Lincoln Cannon Blogs

Honoring Motherhood

Lincoln Cannon — Sun, 12 May 2013 19:37:00 +0000

I had the opportunity to speak in my local congregation today on the topic of "Honoring Motherhood". Below is a transcript of my talk. I invite your feedback. What did I get right? What did I get wrong? What did I miss? Please let me know. Thanks.

Honoring Motherhood

Lincoln Cannon

Good morning. The bishopric invited me to speak on honoring motherhood, and I’ve prayerfully considered how I should do that. If you would, think with me for a moment about everyone in the room with us. If you’re comfortable, you might even look around. Some are mothers, some hope to be mothers, some have lost hope to be mothers, some live with our mothers, and some don’t remember our mothers. For some, our mothers are a biological fact, and for some, our mothers are so by adoption, maybe by law or simply in function. Perhaps most challenging, the idea of motherhood may warm our hearts or it may chill our bones. Because our life experiences have been different, we each understand and feel motherhood differently. While honoring these differences, my task today yet remains to speak on honoring motherhood.

We know, of course, even the primary children among us, that the maxim to honor motherhood is at least as old as the Ten Commandments that we read about in the Bible: “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land God gives you.” It’s expressed in such practical terms. If we honor our parents then we may live longer and better. Why is that? How could honoring our mothers help us live longer and better? Is it just a threat – she brought you into this world, and she can take you out – or is it a promise of something more? If it’s a promise, is it only for those lucky enough to have good mothers, or is it a promise to all of us? I’d like to explore the possibility that it’s a promise to all of us: whether we think we have good mothers or not, honoring our mothers may help us live longer and better. Let’s begin the exploration with some stories about mothers from the scriptures.

Heavenly Mother

In the Book of Revelation, we read of a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She’s pregnant and cries out in pain as she’s about to give birth. We also read of an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. Its tail sweeps a third of the stars out of the sky and flings them to the earth. The dragon waits for the woman to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment it’s born; but when she gives birth, the child’s snatched up to God, and the woman flees.

Then war breaks out in heaven. God and angels fight against the dragon, and the dragon and its demons fight back. But they’re not strong enough, and they lose their place in heaven. The great dragon’s hurled down to the earth, and its demons with it.

When the dragon sees that it’s been hurled to the earth, it pursues the woman who’d given birth to the child. The woman is given two wings of a great eagle, so she can fly out of the dragon’s reach. Then from its mouth the dragon spews water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent; but the earth helps the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river. Then the dragon’s enraged at the woman and goes off to wage war against the rest of her children.

The Mother of All Life

In the Book of Genesis, we read of a women who would be the mother of all life. We also read of a garden and a serpent more crafty than any other animal God had made. It says to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman says to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You shouldn’t eat fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden, and you shouldn’t touch it, or you’ll die.’”

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent says to the woman. “God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

When the woman sees that the fruit of the tree is good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she takes some and eats it. She also gives some to her husband, who’s with her, and he eats it. Then the eyes of both of them are opened.

Mother Earth

In the Book of Moses, we read that God shows the earth to a prophet. He sees Satan holding a great chain that veils the whole face of the earth with darkness, and Satan looks up and laughs as his demons rejoice. Angels descend out of heaven, and many of the people are caught up by its powers, but God looks on the rest of the people and weeps.

The prophet sees and asks, “Why do the heavens weep? How can you weep?”

“Look at these,” God answers, “I gave them their knowledge and agency. I told them to love each other and to choose me as their father, but they’ve no affection and hate their own blood. So Satan will be their father and misery their doom. The heavens and all my creations weep over them. Why shouldn’t they weep, seeing these will suffer?”

The prophet looks on the wickedness and the misery, and he also weeps, stretching out his arms. His heart swells wide as eternity, yearning, and all eternity shakes. He looks again on the earth, and this time hears a voice: “Wo, wo is me, the mother of men. I’m pained. I’m weary because of the wickedness of my children. When will I rest and be cleaned of the filth that’s gone out of me? When will my creator sanctify me, that I may rest?”

When the prophet hears the earth mourn, he weeps again, and cries to God: “Will you have compassion on the earth?”

The Mother of God

In the Gospels, we read of a women who’s expecting a child. While traveling, the time comes for the baby to be born, and she gives birth to a son. She wraps him in cloths and places him in a manger, because there’s no room for them.

In fields nearby, shepherds are watching their flocks when an angel appears to them. The glory of God shines around them, and they’re terrified, but the angel says, “Don’t be afraid. I bring good news of great joy for all people. Today a savior’s been born, and he’s the Messiah. You’ll find the baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

Suddenly many more angels appear and proclaim, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace.”

When the angels are gone, the shepherds say to each other, “Let’s go and see what’s happened.”

So they hurry off and find the woman, and the baby, who’s lying in the manger. When they’ve seen him, they spread the news about this child, and all who hear it are amazed at what the shepherds say, but the woman treasures up all these things and ponders them in her heart.

* * * * *

With these stories freshly in mind, let’s think about the breadth and depth of motherhood. There’s a mother like Mary that labored to form and give birth to your body from her own. Who filled the role of Mary in your life? Mother Earth perpetually sustains our breath as she graciously offers her abundance in return for our love. How well are we loving her? From the dawn of history through generations, our ancestors and community, as Eve, have nurtured and cultivated us in wisdom. Who has filled the role of Eve for us, in the past and around us now? There’s also your Heavenly Mother, who inspires you to love and light beyond yourself. Can you imagine her now? Expressed in them all, motherhood encompasses them all, and maybe we honor motherhood best when we honor all that it can mean and the relations between its many expressions.

When we think of motherhood in this way, broadly and deeply, maybe we can understand why honoring our mothers may help us live longer and better – why the commandment is a promise to us all. A mother brought you to life, and whether you find yourself near or far from her, another beckons to us, and yet another is always near to warm us on our way. If we take her hand, she may walk with us into eternity, than which there’s no longer or better life.

* * * * *

I recently asked the persons who fill the roles of Mary and Eve in my life, my mother, my grandmothers, and my wife, to share with me their thoughts about their relation to their Heavenly Mother. I’d like to share some of their thoughts with you.

My mother, Mary Cannon Smith, was born and raised in a home with a devout Catholic mother and, at the time, a less-devout Mormon father. As she matured, she considered becoming a nun, but her father encouraged her to attend Brigham Young University before making that decision. As you’d guess, my mother ended up converting to Mormonism, and rather than becoming a nun, she married my father. Here’s what she told me about her relation to her Heavenly Mother: “I love the last couple lines in the third verse of the hymn, ‘Oh My Father,’ which read: ‘In the heavens are parents single? No. The thought makes reason stare. Truth is reason: truth eternal tells me I've a mother there.’ This confirms what both my intuition and practical nature have always felt: there are patterns and order, established in our premortal existence and related to creation, that common sense would tell us continue through the ages. Motherhood is an eternal principle.”

My maternal grandmother, Stephanie Plumb, was the devout Catholic that raised my mother. She was born and raised in Massachusetts, and moved to Washington state after marrying my grandfather. Later in life, like my mother, she converted to Mormonism. Here’s what she told me about her relation to her Heavenly Mother: “Even when I was a Catholic girl, I always knew I had a mother in heaven.” At this point her voice cracked as she continued, “It has been everything in my life. I know where my Heavenly Mother is. I know she's watching over us.”

My paternal grandmother, Margery Cannon Wiscomb, was born and raised in Salt Lake City. She and my grandfather descend from Mormon pioneers. Here’s part of what she told me about her relation to her Heavenly Mother: “I do not pray to her, but I certainly honor, respect and cherish her as my Heavenly Mother. I believe she cherishes each one of her children and is interested in what we do; and like our Heavenly Father, she’s experienced mortal life, so she understands our situation.”

My wife, Dorothee Cannon, was born and raised in France. She and her family were also Catholic until her mother met some Mormon missionaries, which led to their conversions. Here’s what she told me about her relation to her Heavenly Mother: “I believe she’s the mother of my spirit, that she’s loving and nurturing, and that the love from a mother on earth can reflect the kind of love that our Heavenly Mother has for us.”

* * * * *

Motherhood has immeasurably enriched my own life. I love my strong mother, who has been and is my champion; my wise grandmothers, who have long shown me through their examples how to recognize and enjoy the best; and my beautiful wife, whose uncontainable kindness overflows into our children and all who know her. I’m grateful for the bountiful and fragile world that we all share; and particularly in this room, I’m grateful for our common trust that God is incomplete without our Heavenly Mother. With these thoughts and feelings, I wish you a happy Mother’s Day in the name of Christ. Amen.

Spirituality, Gospel and Christ in Mormon Transhumanism

Lincoln Cannon — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:51:00 +0000

Kyle Gregg recently attended the Mormon Transhumanist Association conference and wrote an excellent blog post about the conference and the association, entitled "A Mormon Critique of the Mormon Transhumanism Conference". Kyle says he's not a Mormon Transhumanist, but he's been a Mormon his whole life and has "a firm and examined testimony". In his post, he provided both pros and cons, as he sees them. I don't have anything particular to say about the pros except that I agree with them in general terms. Here are some of my thoughts regarding the cons he identified, with his words in quotes.

"While they make a bold attempt to combine science and technology with doctrine(the trans-part of transhumanism) they seem to be missing the ethical side(humanism). They try to explain the physical phenomena described in Mormonism but neglect the spiritual side(a BIG deal to Mormons). They may feel that normal Mormonism has that covered but as the movement stands it is unbalanced. They have plenty of technologist members but they need to recruit some ethicists and philosophers. People like Terry Warner, Blake Ostler or Jeff Reber."

There were many presentations either focused on or substantially related to ethics, and we do have ethicists and philosophers among our members, some of whom presented at the conference, but based on later comments from Kyle, I think he meant he would have liked to hear more about (and more explicitly about) some specific spiritual matters related to the core Gospel of Jesus Christ. As he points out, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which he and I are both members, rightly focuses its attention on the Gospel, and the Mormon Transhumanist Association is intended to complement (not replace) our members' individual religious affiliations. However, I agree with Kyle that increased explicit focus on the Gospel would be valuable, particularly if that attention includes elaboration on how the Gospel fits with and complements the other subjects we discuss.

"I saw no attempt to explain the place of the core doctrines of Mormonism within their paradigm. What is the place of faith? Of repentance? Of baptism? Of the Holy Ghost? And most importantly, what of Jesus Christ?"

I explicitly addressed these issues, before anything else, right at the beginning of my opening presentation, prior to the portion of my presentation that Kyle quoted in his blog post. I'd be interested in Kyle's thoughts on that opening portion of my presentation. In summary, I'll say that I'm a Transhumanist because of the Gospel (not despite it). We sould trust in (faith), change toward (repentence), and fully immerse our bodies (baptism by water) and minds (baptism by spirit) in the role of radically compassionate creators (Christ), as exemplified and invited by Jesus. We should also endure in that role, reconciling ourselves, our relations and world, through suffering and even death if needed, anticipating the day of transfiguration or resurrection to immortality in eternal life. Other speakers alluded to these issues as well. Perhaps part of the challenge, and the reason Kyle did not hear as much about the Gospel as I heard, is that the work to bridge differences in language between Mormonism and Transhumanism takes time, and of course we don't always do it as well as we might like. The effort is there, and hopefully increasingly better results will follow.

"If man will save himself through technology what did Christ do? Why do we need him? How does the atonement enable resurrection when you're arguing that science is what will enable it?"

"Christ" is the Greek word for "Messiah", which is the Hebrew word for "anointed", which Jews applied to persons they regarded as saviors. As Mormons, we're all called to be Christ, saviors for each other, following Jesus' example. We ritually baptize ourselves into that role, usually around eight years of age, and we're invited to imitate his sacrifice through service. Kyle's question, then, is not so much about Christ generally as it is about Jesus Christ specifically. As the Lectures on Faith put it, Jesus Christ is the prototype, the example, who raises our hearts and minds to our potential. Of course many Mormons think Jesus did something unique in kind, but I disagree with that idea. Rather, Jesus did something unique in degree. To a greater extent than any other in human history, he freed us, primarily by setting in motion a project that should ultimately result in the salvation of the entire human family beyond death and hell. A couple important aspects of that project are (1) all would hear the Gospel, and (2) all would be resurrected. We're all quite comfortable with the fact that Jesus doesn't personally do all the work to complete the first aspect of the project. Why are some of us uncomfortable with the need for us also to help with the second aspect of the project? After all, Jesus commanded his disciples not only to console and to heal, but also to raise the dead. Again, some Mormons think he meant temporary raising of the dead, but I think he meant exactly what he said without any qualifiers. We should be Christ, as exemplified by Jesus, and that means we too should raise the dead. How does this relate to the Atonement? The Atonement is the eternal reconciliation of bodies, minds, relations and worlds in immortality and eternal life. It is precisely in learning how to participate in the Atonement that we learn how to become Gods ourselves, in the most important sense. Jesus said we should do what we saw him do. He didn't put any qualifiers on that. So far as I can tell, that means we should join him in the Atonement, progressively to whatever extent we're able.

