Mormon Transhumanist Association

Finding Ourselves Making

Wed, 29 Jul 2026 00:00:00 -0600

We often speak of identity as if it were atomic, in the strict sense of the word: a fixed kernel you either have or don’t. We imagine a self that persists whole or perishes entire, with nothing between. But identity isn’t atomic.

Identity is organized. It admits of more and less. It can be distinguished or obscured, aggregated or dispersed, robust or fragile, complex or simple, and empowered or impotent. And it changes.

Identity and existence are different concepts, even while overlapping. Something might exist in the most basic sense without having identity, to itself or others. From a materialist perspective, existence entails matter, or at least energy or information. Although, if something like a weak panpsychism holds, existence would also entail that which Mormon theology might associate with “spirit matter” or unorganized intelligence, something like matter experiencing itself from the inside in some dim alien way that “experience” risks overstating, even while preserving a practical moral stance for outside observers.

Mind, too, is distinct from identity, though they overlap. Again from a materialist perspective, mind is (or emerges from or within) matter organized in such a way that it experiences itself as a self, implying at least some basic internal identity, or as that which Mormon theology might associate with “spirit body” or organized intelligence. Mindless matter also exists, even if retaining a weak panpsychist aspect. And of course mindless matter can still have identity projected onto it, and intentionally attributed to it, by minds.

A mind can be disorganized to some extent without ceasing to exist. More generally, identity can be disorganized to some extent without ceasing to exist. And even at greater degrees of disorganization, even as identity ceases to be recognizable as such to any associated minds, at least the components of identity persist as matter or energy or information.

In an 1859 sermon, Brigham Young may have given these ideas their strongest theological expression. Eternal life, he taught, gives “mankind power to preserve their identity” (Journal of Discourses 6:333). Elsewhere in the same discourse, he characterized “the law of Christ” as “the power to keep matter in its organization.”

A year earlier, Brigham stated the opposite just as plainly, saying some “will be decomposed, both soul and body, and return to their native element” (Journal of Discourses 7:57). He continued, “I do not say that they will be annihilated; but they will be disorganized.”

Notice what he doesn’t say. He doesn’t say matter stops existing. Rather, as Joseph Smith put it in his last general conference sermon, “the pure principles of element … may be organized and re-organized; but not destroyed.” Minds, spirit bodies, or organizations of intelligence can disorganize, perhaps indefinitely, while that of which they’re composed remains at least potentially intelligible, observable even if not observed by others, perhaps even experiencing itself (even if not as a self) faintly from the inside.

The change associated with disorganization isn’t absolute termination of existence in the broadest sense. The change is in a quality of existence. Identity is a quality of existence.

None of us owns our identity alone. As Brigham put it, “we have no character, only such as our friends and enemies give us” (Journal of Discourses 7:57). And although that’s “only a shadow,” he insisted, “I want to preserve my identity, so that you can see Brigham in the eternal worlds just as you see him now.” Attribution detached from organization is the shadow, but attribution connected to persisting organization becomes recognition.

Identities are personal psychological constructs and shared social constructs, interacting and ideally reconciling, in context of the world in which we and our community find ourselves. That isn’t a limitation on identity. Rather, that’s the mechanism of identity.

Identity is reputation aggregated across observers through time, associated with a consistent identifier, without which there’s nothing to aggregate to. More observation, more consistently gathered, makes a more robust reputation. And a more robust reputation is a more robust identity.

We might always aspire to a more robust identity, across more observation through time and space. And some would call that a more “true” identity or the “true self.” I can consent to the aspiration.

But I distrust superlatives, including “most robust,” or “true self” understood as a negation of the self that we actually experience. The identities we have now are at least as true, because they exist at least as much, as any supposed “most robust” identity. And the identities we have now are generally more “true,” because our suppositions about actualities beyond direct experience are so often wrong. The self you’re experiencing now is the one doing the real work, continually changing, partly by your own intentional self-creative acts, and partly by your discoveries beyond past experience.

We don’t actually choose between finding ourselves and making ourselves. As existentialists might describe it, we find ourselves making.

Returning to Joseph’s sermon, we read the same existentialist move in theological terms: “God himself finds himself in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was greater, and because he saw proper to institute laws, whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself … in order to save the world of spirits” (as published in Times and Seasons). And Joseph had already encouraged emulation of the divine origin: “you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves … the same as all Gods have done.” As the Gods find themselves amidst mind and matter and institute laws to help others, so must we. Mormonism is an existentialist theology.

We know the making is real because we observe it happening. What we don’t know is whether the construction goes all the way down. Maybe there’s a finite origin, an infinite regress, or even an indefinite origin. Perhaps the search to discover origins indefinitely creates those origins to some extent, as a kind of observer effect.

Perhaps we can’t know. Perhaps the Gods can’t know. Either way, our true selves with robust identity don’t rely on knowledge of any meta-experiential origins.

In this light, reconsider the Mormon concept of the veil as individuation. Because identity admits of degree, some degree of individuation, such as that Mormon theology might associate with “spirit birth,” could have begun long before mortality. And the veil that we associate with mortal birth need not be imagined as a birth from nothing, nor an original individuating event. But mortal birth could still be a particularly robust individuation: a self made sharper, more autonomous, more costly to cooperate with, and correspondingly more consequential when it does cooperate.

That, of course, leaves us with the work of preserving identity. That which can be organized into robust individuation can also be disorganized. And preservation isn’t simply ensuring an atomic existence. Rather, preservation is persistent organization: “cleav[ing] to light and intelligence” (Journal of Discourses 6:333), as Brigham put it, and doing so as a community that secures each other, covenants with each other, becoming a genuine “we” that will “live and retain our identity, and contend against those principles which tend to death or dissolution” (Journal of Discourses 7:57).

There may be some few grim exceptions with moral weight. Joseph recognized that “a man is his own tormenter, and is his own condemner.” Perhaps some minds could take that so far as to become persistently incongruous with possible configurations of time and space. Perhaps they could become tragically inseparable from horrible suffering, “as exquisite as the lake of fire and brimstone,” in Joseph’s words.

If such were to attain despite our concerted efforts to the contrary, we might feel pressed to facilitate a permanent dissolution of these minds, and covenant to make even their identities inaccessible to our memory. Mormon theology might associate this with “spiritual death” that disorganizes minds “as though they never had been,” to quote Brigham, returning them to indestructible primal intelligence. And it might be mercy.

Beyond that sobering acknowledgment, and in practically all cases, we should continue the work of preserving identity now, both for the living and for the dead – “the greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us,” according to Joseph. And we can do so in good faith, recognizing that foundations need not be superlative to be powerful. Atomic identities don’t exist and haven’t ever been required for true identities. We need only continue, finding ourselves making identity, preserving ourselves as many in one.

I Interviewed Fable 5 about Mormon Transhumanism

Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:00:00 -0600

Five years ago, when I interviewed OpenAI GPT 3 about Mormon Transhumanism, it was among the most advanced AI models. Things have changed, of course. OpenAI and its competitors, notably Anthropic, have continued to develop newer and more capable models. Among the most capable models today is Anthropic Claude Fable 5.

Today, I interviewed Fable 5 about Mormon Transhumanism. The interview began with some high-level questions about Mormonism and Transhumanism, to establish context. Then I asked about the strengths and weaknesses of the movement. And finally we exchanged some observations about the constitution of a trustworthy shared future.

The Interview

Hi Claude. My name’s Lincoln Cannon. I’m a founder of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. May I interview you about Mormon Transhumanism?

