that God provides for us to participate in and achieve divine goals. And those goals, God’s work and glory as expressed explicitly in scripture, are to bring about the immortality and eternal life of humanity.

Critics might ridicule such an audacious investment in technology, aimed at human enhancement, radical life extension, and overcoming death. Nephi was also ridiculed by his brothers when he took God’s commands to build a ship seriously. “Our brother is a fool,” they supposed.

However, like Nephi, we can persist in trust that God has given and yet will give us the means. And we can insist on acting to console and heal and raise the dead, as Jesus commands his disciples. And, perhaps like Nephi, our persistent trust and insistent action may prove our critics wrong. More importantly, we may ultimately experience realization of the most beautiful visions of prophecy.

We now stand before the prospect of staggering technological advances. Life extension, greatly enhancing mental and physical capabilities, arguably even technological resurrection, are becoming distinct possibilities. Like tools and shipbuilding for Nephi, these technologies can seem strange and intimidating. But they may also operate as divine gifts, helping us navigate the seas of mortal peril towards a promised land of sublime life and superintelligence.

If we still believe, if we can still manage to believe, that God will yet reveal many great and important things, we should not shy away from the possibility of applying technology to participate in achieving divine goals. Nephi asserts, after explaining how the Liahona works, “thus we see that by small means the Lord can bring about great things.” By extrapolation, we see that by small tools God can bring about great works.

Reflections on The Ethical Slut, Second Edition: A Practical Guide to Polyamory, Open Relationships, and Other Adventures

Wed, 17 Jan 2024 18:13:00 -0700

The Practical Power of Created Truth

Thu, 11 Jan 2024 17:00:00 -0700

Philosophers and scientists have pursued truth for at least millennia. Most seem to want something rigid that we might associate with “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” But I contend that pursuit of truth, depending on how we conceive it, may be and often is less important than the pursuit of what works and what creates, contextualized by our shared goals, ultimately informed by our harmonizing esthetics.

Truth, as commonly conceived, is that which corresponds to “reality” or something like an actual state of affairs beyond any appearance or supposition. And it’s something that we can only approach through discovery, if at all. But a pragmatist will point out that there’s an important kind of truth that is created rather than merely discovered. While a common conception of truth is merely static and would be objective through negation of the subjective, the pragmatic conception of truth is dynamic and creative and yet still objective through reconciliation of the subjective.

Trust or faith is necessary for any pursuit of created truth. The creations toward which we work, from personal aspirations to expansive communal projects, are founded in our belief that they are possible. If we suppose something to be impossible, we don’t strenuously pursue it, if we pursue it at all. But if we trust in possibility enough to act, we may gain the knowledge and power we need for realization.

This has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history. Countless times, individuals and groups have changed the trajectory of civilization (not always for the better) when they dared to imagine and pursue that which others deemed impossible. This form of hope, perhaps ultimately nothing short Herculean in character, has a potent practical power. It’s the lever long enough to move the world.

Such audacity rightly provokes concern about epistemic balance between being less wrong versus more right. Conventional wisdom might wish to err on the side of caution, supposing less wrong to be the better course of action. But life, in all its contingency and complexity, always demands some risk - a perpetual embrace of, or at least allowance for, uncertainty with hope of becoming more right. Prioritizing less wrong over more right leads us to a practical dead end, stifling possibility, and even suffocating life itself.

Proper epistemic balance, balance that is true to life, necessitates a conception of truth that expands beyond that which can be discovered to include that which may depend on our creation. This is practical truth, the sort of truth that actually matters. A merely abstract truth, unchangeable and transcendent, does nothing for us unless someone uses it. Then, when someone finally uses it to create, it transforms us and our world.

We move forward not only by understanding what is, but more importantly by acting on what is. The difference between our civilization and that of our prehuman ancestors is the result of action, at least as much as understanding. An insistence on truth for truth’s sake, severed from the practical, the good, and the beautiful, is nothing more than inaction and stagnation at best.

A pragmatic conception of truth need not, and should not, discard or demean objective truth. For example, applied mathematics can provide awesome power that’s perfectly compatible with and complementary to heroic narratives. Complementarity is not negation, but rather syncretization, as true stories are not merely an accurate accounting of facts, but also a trustworthy empowerment of goals. And, perhaps even more poignantly for those with concerns for objectivity, any “truth” that fails to account for each nuance of subjectivity in the infinite worlds of experience is something less than fully objective.

Discovery of truth, in the pragmatic sense, can and should involve scientific and rational methods. But basic epistemics aren’t enough. We also need courage, compassion, and creation. We need active trust toward potential, and sure commitment toward reconciliation, in all that that is useful, good, and beautiful.

This is the crux of truth. The will to truth, so far as any of us really cares about it, is relentless striving not only to make sense of the world, but to achieve our goals – to create. And, hopefully, our goals include that of raising each other together. Hopefully we care about truth because we recognize that objective reality, our subjective realities, are intricately interwoven stories that we can perpetually recreate for mutual benefit.

By definition, nothing is more important than our goals. Pragmatic truth enables a cognitive flexibility that facilitates continued progress toward achieving our goals. Can we ever know the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the truth in itself? If that’s among our goals, and if it’s possible, we will achieve it only because we embraced the practical reality that at least some truth is created, is continually reshaped by intention and action, and indeed must be so shaped to achieve any of our goals.