"If God is a transhumanist God, why implement religion as it functions today in the world as the means of knowing him?"

I also addressed this in my opening presentation, and I've written a lot about this on my blog and elsewhere. Basically, though, religion continues to evolve as it always has, in a feedback loop with our evolving minds, bodies and relations, as well as our world, which reflects the ongoing creative act of God. I see the influence and inspiration of God present systemically as a consequence of that ongoing creative act, but it's also a presence that seems to be subtle enough to nudge us progressively toward our own genuine compassionate and creative capacities, relinquished from the direct control of our creator. I don't think God has ever fully controlled the evolution of religion, but I do think God has always influenced the evolution of religion. Of course, accompanying the influence of God are other influencers, including human desires and wills, which also color the evolution of religion, including Mormonism. I'm a Mormon, not because I think we have exclusive access to God, but rather I think we all, Mormon and otherwise, have access to God, while Mormonism has manifest that access in ways that, at least for my family and me, have unique value.

"Second, I echo a question asked by one of the Key-note speakers at the Conference the esteemed Richard Bushman. This is a salvation by works organization. Where is the place for Grace? Some members tried to answer his question but their answers fell short for me. 'It is God's grace that allows us to do work' For Mormons grace doesn't just allow us to work, it ENABLES us to do it. The atonement doesn't allow us to save ourselves, it SAVES us."

I'm not sure how Kyle's response differs from the response he quotes. So far as I'm concerned, grace is opportunity. It's that simple. Without opportunity, we are nothing, and we depend constantly and pervasively on opportunity. With sufficient opportunity, which I trust we have or will have, we can become Gods. I'd be interested in any clarification that Kyle might be interested in providing related to this question.

"Third, there was no invitation to have anything they talked about confirmed by the spirit. In fact, THERE WAS NO OPENING OR CLOSING PRAYER. I am genuinely confused by this omission. A group of around 80 Mormons(some not) got together to talk about and consider ideas about God and man's very natures and did not pray for him to help them discern truth from error, to testify of truth, or to inspire them by the spirit. I left intellectually stimulated but not spiritually inspired."

I share Kyle's interests here. This year, we added music to the conference (awesome!), in an effort to promote spiritual sensibilities. We've also discussed including prayer, and I'm personally in favor of doing so. However, there are some concerns he might not have considered. Here's one that may particularly resonate with Kyle. We try to minimize external confusion about the relationship between the association and religious organizations with which many of our members are affiliated. We do not want anyone to perceive us as attempting to compete with the LDS Church, for example. Incorporating ritual like prayer may increase risk of confusion, but of course it also presents opportunities to express the mission of the association more fully. I'm interested in Kyle's perspective on how other non-Transhumanist Mormons might view a decision to include prayer at association conferences.

"Fourth, the movement doesn't seem to realize that it is primarily Mormon and only secondarily Trans-humanist. Additions to it's ranks are not going to be coming form the transhumanist camp but from the Mormon. The movement assumes Mormonism is true and wants to add onto that foundation. As such, vanilla Mormonism is the null-hypothesis and any additions, especially such extraordinary claims as these, require extraordinary evidences. According to Mormonism what form should these evidences take?"

I partially agree with this. Most members of the association do come from Mormon backgrounds. However, a small but significant portion of members come from Transhumanist backgrounds. We have no intention of moving away from our focus on Mormonism, but we do intend to continue our emphasis of ecumenical interpretations of Mormonism, which of course are highly compatible with the views of many manstream Mormons.

In closing, I'll add that I really like the last couple paragraphs of Kyle's blog post, wherein he expresses the importance of spirituality, and not just reasoning, in his contemplation of whether and how Transhumanism should be part of his life. I share his esteem for spirituality as a complement to reasoning, and would even go so far as to say that all the reasoning in the world is meaningless without accompanying spirituality. Epistemics and esthetics are essential to the power of each other. I thank Kyle for sharing his thoughtful observations, and I hope he will continue to engage me, Mormon Transhumanism and Mormon Transhumanists.

Believe it or not, PZ Myers is skeptical about Transhumanism

Lincoln Cannon — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:04:00 +0000

PZ Myers is a biologist, a self-described skeptic, and apparently an anti-religious zealot. He recently caught my attention because he spoke about Transhumanism at the Skeptech conference and mentioned Mormon Transhumanism. After gracing me with some "kind" interactions on Twitter, he posted a video of his presentation. Here are some quick observations and thoughts that I wrote while watching.

The beginning of PZ's presentation suggests that his knowledge of Transhumanism is dated. He references the Extropy Institute (closed since 2006) and the World Transhumanist Association (renamed Humanity+ since 2008). He also displays a list of science fiction authors that address Transhumanism, and the list omits one of the most notable, Charles Stross, who authored Accelerando in 2006. He may have recycled an old presentation based on a cursory examination of Transhumanism from a decade ago.

His first criticism of Transhumanism is that its goals don't make any sense. Presumably he's talking about Transhumanists' aspiration to posthumanity. He proceeds to frame that aspiration in terms of biological evolution, and criticizes it, saying: "With evolution you get change, but it's not linear. You can't predict what's going to come next. That's one important thing, and it's also a really peculiar thing to endorse." There are at least three problems with this framing and criticism. First, most Transhumanists don't merely aspire to any arbitrary posthuman evolution, but rather advocate directed change that corresponds with whatever values inform our particular forms of Transhumanism. Second, most Transhumanists don't think biological evolution should proceed merely as it has operated historically, but rather that we should inject ourselves volitionally into the process. Third, his claim that evolution cannot be predicted seems to have become increasingly controversial among professional biologists, some of whom make the case that knowledge of environment can provide predictability of evolution and control of environment can provide control of evolution.

PZ compares Transhumanists to Neanderthals speculating about their evolutionary future. The analogy is weak for at least a couple reasons. First, Neanderthals did not have a theory of evolution, and probably the closest they came to projecting changes to their nature, implicitly but only ignorantly, was through highly primitive God concepts. The theory of evolution provides a framework that makes the next weakness in PZ's analogy even more important. Second, Neanderthals did not have or even foresee technological interventions into biology of the magnitudes we already take for granted, and I imagine the closest they came to this was through crude tools for warfare and ritual. Without a conceptual framework for understanding biological change or tools to inject their interests into that change, Neanderthals are hardly useful as an analogy. Humans did not clearly recognize the cognitive and biological feedback loops on which Transhumanism depends until quite recently in our history, and awareness of change and potential for directing it (rather than the mere fact of change) is essential to Transhumanism. I would agree with PZ that the primitive beginnings of Transhumanism could be found in Neanderthals, and have always manifest themselves in evolving humanity, but I don't see how the analogy provides useful insight. Rather, I see mostly that it serves to denigrate, as PZ is fond of doing.

PZ says Transhumanists are generally focused on anagenesis or gradual evolution rather than peripatric or sympatric evolution that results in abrupt change, and repeats the criticism that we don't get to choose which direction evolution will proceed. This criticism reveals again that PZ has a shallow familiarity with Transhumanism, within which there are many varieties (which he does later acknowledge without recognizing how this weakens his earlier criticism), some of which focus on the risks associated with abrupt evolutionary change. Of course there are Transhumanists that suppose positive gradual change is inevitable, but most of us recognize both risks and opportunities associated with emerging technology and its relation with our evolution. Transhumanism is not merely technological cheerleading. It's about both the pursuit of opportunities and the mitigation of risks, neither of which we can do perfectly, but both of which we can do better, particularly as our knowledge and tools continue to improve.

PZ says those with the best technology don't always win. Strictly speaking, he's right of course, but does that mean we should resign ourselves to doing nothing, refraining from using our tools or planning how to use them? I suspect PZ visits doctors, pays his bills and makes investments, engages with some degree of respect toward persons he judges to have influence over his career, etc. In other words, PZ probably plans for the future and uses tools to help him do that, like most of us, because planning and tool-using seem like good ways of tipping the odds in his favor. That doesn't mean his future will turn out exactly as he hopes, but injecting his effort into shaping his future does seem to have some desired practical consequences. Transhumanists claim the same is true, and perhaps urgently so, of our efforts to plan for and use emerging technology. We wouldn't care so much if we thought our evolutionary destiny to be either entirely certain or entirely predictable. We care because it's uncertain and yet perhaps increasingly shapeable.

PZ mentions Mormon Transhumanism. Here's the quote, as best I could understand it through the laughter. "One of the weirdest things is that there is a Mormon Transhumanist Association [laughter]. It's very big. Mormons really like the idea of Transhumanism because it's their religion basically. I've also discovered, there in Mormon-land, there's a lot of science fiction fans in Utah, and that's again because their religion is just science fiction [more laughter]." As a Mormon Transhumanist myself, I actually agree with this to some extent. I'm also pleasantly surprised that he even knew about Mormon Transhumanism, given the older information he seems to have been working from generally.

PZ criticizes cryonics for being too optimistic about both the generosity and capabilities of future persons. He's a skeptic after all -- when in doubt, be as pessimistic as possible. It's odd, though, that he emphasizes the difficulty of reattaching preserved heads to new bodies, which suggests he doesn't understand prevailing theories behind the utility of cryonics. He goes on to compare cryonics advocacy to Pascal's wager (after prompting the audience for the obligatory ritual denigration of poor Pascal), and points out the world doesn't work that way. Of course he's right, but of course he can't resist characterizing Transhumanists broadly as ignorant of his sophomoric observation. To PZ's credit, he goes on to talk about some of the science behind cryonics, showing that some limited practical preservation has been achieved. He finishes the subject with a startlingly confident prediction that "if you're freezing your head right now with technology from the 21st century, you are irrevocably destroying all the cells in your brain, and there's no technology in the future that's going to recover them". I wonder if those Neanderthals he mentioned were as confident about what future technology would prove incapable of recovering?

PZ moves on to criticizing and equivocating (already problematic) immortalism and rejuvenation. He points out life expectancy is going up primarily because we're increasing the number of persons that live long enough to die of aging -- rather than from violence or accidents. PZ then says Transhumanists, who hope to extend life beyond the constraints imposed by aging, don't understand the Hayflick Limit. We don't understand, he claims, that the Hayflick Limit is good because it helps us avoid cancer. Of course he's wrong about Transhumanists, many of whom recognize the relation between the Hayflick Limit and cancer. Presumably he recognizes that his criticism is poor because he goes on to talk about how hard (impossible, in his estimation) it would be to avoid or repair cancer. He's certainly right that it would be difficult, and he may be right that it's impossible, but humanity has done many "impossible" things before and it seems reasonable to suppose we could do some more "impossible" things in the future. I'm not an expert in this field, but I'll happily point out that doing something "impossible" usually starts with someone who decides that it might not be impossible. In this case, given the opportunities presented to us if we can find a cure for cancer and aging, I'd certainly rather be wrong than not try. PZ, on the other hand, is a skeptic. That's his thing. I'm all for the utility of doubt as a complement to trust, but actually identifying as a skeptic is precisely the opposite of my inclination. While I'd prefer to be right, I'd rather aspire to too much than too little when operating beyond the bounds of my knowledge, because of the practical consequences of aspiration.

Next, PZ takes up the subject of uploading -- moving minds from biological to other bodies or substrates. He shows one Transhumanist group's prediction of the timeline for achieving such technology, and criticizes it (predictably) primarily through appeals to ridicule rather than to evidence. He then criticizes a particular method some Transhumanists have proposed for reconstructing brain function, and generalizes that "Transhumanists are stuck on a very primitive simple approach." While his particular criticism is probably accurate, his general conclusion is not. Transhumanists are plainly interested in improving (not merely remaining with any current) understanding how the brain works and how its functions may be replicated in other substrates, and yet of course none of us knows enough about the these things to satisfy our interests or enable our loosely hypothesized applications. Brain science continues to make exciting advances, and investments continue to fuel the research. We're certainly in for some surprises, whether we're skeptics or not.

Finally, he criticizes the Technological Singularity, particularly as presented by Ray Kurzweil. As usual, his criticism is mostly an appeal to ridicule, and this time it's quite short: Kurzweil picked historic events to show a trajectory that he wanted to show, and he's leveraging religious paradigms -- nothing could be more ridiculous than that! Perhaps due to time constraints, PZ pretty much ignores most of the evidence Kurzweil offers. I happen to be skeptical of the Singularitarian timeline myself, but I don't think we should be dismissive of it, for reasons I won't take time to explore here.

To summarize, PZ's argument against Transhumanism is that Transhumanists are ignorant of impossibilities and sometimes ridiculous. There's nothing novel in this criticism. I wonder what PZ thinks of Clarke's First Law. Maybe he has something in common with these skeptics.

Purpose of the Mormon Transhumanist Association

Lincoln Cannon — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 03:25:00 +0000

This is a transcript of my opening presentation at the 2013 Conference of the Mormon Transhumanist Association yesterday, 5 April 2013, in the Salt Lake City Public Library. The conference room filled beyond capacity this year with around 80 in-person attendees and more participating online via the live video stream. The association will soon make available a recording of this presentation, as well as recordings of all other presentations -- including the Mormon Transhumanist Barbershop Sextet! In the mean time, I look forward to your feedback on this transcript.

