Support This Blog On Patreon!

Support this Blog!

All I ask is a $1 a month. (But more is great too.) If you find this content to be beneficial, interesting or just a fascinating peek into true insanity please donate.

Saturday, February 25, 2017

Building the Tower of Babel

If you prefer to listen rather than read:



Or download the MP3



I spent this past weekend visiting some old friends. One of my friends is a Dominican Friar who was gracious enough to allow me to stay in one of the guest rooms at his Priory. One night while I was there he invited me to sit down with the other friars during their social hour. I think mostly he just wanted me to meet them, but as I was sitting there they ended up on the subject of what level of human technological enhancement was appropriate. Obviously this is a somewhat fraught issue for most religions, and definitely all of the traditional religions. I don’t want to misconstrue what my hosts said, nor do I claim any great insight into Catholic doctrine on this matter, so I won’t attempt to reconstruct the discussion. But it led to a conversation with my friend afterwards where I mentioned the Mormon Transhumanist Association (MTA). I’ve always felt that the MTA seemed to have missed the point of the story of the Tower of Babel, and my friend the Dominican (without any prodding from me) jumped to an identical conclusion. It was nice to have the support of someone else on this point and additionally it reminded me that I had wanted to write a post examining just this question. That is, does the story of the Tower of Babel speak to the goals religious transhumanism?


To conduct the examination we need to answer two questions: First is the story of the Tower of Babel a caution about using technology in an attempt to become like God? Second is using technology to become like God one of the primary goals of the MTA? The second question is easier to answer than the first so we’ll begin there.


It is always dangerous to speak for a group you do not belong to, particularly when you are a critic of the group. I could point out that my criticism is meant in the most constructive and friendly way possible. But, even so, as a reader you would have every right to question my objectivity on this point. If you have any worries on this point I would urge you to follow all the links and educate yourself by reading what the MTA says about itself. That said I am not trying to be unfair or prejudiced, and in that spirit here is my best summary of what the MTA believes: All of the promises made by Christianity, and Mormonism in particular, (resurrection, immortality, the creation of worlds, etc) are going to be accomplished through human ingenuity, in the form of technology. As I said you should follow the links to their website, but I think point four of the Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation says much the same thing:


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


Perhaps, this, by itself, is already enough, and, from the standpoint of religion, you can already easily see why the Tower of Babel story is applicable. But for those that are not convinced or would like more evidence, let me break it down. First the principles I’ve already pointed out are just the Mormon veneer on top of main body of transhumanism. The MTA is not merely espousing a particular Mormon take on transhumanism they fully endorse the goals of the broader transhumanist movement. This is made clear when they explain what it takes to join the MTA:


The association requires that all members support the Transhumanist Declaration and the Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation.


The Transhumanist Declaration gives one the impression that the sky's the limit with respect to technological enhancement. For example let's look at points 1 and 8 of the declaration (the first and last points):


Humanity stands to be profoundly affected by science and technology in the future. We envision the possibility of broadening human potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntary suffering, and our confinement to planet Earth.


We favour allowing individuals wide personal choice over how they enable their lives. This includes use of techniques that may be developed to assist memory, concentration, and mental energy; life extension therapies; reproductive choice technologies; cryonics procedures; and many other possible human modification and enhancement technologies.


If you’re still not convinced let me close this section by providing a few examples of things transhumanists and the MTA in particular are definitely in favor of:


Cryonics: That is freezing or otherwise preserving someone when they die with a view towards bringing them back from the dead at some future point.


Genetic Modification: Obviously genetic modification can take many forms, but under the heading of human modification and enhancement the MTA is in favor of using it to the maximum extent possible as a means of increasing intelligence and of course, eventually providing immortality. If you’ve seen the movie Gattaca that’s probably a pretty fair representation.


Cybernetic enhancements: This category might cover getting rid of perfectly functional eyes and replacing them with more advanced robotic eyes, or some sort of direct connection between your brain and a computer (think the headjack from the Matrix.)


Mind uploading: The most radical idea of all would be the ability to copy your mind and then upload it to some sort of computer, allowing you to live on as a virtual being. This enhancement encompasses the benefits of all the previous enhancements, but is also probably the most difficult technically.


As I said I’m reluctant to speak for a group I’m critical of, and if you have doubts as to whether I’m accurately portraying the principles espoused by the MTA then you should definitely follow the links and read things for yourself, but from where I stand there can be very little doubt that the answer to my second question is: yes, one of the MTA’s primary goals is to become like God through the use of technology. With that, hopefully, out of the way let’s turn to the first and more important question. For the religious, is the Tower of Babel story a caution against efforts like this? Or more broadly what is the official LDS stance on achieving divinity through technology?