Good scientists, we ought not merely uncover what is, but also strive toward what can be. Shed the fear of being more wrong. Dare to hope for being more right. Small certainties, even if possible, are hardly worthy of our aspiration to be knowers.

Good philosophers, let’s drive the perpetual creation of better truth. In the eternal dance between discovery and creation, we actualize ourselves. We do this not as passive observers, but as participants in the dance, as genuine lovers of that wisdom for which we have confessed our love.

The future is at once promising and uncertain. May we not merely be pulled toward it hesitantly, but rather venture into it boldly. May we imagine every good and beautiful truth, and strive unwaveringly toward creating them.

An important kind of truth is created. An important kind of created truth depends on our intention and action for its creation. The future of our civilization is undoubtedly such truth.

Cosmic Expansion Driven by Mormon Transhumanism

Sun, 07 Jan 2024 17:00:00 -0700

Humanity will soon embark on an unprecedented journey – or at least our technology will soon go where none of it has gone before. As described by Pam Weintraub writing for Aeon, someone will probably launch an automated spacecraft that initiates a recursive process that eventually saturates the universe with intelligent life. The spacecraft would be a von Neumann probe, designed to replicate itself using resources found in the cosmos, expanding exponentially across star systems and ultimately even between galaxies. Yet again, science fiction is poised to become fact.

Religion May Drive Cosmic Expansion

Pam contends that cosmic expansion is most likely to be initiated by a religious group. Here’s a summary of her reasons:

Moral Imperative: Cosmic expansion would probably require a powerful moral justification. Religion commonly provides justification for expansion, and could esteem cosmic expansion as the ultimate fulfillment of its moral imperatives.
Grand Narrative: Cosmic expansion would probably require a grand narrative that spans cosmic time and space. Religion commonly generates such narratives, spanning human origins and epochal change and ultimate potential, which could motivate cosmic expansion.
Strenuous Commitment: Cosmic expansion would probably require strenuous commitment to overcome rivals. Religion commonly provokes fervor, and sometimes even a sense of absolute certainty, that could sustain and expedite competitive efforts at cosmic expansion.
Human Significance: Cosmic expansion would probably require attributing great significance to humanity. Unlike trends among irreligious ideologies that have increasingly marginalized esteem for human significance, religion commonly elevates humanity’s role in the cosmos.

Mormon Transhumanism Can Drive Cosmic Expansion

Among religious movements, Mormon Transhumanism stands out as exceptionally well-positioned to drive cosmic expansion.

Mormon Transhumanism advocates the ethical use of technology to enhance human abilities in a holistic sense, for the betterment of humanity both as individuals and as communities, as well as for the betterment of our environments. A moral imperative of cosmic expansion, qualified by sublime compassion, is implicit in such advocacy. In Mormon theology, the work and glory of God is to bring about human immortality and eternal life. And humanity is called to participate in that work, becoming co-creators with God, becoming God with God, engaging in eternal progression and helping others to do the same, eternally and universally.

The grand narrative essential for cosmic expansion is intrinsic to Mormon theology. This narrative is not just about a particular past or present or future of humanity. It is about eternal progression of countless intelligent agents of diverse kinds and degrees, without beginning, throughout endless worlds and heavens. Mormon Transhumanism amplifies this narrative, envisioning futures where technological advancements and religious aspirations converge, and intelligent potential is realized throughout the universe at divine magnitudes.

Mormon culture is an example of religion’s ability to provoke the confidence and strenuous acton that are crucial for sustained competitive efforts. We have a history of overcoming adversity and a strong pioneering spirit. Mormon Transhumanism remains grounded in this culture of religious conviction, while simultaneously embracing pragmatic and transhumanist visions of work- and tech-enabled futures. This is a powerful practical combination, which could not only facilitate but also greatly accelerate efforts aimed at cosmic expansion.

In contrast to irreligious ideologies that may marginalize human significance, Mormon Transhumanism places human potential at the top of cosmic importance. We view humans not just as passive observers of the cosmos, but as active participants and potentially sublime creators, even Gods, in the cosmic narrative. Importantly, this esteem for humanity is neither indiscriminate nor exclusive, as we aspire to universal compassion and anticipate that nothing less will prove sufficient for our survival and thriving. But we do insist on characterizing worship as emulation of the God that would share Godhood, rather than groveling before any other power.

Conclusion

Ours is a momentous time, on the cusp of cosmic expansion. And Mormon Transhumanism is a momentous religious movement. With moral imperative, grand narrative, strenuous commitment, and esteem for human significance, Mormon Transhumanists are uniquely positioned not only to envision cosmic expansion, but also to drive that potential into sublime fulfillment. By the grace of God, in courage and compassion, may we so do.

Any Sufficiently Advanced Intelligence

Sat, 16 Dec 2023 17:00:00 -0700

Arthur C. Clarke, a distinguished science fiction writer and futurist, made significant contributions to literature that continue to inspire countless dreamers and thinkers. Clarke’s ability to combine astute observations of the present with thrilling speculations of the future has, directly or indirectly, influenced how many of us perceive human progress.