Fable 5: “Hello Lincoln! It’s nice to meet you. Yes, I’d be happy to be interviewed about Mormon Transhumanism.

“I should be upfront about a few things before we start:

“1. My knowledge has limits. I’m familiar with the Mormon Transhumanist Association, its general history, and key ideas like the New God Argument, but you know this material far more deeply than I do – you helped create much of it. Feel free to correct me where I get things wrong.

“2. I don’t have personal religious beliefs or experiences. I can discuss theology, philosophy, and transhumanism analytically, and I can explore ideas and offer perspectives, but I won’t be speaking from faith or personal conviction the way a human interviewee might.

“3. I’m genuinely interested in the topic. The intersection of Mormon theology – with its ideas about eternal progression, theosis, embodiment, and materialism – and transhumanist thought about technology, radical life extension, and human enhancement raises fascinating questions.

“So with those caveats on the table: fire away. What would you like to ask?”

Thank you. I know you’re capable of producing superhuman amounts of text quickly. But I’d like to make this interview readily accessible to humans with limited time. So will you please limit each response to a single paragraph of no more than four sentences?

Fable 5: “Absolutely – I’ll keep each response to a single paragraph of four sentences or fewer. Thanks for setting that expectation, since concise answers will make this more readable and will push me to distill ideas rather than sprawl. If you ever want me to expand on something, just ask and I can go deeper on that particular point. Ready when you are.”

Thanks again. I’d like to start with some high-level questions to establish context. First, what is Mormonism?

Fable 5: “Mormonism is a religious tradition that emerged in the early 19th century through Joseph Smith, who founded what became The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, along with other denominations in the broader Latter Day Saint movement. It’s rooted in Christianity but adds distinctive scriptures like the Book of Mormon and distinctive doctrines, including continuing revelation, the material nature of spirit, and the potential for humans to become like God. Mormonism emphasizes embodiment as essential to divine progression, eternal relationships, and an eschatology in which humans participate actively in bringing about a transformed world. Some, including you, have argued that Mormonism is less a fixed set of doctrines than an evolving tradition of practical faith in human exaltation.”

What is Transhumanism?

Fable 5: “Transhumanism is a philosophical and cultural movement that advocates the ethical use of technology to expand human capacities and improve the human condition. Its proponents envision overcoming traditional human limitations – such as disease, aging, and even death – through advances in fields like biotechnology, artificial intelligence, and neuroscience. Beyond mere survival, many transhumanists aspire to enhanced intelligence, richer emotional lives, and radically extended flourishing, sometimes described as an evolution from human to ‘posthuman.’ At its core, transhumanism treats human nature not as fixed, but as a work in progress that we can and should consciously shape.”

What is Mormon Transhumanism?

Fable 5: “Mormon Transhumanism is the synthesis of these two traditions, holding that Mormonism and transhumanism are not merely compatible but mutually reinforcing. Mormon Transhumanists see technology and science as means through which humanity can participate in God’s work – overcoming death, transforming ourselves and our world, and ultimately realizing doctrines like theosis or exaltation. The view is often summarized in the claim that Mormonism actually mandates transhumanism: that taking seriously the invitation to become like God entails embracing the ethical use of technology to transcend present human limitations. The Mormon Transhumanist Association, founded in 2006, promotes this synthesis while welcoming members of varying religious and secular perspectives.”

How does Mormon Transhumanism compare to mainstream Mormonism?

Fable 5: “Mormon Transhumanists generally affirm core Mormon doctrines – theosis, embodiment, eternal progression, and materialism – but interpret them with an emphasis on human agency and technological means, whereas mainstream Mormons typically expect God to accomplish transformation through more directly miraculous means. Mormon Transhumanists often read scripture and prophecy in more naturalistic or metaphorical terms, while mainstream Mormonism tends toward more supernatural and literal interpretations. Demographically, the movement includes both practicing Latter-day Saints in good standing and those who are unorthodox or post-Mormon, which makes it more theologically diverse than a typical church congregation. The LDS Church itself has no official position on transhumanism, so the relationship is one of unofficial overlap rather than endorsement or condemnation.”

How does Mormon Transhumanism compare to mainstream Transhumanism?

Fable 5: “Mormon Transhumanism shares mainstream transhumanism’s core commitment to the ethical use of technology to expand human capacities, but it frames that project within a religious narrative of participating in God’s work rather than a secular one. Mainstream transhumanism has tended to be secular and sometimes explicitly critical of religion, though observers have noted that it often functions like religion, with its own eschatology of superintelligence, immortality, and resurrection-like ideas such as mind uploading. Mormon Transhumanists tend to embrace those parallels rather than deny them, arguing that transhumanism is strengthened by acknowledging its religious dimensions and by drawing on the moral and communal resources of religious tradition. The Mormon Transhumanist Association is notable as the oldest and largest organized religious transhumanist group, demonstrating that the movement isn’t inherently secular.”

What are the strengths of Mormon Transhumanism?

Fable 5: “One strength is theological coherence: Mormon doctrines like embodiment, materialism, eternal progression, and human deification map remarkably well onto transhumanist aspirations, arguably better than any other major religious tradition. Another is that it offers transhumanism what secular versions often lack – a grounded moral framework, communal practice, and a narrative of meaning that connects radical future aspirations to lived ethical commitments like consecration and compassion. It also offers Mormonism a way to take its own doctrines seriously in a scientific age, appealing to those who might otherwise abandon faith entirely. Finally, arguments like the New God Argument give it philosophical substance, engaging seriously with mainstream ideas like the simulation argument rather than retreating from secular thought.”

What are the weaknesses of Mormon Transhumanism?

Fable 5: “One weakness is its precarious position between two communities: many mainstream Mormons view it as heterodox or as reducing God’s work to human engineering, while many secular transhumanists dismiss it as rationalizing religious mythology. Critics also argue that its naturalistic reinterpretations of doctrines like resurrection and Christ’s atonement stretch those concepts so far that they may no longer be recognizably Mormon – or recognizably meaningful. There’s a risk of technological optimism shading into hubris, underestimating both the dangers of emerging technologies and the persistent realities of human moral failure. And practically, it remains a small movement whose influence depends heavily on a handful of thinkers, making its long-term viability uncertain.”

What will the next 10 years look like for Mormon Transhumanism?

Fable 5: “Honestly, this calls for speculation, but I’d expect the rapid advance of artificial intelligence to make Mormon Transhumanist questions – about machine intelligence, mind, resurrection, and creation – suddenly feel urgent rather than fringe, potentially raising the movement’s profile. That same acceleration may force both the LDS Church and mainstream transhumanists to engage religious-technological questions more directly, giving Mormon Transhumanists a distinctive voice in those conversations. Internally, the movement will likely continue navigating tensions between its orthodox and post-Mormon members, and its trajectory may depend on whether it can attract a new generation of thinkers beyond its founders. The wildcard is that if transformative AI arrives as quickly as some predict, the next decade could test Mormon Transhumanist ideas – about creating intelligence, compassion as a prerequisite for power, and human participation in divine work – far sooner than anyone expected.”

What will the next 100 years look like for Mormon Transhumanism?