There will of course be people who think this sort of technological enhancement is a good idea regardless of what I say about the Tower of Babel or anything else. And there will be people who think it’s a bad idea, also regardless of what I say, but for those in the middle the Tower of Babel is a good place to start. Particularly if you’re Mormon. (Though as I pointed out even my very Catholic friend immediately made reference to the story of Babel.)


The reason it’s particularly good for Mormons is that it’s one of the few Old Testament stories to be mentioned in the Book of Mormon. And of those it’s definitely the most prominent. If we proceed from the assumption that everything in the Book of Mormon was put there for a reason why was it necessary to have a second telling of the story of the Tower of Babel? If you accept the idea that it’s a cautionary tale about using technology to achieve divinity in circumvention of God then the straightforward answer is that this is an issue modern saints would be grappling with and it was therefore helpful to have a reminder. I don’t know about you, but on the face of it, this connection, along with the underlying moral, make a lot of sense. And in fact I’m going to call this the traditional interpretation. However for the moment let’s assume that this is not the moral of the story of Babel. This is obviously the MTA’s position. And if it isn’t the moral why do we need a duplicate account? What is the alternative moral which is so important that the story needed to be repeated?


Lincoln Cannon is one of the founders of the MTA and a past president and therefore among its most vocal defenders. As you might imagine he has written an article explaining that the goals of the MTA are not the same thing we are being warned about in the story of Tower of Babel. This article is titled Ethical Progress is Not Babel, and I intend to deal with it in depth, but for the moment we’re just looking to see if he has an alternative moral for the story. I would say that he alludes to one. Drawing on a quote from Lorenzo Snow (which we’ll return to) Cannon writes:


Snow suggests that the builders' moral failing was in allowing technical achievements to outpace moral achievements. The technical achievements in themselves were not the problem, but rather the problem was the relative lack of virtue.


To begin with even if we grant this moral, which we’ll call the MTA interpretation, I’m not sure that our technical achievements haven’t outstripped our moral achievements. A subject I’ll be returning to. But, also, why would this moral be more likely than the more obvious moral. Or to put in other terms how can we go about deciding which moral is more likely to be correct? Of course as religious people we are entitled to receive revelation with something like this, but as that is largely a personal endeavor we’re going to leave it out. What methods can we turn to in the absence of revelation?


Well first, most of the lessons contained in the scriptures are pretty simple. We’re told to have faith, repent, get baptized, love God and each other. I’d be willing to grant that the traditional interpretation of the Tower of Babel story is not quite that simple, but it’s certainly more simple than the MTA interpretation.


Second, when the Lord does instruct us through the scriptures, the obvious explanation is almost always the correct one. (I understand saying “correct” is a loaded term, but I think you know what I mean.) This is not to say there aren’t layers of meaning to the scriptures. But that’s not what we’re seeing here, the MTA interpretation ends up in a place that’s almost the exact opposite of the obvious meaning. I definitely can’t think of any scripture where God commands people to, for example, tell the truth, and the correct interpretation ends up being that lying is the only way to be saved.


Finally most gospel principles are repeated multiple times, but I can’t think of another place where we’re urged to not let our technology outstrip our ethics. Or where we’re urged to pursue technology as the true source of all the long promised blessings. In other words what other scriptures support the MTA interpretation? On the other hand there are lots of examples of scriptures which support the traditional interpretation. To give just a few examples:


  • When the Children of Israel made the Golden Calf: This may not seem very high tech to you, but for the time it was. Also this is another example of finding salvation in something we’re able to build for ourselves while ignoring the plain commandments of God.
  • Another, similar example is the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. Once again we have someone using wealth, power and yes, technology to redirect legitimate worship away from God and to something constructed and conceived by humans. And once again the right course was to refuse to bow down, even if it meant being thrown into the fiery furnace.
  • Moving from the Old Testament to the New we have the story of Simon, who sought to buy God’s power. At first glance you may not immediately see a connection, but if we do manage to reverse aging or resurrect people, or upload their mind into a computer. It’s going to be far easier to access that technology with money than by living a good life.
  • Moving to the Book of Mormon, not only do we have a repeat of the story of Babel, but we also have the story of the Rameumptom. Again, it may not seem like technology, but it’s another example of people building something designed to act as a shortcut to salvation. It’s basically an exact mirror of the Tower of Babel story only on a smaller scale.


