Mormon Transhumanist Association

In Memory of Mike LaTorra

Sun, 06 Sep 2026 00:00:00 -0600

My friend Mike LaTorra died on Wednesday, 2 September 2026. He taught English at New Mexico State University for more than two decades. And he was ordained a Zen Buddhist priest, presiding for a time over the Daibutsuji Zen Temple in Las Cruces.

Mike also served on the board of directors of the World Transhumanist Association when they voted to affiliate with the Mormon Transhumanist Association. That was July 2006. The Mormon Transhumanist Association was just a few months old. He and his fellow board members extended a hand of aspiring friendship that helped to establish the legitimacy of Mormon Transhumanism within the broader movement.

I knew Mike first as a voice for Buddhist Transhumanism. The basic idea was that human enhancement, including radical life extension, isn’t opposed to dharma. Asked how the two fit together, he told an interviewer for Ozy that “the Buddha says coming back over and over again is a pain in the neck.” More time, by his reading, isn’t escape from enlightenment, but rather pursuit of enlightenment with more time to meet the right guru.

To keep expenses low, Mike and I shared a hotel room in the Bay Area the night before the 2014 Religion and Transhumanism Conference. While making the arrangements, he told me he had “very positive feelings about the future of the MTA, and the unique role that Mormon Transhumanists can play in the next stages of our species’ evolution.” After the conference, he praised how well our conference volunteers had worked together without being asked, commenting that if he ever assembled a team to colonize another world, “I’m certainly going to invite MTA folks to be in my ‘Away Team.’”

I hope we’re continuing to earn Mike’s trust.

One of Mike’s deepest convictions, as I understood him, was that religions differ in name but not in their most important function. His Buddhism, my Mormonism, whatever tradition a stranger inherits: all point to what he called “the Great Tradition of human spirituality,” borrowing a phrase from Adi Da Samraj. And he added that they “should indicate to us that something innate in us underpins and transcends the particular modes of expression that appear among the various religions.”

I agree. No single ideology or tradition owns truth. And none of us can achieve our superhuman potential alone.

Grief is no sin, I must sometimes remind myself. Even grief can lead us onward and upward toward all that is true, good, and beautiful. Mormons call that “salvation and exaltation.” Buddhists might call that “liberation and awakening.”

Whatever the name, in function that’s what Mike spent his life pursuing and encouraging. And I’m thankful for the inspiration he continues to provide me.

May you thrive again, my friend.

TrueChristian® Hypocrisy

Thu, 27 Aug 2026 00:00:00 -0600

I received a Google Alert for “[Christians Only] WDYT of Christian Transhumanism Association? : r/TrueChristian - Reddit.” Christians only? Okay. I’m Christian.

So I clicked on the link and read the thread. The “Christian” originator tells of going down the proverbial “rabbit hole” and learning about Christian Transhumanism. Although confused and inviting thoughts, he’s “pretty sure” that the common Christian Transhumanist idea of resurrecting the dead is “heresy.”

An “Eastern Orthodox” commenter confirms, “just by seeing their name I know they’re at least heretics or not even Christians.”

A “Christian non-nationalist” shares, “My first concern is their participatory technological language around resurrection.” He continues, “I don’t read the Bible as suggesting that this is anything other than a work of our awesome creator.” Oh, and by the way, “I’m also concerned about the apparent composition … including Mormon Transhumanists and secular-adjacent futurist writers …”

And “Non-Denominational” concludes, feigning imitation of a Christian Transhumanists, “We want to disrespect God’s image by enhancing human bodies essentially mutilating our own bodies that are made in the image of the God we do claim to love!”

Hmm. So much nonsense. Maybe I should respond, I thought. So I tried.

Jesus: Raise the dead.

TrueChristian: Heresy.

But it didn’t work. A bot quickly informed me that my comment had been removed. Why? I was commenting “without flair identifying [me] as a trinitarian believer.”

The bot also explained how I’m not a Christian. I “may not utilize a Christian flair,” it informed me, if I “deny the Trinity or other beliefs expressed in the Nicene Creed.” And even if I choose to use the flair to identify myself as a Christian, I’m “still not allowed to post in a Christians Only thread.”

The bot concluded with instructions about how to add flair below “__ followers of Christ are online.”