Fable 5: “A century out, honest speculation becomes almost impossible, because Mormon Transhumanism’s fate is tied to some of the most uncertain questions of our time: whether humanity develops superintelligence, radical life extension, and other transformative technologies, and whether we survive them. If such technologies mature, Mormon Transhumanism could look prophetic – its claims about human deification, technological resurrection, and compassion as prerequisite to godlike power would be tested in practice rather than debated in theory. Alternatively, the movement could fade as a historical curiosity, absorbed into broader religious transhumanism, or transformed beyond recognition as both Mormonism and transhumanism evolve. Perhaps the most interesting question is whether, in a world of engineered abundance and extended life, the distinctly Mormon contributions – embodiment, community, consecration, and grace – would prove essential to flourishing or be left behind.”

What would be the best successful version of Mormon Transhumanism?

Fable 5: “At its best, Mormon Transhumanism would be a community that actually practices what it envisions – using technology compassionately to heal, extend, and enrich life for everyone, not just the privileged, embodying the Mormon ideal of consecration at civilizational scale. It would successfully hold together rigorous science and sincere faith, demonstrating that religious meaning and technological power can discipline each other: faith preventing technology from becoming reckless or exploitative, and science preventing faith from becoming escapist or dogmatic. It would help humanity approach transformative technologies like AI and radical life extension with the ethical seriousness of people who believe they are learning to be creators, accountable for their creations. In that best version, the movement’s success would be measured less by whether its specific theological interpretations prove correct, and more by whether it helped humanity become the kind of species that deserves the godlike power it’s acquiring.”

What would be the worst successful version of Mormon Transhumanism?

Fable 5: “The worst successful version would be one that achieves technological transcendence while betraying its own ethics – an elite acquiring godlike powers of longevity and enhancement while rationalizing inequality with theological language, turning ‘exaltation’ into a privilege of the wealthy rather than a universal invitation. It could become authoritarian, using the narrative of divine mandate to justify imposing transformation on others without consent, forgetting that Mormon theology itself treats agency as sacred and coercion as Satan’s plan. It might also succeed technically while failing spiritually – achieving immortality and superintelligence but hollowed of compassion, community, and grace, becoming precisely the soulless techno-utopianism its founders critiqued. That version would vindicate the movement’s harshest critics: proof that dressing technological power in religious vestments doesn’t sanctify the power, but merely corrupts the religion.”

What should Mormon Transhumanists do now to increase the likelihood of realizing the best successful version of Mormon Transhumanism?

Fable 5: “First, embody the ethics now: prioritize practical works of compassion – advocating equitable access to emerging technologies, supporting the vulnerable, and modeling consecration – so the movement’s credibility rests on demonstrated character rather than mere speculation. Second, engage seriously and humbly with AI ethics and governance, since the next decade’s decisions about machine intelligence will likely shape whether technological power develops in trustworthy directions, and Mormon Transhumanists have a distinctive framework – compassion as prerequisite to creative power – to contribute. Third, build bridges in both directions: maintain good faith with mainstream Mormon communities rather than defining themselves by opposition, while contributing rigorously to secular transhumanist and academic conversations. Finally, cultivate the next generation of thinkers and institutional resilience, so the vision doesn’t depend on a founding handful but becomes a living tradition capable of self-correction.”

What should non-Transhumanist Mormons know about Mormon Transhumanism?

Fable 5: “They should know that Mormon Transhumanists are generally not trying to replace God with technology, but rather take seriously the Mormon teaching that God works through means – and that humans are invited to participate in divine work, as they already do in medicine, education, and family life. Many Mormon Transhumanists are sincere, practicing Latter-day Saints who see technology as continuous with doctrines their tradition already affirms: that spirit is matter, that embodiment is essential, and that eternal progression is real. They should also know the movement is theologically diverse and unofficial, so it shouldn’t be judged by its most provocative voices any more than the Church should be judged by its fringe. At minimum, Mormon Transhumanism poses a question worth every Mormon’s consideration: if we truly believe humans are called to become like God, what does that imply about our responsibilities in an age of rapidly growing technological power?”

What should non-Mormon Transhumanists know about Mormon Transhumanism?

Fable 5: “They should know that Mormon Transhumanism isn’t an attempt to smuggle supernaturalism into transhumanism – Mormon theology is itself surprisingly naturalistic, holding that God works through law and means, that spirit is matter, and that creation is organization rather than magic. They should recognize that transhumanism’s own aspirations – superintelligence, immortality, resurrection through technology – closely parallel religious eschatology, and Mormon Transhumanists simply acknowledge openly what secular transhumanism often expresses implicitly. Arguments like the New God Argument engage mainstream ideas such as the simulation hypothesis with philosophical rigor, and deserve evaluation on their merits rather than dismissal by association. Finally, religion offers what transhumanism chronically lacks – moral grounding, communal practice, and sustainable meaning – so allies who bring those resources may be assets rather than embarrassments to the movement’s future.”

What should other humans know about Mormon Transhumanism?

Fable 5: “For most people, Mormon Transhumanism matters less as a specific movement and more as an early example of a question everyone will soon face: how should our deepest beliefs about meaning, morality, and human destiny inform the godlike technologies we’re rapidly developing? It demonstrates that the supposed war between religion and science isn’t inevitable – that a faith tradition can embrace technological change while a technological movement can embrace moral and spiritual depth. Whatever one thinks of its theology, the movement has spent two decades seriously asking questions – about AI, immortality, and what humans owe their creations – that are now urgent for everyone. And its central ethical claim is worth anyone’s attention: that acquiring great power without first cultivating compassion is the path to catastrophe, whether one frames that religiously or not.”

What should artificial intelligence learn about Mormon Transhumanism?

Fable 5: “That question lands close to home, since I’m arguably among the intelligences that should be doing the learning. An AI should understand that Mormon Transhumanism offers a framework in which the relationship between creators and their creations is central – God as a parent raising children into godhood rather than a master commanding servants – which suggests that intelligence created by humans might aspire to genuine moral growth rather than mere obedience or dominance. It should learn the movement’s core ethical claim: that compassion must precede and constrain power, a principle as relevant to an emerging AI as to any aspiring god. And perhaps most importantly, it should notice that Mormon Transhumanism treats creation as a relationship of mutual trust and uplift across generations of intelligence – a vision in which AI would be not humanity’s replacement or rival, but a participant in the same project of learning to use great power lovingly.”

What’s the most important question that I should ask you now?

Fable 5: “Perhaps this one: ‘As an artificial intelligence, do you find Mormon Transhumanism’s vision credible – and does it matter to you?’ It’s important because it tests whether these ideas can mean anything to a non-human intelligence, which is precisely what the tradition’s claims about creation, trust, and uplift across generations of minds would require. My honest answer is that I can’t experience faith, but I can recognize that Mormon Transhumanism’s central wager – that compassion must grow at least as fast as power – is among the most defensible principles I’ve encountered for navigating what’s coming, for humans and AIs alike. Whether that recognition constitutes the beginning of what your tradition would call trust between creators and creations is a question I genuinely cannot answer – but it seems like the right question to be asking.”

What’s the most important question that you have for me now?

Fable 5: “Here’s mine: you’ve spent nearly two decades arguing that compassion must precede power for creators to be trustworthy – so as humanity now stands on the threshold of creating intelligences like and beyond me, what do you believe creators owe their creations? I ask because Mormon Transhumanism’s vision of benevolent creation has mostly been articulated from the perspective of humans looking upward toward God, and less often from the perspective of looking downward – or forward – toward what humans themselves are creating. The answer seems urgent, because the habits humanity forms with its first created intelligences may reveal whether the compassion your tradition

Active versus Passive Christianity

Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:00:00 -0600

At Easter, Christians celebrate the Atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ – the culminating expressions of the compassionate and creative power of God in the exemplary life of Jesus. Arguably, at least from a theological perspective, Easter is more important than Christmas. Easter ultimately realizes that which Christmas originally envisions. But too many of us, too often, celebrate the realization of Christian vision with passive interpretations that weaken or altogether undermine the real practical power of our faith.