It’s possible that you don’t see the connection in one or more of the examples I just cited. But for the MTA interpretation to be the best interpretation of the Tower of Babel story, you have to:


  1. Reject all the supporting examples for the traditional interpretation.
  2. Find other scriptural examples which support the MTA interpretation.
  3. Explain why the MTA interpretation is the more correct interpretation despite being more complicated.
  4. Justify why an interpretation which is exactly the opposite of the obvious interpretation is nevertheless the correct one.


As I mentioned already, Cannon has an article explaining how the Tower of Babel doesn’t mean what I (or my friend the Catholic Priest) think it means, and it’s finally time to turn to that article and examine his argument. Though if you’re expecting him to cover all four of the points I just made (or actually any of the points I just made) you’re going to be disappointed. Still he brings in some interesting sources, so it’s worth taking a look at what he has to say.


The first quote, which I already alluded to, is from Lorenzo Snow:


We should strive earnestly to establish the principles of heaven within us, rather than trouble ourselves in fostering anxieties like the foolish people of the Tower of Babel, to reach its location before we are properly and lawfully prepared to become its inhabitants. Its advantages and blessings, in a measure, can be obtained in this probationary state by learning to live in conformity with its laws and the practice of its principles. To do this, there must be a feeling and determination to do God's will.


This is the statement Cannon draws on for his moral for the story of Babel, that is, that we should not let technology get ahead of morality. To be honest I’m not really getting that from this quote. I think, if anything, a better interpretation would be that we need to focus on our personal righteousness, rather than being anxious or even concerned about whether we can hasten salvation with technology.


Also, I find the term “lawfully”, and his discussion of conforming to the laws, to be interesting as well. There are certain covenants associated with salvation. And some of those are associated with major life events. We’re baptized when we reach the age of eight, we prepare for the afterlife by going through the temple at around the time we are considered to be adults. Additionally, while they aren’t technically covenants, we have baby blessings for the newly born and we dedicate the graves of the newly dead. What sort of law or ritual applies to being revived from cryonics, or being reconstructed from DNA? Are the brethren just waiting until the technology is ready before introducing the ordinance of cloning?


Returning to the Snow quote. I could certainly see how other people might have a different interpretation of it than I do, but I can’t see anyone declaring it to be slam dunk for the MTA interpretation of the Tower of Babel.


The second quote he references is a long one from John Taylor. In fact Cannon’s article is 2/3rds quotes from early Church leaders and only 1/3rd his explanation of those quotes. He is making a complicated and controversial claim and one of my criticisms is that 400 words does not seem sufficient to explain it. In any event back to the Taylor quote. I won’t include all of it, but Cannon helpfully bolds two sections, the second of which appears to be speaking the most directly to his point:


We are here to do a work; not a small one, but a large one. We are here to help the Lord to build up his kingdom, and if we have any knowledge of electricity, we thank God for it. If we have any knowledge of the power of steam, we will say its from God. If we possess any other scientific information about the earth whereon we stand, or of the elements with which we are surrounded, we will thank God for the information, and say he has inspired men from time to time to understand them, and we will go on and grasp more intelligence, light and information, until we comprehend as we are comprehended of God.


I have no problem agreeing that John Taylor is here saying that technology comes from God. That technology is not evil. But there is a huge difference between saying that technology comes from God and saying that technology is how we become Gods. Additionally there is a difference of kind and not merely of degree between using technology to broadcast General Conference to, say, Tierra del Fuego and using technology to live forever. Again, it’s an interesting quote, but it is not even close to being the same as the MTA interpretation of the Tower of Babel story. Still, if you have any doubts, I urge you to read Cannon’s entire article.


The final quote he includes is from Joseph Smith:


This day I have been walking through the most splended part of the City of n New Y- the buildings are truly great and wonderful to the astonishing [of] to eve[r]y beholder and the language of my heart is like this can the great God of all the Earth maker of all thing[s] magnificent and splendid be displeased with man for all these great inventions saught out by them my answer is no it can not be seeing these works are are calculated to mak[e] men comfortable wise and happy therefore not for the works can the Lord be displeased only aganst man is the anger of the Lord Kindled because they Give him not the Glory.


(The spelling and punctuation are from the original document.)