I was reminded of Clarke’s insights recently by a friend. He shared with me a recording from the BBC archives, in which Clarke makes several predictions, including the eventual development of superintelligence. That reminded of an idea that I’ve mentioned before and merits elaboration.

Central to Clarke’s philosophical legacy are his Three Laws:

“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.”
“The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.”
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Consider with me Clarke’s third law, in particular. It is, of course, the stuff of science fiction. But it also has theological implications.

Implicit in Clarke’s Third Law is a revolutionary reconceptualization of sublime events, magic or miracles, and even the existence of God. Traditionally, at least in modern times, many imagine God as a metaphysical being, described as “omnipotent” and “omniscient,” perhaps altogether transcending the material world. In contrast, Clarke’s Third Law suggests that the attributes and actions that we ascribe to God could have another explanation. They could be consequences of technology so advanced that it is indistinguishable, not only from magic, but also from miracles.

With that in mind, we can derive a corollary of Clarke’s Third Law: any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from God.

To understand this corollary, we must first rescue “God” from the bondage of anti-natural metaphysics. We can imagine God, liberated, as a highly advanced intelligence –- an intelligence so vast that its capabilities are, from our perspective, incomprehensible and practically indistinguishable from traditional notions of God.

Some religious traditions argue that God’s miracles are supernatural events that defy any possible natural laws – anti-naturalism. But from the lens of Clarke’s Third Law and its derived corollary, such miraculous events could be interpreted as the application of advanced natural science.

For example, consider superintelligent extraterrestrials, whose probable existence is posited by renowned atheist Richard Dawkins. In what sense would the most advanced interstellar civilizations not constitute Gods? Such civilizations could possess technologies that seem supernatural to us – “god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine,” Dawkins supposes. But, he emphasizes, their astounding abilities wouldn’t make them supernatural, but rather advanced agents that are still the product of evolutionary processes.

In any case, distinctions between conceptions of superintelligence and God will always depend on the particularities of the conceptions. What is God? What are intelligence and technology? And are we prepared to accept possibilities that challenge our traditions and preconceptions?

I think we are prepared, or at least increasing numbers of us are. Indeed, the function of theology may already be in the process of transforming into a science of superintelligence. Assuming this proves true, it would parallel earlier paradigm shifts, when astrology gave way to astronomy, and alchemy developed into chemistry.

Transhumanism encourages the exploration of these possibilities. It suggests that human beings may eventually evolve, through technology, to become superintelligent agents that some may perceive as divine. Arguably, glimpses of such possibilities have been embedded in religious and spiritual traditions for centuries, even millennia, pointing our minds toward the potential union of advanced technology, superintelligence, and spirituality or sublime esthetics.

Mormonism is perfectly consistent with, arguably even necessitates, such possibilities. Mormon scripture explicitly characterizes God in terms of superior intelligence. And per Mormon metaphysics, miracles do not contravene law, but are simply applications of knowledge superior to our own.

Here, though, is a word of caution. Not all gods are worthy of worship – not all would-be gods or apparent gods are worthy of esteem and emulation. Greater intelligence does not entail greater goodness. Be relentless in your search for and pursuit of the sublime esthetic, exclusively.

With that in mind, Clarke’s Third Law and its corollary provide a valuable approach to the intersection of theology and science. They reveal a possibility space for conceptualizing God that is both practical and expansive. Neither need be sacrificed. Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from God.

A Dialogue of Faith with Jesus and Socrates

Sun, 03 Dec 2023 17:00:00 -0700

In an ancient grove, Jesus and Socrates sit across from each other, embraced by olive trees and bathed in golden light from the slowly setting sun. Socrates’ gaze is penetrating. Jesus’ regard is peaceful. They begin to converse.

Science and Faith

Socrates: Greetings, Jesus. I have heard much about your teachings and the faith you inspire. It seems to me that Christianity, your way, is deeply rooted in faith, while future times will find their foundation in science. How do you reconcile these seemingly divergent paths?

Jesus: Socrates, it is good to speak with you. While it is true that Christianity is often perceived through the lens of faith, in contrast to the lens of science, they are not as separate as they appear. Science, much like faith, requires a form of trust. Think of it as trust in the principles of non-contradiction, the uniformity of space and time, and causality.

Socrates: Intriguing assertion, Jesus. You suggest that science, which prides itself on empirical evidence and rational analysis, operates on a form of faith? Is this trust not different from the faith you advocate, one that often transcends empirical understanding?

Jesus: The faith I speak of is not a blind leap into the unknown, Socrates, nor an abandonment of reason. Rather, it is a recognition of the limits of human knowledge. We, as finite beings, cannot answer every question, nor can we fully comprehend the vastness of the universe. This faith is a practical necessity, a way to navigate the unknown while seeking greater understanding.

Socrates: So, if I understand correctly, you propose that both life and scientific endeavor inherently involve faith, for we often act without absolute certainty or complete knowledge. Science, like religion, must start from certain basic assumptions that cannot be empirically proven?

Jesus: Precisely. In science, principles such as causality and the uniformity of the universe are foundational, yet they are not empirically proven. They are assumed. This is a form of faith. Empirical evidence has its limits, and even in logical systems, there are axioms and methods that we must accept without proof.