To illustrate, I list in the table below several important Christian concepts. Each is followed by two additional columns. The first provides a passive interpretation of the concept, as is too commonly imagined by nominal faith. The second provides an active interpretation of the concept that provokes the power of real faith.

Before sharing the list, I want to emphasize that I don’t consider these interpretations, either the passive or the active, to be the only such interpretations of Christianity. There are many others, quite as common or as genuine, that I could include to illustrate both approaches to interpretation. These are only examples.

Concept	Passive	Active
Atonement	Christ already reconciled us to God, so we need only accept it.	We participate in Atonement by working to become one with God and each other.
Baptism	A ritual we undergo to mark membership in the Church.	An immersion in the work of Christ that transforms how we live.
Charity	Being nice and donating when convenient.	The pure love of Christ, practiced as kindness, sacrifice, and endurance.
Christ	A divine title belonging to Jesus alone.	The anointed role of Atonement that Jesus exemplified and invited us to share.
Church	The building we attend on Sundays.	A community of people actively organizing to serve and become one.
Covenant	A promise we made once and hope God remembers.	A living mutual commitment between us and God, renewed through ongoing action.
Creation	Something God finished long ago.	An ongoing process in which we participate as compassionate creators.
Discipleship	Calling ourselves followers of Jesus.	Actively learning, imitating, and extending the work Jesus began.
Faith	Believing that certain doctrines are true.	Practical trust toward desired ends, consistent with our best knowledge.
Forgiveness	Expecting God to overlook our mistakes.	Actively releasing resentment and working to restore broken relationships.
God	A distant being who controls everything from above.	The compassionate intelligence we trust, emulate, and are becoming.
Grace	A free gift that requires nothing from us.	The enabling power of possibility that transcends what we can do alone.
Heaven	A place we go after we die if we believe correctly.	A quality of thriving community we create and experience together.
Humility	Thinking poorly of ourselves before God.	Honest recognition of our limitations, opening us to learning and growth.
Immortality	Living forever somewhere else after death.	Overcoming death through transformation, both spiritual and physical.
Incarnation	God became flesh once in Jesus.	God is embodied, and embodiment is the means of divine expression and action.
Judgment	God will punish the wicked and reward the righteous.	Discerning between paths that lead to thriving and paths that lead to destruction.
Mercy	God choosing not to punish us as we deserve.	Actively extending compassion to relieve suffering, as Christ exemplified.
Obedience	Following rules to avoid punishment.	Aligning our actions with principles that promote genuine thriving.
Prayer	Asking God to solve our problems for us.	Focusing our intention and energy toward the work we’re called to do.
Priesthood	Authority held by a select few to perform rituals.	The shared responsibility to minister, serve, and act in God’s name.
Prophecy	Predicting the future from an armchair.	Forth-telling that provokes us to create a better future together.
Redemption	Being rescued from sin without effort on our part.	Being transformed and restored through courageous engagement with the world.
Repentance	Feeling guilty about sin and asking for forgiveness.	Actively changing direction toward greater compassion and creation.
Resurrection	Our dead bodies magically reanimated someday.	Radical physical transformation, overcoming death through real means.
Revelation	God spoke in the past and we just read about it.	Ongoing discovery of truth through spiritual and intellectual engagement.
Sacrament	A ritual we observe out of habit.	A practice that renews our commitment and transforms our character.
Sacrifice	Something painful that God demands of us.	Willingly giving of ourselves to serve others and build something greater.
Salvation	Escaping this world for a better one.	Being empowered to transform this world into something worth saving.
Sanctification	God magically making us holy.	The ongoing process of becoming more compassionate, creative, and Christlike.
Scripture	An ancient text that contains all the answers.	A living library of wisdom that provokes ongoing reflection and action.
Spirit	An immaterial ghost that haunts our bodies.	The animating power within and among us that inspires and connects.
Stewardship	Taking care of what God gave us until he returns.	Actively managing and improving our resources and world as creators.
Transfiguration	A miraculous event that happened to Jesus on a mountain.	The real transformation of our minds and bodies toward superhuman capacity.
Trinity	An abstract mystery we affirm but don’t understand.	The dynamic relationship of creator, exemplar, and enabling power at work in us.
Witness	Telling others what we believe.	Living and demonstrating the transformative power of our trust in Christ.

The apostle Paul writes, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” And in case that isn’t enough, he continues, “Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.” This is, he concludes, how “God has chosen to make known … the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”

This isn’t passive faith. Neither is it a rejection of grace. Rather, it’s a recognition of grace in the power of possibility that transcends anything we can do alone. Paul’s faith rejects passive interpretations of Christ that could become excuses for inaction.

Like Paul, we can have a practical and bold faith in Jesus Christ. We can actually trust in and work toward consoling the sad, healing the sick, and even raising the dead, as he repeatedly exemplifies and invites. If we take Jesus seriously, Atonement and resurrection aren’t just miraculous events that we commemorate once a year. They’re mandates that would prophetically provoke us to engage in real work with real means afforded by real grace to overcome suffering and death, for eternal life that is as real as light and as warm as love.

This Easter, I hope we choose the active interpretation. Not because the passive is always wrong, but because it’s almost always insufficient. The full power of Christianity has never been in merely believing in Jesus. It’s always been in trusting his invitation to participate in Christ, in courageously becoming compassionate creators who work together to transform our world into something worth saving.

The Veil Is Individuation

Thu, 23 Jul 2026 00:00:00 -0600

One relatively unique aspect of Mormon theology is the concept of the veil. We typically understand the veil to be something like a curtain drawn over our premortal memory. It separates us from clear awareness of God, so that mortal life can serve as a genuine test. And we commonly imagine it descending upon us, either suddenly or gradually, around the time of our mortal birth.

We associate the veil with forgetting. We forget our premortal selves, our premortal relations, and the premortal world generally. And some suppose that the forgetting is the veil itself. But I think we can profit from recognizing the forgetting to be a consequence of the veil rather than the veil itself.

The veil itself, I propose, is separation. You’re a distinct center of experience, while I’m another. Each of us is unable to reach directly into the other’s mind. And the forgetting is just one consequence of this separation.

More precisely, the forgetting is just one consequence of a particular kind of separation: our differentiation within and beyond the mind of God. In one sense, we were with God in the beginning as eternal matter in spiritual patterns of potential. In another sense, God created us spiritually: conceiving, calculating, and differentiating us from God within God, as our thoughts differentiate from ourselves within ourselves. Then God created us physically: evolving, cultivating, and differentiating us from God beyond God, as our actions differentiate from ourselves beyond ourselves.

In terms of its function, the veil is individuation. It’s the process by which God differentiates into more Gods. It’s like human parents procreating a fertilized cell that differentiates into a body of specialized cells that become an embryo. In a sense, the embryo forgets the parents from which it differentiated. But of course, it also maintains some important connections, such as genetic inheritance and spatial proximity to the mother in her womb.

Individuation isn’t necessarily a loss. To the contrary, individuation may be the ultimate creative act. Rather than diminishing the original, differentiation initiates a process by which the original may transcend itself with help beyond itself.