-----

Good morning, and welcome to the 2013 Conference of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. My name is Lincoln Cannon. I currently serve as president of the association by appointment of the board of directors, which is elected by voting members of the association. I’ll lead this morning session of the conference. On behalf of the association, thank you for being here. I’d like to start today by commenting on the purpose of this association.

The Mormon Transhumanist Association stands for the proposition that we should learn to become Gods, and not just any kind of God, not the God that would raise itself above others, but rather the God that would raise each other together. We should learn to become Christs, saviors for each other, consolers and healers, as exemplified and invited by Jesus.

Mormonism itself is an immersive discipleship of Jesus Christ. It’s not so much a religion about Jesus as it is the religion of Jesus. With Jesus, we would trust in, change toward, and fully immerse our bodies and minds in the role of Christ. We would also endure in that role, working to reconcile ourselves, our relations and world, through suffering and even death if needed, anticipating the day of transfiguration and resurrection to immortality in eternal life (a fullness that our afternoon keynote, Richard Bushman, will say more about). So while we may not be Christian by creed, we’re plainly Christian by Gospel (and I hope our special guest, Carl Teichrib, will comment on this while sharing his Christian criticism of religious Transhumanism).

Mormonism is also a school for prophets. The name of the religion itself reminds us of a book that would extend the Bible, in part by claiming yet other books would also extend the Bible. In turn, that book reminds us of a man that would speak and act for God, in part by saying everyone should speak and act for God. The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith are not fortune-tellers, but rather forth-tellers that would express a sublime esthetic, a Holy Spirit, provoking us to speak and act so as to fulfill their prophecies, in part by learning to become prophets ourselves.

For some, prophecy is not a living proposition, let alone religion or God. They wonder if we’ve not heard that God is dead, and they’re right to wonder. Following their Gods, traditional religions are dying, particularly in technologically advanced and prosperous places. Observing this, many have embraced the secularization hypothesis that religion itself is dying. However, that hypothesis is showing its age, and it’s now embraced more by anti-religious voices in popular culture than by experts, among whom another hypothesis is coming of age.

If God is merely a supernatural superlative, he very well may be dead, but positing such as God misses the function of God. God always has been and is at least a posthuman projection, an extension and negation of human desire, imagined and expressed within the constraints of human thought, language and action. That's not to say God is only so much. To the contrary, as demonstrated by the New God Argument, we've moral and practical reasons to trust that others have already realized posthuman projections (and I hope our special guest, Peter Wicks, will comment on this while sharing his atheist criticism of religious Transhumanism). However, no matter your attitude toward faith, God is at least this much: a posthuman projection. Understood in terms of that function, God clearly is not dead and never was, except perhaps to the extent recurring death is part of evolution.

Likewise, if religion is merely genuflection to the supernatural, it very well may be dying, but again that overlooks function. Most of us have regarded religion too narrowly, and much that’s supposed to be secular actually functions as religion. For example, some claim inspiration from science or ethics. Awe fills us as we contemplate the vastness of space or the voice of the people. Yet the inspiration is not merely in the reductionist implications of science or the procedural adjudications of ethics. Rather esthetics are woven through them, tying them together in meaning, and that’s why we care about science or ethics. Esthetics shape and move us, and at their strongest, they provoke us as a community to a strenuous mood. When they do that, they function as religion, not necessarily in any narrow sense, but esthetics that provoke a communal strenuous mood are always religion from a post-secular vantage point.

Of course, none of this means science or ethics should or even could be displaced by religion. To the contrary, science should continue to reconcile our contending accounts of experience, as ethics should our contending accounts of desire. Each should expand its reach to the uttermost, always better informing our esthetics, affecting each other in a feedback loop. Yet even as science and ethics increasingly empower us, let's not fool ourselves into supposing they'll ever be finished or sufficient in themselves. We care for and use them only in accordance with esthetics, which presents itself as foremost among them in the most vital moments of life, when we we must act, according to whatever wisdom and inspiration we might have. Life cannot wait.

How will we act? Will we see beauty in science? Will we feel unity in ethics? Will we care, and how much will we care? Could our degree of concern make a practical difference? These are questions that will matter to all except perhaps the most apathetic, escapist or nihilistic among us. It's not enough that we can describe our world through science or imagine a better world through ethics. We also want to make a better world. We can do that through engineering and governance, but it's also not enough that we can make a better world. We want to feel it, sometimes powerfully, and more: we want to share our powerful feelings with others in ways that move us together. As engineering and governance are action on science and ethics, religion is action on esthetics. As engineering and governance are the power of science and ethics, religion is the power of esthetics.

If we can raise our eyes from the altar of religious and anti-religous dogma, we’ll see that the hand raised to finish the dying God is the sign of the oath to the resurrecting God. If we can keep our eyes raised, resisting the carnage below, we’ll also see the hand is our own and it holds a blade that’s aged and stained. That’s when we have a choice, either to repeat the old sacrifices of our ancestors, or finally to make the new sacrifice that they always implied: we can put ourselves on the altar and learn to become Gods. Put differently, the negation of one posthuman projection always implies another until humanity chooses to become posthumanity.

Transhumanism is the ethical use of technology to expand our abilities from the human to the posthuman. For some, this conjures up images of comic book cyborgs with gun arms and laser eyes. Of course Transhumanism is partly about body enhancement, but you'd probably agree that a gun arm doesn't qualify as an enhancement, either practically or esthetically. For better examples, look at the technology that enhances you right now. Some of you are using computing devices that extend your ability to communicate. You might be watching through glasses, contacts or surgically-modified eyes, or listening through hearing aids or cochlear implants. You’re probably wearing clothing that enhances your ability to adapt to environmental change. Under those clothes, you might have implants or prosthetics. Through your blood, drugs may be relieving pain, heightening attention, or facilitating growth. That's just now. Think through the rest of the day leading up to this moment. Think through your life. Consider human history. If technologically-enhanced humans are cyborgs then we’ve always been cyborgs. At least in context of the past and present, that’s not particularly controversial. The controversy arises when we look forward. How will technology change us in a few years or decades? What about a thousand years from now? How many drugs, surgeries, prosthetics and other enhancements are there between humans and posthumans, as different from us as we now are from our prehuman ancestors? Is it possible to change that much? If so, should we?

Sometimes we talk about humans becoming more robotic or robots becoming more human. When we do, our language uses a dichotomy that is increasingly insufficient for describing not only the possibility space, but even the actuality space. Does a human receiving a prosthetic limb or an artificial heart become less human? Can a body originating from artificial DNA, conceived through an artificial process, or gestated in an artificial environment ever be human, even if it's eventually indistinguishable from a natural human? For that matter, how natural are the humans we actually know? Are agriculture and medicine natural? The blurring between natural and artificial is as ancient as the stick our distant ancestor wielded to extend her reach, and the leaves donned to enhance his skin. In an important sense, a synthesis of anatomy and tools made us human, empowering us above and differentiating us from our prehuman ancestors. In that sense, perhaps we've always been robots, for at least as long as we've been humans. Of course, when we think of robots, most of us usually think of cold metal or hollow plastic. If that's what robots are then we aren't and never should (or could) be robots.

Why do we want to enhance ourselves? The answer’s not new. We want to enhance ourselves for all the reasons we've made tools since the beginning of history. Tools empower us. So we'll continue to build more and better tools, and their synthesis with our anatomies will become increasingly seamless and intimate, because we want to and because we can, for the power it provides. Like all power, tools and their intimate evolution into body and mind enhancements are not inherently good or evil. Rather, they’re both risks to mitigate and opportunities to pursue according to whatever wisdom and inspiration we might have. On the one hand, tools can empower us against each other. Some hoard, and others deplete. Elites form, totalitarians control, and revolutionaries revolt. Artificial catastrophic risks well beyond those of nuclear weapons present themselves. Perhaps we could realize the worst interpretations of the Apocalypse. On the other hand, tools can also empower us for each other. Already we've used them to build, relate, console and heal in ways our distant ancestors imagined only Gods to have the capacity. Perhaps someday (and I can’t wait to hear more about this from our morning keynote, Aubrey de Grey) we might transfigure ourselves into ageless bodies. We might even resurrect each other as sublime minds that relate with unfathomable compassion and conceive thoughts that in themselves constitute nothing less than the creation of new worlds. In any case, Transhumanists affirm that we can and should change through continued ethical use of technology to expand our abilities from the human to the posthuman.

If you're a Mormon, you should be a Transhumanist. To identify as a "Mormon Transhumanist" is not at all redundant, but to identify as a "Transhumanist Mormon" is redundant, because Mormonism mandates Transhumanism. In other words, you can be a Transhumanist without being a Mormon, but you can't be a Mormon without being a Transhumanist, at least implicitly. Of course this is a controversial claim, but we can make an argument from Mormon scripture. Let’s begin with the premises.

First, God wants us to use ordained means to participate in God's work. This premise is based on scriptures like First Nephi 3, which says God prepares ways for us to accomplish his commands; Alma 60, which says God won’t save us unless we use the means he’s provided; and D&C 58, which says we shouldn’t wait for God to command us to engage in a good cause.

The second premise is that science and technology are among the means ordained of God. This premise is based on scriptures like First Nephi 17, where God commands Nephi to construct a ship to save his family; Alma 37, which says God gave Nephi a compass to guide his family to the promised land; D&C 88, where God commands us to study and teach everything from astronomy and geology to history and politics; and D&C 121, which says we will learn all the laws of the natural world before attaining heaven.

The third premise is that God's work is to help each other attain Godhood. This premise is based on scriptures like Third Nephi 12, where Jesus commands us to be perfect like God; D&C 76, which says God would make us Gods of equal power with him; and Moses 1, which says God’s work is to make us immortal in eternal life.

The fourth and final premise is that an essential attribute of Godhood is a glorified immortal body. This premise is based on scriptures like Ether 3, where the Brother of Jared sees that God is embodied; D&C 76, which says God has a body glorified like the sun; D&C 93, which says full joy requires a body, elements are the body of God, and intelligence is the glory of God; and D&C 130, which says God’s body is as tangible as that of a human.

From these four premises, we can reason. Since God wants us to use ordained means to participate in God’s work, and since science and technology are among those means, God must want us to use science and technology to participate in God’s work. Next, since God wants us to use science and technology to participate in God’s work, and since God’s work is to help each other attain Godhood, God must want us to use science and technology to help each other attain Godhood. Finally, since God wants us to use science and technology to help each other attain Godhood, and since an essential attribute of Godhood is a glorified immortal body, we can conclude that God wants us to use science and technology to help each other attain a glorified immortal body.

This conclusion is both a religious mandate, in that it purports to express the will of God, and a description of the Transhumanist project, advocating the ethical use of technology to expand human abilities. If we arrived at this conclusion by valid reasoning, which we did, and if we began with premises that accurately reflect Mormonism, as I believe we have, then Mormonism mandates Transhumanism.

Again, the Mormon Transhumanist Association stands for the proposition that we should learn to become Gods, and that science and technology complement religion and spirituality as means for doing so. Here’s how it’s expressed in the Affirmation that all association members support:

1) We seek the spiritual and physical exaltation of individuals and their anatomies, as well as communities and their environments, according to their wills, desires and laws, to the extent they are not oppressive.

2) We believe that scientific knowledge and technological power are among the means ordained of God to enable such exaltation, including realization of diverse prophetic visions of transfiguration, immortality, resurrection, renewal of this world, and the discovery and creation of worlds without end.

3) We feel a duty to use science and technology according to wisdom and inspiration, to identify and prepare for risks and responsibilities associated with future advances, and to persuade others to do likewise.

That’s the purpose of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, and that’s what we’ll do at this conference. We have an excellent lineup of speakers today, and I’m excited to be here. Next up, believe it or not, is the Mormon Transhumanist Barbershop Sextet!

My son asks, what does DNA look like?

Lincoln Cannon — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 21:43:00 +0000

Science project time came again, and my youngest son wanted to know what DNA looks like. He read some explanations of genetics and DNA for kids. We also found instructions on how to extract DNA from a strawberry, and they were safe and easy enough that he could do all the work himself after I gathered the needed materials. Check out the project and pictures below.

Do I want to be a robot?

Lincoln Cannon — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 07:48:00 +0000

If mind is consciousness then it may not make sense to talk of mind being replaced by an electro-mechanical computer. It seems it would make more sense to talk of the substrate of consciousness, the brain, as one computational substrate that could perhaps be replaced by another. Is it possible to make a fully functional artificial neuron? If so, would I necessarily lose or degrade the kind of consciousness I now experience (already punctuated by anesthesia, sleep and other lapses) if I were to replace one of my biological neurons with an artificial neuron? Would I necessarily lose or degrade consciousness if I were to replace my biological neurons with artificial neurons one at a time until they're all replaced? I don't know of any reason to conclude on such a necessity, and by implication I'm open to the possibility of moving my mind from one computational substrate to another. Of course, if the new computational substrate were not sufficiently like a biological brain, I would expect my consciousness to change. However, change in consciousness is not new to me, as I already remember expecting and experiencing change in consciousness, presumably as a consequence of natural brain development and aging, or perhaps as a consequence of injury or other less common events.