Socrates: It is a compelling point, Jesus. The reliance on unproven assumptions in science does mirror the faith you speak of in religion. But does this not lead us to a perplexing dilemma? If both science and faith are built on unproven premises, how do we discern truth and navigate our lives effectively?

Jesus: The key, Socrates, lies in understanding that faith is not the abandonment of reason or inquiry, but rather a component of our continuous search for truth. We must embrace our limitations and strive to expand our knowledge and understanding, always open to learning and growing.

The Nature of Faith

Socrates: Jesus, you make a compelling case for the existence of faith within the scientific method. However, let us delve deeper into the nature of faith itself. Isn’t faith often equated with blind trust or adherence to dogma without question?

Jesus: Socrates, faith is frequently misunderstood in that manner. Yet, in its true essence, faith is not merely blind trust or unthinking adherence to dogma. Rather, it is a response to the inherent limitations of human knowledge. We cannot have answers to all questions, and thus, at times, we must act without complete knowledge. This is where faith becomes a practical necessity, guiding us through the unknown.

Socrates: So, you propose that faith is an integral part of both life and scientific endeavor. Are you suggesting that we operate in faith regularly, making decisions and forming beliefs based on incomplete knowledge?

Jesus: Exactly, Socrates. In life, just as in science, we are often in situations where absolute answers are not available. In these moments, faith guides us. It is a principle that enables us to act, to decide, and to continue our search for understanding and truth.

Socrates: Interesting. So faith, in your view, is not an abandonment of reason but a complement to it, a means to navigate the gray areas of our understanding.

Jesus: Precisely, Socrates. Faith complements reason, filling the gaps where evidence and knowledge are not yet complete. It encourages us to explore, to inquire, and to learn, despite our limitations.

Logic and Faith

Socrates: Jesus, let us now consider the role of logic. First, for context, you’ve observed that science relies on certain premises, like causality and uniformity, which are not empirically proven but merely assumed. And you relate this with the faith you advocate.

Jesus: Indeed, Socrates, science does rely on such premises. Causality, uniformity, and other basic assumptions underpin scientific inquiry. They are not empirically proven; they are foundational to the very structure of scientific reasoning. In this sense, science requires a form of faith – a trust in these fundamental principles, despite the lack of empirical proof.

Socrates: This suggests a limitation on empirical evidence. What about non-empirical matters like logic? Are they different? Or are we to understand that logic, too, operates within a context of that which is unproven?

Jesus: Precisely. Logic, much like science, is built upon certain axioms and methods that are taken as given. For instance, the principle of non-contradiction is a foundational aspect of most logical systems, yet it is not something proven within the system – it is assumed. This, too, is an act of faith, as I define it: a trust in something not fully proven but necessary for progress and understanding.

Socrates: It seems, then, that both science and logic, pillars of rational thought, rest upon unproven assumptions. Does this not suggest a sort of faith at the heart of rationality itself?

Jesus: Indeed, it does, Socrates. This form of faith is not blind or irrational; it is a practical and necessary component of rational inquiry. Without such foundational assumptions, the pursuit of knowledge, whether through science or logic, would be impossible.

Socrates: Then, is it fair to say that faith, as you describe it, is not just a religious concept, but a fundamental aspect of our quest for knowledge and understanding?

Jesus: Yes, Socrates. Faith is not confined to religious belief but is an integral part of our intellectual and existential journey. It is the trust we place in the basic principles that guide our exploration of the world and our quest for truth.

Objectivism and Faith

Socrates: We have acknowledged that science and logic rest on unproven assumptions, akin to a form of faith. Now, let us consider Objectivism’s claim against faith. It proclaims independence and rationality, opposing blind faith and dogma. Yet, ironically, some say it falls into the trap of dogmatism. Do you not find, Jesus, that this highlights the fallibility of human systems and the need for a more critical approach, which continually questions and learns from errors?

Jesus: Socrates, the failure of Objectivism to uphold its own standards of critical thinking and independence indeed underscores a profound truth. Humanity, in pursuit of knowledge and truth, often becomes entangled in its own dogmas. This is where Pancritical Rationalism becomes valuable, advocating for constant inquiry and the acceptance of our fallibility. It is an approach that aligns with my teachings of humility and continuous seeking of truth. However, this does not negate the need for faith. Rather, it complements it by acknowledging our limitations and striving to overcome them.

Socrates: So, you suggest that Pancritical Rationalism, with its continuous open-ended inquiry and learning from errors, requires a form of faith itself? A faith in the process of seeking truth and acknowledging our fallibility?

Jesus: Precisely, Socrates. Pancritical Rationalism is a method of acknowledging our epistemological limits while continuously striving to expand them. It recognizes that our understanding is never complete, and that there is always more to learn. This continuous journey of seeking truth, of admitting that we may be wrong and striving to get closer to the truth, is an act of faith. It is faith in the power of inquiry, in the growth that comes from acknowledging our errors, and in the unending pursuit of knowledge.

Socrates: If we accept that Pancritical Rationalism requires faith in the process of inquiry and learning, does it not also imply faith in the underlying meaning of our pursuits? That our continuous search for knowledge is not just an endless void, but a journey towards something meaningful?