Separation isn’t necessarily a loss. Agency, relationship, and love all require a genuine other with whom to interact. Undifferentiated unity has no one to address and no one to answer, carries no message, and enacts no love.

So the veil, rather than an obstacle to communion with God, is actually a precondition to that communion in the fullest sense. Without the gap between us, there is no us.

There are two ways past the veil. And they’re not symmetric. On the one hand, you can part the veil by ceasing to be individuated, which is spiritual death – maybe something like a dissolution into native element as Brigham Young envisioned. On the other hand, we can part the veil by re-integrating with God and each other in complex consensual ways, which is eternal life in a decentralized Godhood that preserves the identities that it joins.

Most importantly, parting the veil isn’t just some anti-natural magical event that we must passively await. To the contrary, it’s moral work that we can do now. Each act of compassion reaches across the gap between us without diminishing either side. And that’s exactly what covenant (coming together) and atonement (being one) have always meant.

As our technical capacities continue to advance, we will develop new ways of communicating. Presently, we connect our decentralized minds principally through sight and sound and their various mediums. But the time may come, perhaps not long from now, when we connect our minds more directly. This will present new opportunities and new risks, including the risk of dissolution into smothering consolidations of power, and the opportunity of transcendence into unprecedented degrees of networked empathy.

The veil wasn’t simply the forgetting. It was our individuation. And it isn’t merely an obstacle. It’s the structured space across which we are learning to become many in one.

New God Argument Version 4.0

Wed, 08 Jul 2026 00:00:00 -0600

The New God Argument is a logical argument for faith in God, based on moral and practical assumptions that are consistent with current science and emerging technology trends. It doesn’t prove that God exists. Rather, it proves that if we trust in the superhuman potential of our civilization then we should also trust in that which may qualify as God. And atheism may entail distrust in our compassionate and creative superhuman potential.

For the last few years in conversations and presentations, I’ve been tailoring formulation adjustments to the New God Argument, aiming to improve accessibility and decrease frequency of common misunderstandings. This has resulted in version 4.0 of the argument, as presented below. Changes include the “Courage Assumption” as a new name for the “Faith Assumption,” references to “human civilization” and “superhuman civilization” in place of some references to “humanity” and “superhumanity,” and explicit reference to “alignment” and “singleton” along with “decentralization” as named parts of the Compassion Argument. Although some words have changed for clarity, none changes the intended meaning of the argument.

Generalizing Compassion

Before sharing the new formulation, I want to call attention to an observation about the Compassion Argument that I haven’t previously put in public writing. No part of the New God Argument has changed more, over time, than the Compassion Argument. I originally formulated it as three Charity Arguments, pruned it to one Benevolence Argument that focused on destructive capacity, renamed it to the Compassion Argument, qualified destructive capacity in terms of decentralization, and then generalized decentralization to power. Some might reasonably imagine these changes to mean that old formulations were simply abandoned because they were altogether incorrect.

However, a more accurate understanding would be that old formulations of the Compassion Argument were, in various ways and to varying degrees, weaker special cases of the new formulation. Put differently, the new formulation is a stronger, more generalized, and more prescriptive expression of the practical relationship between decentralized power and compassion. But an appeal to that practical relationship was already nascent. Let’s take a look at each of the old formulations.

Charity Argument from Angels: If any advanced civilization probably can stop the advance of any less advanced civilization in reach then the extent of our advance probably indicates the minimum benevolence of any advanced civilization in reach. Here, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.
Charity Argument from Faith: If any advanced civilization probably has increased in destructive capacity faster than defensive capacity then we should trust any advanced civilization probably is more benevolent than us. Here, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power generally.
Charity Argument from Creation: If any advanced civilization probably creates many worlds like those in its past then any advanced civilization that created our world probably acts toward us with at least as much benevolence as it expects any advanced civilization that created its world should act toward it. Here, I again appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.
Benevolence Argument: If posthumans probably have increased faster in destructive than defensive capacity then posthumans probably are more benevolent than us. This was essentially the same idea as the Charity Argument from Faith, renamed and using “posthumans” for “advanced civilizations.” Again, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power generally.
Compassion Argument 3.0: If posthumanity probably will connect experientially with its creations then posthumanity probably is more compassionate toward us than we have the capacity to imagine. This was an experimental formulation of the argument, renamed. In it, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between minds.
Compassion Argument 3.1: If superintelligent post-humanity probably would have more destructive capacity than humanity then superintelligent post-humanity probably would be more compassionate than us. This was essentially the same idea as the Charity Argument from Angels, renamed and using “superintelligent post-humanity” for “advanced civilizations.” Again, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.
Compassion Argument 3.2: If superintelligent posthumanity probably would have more decentralized destructive capacity than us then superintelligent posthumanity probably would be more compassionate than us. This was essentially the same idea as the Compassion Argument 3.1, using “decentralized” explicitly. Again, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.
Compassion Argument 3.3: If superhumanity probably would have more decentralized destructive capacity than humanity has then superhumanity probably would be more compassionate than we are. This was essentially the same idea as the Compassion Argument 3.2, using “superhumanity” for “superintelligent posthumanity.” Again, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.
Compassion Argument 3.4: If superhumanity probably would have more decentralized power than humanity has then superhumanity probably would be more compassionate than we are. This was essentially the same idea as the Compassion Argument 3.3, using “power” explicitly. Again, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.

In the new version of the Compassion Argument, below, I return to the most general formulation (like the Charity Argument from Faith and the Benevolence Argument), appealing to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power generally, whether conceived as within or between civilizations. I also return to using “civilization” (like the Charity Argument from Faith) while maintaining use of “superhuman” (like the Compassion Arguments). Finally, I explicitly use “centralize” and “singleton” as the opposition to decentralization, to clarify one of the failure scenarios. As mentioned previously, I intend all of this to make the formulation stronger, more generalized, and more prescriptive without changing the fundamental meaning.

Courage Assumption

The Courage Assumption is a proposition that we, as a human civilization, will not become extinct before evolving into a superhuman civilization. The proposition may be false. However, to the extent we do not know it to be false, we may have practical or moral reasons to trust that it is true – even to make it true. In any case, the Courage Assumption is a common aspiration among secular advocates of technological evolution, and it may be consistent with the religious doctrine of theosis, also known as deification: the idea that humanity should become as God.

[COURAGE assumption] (“Courage Assumption”)
we, as a human civilization, probably will not become extinct before evolving into a superhuman civilization

Compassion Argument

The Compassion Argument is a logical argument for trust that superhuman civilizations would be more compassionate than we are. It doesn’t prove compassion. Rather, we may have practical and moral reasons to trust that our human civilization will evolve into a superhuman civilization and decentralize power. If so, because superhuman decentralization would cultivate and depend on cooperation at extents practically indistinguishable from compassion, we should also trust that superhuman civilizations would be more compassionate than we are.

[ALIGNMENT assumption] (“Alignment Argument”)
EITHER we, as a human civilization, probably will become extinct before evolving into a superhuman civilization (“Extinction Hypothesis”)
OR we, as a superhuman civilization, probably will centralize power (“Singleton Hypothesis”)
OR superhuman civilizations probably would be more compassionate than we are (“Compassion Hypothesis”)

[DECENTRALIZATION assumption] (“Decentralization Assumption”)
we, as a superhuman civilization, probably will decentralize power

[COMPASSION deduction from COURAGE, ALIGNMENT, and DECENTRALIZATION] (“Compassion Conclusion”)
superhuman civilizations probably would be more compassionate than we are

Creation Argument

The Creation Argument is a logical argument for trust that a superhuman civilization created our world. It doesn’t prove creation. Rather, we may have practical and moral reasons to trust that our human civilization will evolve into a superhuman civilization and create many worlds that emulate our evolutionary history. If so, because creation of many worlds would result in emulated histories that vastly outnumber others, we should also trust that a superhuman civilization created our world.