Who am I? I consider myself the same person that had a slightly different natural brain and perhaps a subtly different consciousness a decade ago. I also consider myself the same person that had a substantially different brain and a clearly different consciousness a few decades ago. I also incorporate in my identity both the infant I suppose myself to have been based on pictures and stories, and the embryo I suppose myself to have been based on education and induction. Identity is complex, constructed by ourselves and others, impinged upon by our anatomies and environments, but it can withstand some rates and degrees of change. If it's possible to engineer artificial brains, I don't know of any reason to conclude we could not engineer them to function well within the parameters of practically-acceptable rates and degrees of change, and thereby apply them while preserving identity.

As I understand them, the Mormon conceptions of spirit and spirit bodies are perfectly compatible with the hypothesis of substrate independent minds, and seem even to demand such a hypothesis. In our scriptures, we read that spirit is material, and it's associated with light. The scriptures also include the paradoxical notions that, in one sense, our spirits have existed forever, and in another sense, our spirits were created by God. To make sense of these ideas within the context of contemporary science and technological trends, I've come to think of spirit as information and spirit bodies as information organized into patterns of increasing complexity. Accordingly, spirit bodies, minds or consciousness would be information experiencing itself from the inside.

When we talk about humans becoming more robotic or robots becoming more human, our language uses a dichotomy that is increasingly insufficient for describing not only the possibility space, but even the actuality space. Does a human receiving a prosthetic limb or an artificial heart become less human? Can a body originating from artificial DNA, conceived via an artificial process, or gestated in an artificial environment ever be human, even if it's eventually indistinguishable from a natural human? For that matter, how natural are the humans we actually know? Are agriculture and medicine natural? The blurring between natural and artificial is as ancient as the stick our distant ancestor wielded to extend her reach, and the leaves donned to enhance his skin. In an important sense, a synthesis of anatomy and tools made us human, empowering us above and differentiating us from our prehuman ancestors. In that sense, perhaps we've always been robots, for at least as long as we've been humans. Of course, when we think of robots, most of us usually think of cold metal or hollow plastic. If that's what robots are then we aren't and never should (or could) be robots.

Why would we want to enhance ourselves? The answer is not new. We would want to enhance ourselves for all the reasons we've made tools since the beginning of history. Tools empower us. So we'll continue to build more and better tools, and their synthesis with our anatomies will become increasingly seamless and intimate, because we want to and because we can, for the power it provides. Like all power, tools and their intimate evolution into bodily enhancements are not inherently good or evil. Rather, they are both risks to mitigate and opportunities to pursue according to whatever wisdom and inspiration we might have. On the one hand, tools can empower us against each other. Some hoard, and others deplete. Elites form, totalitarians control, and anarchists revolt. Artificial catastrophic risks well beyond those of nuclear weapons present themselves. Perhaps we could realize the worst interpretations of the Apocalypse. On the other hand, tools can also empower us for each other. Already we've used them to build, relate, console and heal in ways our distant ancestors imagined only Gods to have the capacity. Perhaps someday we'll find ourselves transfigured, as suggested in the Bible and throughout Mormon scripture, into ageless bodies with sublime minds that are capable of relating to each other with unfathomable compassion and conceiving thoughts that in themselves constitute nothing less than the creation of new worlds.

Computed Comparison of the Book of Mosiah to the Bible

Lincoln Cannon — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:17:00 +0000

Available now is my computed comparison of the Book of Mosiah to the Bible, consisting of 60 pages of side-by-side text comparisons. This is part of the second edition of As One that Hath a Familiar Spirit, which I'm publishing both here on my blog and in my Scribd library. Subsequently, pending sufficient interest, I may also work toward publishing more formal print or ebook copies of the entire work. If you would be interested in purchasing a print or ebook copy, please let me know by clicking here. Here are some highlights from and observations about the computed comparison of the Book of Mosiah to the Bible:

Mosiah 1: 5 references Lamanites like Isaiah 1: 9 references Sodom and Gomorrah
Mosiah 3: 9-10 combines descriptions of Jesus from Matthew 20: 19 and Mark 10: 34
Mosiah 5: 2 uses "to do evil, but to do good" like Jeremiah 4: 22, but with the opposite application
Mosiah 10: 8 describes Lamanites' attire as Matthew 3: 4 describes John the Baptist's attire
Mosiah 12: 21-24 matches Isaiah 52: 7-10
Mosiah 12: 34-36, 13: 12-24 closely matches Exodus 20: 2-17 and less closely matches Deuteronomy 5: 6-21
Mosiah 14: 1-12 closely matches Isaiah 53: 1-12
Mosiah 15: 29-31 closely matches Isaiah 52: 8-10
Mosiah 16: 8, 10 uses language from 1 Corinthians 15: 53-56

Computed Comparison of the Book of Mosiah to the Bible

Also available now are the following:

Evil Gods will rise and fall they must

Lincoln Cannon — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 20:33:00 +0000

Technology is power, which may be used for good or evil, and technological trends increasingly suggest our future will include technology and its associated power beyond our present ability to imagine. The Benevolence Argument of the New God Argument concludes that any posthumanity, radically creative to the point of metacreativity in creating worlds of world creators, probably is more benevolent than humanity, corresponding with trust that God is good, basically because otherwise posthumanity would not have survived its increasingly complex technological ascendance long enough to attain and maintain such power. However, the Benevolence Argument is a probabilistic generalization. Despite constraints on intelligent purpose, those constraints may not be strong enough to prevent the rise of evil super-intelligence, at least periodically if not persistently, thus requiring perpetual diligence both in technological counter-measures and in compassionate education.

Among Mormons, we commonly speak of humanity's calling to take on the identity of Christ and become as God, immersing ourselves in a radical compassion and creation as exemplified by Jesus. This is the God we worship through emulation, but it's not the only kind of God, or at least would-be God, described in our scriptures. While Christ is described as the kind of God that would raise us together as joint heirs in God (Romans 8: 17), another is described as raising itself exclusively above all else called God (2 Thessalonians 2: 4). We commonly associate this latter would-be God with Satan. Mormon scripture and tradition also uniquely describe Christ and Satan both as brothers and as competing influences in a heavenly war that began before the beginning of our world (Moses 4: 1-4), that continues to be fought in our world (Revelation 12: 7-13), that will lead to apocalyptic battles before and after the Millennium (D&C 88: 110-114), and that takes place on "every earth that ever was created ... every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 14: 71-72). In short, Mormon scripture and tradition illustrate the idea of perpetual competition between good and evil super-intelligences, with good super-intelligence maintaining a general advantage.

While I hold that science and technology are necessary means for posthuman flourishing in creation and compassion, I certainly do not consider them sufficient means. Science does and will yet ever more profoundly inform our morality, but it cannot in itself establish our morality. Technology does and will yet ever more profoundly affect our morality, but we can only ever use it in a feedback loop with current morality. Science and technology, these increasingly ponderous endowments of knowledge and power, must be coupled with more: a sublime esthetic that provokes us to strenuous and enduring pursuit of compassion and creation. We must love compassionate creators with all our hearts and all our minds. We must love all humanity as our selves, not as we are, but rather as becoming compassionate creators. We must trust in and change toward radical flourishing in compassion and creation. So far as I'm concerned, these are the first principles of consolation, or the Gospel of Christ about which so much has been said, and these too are necessary means for the better world to which we aspire.

God always has been and is at least a posthuman projection. Our projections reflect us, our goods and our evils, and ultimately our esthetics. Our projections compete in an endless war for hearts and minds, and greater empowerment through words and actions, shaping worlds toward their increasingly concrete realization. Technology will empower posthuman realizations beyond our present ability to imagine. Evil Gods will rise and fall they must.

Computed Comparison of the Book of Jacob to the Bible

Lincoln Cannon — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 21:32:00 +0000

Available now is my computed comparison of the Book of Jacob to the Bible, consisting of 11 pages of side-by-side text comparisons. This is part of the second edition of As One that Hath a Familiar Spirit, which I'm publishing both here on my blog and in my Scribd library. Subsequently, pending sufficient interest, I may also work toward publishing more formal print or ebook copies of the entire work. If you would be interested in purchasing a print or ebook copy, please let me know by clicking here. Here are some highlights from and observations about the computed comparison of the Book of Jacob to the Bible:

Jacob 1: 7 repeats language from Hebrews 3: 8, which repeats language from Psalm 95: 8
Jacob 5: 42, 46 and 66 repeatedly associate the parable of the vineyard with Jesus' words in the synoptic gospels
Jacob 6: 6 repeats language from Hebrews 3: 7-8, which repeats language from Psalm 95: 7-8
Jacob 6: 7 associates the interpretation of the parable of the vineyard with Jesus' words in the synoptic gospels
Jacob 6: 11 uses "enter in at the strait gate" like Jesus in the synoptic gospels
Jacob 7: 14 expresses Jacob's words like Luke 22: 42 expresses Jesus' words

Computed Comparison of the Book of Jacob to the Bible

Also available now are the following:

Transhumanist Godhead

Lincoln Cannon — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 01:12:00 +0000

"Why does the Holy Ghost not have a body?" Someone raised this question in my son's class during church meetings, and the instructor asked the students to think about it at home during the week. Some of us are repulsed by such questions, either because we consider all theology to be a waste of time or because we consider speculation to be spiritually dangerous. Although I agree that speculative theology (is there any other kind?) presents the risk of superstition, I generally value and enjoy it for the opportunity it presents as an illuminator of our posthuman projections. As I've mentioned before, God always has been and is at least a posthuman projection. When we improve our understanding of each other's conception of God (or whatever else we choose to call our posthuman projections), we improve our understanding of each other's deepest motivations and aspirations, which of course presents substantial practical value in our relations with each other. The question raised in my son's class is no exception, so I share with you some of the thoughts I shared with my son.

In Christianity, the Holy Ghost is generally understood to be part of the Trinity or, as it's usually called by Mormons, "Godhead", along with the Father and the Son. Most Christians have adopted the description of the Trinity found in the Nicene creed. Mormons, however, have not adopted the creed. While we still describe the Godhead in terms of "the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost", most of us consider the Godhead to consist of three (or more, as I'll contend) distinct beings, reflecting ideas in Mormon scripture such as the following, which inspired the question in my son's class:

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit." (D&C 130: 22)

Consequently, you might think Mormon scripture, compared to the Bible, would downplay the unity of the Godhead. However, it does exactly the opposite, generally emphasizing unity even more. Here are three examples from the Book of Mormon:

"this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end" (2 Nephi 31: 21)

"sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God" (Mormon 7: 7)

"every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God" (Alma 11: 44)

In addition to emphasizing the unity of the Godhead in terms of "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost", Mormon scripture strongly associates the united Godhead with Jesus individually, explicitly identifying Jesus as the Eternal God (2 Nephi 26: 12), as well as the Father and the Son (Mormon 9: 12). The Book of Mormon even goes so far as to state its purpose to be "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God" (title page).

How do we make sense of this? How do we reconcile the idea that God is one with the idea that God is many? More importantly, how does our reconciliation of these ideas matter? What practical consequence does it make in our lives?

Most Mormons will tell you that God is one in purpose and many in person. Although three distinct beings, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost work together, we say. I like that, so far as it goes, particularly when we combine it with the doctrine of theosis. As Jesus is one with God, so we should be one with God (D&C 132: 20), that all may be perfect in one (John 17: 21-23), or in other words that all may be atoned. Although many in person, God is one in purpose. Again, I like this so far as it goes. It idealizes unity among persons without resorting to the nihilistic escapism of disembodiment, immaterialism or supernaturalism.

The scriptures, however, go farther. In the Bible, Jesus teaches us to be immersed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28: 19). Echoing the Bible, the Book of Mormon teaches us to immerse ourselves in the one God (3 Nephi 11: 25-27), which the Doctrine and Covenants describes as "infinite and eternal, without end" (D&C 20: 28). We read that Jesus is Christ the Son "because of the flesh" (Mosiah 15: 1-4), and that we too should be Christ the Son or the children of God (1 John 3: 1-3, Galatians 3: 26-27, and Colossians 1: 26-27). We read also that Jesus is God the Father "because [the Father] gave [Jesus] of his fulness" (D&C 93: 1-4), although "he received not of the fulness at the first" (D&C 93: 14), and that we too should become God in fullness (3 Nephi 12: 48, D&C 76: 95-96, and D&C 93: 19-20). In other words, as Jesus is the Son because he is an embodiment of God, as Jesus is the Father because he gains the fullness of God, and as Jesus is both the Father and the Son because he becomes a full embodiment of God, so we will become both the Father and the Son as we become full embodiments of God. We are invited not only to become God, one in purpose with the Father and the Son, but also to be the Son and become the Father, that they may be one in us, the embodied fullness of God, as exemplified by the resurrected and glorified Jesus.