At this point I’m sure I sound like a broken record, but yes, we agree technology is not evil by itself. Technology can be useful both in general and as it relates to the specific goals of the Church. But none of these quotes speak to the specific idea of using technology as a way of accomplishing all the things God has promised. I don’t think it’s very controversial to say that in the middle of the 1800’s when the Presidents of the Church talked about technology that they were not speaking about mind uploading, cybernetic replacement or cryonic resurrection. Fortunately one of the great things about the LDS Church is that we have ongoing revelation, and 15 prophetic leaders who give us counsel twice a year. And as far as I can tell none of them have come out in support of any of these technologies, certainly not as the means for achieving something like the resurrection of the dead as described in scriptures.


And yet if the MTA is to be believed this is how it’s going to be done. Which means these aren’t marginal issues that reasonable people might disagree on, like whether it’s okay to take doctor prescribed marijuana in states where it’s now legal. Rather, issues like resurrection and immortality are fundamental to the entire gospel plan. And if the brethren aren’t pursuing them or investing in them or even talking about them, what does that say? And remember the Church does invest in things, if this is as important as the MTA claims, what does it say when the Church invests in the City Creek Mall, but not in life extension technologies? If these things are as critical to the gospel plan as the MTA claims then the only conclusion is that the brethren have completely failed in their jobs. It’s difficult to see how these two viewpoints can even co-exist, and one is tempted to view the MTA as more of a schismatic offshoot, than anything else.


In closing, let’s change tacks, and imagine that it’s true. Imagine that the MTA is everything it claims to be and God’s plan is to allow us to discover and perfect the technology necessary to achieve Godhood on our own. The MTA itself admits that this is only possible if our morality keeps pace with our technology. As you look around and take stock of the modern world, do you really think that’s the case? Are we really that much more righteous with our computers and jet airliners than the early saints were with their electricity and steam engines? Are we a thousand times more righteous than the twelve disciples and the people who followed Jesus because their technology was a thousand times more primitive? Is the modern world really so righteous that people who can barely be trusted with iPhones, are nevertheless on course to be trusted with omnipotence?






I’m definitely not ready for omnipotence, but I may be ready to handle the responsibility of a dollar a month, if you think so too, consider donating.

11 comments:

  1. The Christian tradition for two millennia is saturated with authoritative teachings that humanity can and should become God, like or as or one in God. This is the doctrine of theosis, divinization, or deification. The Christian tradition also plainly teaches that faith without works is dead, and the Bible includes numerous examples of technology as being among the works prescribed by God. In combination, these matters should make it abundantly clear, to all except the prejudiced, that the MTA position is consustent with a reasonable interpretation of Christianity, even if there are competing alternatives. Note that our position is that tech is AMONG the means, and that it is insufficient in itself if we do not use it in wisdom and inspiration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lincoln,

      Welcome! I'm glad you found this post without me having to post it to the MTA Facebook group. Though I can still do that if you'd like. Then everyone can jump in. As to your comment:

      "The Christian tradition for two millennia is saturated with authoritative teachings that humanity can and should become God, like or as or one in God. This is the doctrine of theosis, divinization, or deification."

      We essentially agree on this point.

      "The Christian tradition also plainly teaches that faith without works is dead, and the Bible includes numerous examples of technology as being among the works prescribed by God."

      Could you point me at these biblical technology examples? I didn't see any in the original babel article. I've seen you mention Nephi's ship and the Liahona in other places, but there's a big difference between the Lord providing "technology" to accomplish a specific commandment, and the Lord advocating a broad based program of technology as a way of eventually fulfilling his commandments. I see a lot of calls to "repent!" but I'm unaware of a single call to "research!"

      "In combination, these matters should make it abundantly clear, to all except the prejudiced, that the MTA position is consustent with a reasonable interpretation of Christianity, even if there are competing alternatives."

      I don't think it does make it abundantly clear. I think most people live in dangerous bubbles of self-reinforcing opinion, myself included. And it's easy to see something as reasonable or mainstream when in fact it's an opinion limited to the small circle of people we interact with. I don't think that only prejudiced Christians view the MTA's interpretation as unreasonable (though perhaps you have a very broad definition of prejudice) I think the majority would view it as unreasonable. Certainly that's been my experience so far. But if you want to stage some sort of Oxford Style Debate on the subject I'd be happy to participate.

      "Note that our position is that tech is AMONG the means, and that it is insufficient in itself if we do not use it in wisdom and inspiration."

      On the final re-read I realized that I had underemphasized the point that it is among the means, so that is a fair point. But it is certainly the angle that gets the most attention.