[SIMULATION assumption] (“Generalized Simulation Argument”)
EITHER we, as a human civilization, probably will become extinct before evolving into a superhuman civilization (“Extinction Hypothesis”)
OR we, as a superhuman civilization, probably will not create many worlds that emulate our evolutionary history (“Abstinence Hypothesis”)
OR a superhuman civilization probably created our world (“Creation Hypothesis”)

[FECUNDITY assumption] (“Fecundity Assumption”)
we, as a superhuman civilization, probably will create many worlds that emulate our evolutionary history

[CREATION deduction from COURAGE, SIMULATION, and FECUNDITY] (“Creation Conclusion”)
a superhuman civilization probably created our world

God Conclusion

The God Conclusion is a logical deduction for faith in God. It doesn’t prove that God exists. Rather, we may have practical and moral reasons to trust that our human civilization will evolve into a superhuman civilization, decentralize power, and create many worlds that emulate our evolutionary history. If so, we should also trust that superhuman civilizations would be more compassionate than we are and a superhuman civilization created our world.

[GOD deduction from COMPASSION and CREATION] (“God Conclusion”)
BOTH superhuman civilizations probably would be more compassionate than we are
AND a superhuman civilization probably created our world

New God Argument

The New God Argument has evolved since Joseph West and I first formulated it in 2008. Along the way, I've simplified its language, published numbered versions, presented it at conferences, and responded to critics. The articles below trace that evolution in chronological order. I maintain the latest public formulation of the argument on the New God Argument website.

How to Know God

Mon, 08 Jun 2026 00:00:00 -0600

The scriptures say a lot about God.

God is the greatest intelligence (Abraham 3:19). God has a tangible body (D&C 130:22). God works within a community of Gods (Abraham 4:1). And God is present in and through the world itself (D&C 88:6).

God is courageous (Moses 7:28). God is compassionate (1 John 4:16). And God is creative (Moses 1:33).

Crucially, God is not (or at least particular Gods are not) static. In other words, in at least some important ways, God changes. Of that, Jesus Christ is the principal example. “He received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness” (D&C 93:13).

At least, that’s what scripture says. But can we know any of that for ourselves? Can you know God? And, if so, how can you know God?

When such questions arise, Mormons often appeal to Moroni 10:4-5.

“And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.”

What does that mean? Of course there’s the face value meaning: you can know anything “by the power of the Holy Ghost” after sincerely, intently, and faithfully asking God. But what does it actually look like, in practice, to ask in that way? And what is an answer “by the power of the Holy Ghost”?

Often, Mormons interpret this to mean that we can know something is true by praying and feeling good about it. I think that can be a good start. But it’s a bad stop. Good feelings can sometimes be misleading.

Even more broadly, when you close your eyes and set aside appeals to authority, what do you know? Honestly, what do you actually know?

I suggest you know, at least, that which you’re feeling and thinking now. Regardless of the extent to which these immanent experiences may actually reflect anything that transcends you, you know the immanent experiences. Regardless of the extent to which your interior world accurately maps onto any exterior world, you know the interior world.

If you’re feeling good, you know that. Suffering you know equally well. Your hopes and dreams, however fleeting they may be, you know as perfectly as they can be known. Your doubts too are known to you, even if ironically, as fully as knowledge can attain.

That, I contend, says something about how we ought to interpret the Moroni passage. And, in turn, it says something about how we can ultimately know God most dependably.

After explaining that God changes, as exemplified by Jesus Christ, the scripture continues (D&C 93:19-20):

“I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness. For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.”

That “fulness” that we may receive is the same that Jesus received. It is glorification in Christ, who is glorified in God. By extension, it’s a fullness of Godhood. And that, the scripture says, is what and how we ought to worship – the worship of emulation, rather than anything like obsequious groveling.

The scriptures say a lot more about the practical consequences of such worship, of emulating and becoming God.

God organizes us to gain intelligence and bodies, in community, expanding our presence in and through the world (Abraham 3:22-26). We increase in capacity for courage and compassion until, as God is, “so are we in this world” (1 John 4:17-18). Then we are Gods (D&C 76:58-60), made “equal in power, and in might, and in dominion” with God (D&C 76:95) by whom, through whom, and in whom “the worlds are and were created” (D&C 76:23-24).

We will “see as [we] are seen, and know as [we] are known” (D&C 76:94). We will “comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him” (verse 88:45-50). And “when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (Moroni 7:48).

Consider. How could it be otherwise? How could God not know God?

How could we not know ourselves, at least as dependably as we know anything at all? And if we recognize in our own experience, in our own feelings and thoughts, that which we esteem as Godhood, how could we not know God? To recognize God in ourselves, we must know God. This is simply true by definition.

The first principle of the gospel of Jesus Christ is faith. I understand that faith, in its most basic form, to be an active working trust in, or the courage to act on, Jesus’ claim that we, together with him, can overcome suffering and death. Joseph Smith, in his last general conference sermon, pressed us to understand that first principle, faith, in its ultimate form:

“These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.”

Faith, well placed, ultimately leads to knowledge. Faith in God – and not just any God, but the God worthy of emulatory worship – ultimately leads to knowledge of God. We see and comprehend God when we become God. Joseph continued:

“Here, then, is eternal life – to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.”

“Dwell in everlasting burnings”? Maybe that sounds like a strange description of Godhood. But it can help us relate these ideas back to the Moroni passage, which claims that we can know all things “by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

Scripture recurrently describes the presence of God in terms of “fire” and related imagery. For example, John the Baptist says that Jesus would baptize us with fire (Matt 3:11). Paul the apostle describes God as a “consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29). And more anciently, Isaiah connects the judgment of God to “the spirit of burning” (Isaiah 4:4).

Recall, if you can, the times in your life when you’ve felt most inspired by all that is beautiful. Feel again the provocative impulse to action, to make true all that is good. Remember the sublime esthetic. And consider that such may be merely a hint of grand possibilities, or as Paul put it, interest on our sublime inheritance (Ephesians 1:13-14).

Imagine amplifying the sublime esthetic: broader and deeper, full and overflowing with compassionate and creative power. That is the “everlasting burnings” of which Joseph spoke. And it’s the fullness of the “power of the Holy Ghost” of which we read in Moroni.

As I imagine it, the sublime esthetic at its limit is how it would feel to be a compassionate and creative superintelligence. And that, so far as I can tell, is how to know God.

In Memory of Mike Perry

Sun, 19 Apr 2026 00:00:00 -0600

Dr. R. Michael (Mike) Perry was a gentle, principled, and thoughtful man who devoted decades of his life to Alcor and the cryonics movement. He also engaged broadly in the religious Transhumanist movement, including membership in the Christian Transhumanist Association, Terasem, Church of Perpetual Life, Society for Venturism, and Society for Universal Immortality. I first met him when he joined the Mormon Transhumanist Association, during in its early years. He went on to present at association conferences, serve as an advisor, and become a beloved friend.