So here we are. TrueChristian® won’t receive my message. But you, dear reader, you’re receiving it now, whether you like it or not.

Of course it’s nothing new. TrueChristian® has been demonizing me for decades. And they’ll probably continue for decades more. Not so secretly, I hope so because it’s free advertising.

But I do wish to call special attention to this particular exchange. It encapsulates, so well, the fundamental hypocrisy of TrueChristian®. They claim to be Christian, which above all connotes reverence for Jesus and the Bible. And yet their words implicitly reject both to an extent that would be surprising if it weren’t so common.

“Do the works you see me do,” says Jesus in the Bible, as he raises the dead repeatedly. But the first concern of TrueChristian® is participatory language around resurrection.

“Raise the dead,” says Jesus in the Bible, as if his example isn’t enough. But TrueChristian® is pretty sure that’s heresy.

“Touch me and see,” says Jesus in the Bible, appearing bodily as if from nowhere after having been crucified. But enhancing human bodies is mutilation for TrueChristian®.

So much hypocrisy.

Meanwhile, I’m not a Christian because Mormons don’t revere the Nicene Creed. And Transhumanists are just yuck. Too little Nicea. Too much Jesus, Bible, and yuck.

No wonder “__ followers of Christ are online.”

The Vanguardism Trap

Sat, 22 Aug 2026 00:00:00 -0600

A friend recently described to me a “stench of fascism” in rationalist discourse. “Any theory that makes ‘clear thinking’ a scarce, trainable, testable property generates a distinction between those who have it and those who don’t,” he wrote. “And that distinction is convertible into political authority no matter what the theory says about itself.”

He’s right about the mechanism. I’ve smelled it too. But there’s probably a more useful name for it.

What he and I have smelled, I suggest, may be more usefully characterized as vanguardism. This is an ideology commonly associated with Vladimir Lenin, who led the Bolsheviks that became the Russian Communist Party. His vanguard claimed superior revolutionary consciousness and organizational discipline. In a broader sense, vanguardism advocates a trained elite empowered to override the judgment of the untrained many, usually in the name of stakes that are too high for untrained deliberation.

Recognizing vanguardism matters because it guides our attention to focus differently, and probably more effectively. The risk of vanguardism probably isn’t so much that it would lead rationalists to ultranationalism or the particular kinds of violence historically associated with fascism. That seems orthogonal or at least less proximate to an imminent risk. The risk of vanguardism is that it would lead rationalists to advocate large-scale ceding of human agency to supposed clear thinkers who need not answer to anyone beyond themselves.

In function, vanguardism is not unique to any one ideology. Plato’s philosopher-kings, Gnostic special knowledge, Calvinist election, and even misused priesthood authority in the Mormon tradition all share the same risk. A claim of privileged access can convert into a claim of governance over those who lack it.

Vanguardism among rationalists may be relatively new. But the attendant risk is already being realized. Many advocate centralizing control of artificial intelligence and other transformative technologies in the name of safety. And some, in or adjacent to rationalist circles, have descended into the anti-democratic neoreactionism of “Dark Enlightenment.”

Some of these vanguardist rationalists, presumably a minority, may imagine superior ethics to be deducible from superior epistemics. Maybe we can dismiss them as marginal. But many other rationalists make the more subtle vanguardist mistake of supposing superior ethics to be correlated with superior epistemics. They reason that because they understand the facts, risks, and consequences most clearly, they should be empowered to adjudicate values for the rest of us.

In contrast, pragmatist philosopher John Dewey observed that democracy isn’t primarily about ascertaining facts. It doesn’t compete with expertise. Rather, democracy is primarily about forming and transforming values, and thereby deciding what we should do with facts. No expert can do that without us because, although facts constrain values, values also constrain facts.

In fact, values constrain not only discovery but also creation of facts. Values create more values, which are themselves a kind of fact. And values create other kinds of facts as a consequence of action on values. Moreover, the creation of facts is a consequence of plural action on values, creating realities that even the clearest thinkers, greatest experts, and superintelligent Gods cannot create without us.

Ethics, actually to be ethics, must be grounded in values. More fundamentally, ethics must be grounded in desire. Facts and rationality are certainly important, even utterly necessary, as we seek to fulfill and reconcile desire. But neither is sufficient without desire.