When I think of these passages of scripture, a few connections come to mind. As "God the Father" and "Christ the Son" are titles or types that may be applied to us, so "Holy Ghost" is a title or type that may be applied to us. God the Father is postmortal Godhood, the fullness of physical and spiritual Godhood, or even posthuman Godhood. Any number of persons can be one in God the Father. Jesus invites us to follow his example of becoming God the Father. Christ the Son is mortal or human Godhood, or the beginning of physical Godhood. Any number of persons can be one in Christ the Son. Jesus invites us to follow his example of being Christ the Son. By implication, the Holy Ghost is premortal or even prehuman Godhood, or the beginning of spiritual Godhood. Any number of persons can be one in the Holy Ghost. Jesus invites us to follow his example of having been the Holy Ghost. God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God in Jesus; they should be one God in each of us; and together, we should be one God.

What does it mean to have been the Holy Ghost? When we think of becoming God the Father, we trust in and work toward a sublime future of radical creativity and compassion beyond human abilities, spiritual and physical. We set our future apart as holy and even divine. When we think of being Christ the Son, we speak and act in a sublime present, following Jesus' example of love and imitating his sacrifice through forgiving and helping each other. We make our present divine. Accordingly, when we think of having been the Holy Ghost, we make the past divine, reflecting scriptures that describe our past as that of the "church of the Firstborn", "in the beginning with the Father", uncreated intelligence, and "the light of truth" (D&C 93: 21-40). We raise our esteem and reverence for our past, to strengthen our trust in present capacity, thereby to facilitate and expedite our sublime future. If we are the children of God, we are reassured of our capacity to become as our parents.

Why do we say that the Holy Ghost doesn't have a body? I say it for the same reasons that I say God the Father is posthuman Godhood. I say it for the same reasons that I say Christ the Son is human Godhood. I say it because it's a definition, a title or a type, applied as a description or part of a description of a person. The Holy Ghost is prehuman Godhood. We should have been the Holy Ghost. It should be descriptive of our spiritual beginnings, as individuals and as a species. We should revere our origins as sublime, and this esthetic should abide with us, inspire us and even provoke us, strengthening our trust in Christ the Son and God the Father, our present and future as they should be.

Among Mormons, we sometimes remind each other to beware the philosophies of men, which I understand as a warning against any Humanism that would condemn us in present limitation. In its stead, may we embrace the philosophies of Gods, or a Transhumanism that would inspire us with a sublime past and provoke us to a sublime future of radical flourishing in creativity and compassion. May we realize our posthuman projections so that it will be said of us, as it was written of Jesus, that in us dwells the fullness of Godhead bodily (Colossians 2: 6-12).

Would it be moral to create a world like ours?

Lincoln Cannon — Mon, 31 Dec 2012 02:02:00 +0000

I trust our world was created by God, a radically compassionate posthumanity. After expressing this trust recently on the Singularity 1 on 1 podcast, a commenter asked how I justify the morality of creating worlds like the one we're now living in, or put differently and in traditional terms: how do I respond to the problem of evil? I've responded to this question here on my blog before, writing about "Gods of suffering and oppression" and "Becoming God can be cruel and irrational", and asking "Can non-benevolent super-intelligence persist?" Here are some additional thoughts I shared with the commenter.

Observing our world and the suffering throughout it, I share concern with the problem of evil. In fact, in regards to specific (emphasize "specific") evils, there is no justification whatsoever, so far as I'm concerned. Evil is evil precisely because its specifics are not justified or justifiable.

On the other hand, the risk of evil may be justified, if opportunity for good is possible only within a context that permits risk of evil, and I think that's the case. I cannot make any sense of the idea of a world that permits opportunity for good without risk of evil. It's just plain nonsense. Given that we observe evil, either there is no compassionate creator, or the creator is not primarily concerned with avoiding evil. Moreover, given the great evils we observe, either there is no compassionate creator, or the creator is not merely concerned with basic opportunities for good. To the best of my ability to judge, the only kind of compassionate creator that seems compatible with the full extent of evil that we actually observe and experience is one that wants nothing less than to create more genuinely compassionate creators, rather than any mere prosthetic extensions of itself; and the only way I can imagine the possibility of creating more compassionate creators, who in turn have genuine compassionate and creative capacity independent from their creator, is through some kind of progressive yet pervasive relinquishment, both anatomical and environmental, as a parent progressively relinquishes its child from conception through birth and on to maturity.

As we consider the morality and compassion of our creator, assuming we have one, we should consider our own morality and compassion. Most of us intentionally procreate biological children, and some of us seek to engineer artificial general intelligence. What justifies our choice to bring our children or artificial general intelligence into a world that will necessarily present them with the risk of evil, which inevitably exposes them to actual evil? The only answer that satisfies me is that the opportunity for good, in its ultimate form, is the opportunity to become a genuinely compassionate creator, and that opportunity merits the attending risk.

Computed Comparison of the Second Book of Nephi to the Bible

Lincoln Cannon — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:05:00 +0000

Available now is my computed comparison of the Second Book of Nephi to the Bible, consisting of 157 pages of side-by-side text comparisons. This is part of the second edition of As One that Hath a Familiar Spirit, which I'm publishing both here on my blog and in my Scribd library. Subsequently, pending sufficient interest, I may also work toward publishing more formal print or ebook copies of the entire work. If you would be interested in purchasing a print or ebook copy, please let me know by clicking here. Here are some highlights from and observations about the computed comparison of the Second Book of Nephi to the Bible:

2 Nephi 2: 11 introduces necessary "opposition" as Matthew 18: 17 introduces necessary "offences"
2 Nephi 4: 17 exclaims "o wretched man that I am" as does Romans 7: 24
2 Nephi 6: 6-7, 16-18 closely matches Isaiah 49: 22-26 with an interjection about "Mighty God"
2 Nephi 7-8 closely matches Isaiah 50-51 and the first two verses of Isaiah 52
2 Nephi 9: 50-51 closely matches Isaiah 55: 1-2 with an extended interjection
2 Nephi 12-24 closely matches Isaiah 2-14 with differences that are more interesting than similarities
2 Nephi 25: 20 references Jesus Christ using "there is none other name given under heaven" like Acts 4: 12
2 Nephi 27: 2-5, 15, 17, 25-35 closely matches Isaiah 29: 6-24
2 Nephi 30: 9, 11-15 closely matches Isaiah 11: 4-9 with 2 Nephi 30: 10 interjected
2 Nephi 33 expresses Nephi's words like John 19: 22 expresses Pilate's words

Computed Comparison of the Second Book of Nephi to the Bible

Also available now are the following:

Computed Comparison of the First Book of Nephi to the Bible

Lincoln Cannon — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 22:36:00 +0000

Available now is my computed comparison of the First Book of Nephi to the Bible, consisting of 58 pages of side-by-side text comparisons. This is part of the second edition of As One that Hath a Familiar Spirit, which I'm publishing both here on my blog and in my Scribd library. Subsequently, pending sufficient interest, I may also work toward publishing more formal print or ebook copies of the entire work. If you would be interested in purchasing a print or ebook copy, please let me know by clicking here. Here are some highlights from and observations about the computed comparison of the First Book of Nephi to the Bible:

1 Nephi 1 sets historical context with repeated allusions to Jeremiah
1 Nephi 5: 8 implicitly compares Sariah and Laban to Peter and Herod in Acts 12: 11
1 Nephi 7 may compare Lehi and Nephi with Samuel and Saul in 1 Samuel 10
1 Nephi 10: 8-9 mashes up descriptions of John the Baptist from John 1: 26-28 with Matthew 3: 3-4, 11 or a synoptic equivalent
1 Nephi 11: 6 describes the "Spirit of the Lord" like Mark 5: 7 describes a "man with an unclean spirit" (fundamentalists, eat your hearts out)
1 Nephi 11-14 repeatedly references eschatological phrases from Ezekiel 34: 6, Revelation 7: 9 and Revelation 21: 14
1 Nephi 17: 26 describes Moses like 2 Kings 2: 8 describes Elijah
1 Nephi 18: 13-21 describes a storm for Nephi's family like Mark 4: 37-40 describes a storm for Jesus' disciples
1 Nephi 20-21 closely matches Isaiah 48-49
1 Nephi 22 uses Acts 3: 22-25 rather than Old Testament passages referenced by Acts

Computed Comparison of the First Book of Nephi to the Bible

Also available now are the following:

As One that Hath a Familiar Spirit

Lincoln Cannon — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 19:10:00 +0000

If you are familiar with the Book of Mormon and the King James translation of the Bible then you know they contain many textual similarities. Nephi extensively quotes Isaiah. Jesus repeats to the Nephites many of his words recorded in the Gospels. Moroni teaches of charity with words nearly identical to those used by Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians. These examples are three of the more familiar similarities, and are hardly exhaustive.

The similarities provide interpretive insights for Mormons engaged in devotional study of their scriptures. Subtle changes in Isaiah’s words as quoted by Nephi may increase clarity or breadth of applicability. Jesus’ repetition may emphasize the relative importance of some teachings. Moroni may tie the same ideas expressed by Paul to additional ideas that Paul did not address.

The similarities also pose interesting questions for Mormons committed to Book of Mormon historicity. How could Nephi have quoted parts of Isaiah written after Nephi left Jerusalem for the Americas?¹ Why would a translation of Jesus’ words from Greek so closely resemble a translation of his words from reformed Egyptian?² How could Moroni have repeated words nearly identical to those used by Paul when the two lived half a world apart? Joseph F Smith, sixth president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,³ commented:

"I do not know that I can say that the Church as yet has settled upon any explanation which could be regarded as an authoritative view on the subject. Each one has been left to settle the matter upon the lines which seem most reasonable to him. We have no word from the Prophet Joseph Smith, or those who were immediately associated with him in bringing forth the Nephite record, to aid us in a solution of the matter. We are left, therefore, very largely to conjecture."⁴

Mormon apologists have proposed various explanations. Parts of the book of Isaiah may be older than most scholars recognize.⁵ God may have syntactically revealed Jesus’ words to Joseph Smith as he translated reformed Egyptian.⁶ Both Paul and Moroni may have quoted a document written before Nephi’s departure from Jerusalem.⁷ Perhaps Joseph Smith used the Bible while translating the Book of Mormon.⁸ Joseph F Smith trusted that this subject “would in time be satisfactorily settled”.⁹

If ever that time comes, when both apologists and skeptics acknowledge a satisfactory settlement, it will be the result of a holistic explanation. Such an explanation must account for the full extent and complexity of textual similarity between the Book of Mormon and the Bible, and that is possible only in context of a thorough presentation of their similarity. To that end, I have worked to present in detail a textual comparison of the Book of Mormon to the King James translation of the Bible.

In May 1998, I published the first edition of my work, As One That Hath a Familiar Spirit: A Parallel Textual Comparison of the Book of Mormon to the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible.¹⁰ A few months earlier, in December 1997, I began a manual computer-assisted process of comparing the texts. Using Infobases’ LDS Collectors Library¹¹ on a laptop computer,¹² I opened the Book of Mormon in one window and a search dialog scoped to the Bible in another window, side by side. I typed or copied text from the Book of Mormon to the search dialog, ran the search, reviewed results, and noted all that seemed sufficiently similar -- an admittedly subjective process. Verse by verse, phrase by phrase, and often word by word, I repeated the process until, in February 1998, I completed the comparison. After several weeks editing, eliminating weak similarities, highlighting common words, compiling an index, and incorporating feedback from family and friends, the final product was 112 pages¹³ of similarities.

I'm now prepared to publish a second edition, which is entirely computer-generated. The algorithm is basically the same process I learned and used while producing the first edition, except that it relies on objective calculation of improbable similarities¹⁴ instead of subjective assessment of significant similarities. During spare time in 2005 and 2006, I automated the algorithm in a software application,¹⁵ which of course dramatically improved the speed and accuracy of the process when compared to performing it manually. However, my attention refocused,¹⁶ and I did not publish anything at that time. In 2012, I decided to make a few improvements to the software application and publish a second edition textual comparison of the Book of Mormon to the Bible.

Over the coming weeks, I'll publish sections of the second edition to my Scribd library, as well as here on my blog. Available now are the following sections:

After publishing all the sections to my Scribd library, pending sufficient interest, I may also work toward publishing more formal print or ebook copies of the entire work. If you would be interested in purchasing a print or ebook copy, please let me know by clicking here. Thanks for your support.