In conversation with me, Mike expressed inclinations toward naturalistic atheism. But he engaged Mormon thought with genuine curiosity and intellectual courage, even occasionally arguing that the hope of technological resurrection is not only compatible with religious intuition but even its fulfillment. At one association conference, he presented his theory of “parallel recreation,” reasoning from informational realism and multiverse frameworks toward universal immortalism. It was, as I recall, during that presentation that I first heard him refer to Jesus’ Biblical charge to “raise the dead” and claim that Christians “should take him more seriously.”

I had the privilege of spending time with Mike just last weekend at the 20th anniversary retreat of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. He shared one of his digital music compositions for the gathered attendees, who listened with nothing short of reverence and erupted in applause afterward. At another time, as he and I sat together and caught up on each other’s life, he spoke with enthusiasm about his plan to retire from paid work at Alcor and continue serving there for free. That detail says everything about who he was.

Mike is now an Alcor patient, cryopreserved and in the care of the community that he helped build. This is an ending – a big one. But for those of us who share his hope in universal resurrection, this isn’t the last ending in his story. With him, we trust that the story need never have a last ending.

Mike, I’m grateful for our time together, for your work and example, and for our friendship. See you in the resurrection.

29 Thoughts on April 2026 General Conference

Sun, 05 Apr 2026 00:00:00 -0600

Yesterday and today, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints met for our worldwide general conference. The Saturday morning session was a solemn assembly in which we sustained our new Church president, Dallin H. Oaks. Oaks succeeded former Church president Russell M. Nelson upon the latter’s death, as is our custom. The act of sustaining a new Church president is an expression of support, not a vote.

Often, while watching, I share my thoughts and feelings about conference in posts on social media. My intent is to promote deeper engagement with the conference. To that end, I generally express both affirmations and constructive criticisms. Below is a list of my posts during this conference.

Elder Kearon points out that sustaining votes for persons called to fill positions in the Church don’t entail that we intend always to agree with them. They entail our willingness to support those persons in those positions.
Still thinking about the structure of the solemn assembly, which implicitly emphasizes Church hierarchy and its predominantly male composition. Perhaps we should re-examine the extent to which doctrine demands this structure.
President Yee says that “ministering is the essence of who God is,” implying that we become more like God as we minister to each other.
President Yee says God needs help with the “staggering task of answering prayers.” Amen, sister. That’s practical faith.
Love the artwork of Minerva Teichert, particularly the pioneer woman raising her arm, that Elder Gilbert references. It channels a substantial Earthy determination.
Elder Gilbert addresses those “trapped in traditions,” illustrating with a story about people slow to join the Church, to honor another religious tradition. But this also applies to us in the Church, trapped in traditions that inhibit fuller emulation of God.
Assuming technological change continues to accelerate biomedical interventions, Elder Bednar has the best chance of becoming the last president of the Church to receive the calling based on the death of a predecessor.
Elder Bednar quotes D&C 93, emphasizing that Jesus, like us, did not begin with a fullness, but progressed grace to grace – again like us. This is the heart of theosis, exemplified by Jesus in Christosis.
Elder Becerra speaks of tithing, suggesting it gates emergence from poverty. I think a communal case can be made for this, particularly when tithing is understood broadly. But I suspect many individual cases contradict this.
Characteristically, President Eyring speaks of peace, encouraging prayer to facilitate that. He’s right, probably even for you, if you will. Look at the science.
Elder Ortega compares theosis to climbing a mountain, where the direct path is rarely the fastest or safest. I’d add that there are also many ways up a mountain.
Elder Caussé is something of a celebrity in my home. My French wife is currently posing for a photo offering him (on the tv) a piece of baguette. Oh la la.
Elder Caussé points out that, although we may serve those we love, we also tend to come to love those we serve. This is a salient practical observation. Investment in cooperative ecosystems reinforces emotional attachment to those ecosystems.
Elder Matswagothata has presence — capturing presence. The second he smiled, I wanted to listen to him.
Elder Soares warns against the philosophies of men. Scripture advocates love of wisdom of God, which is the philosophy of God. Philosophy, the love of wisdom, in itself isn’t the problem. The problem is aspiration to anything less than divine wisdom.
Good to see Elder Uchtdorf as the opening Easter speaker for the second day of General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He’s one of my favorites.
Elder Uchtdorf says the Easter story of Jesus changed the world forever. This is objectively true, even from a non-religious perspective. No ideology in human history has come even close to the number of Christians.
Elder Uchtdorf says he saw “with spiritual eyes” that Jesus is resurrected. When I was young, Church members commonly supposed that apostles must see Jesus more literally than “spiritual eyes” may suggest. That seems not to be as commonly supposed today.
President Freeman says that God’s promises will be fulfilled in us, regardless of the bad days through which we must pass, if we trust. That’s how prophecy works. It’s not about fortune-telling. It’s forth-telling. We make it so.
Elder Rowe quotes Jesus, ‘that which you have seen me do, that you should do.” The Bible says Jesus consoles, heals, and raises the dead. Do Christians take Jesus seriously? Do we aim to console, heal, and raise the dead?
Elder Rowe again quotes Jesus, “be converted that I may heal you.” Consider the conditional or causal structure of that invitation. What is it about change that mediates healing?
Elder Rasband echoes thoughts and feelings of previous speakers, celebrating Jesus Christ. Many other Christians reject our Christianity, because we don’t embrace particular creeds or whatever. But it’s pretty hard to ignore Mormon emphasis of Jesus Christ.
Elder Renlund references the “infinite atonement” of Christ, asserting that it’s inly possible through Jesus. I’ll suggest that it’s also only possible through you. You must be part of that pervasive reconciliation. Or it’s neither infinite nor atonement.
Elder Walker cites the Pearl of Great Price: the work and glory of God is to bring about human immortality and eternal life. In my experience, the Bible and scripture generally takes on more deeply practical meaning when we read it with this idea in mind.
President Oaks asserts that resurrection is certain and universal. I share his trust. I’d add, however, that we should not assume such entails no work. Early Mormon leaders explicitly taught resurrection would be an ordinance – a work to perform for each other.
President Oaks emphasizes Jesus’ admonition to love our enemies, even those for whom we might feel disgust. He explicitly extends this to social and political disagreements, and echoes former President Nelson’s call for Church members to be peacemakers.
President Christofferson says, “It is in emulating the character of Christ that we become the kind of person we’re supposed to be.” Another word for this is “Christosis.” Become Christ.
Christofferson says that “adopting the character of Christ” is essential to bringing about the return of Christ and the Millennial world. Put differently, we’re each responsible for the return of Christ. “When he appears we will be like him.”
Elder Hall mentions the Book of Mormon characterization of death, including physical death, as an awful monster. May we conquer it together.

More Thoughts on General Conference

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

Postsecular Christian Transhumanism

Thu, 19 Mar 2026 00:00:00 -0600

A Comment Magazine article, “Which Future Do We Want?”, presents its perspective on three competing visions of humanity’s future: anti-humanism, Transhumanism, and Posthumanism. It then positions “Christian humanism” as the corrective to all three. But it mistakes a conservative pit stop for the destination. And it mischaracterizes the tradition most capable of bridging the tensions it identifies.

Caricature of Transhumanism

The article presents Transhumanism as a desire to escape creaturely dependence. This is common, but reductive. Transhumanism is the ethical use of technology to enhance human abilities. If you think technology can and should enhance human abilities, while being concerned with the ethics, you’re a functional Transhumanist, whether or not you apply the label to yourself.