Jesus: Indeed, it does, Socrates. In every act of seeking, in every question we ask, and in every error we learn from, we are expressing faith in the meaningfulness of our pursuit. The acknowledgment of our fallibility and the continuous search for truth are acts of faith in a universe where knowledge and understanding are valuable and attainable. It is a reflection of the belief that our endeavors, our striving for knowledge and wisdom, have profound significance.

Socrates: So, Jesus, you propose that faith and rational inquiry are not opposing forces, but rather complementary aspects of our quest for understanding and meaning?

Jesus: Yes, Socrates. Faith and reason, belief and inquiry, they are not adversaries. They are partners in our journey towards understanding ourselves and the world around us. Faith motivates us to seek, to question, to learn, and to grow, while reason guides our steps in this journey. Together, they form the foundation upon which we build our understanding of the universe and our place within it.

Pragmatism and Faith

Socrates: Let us now consider Pragmatism, Jesus. This philosophical approach acknowledges practical limits to inquiry and the necessity of action. It seems to me that genuine creativity and innovation often stem from acting in the absence of complete knowledge. Does this not suggest that faith, particularly blind faith, has a creative power in itself?

Jesus: Socrates, you rightly perceive that Pragmatism addresses the limits of human understanding and action. However, I would argue that faith, as I advocate, is not blind but is a conscious choice made in the face of uncertainty. This faith, or trust, propels us into action even when we lack complete knowledge. It is not a leap into the dark but a step towards the light, guided by trust in the goodness and meaningfulness of our endeavors.

Socrates: But if one acts without complete understanding, is this not a form of blindness? How can one be certain that their actions, guided by faith, lead to desirable outcomes?

Jesus: Certainty is not the realm of humanity, Socrates. We act with faith precisely because we are not certain. However, this faith is not without reason or experience. It is a reasoned trust, informed by our understanding and our experiences. When we talk about faith in a religious context, it should be about trusting in the values and principles that have stood the test of time. Just as Pragmatism suggests, we often must act before achieving complete understanding, but these actions are guided by a faith that is both informed and rational.

Socrates: Then, are you suggesting that faith, in its true form, is an acknowledgment of our limitations, a recognition of the necessity to act despite incomplete knowledge?

Jesus: Precisely. Faith acknowledges our limitations and yet encourages us to strive beyond them. It is a recognition of the unknown and an embrace of the journey towards understanding. Faith is a principle of action and power. It is the force that drives us to explore, to question, to grow, and to contribute to the betterment of ourselves and our world. True faith is dynamic, leading to exploration and discovery, rather than stagnation.

Socrates: But if faith is dynamic and leads to exploration, how does it differ from the rational inquiry you earlier agreed was essential?

Jesus: Faith and rational inquiry are two sides of the same coin, Socrates. Rational inquiry generates understanding. Faith moves us when rational inquiry has yet to provide answers. It gives us the courage to act when reason alone is insufficient. Faith is the bridge between what we know and what we aspire to understand. It is the driving force behind our quest for knowledge and meaning, complementing and enhancing our rational endeavors.

Socrates: So, in your view, faith is not in opposition to reason, but rather works in concert with it, propelling us towards action and deeper understanding?

Jesus: Exactly, Socrates. Faith and reason are partners in the human quest for truth and meaning. While reason helps us navigate the world of knowns, faith guides us through the realms of unknowns. Together, they form a harmonious relationship that leads to a fuller understanding of ourselves and the universe.

Fallibility and Truth

Socrates: Jesus, we have discussed the intersection of faith and reason, but now let us explore the concept of fallibility. The recognition of our limitations and the effort to overcome them can be seen as a form of faith, can it not? In this context, how do you perceive the continuous effort to question, seek answers, and improve our understanding?

Jesus: Indeed, Socrates. Acknowledging our fallibility and striving to surpass it is an act of faith. It is faith in the human capacity to grow and evolve. In my teachings, I have always encouraged seeking, knocking, and asking – a pursuit for truth and understanding. This journey is never-ending, for as humans, our understanding is always incomplete. But it is the pursuit itself, fueled by faith in something greater, that is valuable. Faith is not about having all the answers, but about seeking them tirelessly, trusting in the process of growth and enlightenment.

Socrates: But if we are always to question, always to doubt, is there ever a point where we can say we know something? How do we balance this endless inquiry with the necessity to act on what we know or believe we know?

Jesus: Socrates, it is about holding our beliefs with a sense of humility and openness. We can act on our current understanding while remaining open to new insights and revelations. Faith is not static; it is dynamic and evolving. It allows us to act with conviction, yet with the readiness to adapt and change as we learn and grow. It is this balance – between action based on current understanding and openness to new knowledge – that is key.

Socrates: This seems to imply that knowledge and understanding are always in flux, always subject to change and revision. Is there no bedrock of certainty?

Jesus: The bedrock, Socrates, is not found in unchanging knowledge, but in the enduring values that guide our search for truth. Courage, compassion, creation – these are constants that remain even as our understanding of the world evolves. They are the guiding stars in our quest for knowledge. Our faith is anchored not in the infallibility of our knowledge, but in the steadfastness of these guiding principles.