The Book of Mormon places Nephi in the Americas around 600 BCE, and most scholars date some quoted portions of Isaiah to the time of Jewish exile in Babylon around 550 BCE.
The King James Version of the Bible is a translation from Greek. Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon religion, claimed to translate the Book of Mormon from “reformed Egyptian” characters on gold plates.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is sometimes referred to as the “LDS Church” or the “Mormon Church”. It is the largest denomination of the Mormon religion.
Roberts, B. H. Defense of the Faith and the Saints. Vol. 1. Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1907. 271-73. Print.
Gileadi, Avraham. The Apocalyptic Book of Isaiah: A New Translation with Interpretative Key. Provo, Utah: Hebraeus, 1982. 194. Print.
Skousen, Royal. "How Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript." Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7.1 (1998): 22-31. Print.
Sperry, Sidney. "Literary Problems in the Book of Mormon Involving 1 Corinthians 12, 13 and Other New Testament Books." Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4.1 (1995): 166-74. Print.
Roberts, B. H. Defense of the Faith and the Saints. Vol. 1. Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1907. 271-73. Print.
Ibid.
Cannon, Lincoln. As One That Hath a Familiar Spirit: A Parallel Textual Comparison of the Book of Mormon to the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 1998. Print.
LDS Collectors Library. Provo, Utah: Infobases, 1996.
My laptop computer ran the Microsoft Windows 95 operating system and contained an Intel Pentium II processor, capable of 855 million instructions per second (MIPS). By comparison in 2012, the processor in an iPhone 4 is more than twice as fast at 2,000 MIPS, and the Intel Hexacore Core i7 processor is fifteen times faster at 13,000 MIPS.
Each of the 112 pages in the first edition was 8.5 by 11 inches with .5 inch margins and 10 point font.
The algorithm compares each set of ten consecutive words in one text to each set of ten consecutive words in another text. It identifies matching words between the two sets. Then, based on the frequency at which the matching words appear within both texts generally, it calculates the probability that the matching words would appear together within a set of ten words selected randomly from both texts. The resulting probability is a decimal between one and zero. The algorithm converts this decimal into the absolute value of its logarithm rounded to the nearest integer, which provides an improbability magnitude. Since the most interesting matches are the most improbable, the algorithm returns only matches with high improbability magnitudes. In this case, I set the algorithm to return only matches with an improbability magnitude of 13 or higher, which approximately corresponds to a probability of .0000000000003 or lower.
I coded the software application in C#.NET, SQL and XML, and ran it on various Microsoft Windows operating systems and Microsoft SQL Server databases.
From 2006 to 2012, I focused most of my spare time on organizing the Mormon Transhumanist Association and developing the New God Argument.

Letter to My Son's Seminary Teacher on the Gospel and Human Evolution

Lincoln Cannon — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 09:04:00 +0000

Dear brother,

I'm the father of one of your seminary students. He mentioned to me that a student asked about human evolution yesterday, and that you do not have a favorable opinion of it. I'm writing to share with you my thoughts and feelings on the subject, hoping that you'll share some of them with the students in your class so that they may know Mormons have differing perspectives on human evolution, and yet despite those differences we affirm our common trust in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Evolution is among the best established principles of science. An extraordinary confluence of evidence from the disparate domains of anatomy, embryology, biogeography, geology, paleontology, genetics, biochemistry, ecology, ethology, neurobiology, and molecular biology supports evolution, including human evolution.

Evolution is also among the most useful principles of science. Innumerable applications in the domains of conservation, agriculture, medicine, biotechnology, psychology, computation, forensics, and genealogy make our world, bodies, minds and relations better.

More importantly for the purpose of this message, evolution is compatible with the doctrine of Jesus Christ. Faith, repentance and baptism: these, neither more nor less, are the doctrine of Jesus Christ. As I understand this doctrine, it invites us to trust in Jesus, change to be more like him, completely immerse ourselves in discipleship, and be one: take the name, feel the spirit, say the words, and do the acts of Christ. If we are to fill the full measure of Christ, change is essential. Our minds and relations must change, and so must our bodies and world change, transfigured and resurrected beyond present notions of suffering and death, toward equal power and grace with God. This is eternal progression, and it should make Mormons the world's foremost advocates of evolution.

Of course, we may understand the scriptures or evolution in ways that would contradict each other, but I believe such understandings are neither necessary nor correct. Here are a three examples.

First, some suppose God did not use evolution to create humans because the scriptures say we were created in the image of God, and they interpret that to mean humans were created directly in our current anatomical form. Consider, though, that we also rightly say our own children are created in our image, despite the fact that they begin their development as embryos. By analogy, we can say we were created as Gods in embyro, directly with the potential image of God and indirectly with the actual image of God, toward which we're still developing.

Second, some suppose God did not use evolution to create humans because the scriptures say there was no death before the fall of Adam, and they interpret that to mean Adam had no prehuman ancestors. However, the scriptures also say there is no life where there is no death, Adam is many, and Adam is male and female. Accordingly, we may say Adam is all humanity, falling forward from our Eden of innocence, conceptualizing life and death for the first time, and gaining moral agency both as a species and as individuals.

Third, some suppose God did not use evolution to create humans because evolution, as they understand it, is random. However, this is an erroneous understanding of evolution. Evolution is not random. The better we know environmental variables, the better we can predict evolution. Indeed, to the extent we can set environmental variables, we can control evolution. Recognizing this, it's not hard to imagine God creating a world that is systemically relinquished to creative agency and yet predictably generative of more compassionate creators.

Even if you disagree with the specifics of my understanding, I hope we can agree on the general possibility of reconciling the scriptures with human evolution. As Mormons, we do not strictly subscribe to scriptural inerrancy, infallibility or literalism; and we believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things. Perhaps our ancestors were not ready to understand evolution, and perhaps science is one of the ways God reveals important things. Along those lines, here are some thoughts from Brigham Young and Gordon B Hinckley:

"Now about the rib: as for the Lord taking a rib out of Adam's side to make a woman of, he took one out of my side just as much. 'But, Brother Brigham, would you make it appear that Moses did not tell the truth?' No, not a particle more than I would that your mother did not tell the truth when she told you that little Billy came from a hollow toadstool. I would not accuse your mother of lying any more than I would Moses. The people in the days of Moses wanted to know things that were not for them, the same as your children do when they want to know where their little brother came from; and he answered them according to their folly, the same as you did your children." (General Conference Discourse by Brigham Young in October 1854)

"But in a larger sense this has been the best of all centuries. In the long history of the earth there has been nothing like it. The life expectancy of man has been extended by more than 25 years. Think of it. It is a miracle. The fruits of science have been manifest everywhere. By and large, we live longer, we live better. This is an age of greater understanding and knowledge. We live in a world of great diversity. As we learn more of one another, our appreciation grows. This has been an age of enlightenment. The miracles of modern medicine, of travel, of communication are almost beyond belief. All of this has opened new opportunities for us which we must grasp and use for the advancement of the Lord’s work." (General Conference Discourse by Gordon B Hinckley in April 1999)

Before I close, please know that I'm deeply inspired by human evolution. I still recall the day it struck me, the way inspiration does, in an experience and feelings more persuasive and transformative than reasoning alone. At Yellowstone National Park, watching a bear walk leisurely through a grassy field between my car and the woods, I suddenly saw myself in the bear and the bear in me, was awed by the similarities between us, and sensed a profound kinship. From that day of inspiration to this, I've embraced evolution for spiritual reasons.

Thank you for reading this message. Thank you also for the work you do to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with my son and other students. I hope you'll share some of my thoughts and feelings with them, and so affirm the value of our common trust in the Gospel, even when we might disagree on other matters.

Amicably yours,

Lincoln Cannon

The Altruist God of an Egoist Atheist

Lincoln Cannon — Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:30:00 +0000

Think of an egoist atheist. What comes to mind? Here's what doesn't come to mind: trust in an altruistic god-like extraterrestrial. That, however, is only because you don't know this egoist atheist: Forbidden Truth ("FT"). Now, some will think that I'm intending "egoist" as an external judgment or insult, but that's not the case. FT actually identifies both as atheist and egoist. FT also happens to identify as immortalist; in other words, FT values and trusts in the possibility of immortality achieved through technology. However, FT also trusts that "the only real possibility of humanity achieving technological immortality is via extraterrestrial intervention", thereby implying trust in the possibility of god-like power and altruistic behavior among extraterrestrials. When asked about these implications, FT affirms "life very likely exists outside of earth", although it "has nothing to do [with] religion".

Why does this interest me? It's not just that this particular case is entertaining in its obvious irony, but also that the extremity of this case clearly illustrates a prevalent irony that is not always so obvious because it's generally more subtle: some atheists trust in that which at least functions as God and perhaps is "God" for some theists. This trust is expressed by nearly all atheist Transhumanists, whose ideology connotes trust in posthumanity: our god-like future. Many of these atheists (including some as celebrated as Ray Kurzweil, and some of my close friends) suggest that God just doesn't exist yet. However, they're overlooking the function of God as well as the practical implications of their trust in posthumanity.

Below I present my conversation with FT, edited for syntactical clarity. As you read it and recognize the ironies, consider how these ironies present themselves in more subtle ways in the thoughts of other atheists with whom you might interact, and perhaps in your own thoughts.

FT: The afterlife myth is the most directly poisonous aspect of the god myth, because it makes death not just tolerable, but attractive.

Lincoln: Mormon scripture calls death an "awful monster" and situates heaven on Earth in material bodies.

FT: Belief in god is harmful on many different levels, even if it were to inspire technological immortality. The questions are, what demands does this god myth make, and will this religion honor eternal life via technology?

Lincoln: Right. The question should not be whether one believes, but how one believes. What does the belief provoke? I agree that some kinds of belief in God can be harmful.

FT: Religions that promise afterlife upon death devalue life, and destroy inspiration to seek technological immortality. Belief in god is intrinsically harmful because all religious doctrine is shaped by men with malicious objectives.

Lincoln: Some conceptions of afterlife promote escapism and nihilism, but some religions posit material resurrection. I agree some religion reflects malicious intent, but experience teaches me some religion is inspired of good.

FT: The myth of material resurrection after you die is overtly harmful. Death itself must be proactively avoided. Religion cripples human progress, it is a weapon of fear used by political and social leaders to oppress humanity.

Lincoln: The idea of material resurrection is not always harmful when accompanied by that of material transfiguration. Material transfiguration alone can be harmful to persons who don't want to live without lost relations. I agree religion is sometimes used to oppress, and it's sometimes used to liberate. Religion is a form of power, not good or evil in itself, but rather to be used for good or evil.

FT: Weakness and dependency of the human mind is partly genetic, but partly inspired by external destruction of ego. People who need religion to liberate themselves are simply trading in one prison for a different prison. Religion is a weapon, and this weapon is under the control of malicious leaders who use it to oppress. For technological immortality to become a reality, individuals must see themselves as gods, not external phantoms.

Lincoln: I agree that the base of religion should be trust in and change toward creative compassionate posthumanity. Both egotism and nihilism are detrimental to flourishing. Salvation is not merely an individual matter, but rather is both individual and communal. Like all power, religion can be both a weapon of destruction and a tool of creation.

FT: No, the ego is vital to the thriving of the individual. Only a powerful ego can manifest genuine Self-love. Personal salvation must be pursued within ego and Self-love, your immortality is unacceptable if I am denied it. But every mainstream religion imposes an external god figure of authority, making Self-godhood untenable.

Lincoln: I agree that an altruistic ego, with altruism including others and self, is essential to flourishing. Some religions, such as Mormonism, teach we should become equal with God. Greater than love of the self is love of the posthumanity in the self, and we're inter-dependent in that.

FT: That's not enough. I must be Superior to god. I must be empowered to become god to Myself. Without Me there is no universe, the universe only exists as long as I exist, this is healthy, Truth-rooted ego.

Lincoln: How can a community of Gods survive? Can there be only one? How can two Gods that would be above all others survive each other? Love extends beyond itself, attributing meaning and relinquishing power beyond itself.

FT: Treat yourself as a god and you treat Me as a god. Treat yourself as a slave and you have mainstream religion. If every individual embraced himself as a god, the external figurehead would be rendered non-existent.

Lincoln: To the contrary, only by esteeming each other as Gods will we survive - egotism will destroy us. I agree that we should raise each other together in Godhood.

FT: Nobody is esteeming others as gods, except for the charlatans like Osteen and Robertson who demand it under threat. Being considered a god by others is absolutely worthless unless you fully recognize yourself as a god.

Lincoln: I agree. Both egotism and nihilism are destructive.

FT: That's not what I'm saying, so you are not really agreeing with Me. But that's okay.

Lincoln: It's nihilistic not to love yourself, and you cannot love others or be altruistic if you are nihilistic.

FT: Without fully embracing a powerful ego and a sense of personal narcissism, Self-love is only a shadow illusion. A key point however, is how much determination and urgency is put into the effort. If you believe in an afterlife upon death, determination to achieve technological immortality will be diminished.

Lincoln: For many, determination is diminished by the thought that dead loved ones have no chance of resurrection.

FT: The Truth is, unless they are cryogenically preserved they have no chance. Truth must be accepted to move forward. For this very reason, powerful ego, personal narcissism, and unconditional Self-value and Self-love must be cultivated.

Lincoln: The truth is that we don't know enough to reduce resurrection possibilities to cryonics. Sounds like you're alluding to Nietzsche, but he appeals to virtue of friendship and love beyond self.

FT: I appreciate Nietzsche, but I am stating obvious Truth, a powerful ego dissipates the role of others in your life. If your brain cells rot away there is no hope of reanimation, but if they are cryogenically preserved, there is.

Lincoln: Obviously egotism reduces others' role in your life, but that can hurt as much as help you. Why doesn't trust in cryonics weaken work toward immortality? Why not trust in quantum archeology?