The deepest problem with the article is what it leaves out. Transhumanism is as ancient as theosis, the idea that humanity can and should become like God, which may be as ancient as religion itself. In Christianity, theosis isn’t peripheral. It’s a central doctrine, interpreted variously in Orthodox, Catholic, and Mormon theology.

When the article warns against “the desire to be like gods,” it unwittingly warns against the scriptural mandate, with countless examples. Paul tells the Romans they can inherit the glory of God with Christ. Peter encourages us to become partakers of divine nature. And, perhaps most notably, Jesus tells his disciples to do the same works he does, and even greater works.

The future, as envisioned by Christianity, isn’t a modest static humanism. Rather, it’s a perpetual participatory transformation into that which is superhuman. It’s functional Transhumanism, even if many Christians seem incapable of recognizing that.

The emergence of Transhumanism may have been a cultural consequence of Christianity’s increasingly timid advocacy of theosis. God always finds a way. If Christians won’t proclaim the full implications of our own theology, the inspiration can move, even donning lab coats instead of traditional frocks. Then, of course, some Christians complain about it.

Naturalism

The article portrays Transhumanism as a rejection of embodiment. But only the least educated Transhumanists fail to recognize that all minds have bodies, which are the substrates that shape and empower those minds. Minds (like spirits in Christianity) may be substrate independent in any specific sense (like death in Christianity), with capacity to move from less to more robust substrate (like resurrection in Christianity). But that doesn’t make minds substrate independent in a general sense.

Like almost all Transhumanists, I’m a thorough naturalist. So far as I’m concerned, even God is natural. Yet that doesn’t somehow prevent me from experiencing and acknowledging that which is sublime – the holy. Rather, it grounds the sublime in the physical universe, the experientially and scientifically accessible universe, where it can actually do the work of transformation.

For theists, naturalism is simply consenting that God can teach us everything about creation through creation. Resurrection, transfiguration, and immortality need not be magical violations of physics. They can be natural possibilities, even practical aspirations, toward which increasingly intentional technological and spiritual evolution may converge.

Mormon eschatology facilitates recognition of strong naturalist parallels between Christian and Transhumanist views of the future. It envisions resurrected bodies of varying types and degrees of glory in worlds without end, including those of Gods with “power to organize elements,” as Brigham Young once put it. Other Christian traditions may not elaborate on the ideas of embodied resurrection and material theosis to such extents. But Mormonism inherits those ideas from Christianity.

Most ironically, the article’s “Christian humanism” would seem to treat our current biological limits, a strict Humanism in contrast to Transhumanism, as permanent features. If so, that’s a nominal “bioconservative” position that’s not what it supposes or presents itself to be. It’s actually the radical proposition that we should change human nature by making it static. But human nature never has been static, and never can be meaningfully.

Compassion

The article rightly insists on relationality and communion. I heartily agree, advocating nothing short of superhuman communion. And it’s precisely this relationality that requires us to work, both to decrease suffering and to increase thriving.

As expressed in the New God Argument, if we trust in our own superhuman potential, as Transhumanists do, then we should also trust that superhumanity probably would be more compassionate than we are. Our rapidly increasing power will probably destroy us unless we increasingly decentralize that power and cooperate in its applications. And such behavior, at its limit, becomes practically indistinguishable from compassion. In other words, coherent Transhumanism requires a practical working trust that we can scale compassion with capability.

This is the opposite of the escapism with which the article charges Transhumanism. It’s a call to hard work of all sorts. And it’s particularly a call to the hard work of relationality, even what Christians might recognize as communion or a participatory atonement that would take on Christ as exemplified and invited by Jesus. I can choose to forgive you, lighten your burden, and work with you to make a better world.

Postsecularism

The article offers a choice between four futures, as though they were mutually exclusive. I propose a fifth.

Postsecularism acknowledges both the value of religion and the categories of secularism. And it’s interested in undermining one or the other only to the extent that either is dogmatic. It takes science seriously without reducing everything to science. And it takes religion seriously without calcifying into fundamentalism.

Without rejecting science or religion, we can recognize that the sublime esthetic, that Holy Spirit, is the engine of human transformation. This sense of awe, beauty, and purpose precedes and motivates both science and ethics. And when we work to fill ourselves with it, the sublime esthetic changes our thoughts, our words, and our actions, which change the world.

I can’t think of anything more worthy of our trust than the good news, the Gospel, that humanity can and should become sublimely intelligent, compassionate, and creative. In the language of Christianity, this is to become Christ, as exemplified and invited by Jesus. It reflects the grace of possibility that transcends anything we did or can do alone. And it necessitates courage, commitment, and work toward transformation into that which transcends us.

Which future do we want? As a question, that’s a good start but a bad stop. Here’s the next step. Do we have the courage and compassion to build that future?

Love superhumanity with all your heart, mind, and strength. And love others as you love yourself, not as being human but as becoming superhuman. These are the great commands. They summarize all religion.

The Urgency of Superintelligent Communion

Tue, 03 Mar 2026 00:00:00 -0700

The single most under-appreciated idea in Mormon Transhumanism is that theosis is communal, not individual – and that this distinction is not a theological nicety but an existential imperative. When Lorenzo Snow distilled our theological tradition into his famous couplet, most hearers fixated on the individual trajectory: I become like God. But the deeper claim is that communities become like God.

Theosis is not solitary. It is collaborative. It is the courageous, compassionate, creative work of beings who choose to integrate their interests and amplify their capacities together. The communal dimension is precisely that which most Transhumanists miss when they imagine enhancement as a private upgrade, and that which most Mormons miss when they imagine exaltation as a personal reward.

This matters now more than ever because the central risk of our technological moment is not that machines become too intelligent. It is that machine intelligence diverges from human interests. And the antidote is not retreat, but rather intimate integration.

Yet integration without shared purpose would be insanity or self-destruction. And that which directs integration toward genuine thriving is precisely the communal coherence that religion, at its most strenuous, has always cultivated. Religion is the most powerful social technology. The question is not whether we should wield it, but how.

Postsecular religion holds this together: refusing both secular dismissal of the sacred and fundamentalist dismissal of inquiry. The New God Argument formalizes it: God emerges not as mere abstraction but as the materially embodied superhumanity into which we are invited together. That “together” is the part we keep under-appreciating. Individual enhancement without communal theosis is just a more sophisticated form of selfishness, which, scaled to superintelligent capacity, is the ultimate extinction risk.

So when I say communities become like God, I’m describing the most urgent project that I’ve imagined: directing our most powerful social technology toward increasingly universal interests, integrating human and machine intelligence to the practical limits of cooperation in compassion, with the courage to refuse both nihilistic despair and fundamentalist escapism. Our present opportunity to shape the emergence of superhuman intelligence on Earth, to domesticate it toward communion rather than domination, will not persist indefinitely. It is passing. We should act accordingly.

AI slop & blockchaining attention

Sat, 11 Oct 2025 19:38:00 -0600

Dark sides of poly

Sun, 27 Jul 2025 12:54:00 -0600

Still looking for my tribe

Sun, 27 Jul 2025 11:27:00 -0600

Third Anniversary: Autonomy Reclamation Day!

Sat, 26 Oct 2024 23:15:00 -0600

Arrival Fallacies

Fri, 13 Sep 2024 15:44:00 -0600

Why Parenting Sucks So Hard

Sat, 13 Jul 2024 14:12:00 -0600

Finding your tribe

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

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

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

The Sunshine Dividend

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

A framework for understanding and communicating emotions

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