“Desire” that is asserted from the top down is not and cannot coherently be our desire. It would be our enslavement or annihilation. And the self-appointed clear thinkers who would centralize the power of our agency into their own, “for our good,” would be our enslavers or annihilators. Such is the risk of vanguardism.

Rationalists must vigorously resist vanguardism. The model of clear thinking that would justify it is epistemically incomplete, lacking that which cannot be coherently centralized. In its stead, we can formulate, embrace, and advocate strong arguments for the hard work of formal decentralization. And we can put those arguments into practical application, restructuring the world such that our common good persists as that which emerges among us, and resists that which asserts itself over us.

Decentralization, not vanguardism, is how we ensure a beautiful future for humanity, without coercion that would amount to no future at all.

Without Beginning

Sat, 08 Aug 2026 00:00:00 -0600

Dorothée and I usually watch a show together before bed. Presently, we’re watching a science fiction show with a narrative that revolves around time travel. It’s entertaining, especially the recreations of historical events that bump into modern sensibilities. But it’s also incoherent in many ways.

My work sometimes invites questions about time travel, for at least a couple reasons.

First, although neither intended nor necessary, time travel could explain recursion in the Creation Argument of the New God Argument. When people read the idea that superhumanity creates superhumanity, they sometimes imagine the future of our human civilization creating our past and present in a simple time loop. But only procedural recursion, not temporal recursion, is required by the argument. And adding notions of temporal recursion tends to create more problems than it solves, in my estimation.

Second, something like a subtle version of time travel could explain my observation that Mormon theology entails neither a finite nor an infinite regress of Gods. As the Kolob hymn puts it, “Do you think that you could ever, through all eternity, find out the generation where Gods began to be?” Such questions imply at least a third possibility: an indefinite regress. Maybe our present can create not only our future but also our past to some extent.

Quantum physics may allow for an alternative to the commonsense notion that reality is determined exclusively from past to future. For example, consider observer effects in delayed-choice experiments. You send a photon along a path that requires either a wave or a particle state. But the state along the path is indefinite until you look at the photon afterwards, at which time the past state becomes definite.

Did you change the past? You didn’t change the past of the photon from one definite state to another. But apparently you did change the past state of the photon from indefinite to definite. So if you didn’t change the past then you created the past, to whatever extent the past exists.

That’s an unusual way to think about the past. But it’s quite like the ordinary way of thinking about the future. We aren’t changing the future from one definite state to another. We’re changing an indefinite future into a definite present.

Outside of strange experiments, the past seems much more definite than the future. But what if the distant past is as indefinite as the near future? What if the distant past exists no more nor less than the near future? Perhaps the historians’ project, at cosmological scale, is persistently changing an indefinite past into the definite present?

Imagine that we are, here and now, near the forward-moving edge of relatively high spacetime definiteness. The proximate past is highly defined by memories, records, environment, and other present constraints. But both the future and the distant past are increasingly indefinite to the extent that present constraints are sparse or absent. Reality, as we experience it, would be a region of relative definiteness surrounded temporally, and perhaps spatially, by horizons of increasing indefiniteness.

It’s not controversial to claim that we know less about the distant past than the recent past. But I’m suggesting more. Experiments suggest that some aspects of the past are not merely unknown but genuinely indefinite, such that they exist only to the extent that we create them. And perhaps these indefinite aspects of the past increasingly accumulate until the distant past becomes as indefinite as the future.

Again, this wouldn’t mean that we could change definite historical events. Dense networks of mutually reinforcing correlations would still ensure that the proximate past remains as stable as commonsense supposes it to be. But beyond the horizons of the densely definite, toward not only the future but also the past, reality may be knowable only to the extent that we create it.

Let’s return to Mormon theology. There might be neither a first generation of Gods nor an infinite regress. The Gods themselves might not know. And that might not be ignorance as much as it is an honest account of limits on knowledge as imposed by reality – the limits of that which is actually knowable.

Without beginning, the Gods find themselves making worlds without end. Looking toward the future, although constrained by the present, they see indefinite possibilities of creation. Looking toward the near past, more heavily constrained by the present, they see definite possibilities of discovery. Looking farther still, they find themselves making worlds without beginning.

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

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.

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