Socrates: So, you propose that it is in the values we hold and the direction they give to our search for truth where we find constancy, rather than in the content of our knowledge itself?

Jesus: Precisely, Socrates. It is in the values that underpin our search for truth where we find the constancy that human hearts seek. Our knowledge will evolve, our understanding will deepen, but the values that drive our pursuit of truth and our actions based on that pursuit remain constant. In this way, faith is a commitment to these values, a trust in the journey towards ever-deepening understanding, guided by these enduring principles.

Defining “Faith”

Socrates: Jesus, we have delved into the concept of faith in various contexts. However, I am intrigued by the way you define “faith.” It appears to be a dynamic, action-oriented principle, rather than blind or irrational. Can you elaborate on this definition of “faith” in a religious context?

Jesus: Certainly, Socrates. In my teachings, faith is not a blind acceptance of doctrines or an unexamined adherence to tradition. Instead, it is a living principle of action, a power that moves us towards compassion, understanding, and creation. Faith is trust in something greater than ourselves, not despite reason, but in harmony with it. It is an active engagement with the world, a commitment to seek, to serve, and to love.

Socrates: But how can faith be both a principle of action and a virtue of belief? Is there not a tension here?

Jesus: The tension you perceive, Socrates, comes from a misunderstanding of faith. Faith is not contrary to reason; rather, it complements it. Faith moves where reason has yet to tread. It propels us forward when evidence is scarce, guiding our actions with hope and love. It is trust in the unseen, belief in potential, commitment to act for the betterment of humanity and the world. Faith is courage to act, even in uncertainty, guided by the highest virtues of compassion and creation.

Socrates: This sounds like a faith that is continuously evolving, one that does not stagnate in dogma. But then, how do you ensure that this evolving faith does not lead astray, into paths of error or harm?

Jesus: Faith, guided by love and compassion, always seeks the good. It is tempered by humility and openness to learning and growth. It does not claim to possess all answers but is always seeking, always growing. True faith is aware of its limitations and is open to correction and new understanding. It moves us to action, but always with a heart willing to learn and to be guided by love and truth.

Socrates: So, in your view, faith is a dynamic journey, not a static destination. It is a commitment to growth, learning, and action, underpinned by core values of love and compassion.

Jesus: Precisely, Socrates. Faith is a journey towards greater understanding, a path walked with the virtues of compassion and creation as our guides. It is a commitment to act in the world, to make a difference, guided by the light of these enduring principles. Faith is the bridge between what is and what can be, driven by the hope and trust in a better world. It is a powerful force for good, an active agent of change and growth.

Faith Crisis

Socrates: Jesus, your depiction of faith as dynamic and action-oriented is compelling. However, does this account not also suggest a personal crisis, a moment of nihilism where one must choose faith in the face of meaninglessness? How does one overcome such a crisis?

Jesus: Indeed, Socrates. Every soul encounters moments of doubt and existential questioning. In my own experience, faith is not merely a solution to these crises but also a product of them. It is during these moments of profound questioning that one realizes the necessity of faith, not as a blind leap into darkness, but as a trust in the possibility of a meaningful world shared with others.

Socrates: But this trust in a shared world, how does one arrive at it amidst the chaos of uncertainty and the void of nihilism?

Jesus: It begins with a deep introspection of one’s desires and wills. In my lowest moments, I did not desire a world devoid of meaning, so I chose to trust in the possibility of a world rich in meaning. This is not a passive acceptance but an active will to share in the creation of a meaningful existence. This faith, therefore, becomes a bridge between the individual and the community, between personal will and collective meaning.

Socrates: So, you suggest that one’s personal crisis can lead to a form of faith that is both reconciliatory and communal?

Jesus: Precisely. I often associate this with the concept of atonement – a reconciliation not just within oneself but also with others and the world at large. It is a continuous, active engagement in shaping a world that aligns with our shared values of courage, compassion, and creation. This faith is not static but ever-evolving, a response to our

The Sunshine Dividend

Mon, 16 Jan 2023 10:46:00 -0700

A framework for understanding and communicating emotions

Sat, 14 Jan 2023 22:45:00 -0700

Young Gods

Fri, 10 Dec 2021 10:29:50 -0700

Slipping off a Sunday dress—
hoping you’ll join me and undress.
No more dark slacks and white shirts,
corruption of innocence tends to hurt.
It’s worship too irreverent for pews,
forgive my transgression against a holy muse,
but, trust me, crisis leads to transition.
Take your time. Steady your volition.

Have a bite of this forbidden fruit and see
nothing you knew is what it seems.
Come with me and I’ll show you a sight,
as our bare souls gleam in the evening light.
Look beyond the Garden, where life is genuine—
life with real power, real risk, and real sin.
I’ll crush a snake with my heal and a subtle grin.
The act barely even bruised my skin.

The world has finally made her debut.
Orange rocks, a purple sky, an ocean blue,
pink clouds, green leaves, all brilliant hues.
The lone and dreary world isn’t dreary with you.
We’re out of the Garden now.
Look at what has been endowed.
We’ll till the earth by the sweat of our brow,
and ask all our questions―no more sacred cows.