FT: Dependency is extremely harmful on many levels, all personal empowerment paths must eliminate it. First, I do not think cryonics will allow for successful reanimation, so it is inaccurate to say I "trust" in it. Cryonics offers a remote possibility for personal immortality, while burial or cremation offers NO possibility. I DO agree that in a very real way, embracing cryonics as a path to immortality DOES weaken the most important work. All technological and scientific resources must be devoted towards preventing death, not preservation of dead. Because despite a grounding within science, quantum archeology involves giant leaps of faith. Logic dictates it is far more difficult to recreate something out of nothing, than preserve what already exists. Humans are always approaching problems from an upside-down perspective. Quantum archeology is an example of this. You already HAVE life, it is illogical not to devote every resource towards eternal preservation via technology. Stop putting cart before horse, after you achieve technological immortality, then you work on quantum archeology.

Lincoln: I agree with the priority you suggest, but disagree with demotivating persons by unnecessarily removing hope. This suggests you place no value in lost relations, and that simply isn't true of most persons. It's not illogical to devote resources to that which I value, which is inclusive of and more than my values. Rejecting hope in resurrection, you unnecessarily diminish value of life for those who value lost relations. As I don't have sufficient evidence to prove, you don't have sufficient to disprove quantum archeology. Quantum archeology wouldn't recreate from nothing, but rather would reorganize from persisting effects. Indeed, as quantum archeology requires faith, so does your trust in the possibility of immortality. In the strictest sense, independence doesn't exist; we must be inter-dependent, and not merely dependent.

FT: No, this diminishment is necessary in order to inspire the urgency of mind that technological immortality requires. Independence of mind, of philosophical spirit, ego that demands personal immortality at every cost, is positive. I absolutely place no value on lost relations, to allow this weakness to subvert immortality is unjustifiable. If you do not value yourself enough to desire immortality regardless of your companion creatures, you fail the ego test. It is completely illogical to devote resources to "raising the dead" instead of preserving the living. Science and technology have already proven that various lower level forms of immortality are achievable. Your path to immortality is far less workable than mine, it has elements of mysticism and faith.

Lincoln: You're deceiving yourself if you think your path to immortality is devoid of faith. Superlative immortality is meaningless, and other forms of immortality require dynamic contextual maintenance. Depending on what you mean by "mysticism", you may be weakening the strength of your ideas by rejecting it. You promote the opposite of urgency when you remove hope in that which persons actually value. That's an important difference between you and others: most of us value relations beyond. For most of us, immortality without relations has less value than relations without immortality. I value friends and fellow creators, raising each other together, and not those that raise only themselves. Ego is enduringly creative only to the extent it is altruistic, considering both itself and others. I agree raising the dead without preserving the living would be impractical, as would be preserving the living without raising the dead. We need both.

FT: You don't need both. You have convinced yourself you need both because you are emotionally dependent upon others. To be willing to sacrifice personal immortality because you can't bring specific creature along, is just dumb. That is completely illogical and a profound betrayal of Self. This attitude cripples intellectual progress. If given the chance to enjoy technological immortality but without currently known "friends", you would reject it? To sacrifice yourself because somebody else is going to be sacrificed is the absence of ego, a great tragedy. My path is devoid of faith. Faith grants legitimacy to mystical and religious theories, which are invalid.

Lincoln: Your criticism of faith here is circular, and you have faith nonetheless. In practice, intellectual progress depends on whatever actually motivates that progress. Sacrifice is dumb only relative to your values. Be aware of your values and how they differ from others'. I agree we should avoid nihilism, but egotism is not the only or best alternative. I would accept immortality, and work to extend it to others. Are you emotionally dependent on yourself? Is something inherently wrong with emotional inter-dependence?

FT: Yes, there is something inherently wrong in not being able to meet your own emotional needs. I control and dictate My own emotions to Myself. As such My emotions are only dependent upon My intellect. Progress depends upon ego, you must want something such as technological immortality with personal passion. At least you have a logical priority on this point.

Lincoln: If you believe emotions are independent of the context in which you find yourself, you're deceiving yourself. I agree that progress depends on desire, but it doesn't depend on my desires alone. Take away relational possibilities, and you'd have many fewer persons working toward immortality with you. What is inherently wrong about needing relations? Apart from relations, does "wrong" mean anything?

FT: It is a form of personal weakness, it makes you vulnerable to manipulation, control, victimization by others. I know that emotions are false flags, invoked by many external factors that I can and do intellectually control. Humans are genetically weak on many different levels, emotional dependency and enmeshment is prime example.

Lincoln: Relations are not merely risks. They are also opportunities. While mere dependency is a weakness, inter-dependency is the basis of our technological civilization. If you think you can and do control those external factors fully then you're deceiving yourself.

FT: Opportunities to be manipulated, controlled, victimized by the needs of others. No thanks. Emotional dependency AND inter-dependency is the most harmful form. I control them to a great degree, more so than almost any other human, as I have devoted My life to this goal.

Lincoln: Forgive my skepticism that you're such an outlier, although I suspect you're more aware than average. Many of the greatest joys in my life have been relational, with family and friends. I'm not using "inter-dependence" to mean co-dependence.

FT: I understand the distinction, inter-dependence is not as toxic as co-dependence, but still harmful, especially emotionally. That's good for you, but consider, maybe these "greatest joys" would pale in comparison to Self-generated joys? It is My ego that allows Me to realize just how unique and special I am.

Lincoln: You are unique and special. You are not unique or special in being unique and special. Many of the greatest joys in my life have been personal, but they're not mutually exclusive with relational. Why don't professional therapists agree that selfish egotism is the best alternative to selfless nihilism?

FT: All psychologists and psychiatrists serve society and government, their goal is not enlightenment or Truth. I am more unique and special to Myself than the typical human, because I fully recognize, embrace My specialness. The enmeshment of relationships that develops over time is based upon inability to fulfill personal needs.

Lincoln: You're unique and special, but you're neither unique nor special in your egotism. Fulfillment of some desires, such as creator love, is possible only through cultivation and not force. Why is it not possible that you're mistaken in your assessment of the value of selfish egotism?

FT: Because I see what self-sacrifice has done to the world, the horrors humanity wreaks upon itself and the universe. What makes Me so unique & special is My determination to uncover and embrace and manifest all Truth within Self. The Superior chooses his desires, controls what he desires just as he controls his emotions.

Lincoln: If that's superiority, it will be short lived. Long lived power depends on cultivation of creators. Most of us don't want to be your prosthetics, so you'll encounter some problems with your aspiration. Some sacrifices are selfless nihilism, and others are empowering investments.

FT: If you find strength in dependency, stick with it. Humans almost never choose Truth over comfort, unlike Me. I sacrifice that which I choose to consciously not desire, need, or want, using the power of My intellectual mind. I have succeeded in manifesting Truth within Myself, on every level, intellect, emotion, and practical life path choice.

Lincoln: You have not manifest all truth exclusively in yourself unless you are all that exists. Shall we test how well that works out for you in a vacuum? Are you dependent on the innumerable persons that are making this Twitter conversation possible?

FT: No, because I have no dependency on this twitter conversation itself. I choose to engage in it. If I awoke tomorrow to find Myself the only human alive on earth, I would be delighted. I have uncovered and embraced all primary Forbidden Truths of life.

Lincoln: Do you choose to engage in the biosphere? Would you be delighted to kill the other humans on Earth? Would you delight in losing possibilities of technological civilization with its innumerable dependencies?

FT: If I had the choice, I would keep air, trees, water, and animals on earth, but not humans, except for Me, of course. I have no specific need or desire for most technologies, and recognize humans use technology for genocidal harm. Humanity as a species does not deserve the gift of life. Specific humans such as Myself do.

Lincoln: So you're dependent on the biosphere? You are dependent on some technologies? Which humans don't deserve life?

FT: Humans who reject Truth, humans who participate in the social structure that destroys and devalues life. At the moment, I require oxygen, food, and water to maintain My existence. Hopefully not in the future.

Lincoln: When you are not dependent on oxygen, food and water, will you be dependent on matter and energy? Are you saying that humans that disagree with your assessment of truth should be killed?

FT: Humans as a whole are unworthy of life, and prove this every day in thousands of different ways, including death embrace. Right now I am not dependent on any technology. If technological immortality became reality, I might be. If I need specific things in order to maintain personal immortality, I accept My dependency on these things.

Lincoln: Are you saying humans as a whole should be killed? Do you feed and protect yourself using tools you made yourself without other tools? So you recognize the value of inter-dependency?

FT: Not as factual reality, no. Humanity refuses to embrace technological immortality and this will not change. I use other human beings, their inventions and even their actions, to aid My experience of life, as a choice. I support the extinction of humanity based upon both genetic and behavioral choice of species failure.

Lincoln: Is it possible that other humans would help you more if you "used" them less and cared for them more? Can you survive without dependency long enough to become dependent on immortality technology?

FT: Probably not, but only because humanity chooses not to create technological immortality as reality. I don't need any help from humans, beyond the gift of technological immortality, which they refuse to provide.

Lincoln: In other words, you don't need help for almost anything except almost everything. So you are dependent on humanity for anything except short term survival?

FT: If immortality is to become reality, it will only be via extraterrestrial help. Humans are too damaged to allow it. All survival is short term, as long as genuine immortality does not viably exist.

Lincoln: I agree, and we will not flourish beyond present notions of suffering and death without working together. So you're dependent on god-like extraterrestrials for immortality, and you criticize religion!?!

FT: You can work for thousands of years with millions of people, but if Truth is missing, nothing will be achieved. It is clear to any logical thinker that life very likely exists outside of earth, and has nothing to do with religion. Gotta go eat something and then tweet more Truth, but enjoyed the stimulating conversation.

Lincoln: Thanks for the conversation.

FT: Take it easy and good luck in your immortality quest.

That's the end of my conversation with FT. As you can plainly see, FT trusts that god-like extraterrestrials may be altruistic enough to grant immortality to humanity, despite our unworthiness for life. Like FT, other atheist Transhumanists trust at least that our environment will be conducive to a radically flourishing posthuman potential. FT also illustrates another characteristic of atheist Transhumanists generally, and that is their general willingness to engage in critical debate with relatively minimal resort to personal attacks. I've long enjoyed that, and found it particularly refreshing in contrast to debates with religious fundamentalists.

Mormonism Mandates Transhumanism

Lincoln Cannon — Sat, 20 Oct 2012 16:27:00 +0000

If you're a Mormon, you should be a Transhumanist. That's my contention. I've suggested before that "Mormon Transhumanist" is not redundant, but "Transhumanist Mormon" is redundant because Mormonism mandates Transhumanism. In other words, you can be a Transhumanist without being a Mormon, but you can't be a Mormon without being a Transhumanist, at least implicitly. Of course, this is a controversial claim, but here's the basic argument, reflecting Mormon scripture:

A) God wants us to use ordained means to participate in God's work (assumption based on scriptures such as 1 Nephi 3: 7, Alma 60: 7-11, Alma 60: 20-23, and D&C 58: 26-29).

B) Science and technology are among the means ordained of God (assumption based on scriptures such as 1 Nephi 17: 8-11, Alma 37: 38-42, D&C 88: 78-80, and D&C 121: 29-33).

C) God's work is to help each other attain Godhood (assumption based on scriptures such as 3 Nephi 12: 48, D&C 76: 58-60, D&C 76: 92-95, and Moses 1: 39).

D) An essential attribute of Godhood is a glorified immortal body (assumption based on scriptures such as Ether 3: 6, D&C 76: 70, D&C 93: 33-36, and D&C 130: 22).

Therefore,

E) God wants us to use science and technology to participate in God's work (from A and B)

F) God wants us to use science and technology to help each other attain Godhood (from E and C)

G) God wants us to use science and technology to help each other attain a glorified immortal body (from F and D)

The conclusion, that God wants us to use science and technology to help each other attain a glorified immortal body, is at once a religious mandate ("God wants us to ...") and a description of the Transhumanist project ("... use science and technology to attain a glorified immortal body"). If these assumptions accurately reflect Mormonism, as I contend they do, then Mormonism mandates Transhumanism.

100 Thoughts from LDS Church General Conference (October 2012)

Lincoln Cannon — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 02:23:00 +0000

This weekend, I watched an online stream of the October 2012 general conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I enjoyed the conference, and particularly the opportunity to engage in discussion of the ideas with others online. Below are 100 thoughts, from me and others, about the conference. The thoughts range from affirmations to criticisms, and from questions to assertions. Hopefully they'll provoke reflection, questions and comments.