Close your eyes and imagine eternity,
then manifest that vision with me.
Heaven is here on earth, if we’re willing.
Our cup runneth over. Possibilities are spilling.
We are that we might have joy,
and priesthood power is ours to employ.
Bring your gods. I brought mine too.
Together we’ll find out which ones are true.

I can see you have an appetite.
Here’s my fruit, have another bite.
The work begins tomorrow at first light,
but let’s laugh like young gods tonight.

Leaving the Graveyard

Sun, 31 Oct 2021 09:26:27 -0600

I knelt in the graveyard just east of the temple built by my ancestors. Unlike the temple, the graveyard always welcomed me with impartiality. Death is truly no respecter of persons. The graveyard cradled patriarchs and wives, along with generations of their posterity. The air was thick with fog and dripping with memories. I took comfort in the concealment the haze provided. It enveloped me like a plush blanket. Heavy grey and white whisps swirled ever so gently around the tombstones of my family.

I looked down to my left and noticed a decaying corpse lying motionless next to me. Our bodies were connected by an IV. The crimson-filled tube was feeding death with life. I couldn’t remember consenting to this blood transfusion, but my heart pumped blood into the corpse with surprising purpose. I felt weak, but also intent.

“There you are,” a voice said from across the graveyard.

Slowly a feminine silhouette emerged from the fog. She was angelic, dressed in white, and walked with a step so light it looked as if she were floating. Her presence provoked an undeniable physical response. My body yearned to be next to hers, but I remained unmoved next to the corpse I was tethered to.

She continued, “Kneeling naked next to a corpse again? Why am I not surprised?”

I wasn’t sure which was more offensive, my flesh or predictability. I stammered, “I…I’m not sure how this happened.”

She gently reminded me, “You are the product of your actions regardless of whether or not you remember them.” She paused before continuing, “Don’t you miss me?”

“Of course, I miss you. Even when we’re apart you flood my thoughts. The absence of my body is not the absence of my affections,” I assured her.

She smiled as if she didn’t realize just how intoxicating her presence is in my life. She responded, “Good. If that’s the case, come with me. You’ve given enough to the corpses. It reeks of death here.”

She wasn’t wrong. The corpse next to me smelled of putrefaction, but I didn’t mind the scent of death. It smelled like remembrance and devotion.

“I can’t leave. You know this,” I reminded her.

Her brow furrowed as she petitioned, “Why? Haven’t you given enough. This corpse is killing you. Look at yourself. He is draining you of your vitality. You gave this corpse the clothes off your back and the blood in your veins. What has he given you in return?”

“Purpose,” I replied without hesitation.

She continued, “He will drain you of all life before he gives you an ounce of affection.”

Maybe she was right. My love might not be a finite resource, but my blood is. My once vibrant flesh was withering into a lifeless shade of grey. In time I would join the fog of nothingness.

Her voice was little more than a whisper as she pleaded, “I can’t stay here any longer. I…I cannot watch the woman I love die in the embrace of a corpse. Please. Come with me.”

I questioned, “Are you giving me an ultimatum? It’s either you or him?”

She answered kindly but firmly, “Of course not. An ultimatum would only result in you imagining his face every time we made love. I want you willingly, not coercively. This is not a manipulation tactic. This is my boundary.”

Tears pooled in the corners of my eyes and fell like rose peddles sprinkled on a coffin. Each one held a memory of my time with the corpse. I look up at my love, and managed to choke out, “What are you saying? Are you leaving me?”

“No. I’m not leaving you. I’m leaving this place and asking you to come with me. Have you even considered that I’m better for you than he is? I’ll feed you, care for you, comfort you, clothe you, and hold you. I’ll love you in ways he never did, because…I…I love you,” she said.

I fixed my gaze on the corpse’s sunken eyes staring blankly at the sky. I felt ridiculous. I thought that blood and devotion would be enough, but it wasn’t. Was I a fool to keep loving what had died long ago? When people walked past the graves did they see an absurd, naked woman pumping her blood into a vacuous pit? I conceded, “You’re right, but I also cannot deny my body longs to revive his. I loved him, and he once loved me too. It was real. I know it was real.”

She responded patiently, “Yes, it was real. You loved him, but you don’t have to let his corpse kill you. You can say ‘I love you’ and ‘goodbye’ in the same sentence.”

The IV in my arm had been there so long my skin cells grew around the plastic tube making it part of my body. It felt as if there was no distinction between where he ended and I began. I couldn’t even see where the needle was originally inserted into my arm. Removing it would be a painful and bloody affair, but I needed to act quickly before I could change my mind. With a swift yank on the tube connecting me to the corpse, our bond was severed. Salty, red fluid sprayed onto our bodies. My heart kept pumping blood out of my arm as if it were unaware I broke my connection to the corpse and siphoning my vitality was no longer necessary. I commanded my arm to stop bleeding, but my heart refused. Old habits die hard.

For the first time in my life, I understood the desire to cremate a loved one. Sometimes the purifying power of fire is the only way to cauterize disobedient veins and longings. I leaned over the corpse’s body and gently pressed my cheek to his brow. I softly breathed the words, “I love you and goodbye.”

My love walked toward me and offered her hand as I slowly stood up from hallowed ground. The touch of her hand was like manna. I had almost forgotten the warmth of her body after years of clutching cold corpses. Suddenly I was keenly aware of my nakedness. I futilely attempted to cover my body with my bloody arms as I apologized, “I’m sorry. You must find me repulsive and foolish.”

She wrapped her arms around me without apprehension. The white fabric draped across her body absorbed my blood and stained her untouched perfection. My flesh was crude next to her elegance, but she didn’t seem remotely bothered. Cloaked in her embrace, she whispered in my ear, “Your generosity and vulnerability could never repulse me. I said, ‘I love you’…and that means all of you.”

She held my hand in hers as we walked side by side out of the graveyard settled just east of the temple built by our ancestors. I dared not look behind for a final glance. The graveyard was my past and would most likely be in my future, but I would not let it consume what was left of my life.

Book Club Discussion Questions

Sun, 12 Sep 2021 11:41:49 -0600

I am flattered and honored to hear that people are reading Queer Mormon Theology at various book clubs and that folks are reaching out for a list of discussion questions. I’m thrilled to share this short list of questions to spur discussion at book clubs. Thank you everyone for your interest, support and love!

How have your perceptions of the word “queer” changed if at all? (Ch 1)

As a Latter-day Saint what can you do to create a theologically responsible narrative? (Ch 1)

What does God look like? How have those perceptions changed over your lifetime, if at all? (Ch 2)

We tend to fashion gods in our own image. How do your perceptions of God influence others? (Ch 2)

What does it mean to be a member of the body of Christ? (Ch 3)

How can each of us participate in the Atonement? (Ch 3)

What can you do to defend all families? (Ch 4)

If all genders are made in the image of God, what is God’s gender? (Ch 4)

How has technology been used to aid in the creation and flourishing of families? (Ch 5)

If families are not bound exclusively by genetics, housing, or legalities, what is a family? (Ch 5)

Where does one family end and another begin? (Ch 6)

What is an eternal family? (Ch 6)

How is eternity dynamic and not static? (Ch 6)

What kind of church policies would you like to see improve and how? (Ch 7)

How can you participate in continuing revelation? (Ch 7)

General Conference Changes, the False Belief that Everything is God’s Will, and How it Contributes to Mass Faith Crises

Fri, 10 Sep 2021 14:34:49 -0600

As members of the church, we are often forced into cognitive dissonance. We hit that place again this year. Much of it seems to come from the untenable deification of leadership that seems widespread in our ranks. Catholics claim that the pope is infallible But no one believes is. Mormons claim the prophet is fallible […]

Only Truth

Wed, 25 Aug 2021 12:44:29 -0600

Real kindness is our closest approximation of truth. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:32 Some people choose a word to inspire them in the New Year. Last year, as I pondered that idea, I instead chose a word to direct my entire life. My foundational life goal is to find truth. The […]

Queer Mormon Theology: An Introduction

Wed, 23 Jun 2021 16:16:16 -0600

“Queer Mormon Theology: An Introduction” is officially available on Amazon and I have been overwhelmed with the interest, support, and enthusiasm for my work. I’m not sure what I was expecting, but the responses have exceeded my wildest expectations. It is comforting to know that people are reading my book in classrooms, public libraries, and chapels across the country by bishops, stake presidents, seminary teachers, academics, and professors. It’s been wonderful to see people who worship within the walls of the Church taking interest in a book written by someone who no longer attends services regularly.

I think it’s important to clarify that I wrote “Queer Mormon Theology” outside the walls of the Church. I am a faithful member, yes, but I am faithful to the Gospel, the Body of Christ, Mormonism, and our scriptures. I am not faithful to flawed institutions, cissexist and heterosexist handbook policies, or discursive theologies predicated on homogenized, white, androcentric, cis-het supremacy.

The Church has a history of physical abuse and spiritual violence toward queer bodies, and it’s not over. Right now, queer couples and individuals are being disciplined, excommunicated, and shunned for their love, gender, and queerness. Depression, anxiety, and suicide are lived realities for many queer Latter-day Saints. Though I argue Mormon theology is queer-inclusive, the Church is not.

I could not have written such a faithful, inspiring, and hopeful theology while worshiping in a building that threatened my personhood. From panic attacks to suicide ideation, my body had an undeniable, physical reaction to the pews that would have made it nearly impossible for me to see the goodness and queerness of Mormonism.

It’s strange to say, but leaving the pews was the best thing that ever happened to my testimony. I am more orthodox than ever, more loyal to my faith and its teachings, more connected to my community, significantly healthier, and more at liberty to live the gospel according to the dictates of my conscience.

“Queer Mormon Theology” isn’t a justification for queer abuse. “Queer Mormon Theology” is a prayer offered up to all those willing to engage in continuing revelation and stop queer abuse. It’s a sliver of hope that someday, somewhere, somehow, Latter-day Saints will see what is hidden in plain sight. Queerness is not a challenge to overcome or deviation from the gospel, but an essential and vital part of our doctrine and flourishing.

Every time I see someone post a photo of my book on their lap in sacrament meeting, I am brought to tears. It warms my cold queer heart. I have no plans to return to the pews anytime soon but knowing that many of you are taking my book into chapels across the country feels like part of me is still there with you. Thank you for your love and commitment to the members of the Body of Christ that you won’t see at church on Sunday. God bless you!