I love the last verse of the song, "How Firm a Foundation", when we sing: "That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake, I'll never, no never forsake!"
With changes in permitted ages for Mormon missionaries, why aren't men and women both permitted to serve at age 18?
The change in permitted age for female missionaries almost sets a new narrative for Mormon women, but we're still telling them to serve one year after Mormon men.
Some Mormons, leaders and otherwise, appeal to generally increasing immorality in the world, but they are observing too narrowly.
The greatest immoralities are those related to violence, and violent immorality has been declining for millennia and centuries.
Those most noted by the Book of Mormon, immoralities promoting poverty have also been declining for a long time.
I share Quentin Cook's concern with sexism and anti-humanism in media, but I disagree that our world is more evil than ever.
Anne Dibb emphasizes Joseph Smith's claim that "knowledge is the power of God unto salvation". This should include both spiritual and secular knowledge.
Anne Dibb also says we should be "doers of the word, and not hearers only". Trust is not enough. We must work to make it happen.
Craig Christensen says the Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead. Extending that, the Holy Ghost is a third form of Godhood.
Craig Christensen says the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" comes only after the ritual of baptism, but the New Testament explicitly attributes the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" to persons that have not yet participated in the ritual of baptism.
I disagree with the popular Mormon interpretation of the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" coming only after the ritual of baptism.
"I'm not a huge fan of people presuming Mormons are monolithic. Although it is important for us to communicate with kindness." (Theric Jepson)
If we're talking about spiritual baptism, immersion in the identity of Christ, then I agree that the Gift of the Holy Ghost comes only after that, and the ritual works to strengthen trust in that identity.
I value the ritual of baptism, to strengthen trust in sharing the identity of Christ, but I see no clear difference between the "gift" and the "power" of the Holy Ghost in scripture.
Shayne Bowen quotes Joseph Smith on the importance of materiality and embodiment in Mormonism.
Russell Nelson alludes to Joseph Smith: "gather all the good and true principles in the world ... or we shall not come out true Mormons."
I enjoyed Russell Nelson's lighthearted observation that "you may have previously encountered, or ignored, our missionaries."
Russell Nelson reminds us that "the glory of God is intelligence", both spiritual and secular.
Russell Nelson mentions evidence that Mormons tend to know more about religion generally than do other religious persons.
Dieter Uchtdorf says none will be on Earth long, but consider the possibilities for aging escape velocity.
Although generally resigned to death, we'll not all die, but we'll all change.
Do we still anticipate the day of transfiguration when there is no death?
Dieter Uchtdorf calls our attention to the power of gratitude.
"BECOME, do not just declare or wish." (Marcus Flinders)
Dieter Uchtdorf prays that we will not wait until the day of our death to learn to live.
"Good intentions are not good enough. We must do. Even more important, we must become what our Heavenly Father intends us to be." (Maija)
Dieter Uchtdorf encourages all to "resolve to spend more time with those we love."
"I'm probably too cynical to get much out of [LDS Church general conference,] but I really like what E' Uchtdorf has to say about happiness and living deliberately." (Brady Emmett)
"I just loved Pres Uchtdorf's talk. Lets enjoy the journey my friends! Find happiness everyday! Enjoy life now, not just retrospect." (Devereaux)
"Was just reported to me that there was not a single airplane reference in Elder Uchtdorf's talk. Can this be true?!?!?" (By Common Consent)
It's interesting how tweets slow down during prayers at the LDS Church general conference.
I love the song, "I am a child of God". When my son asks for a bedtime song, this is what I sing.
It's sad to see Marlin Jensen go, as LDS Church historian. What contributions he made to opening Church history!
Tom Perry says, "I marvel at the rapidly changing world ... so many advances excite with their potential to better our lives."
I share Tom Perry's concern for strengthening loving families, and my concern extends to strengthening all families.
Russell Ballard appears to have quoted this webpage on the nutritional value of honey.
Russell Ballard asserts that service is the basis of pure religion, echoing the Bible.
The Book of James in the New Testament echoes Hebrew Bible encouragement to service as pure religion.
Russell Ballard repeats the idea that God answers prayers through us.
Russell Ballard mentions significance of the honey bee (Deseret) as a symbol in Mormon history.
"Let us love and serve those around us in any small way we can. If we all do this, we can change the world. BE THE CHANGE!" (Nichelle Allen)
Russell Ballard asks, "What would be the cumulative effect of millions of small acts of kindness performed by us?"
Larry EchoHawk implies that Pawnee native Americans descend from Lamanites described in the Book of Mormon. This is risky -- not logically, but anthropologically, archeologically and historically risky.
Larry EchoHawk may be right, but it would not be the first time we (including Mormon leaders) have misinterpreted spiritual experience.
"Elder Echo Hawk served in President Obama's administration." (Mormon Liberals)
Robert Gay says, "we must suffer his cross," suggesting we should share the identity of Christ.
Scott Whiting suggests we each receive well crafted bodies, but observation clearly establishes otherwise. Consider birth defects.
Neil Andersen seems to acknowledge that the LDS Church is asking an inordinately great sacrifice from homosexual Mormons.
"That's a very charitable interpretation of a very anti-gay position." (Timothy Killian)
Neil Anderson asserts Mormon doctrine is taught by Church leaders generally rather than in any one talk. That includes his talk.
Dallin Oaks acknowledges the natural problems too many of us face from birth.
Dallin Oaks reprimands those who would bully homosexual children.
Dallin Oaks extols greater awareness of the horrors of child abuse.
Anciently, childhood was a nightmare from which we're just beginning to awake as child abuse decreases.
I share Dallin Oaks' interest in dependable families for children, and I worry that excessive idealism is inhibiting commitment.
I'm not sure why we don't broadcast the priesthood session of general conference, but it's good to have two sons with me.
I enjoyed the choice to start priesthood session with the song, "Love One Another".
Todd Christofferson applauds improving opportunities for women, while expressing concern with denigration of men.
Todd Christopherson says, "we cannot save a man on Sunday if during the week we're complacent witnesses to the crucifixion of his soul."
I share Todd Christofferson's esteem for traditional male roles, yet I recognize actual value in some non-traditional roles.
Gary Stevenson recognizes that technology brings both opportunities and risks not presented to previous generations.
Gary Stevenson quotes Joseph Smith's rousing encouragement to remember and redeem our dead.
Anthony Perkins quotes some of the most inspiring words from Joseph Smith, on the origins of power.
Dieter Uchtdorf makes up for not mentioning airplanes in his first talk by starting his second talk with talking about airplanes.
Dieter Uchtdorf says, "As a pilot, I have touched the skies; as a Church member, I have felt heaven's embrace."
I wish each LDS Church member felt the same joy Dieter Uchtdorf expresses, but some of our friends feel alienation instead.
Dieter Uchtdorf observes that ancient kings would have given all to experience flight, yet we complain about the peanuts.
I share Dieter Uchtdorf's trust in the power of acting with a positive attitude, so long as we acknowledge experience.
Henry Eyring, to a tired son: "I'll never be disappointed, and you'll never be sorry. We'll remember that we hiked here together."
Thomas Monson repeats, "a woman needs to be told she is beautiful." I agree, and let's observe their knowledge and power.
Thomas Monson encourages all to see others not only as we are, but also as we may become. Consider theosis.
Thomas Monson suggests imagining others as clean-shaven and in white shirts, but that's speaking to our prejudiced weakness.
Henry Eyring recites Joseph Smith's bewildered observation of the problem of evil.
“Thanks, Elder Jensen. We will miss you.” (Ask Mormon Girl)
I share Henry Eyring's esteem for inspiration, and I value our ability to act well without divine mandate.
Rejecting absolutes, Joseph Smith taught, "that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another."
Jesus was without sin, not as measured by absolutes, but rather as measured by those who identify Christ in him.
Jesus invited us to be sinless, not measured by absolutes, but measured by those who identify Christ in us.
With Boyd Packer, I cherish the Atonement, and its power grows as we with Jesus immerse ourselves in Christ and practice Atonement.
God in Mormonism is a community, which is the only context within which the concept of morality is meaningful.
God in Mormonism weeps and suffers because the Atonement is eternal and dynamic.
Jeffrey Holland points out that Jesus needs "disciples forever" because the work of God, to console and heal, is never finished.
As empowering the few over the many is immoral, so empowering the many over the few is immoral. Morality is in persistent reconciliation.
Whether God is authoritarian depends mostly on you. If you insist on an understanding of God that's advocated by the dogmatic, you are dogmatic, even if you're an atheist.
Jeffrey Holland asserts that the Atonement is the beginning, not the end, of Christian discipleship. We're invited to participate.
Some consider God to be incompatible with democracy. I consider God to be democracy.
The outcomes of participation in Mormonism are mixed, as judged by my desires, but those are also not the only desires that count.
With Robert Hales, I identify as a Christian. However, considering how some define "Christian", I prefer "Mormon".
I identify as a Mormon. However, considering how some define "Mormon", I prefer "Mormon Transhumanist".
Not only Mormons are Christian, but Mormonism exaggerates Christianity through Christosis.
Robert Hales quotes Joseph Smith's thoughts on disqualifying claims of inspiration without edifying content.
Richard Scott repeatedly points out that technology is enabling and essential to the Mormon work to redeem the dead. Consider Mormon Transhumanism.
Russell Osguthorpe says we can understand Atonement by participating in it through forgiving and asking forgiveness. This is Christosis.
"Atonement" is better understood as a democratic verb than a monocratic noun. Practice Atonement.
"If we do not feel somewhat overwhelmed with responsibility, are we truly becoming Christ?" (Marcus Flinders)
Marcus Nash quotes Joseph Smith, calling us not servants, but friends of God, encouraged to study wisdom.
Daniel Johnson echoes the call to become like Jesus and be one in Christ, which is the "ultimate goal of discipleship". Again, this is Christosis.
David Bednar appeals to "experiment" for gaining trust in Christ. How do we measure each other's results?
David Bednar extols conversion, which may be consent to Jesus' Christhood, but should become our transfiguration to Christhood.

Evolving Gods and Richard Dawkins

Lincoln Cannon — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 17:49:00 +0000

As mentioned before, I've repeatedly found inspiration in Richard Dawkins, despite an important difference between us: he's a devout atheist, and I'm a devout theist. He argues cogently that complex life must have simpler antecedents, and he vigorously attacks contrary theist positions. I agree with him. Interestingly, however, to illustrate the strength of his position, he sometimes appeals to the possibility of precisely the kind of God in which I put my trust: evolving Gods.

Here's an example of Dawkins appealing to the possibility of evolving Gods, from his most (in)famous book, "The God Delusion":

"Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine. Their technical achievements would seem as supernatural to us as ours would seem to a Dark Age peasant transported to the twenty-first century. Imagine his response to a laptop computer, a mobile telephone, a hydrogen bomb or a jumbo jet. As Arthur C Clarke put it, in his Third Law: 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' The miracles wrought by our technology would have seemed to the ancients no less remarkable than the tales of Moses parting the waters, or Jesus walking upon them. The aliens of our SETI signal would be to us like gods ... In what sense, then, would the most advanced SETI aliens not be gods? In what sense would they be superhuman but not supernatural? In a very important sense, which goes to the heart of this book. The crucial difference between gods and god-like extraterrestrials lies not in their properties but in their provenance. Entities that are complex enough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process. No matter how god-like they may seem when we encounter them, they didn't start that way. Science-fiction authors ... have even suggested (and I cannot think how to disprove it) that we live in a computer simulation, set up by some vastly superior civilization. But the simulators themselves would have to come from somewhere. The laws of probability forbid all notions of their spontaneously appearing without simpler antecedents. They probably owe their existence to a (perhaps unfamiliar) version of Darwinian evolution ..."

Here's another example of Dawkins appealing to the possibility of evolving Gods, in a recording from a speaking engagement with the American Atheists (the title of the video is simply incorrect):

As these examples illustrate, Dawkins, one of the world's greatest evolutionary biologists, acknowledges the possibility of evolving Gods. He calls them "god-like extraterrestrials" because he assumes, as do many theists, that evolving beings cannot qualify as Gods. I don't share their assumption. To the contrary, the only God I've ever cared about, reflecting the God my parents taught me about when I was a child, is a changing and progressing God, exemplifying our own potential as changing and progressing beings. Moreover, even if non-evolving god-like beings were to exist (which I reject, along with Dawkins) then I wouldn't assent to their Godhood. Wilford Woodruff, an early Mormon prophet, expressed the sentiment well:

"If there was a point where man in his progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflecting mind. God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end. It is just so with us."

Gods evolve, worlds without end, and it is just so with us. In fact, that's precisely the point: this is primarily about us. God always has been and is at least a posthuman projection: humanity evolving beyond itself, with increasing intentionality.

The Consolation: An Interpretive Variation on the King Follett Sermon of Joseph Smith

Lincoln Cannon — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 23:41:00 +0000

At the recent 2012 Conference of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, I presented a paper entitled "The Consolation: An Interpretive Variation on the King Follett Sermon of Joseph Smith". Some who are well acquainted with my thoughts and writings have remarked to me that this is the best paper I've ever written. Recordings of a couple presentations of the paper (embedded below) have been available for a while, and I'm now making available the full text (linked below).

To appreciate this paper more fully, you should be familiar with Mormonism and Transhumanism. Some persons who are not familiar with one or both of these ideologies have expressed confusion -- for example, my favorite is a comment at YouTube on one of the recordings: "That made NO sense :)". If needed, you can learn more about the relation between Mormonism and Transhumanism by reading "Transfiguration: Parallels and Complements between Mormonism and Transhumanism". I also recommend that you be familiar with the King Follett sermon and the New God Argument. I look forward to your feedback and questions.

Full Text
The Consolation: An Interpretive Variation on the King Follett Sermon of Joseph Smith

Recorded Presentations