      Personally, the point I'm most curious about is the final one. If this issue has even a fraction of the importance you ascribe to it, where is the support from current LDS leadership? Why haven't they chimed in on this issue? Or have they and I just missed it? Or perhaps you consider them to be fallen prophets in some sense? Honestly, I'm genuinely curious about it.

      Delete
    2. Jeremiah,

      The Biblical narrative itself has a technological gist, beginning from a holy garden in Genesis and ending with a holy city in Revelation. Along the way, we read that Noah builds an ark to save his family from the flood, Moses employs the best engineers and artisans to build the tabernacle, and other protagonists use technology to nourish, protect, and inspire their people. Expanding on the Bible, the Book of Mormon likewise depicts protagonists using technology to help each other, such as when God gives Lehi a compass to guide his family in the wilderness and when God inspires Nephi to engineer a bow and a ship. The D&C essentially expresses the command to research: D&C 109: 7. And the LDS Church, like other Mormon denominations, has echoed this command for 150 years, resulting in a vibrant science and tech community among Mormons.

      Most conservative religious persons are inclined to view other interpretations of their own religion or interpretations of others' religions that don't align with their own as unreasonable. However, an objective person can look beyond sectarian division to see that there's a strong historic and contemporary compatibility, even complementarity, between Christianity and technology, as an expression of putting all our mind and strength into the work of discipleship. Many Christians, for reasons I strongly disagree with, reject the notion of theosis altogether. Many Christians, again for reasons I strongly disagree with, reject the notion that anything beyond the grace of God contributes to our salvation. However, among Christians who embrace both the doctrine of theosis and the understanding that works are an essential expression of our trust in the grace of God, few reject the use of technology as a legitimate expression of that work.

      The LDS Church invests heavily in technology for all aspects of its mission, to preach the Gospel, to redeem the dead, to care for the poor, and to perfect the saints. They rarely make explicit verbal ties between these investments and the doctrine of theosis, but they also rarely make explicit mention of theosis these days. I would like to see that change, and I suspect it will in time as social awareness of these issues continues to grow.

      Delete
    3. Lincoln,

      I think it's important to clarify how close we are. It appears to me that, in the final analysis, our differences may come down to a single point, but it's a big one.

      I am not some sort of Luddite, I agree that technology is a good thing, and can be used to good ends. That the Lord encourages us to use technology to fulfill his commandments. Additionally, as you'll see if you read other posts, I think current technology gives some fascinating insights into the mind of God and some otherwise knotty philosophical questions like problem of evil and suffering. And a remarkably simple answer to Fermi’s Paradox

      I acknowledge all of the examples you provide. Noah did build an ark. Nephi built a ship. The LDS Church invests heavily in technology.

      I agree that we are urged to study (D&C 109). That the glory of God is intelligence (D&C 93).

      Finally I completely agree with the Doctrine of theosis and the importance of works.

      With that said, the MTA appears be combining commandments with promises. We are both allowed and encouraged to use technology in an effort to keep the commandments. But there’s no evidence that we are encouraged to use technology to fulfill God’s promises to us. And there are several pieces of evidence that we are not to usurp God’s role in this fashion. The Tower of Babel story is the most obvious of these, but I mentioned several others in the post

      To state it more simply:

      Noah was commanded to build an ark, so God gave him the plans.
      Nephi was commanded to build a boat, God told him how to and showed him where the ore was.
      We’re commanded to redeem the dead, so we built a website to help out.

      In all of these cases someone was commanded to do something and they were allowed and even encouraged to use technology.

      I see no commandment of immortality. We’re promised immortality, but we’re not commanded to be immortal, in fact there’s a host of scriptural references which indicate that we’re supposed to die. Perhaps the clearest example is Alma 42:8

      “Now behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness.”

      And while current leaders are reluctant to speak of theosis, they have no problem talking about the necessity of death:

      https://www.lds.org/general-conference/topics/archive?topic=death&lang=eng&page=1

      I’m willing to bet that nowhere in those 50+ talks does it talk about using technology to overcome death.

      This is a key distinction I feel is being ignored by the MTA. And it’s big one. As I said in my post, there’s a huge difference between saying technology comes from God and that technology is how we become Gods.

      Delete
    4. Many scriptural examples of using technology claim to be consequent to God's command, in some cases quite explicit and detailed, such as with the Ark and the Tabernacle, as cited above. Moreover, I consider the use of technology to be implicitly mandated by Christianity, and particularly Mormonism. As Captain Moroni put it, if we suppose that God will save us when we have not made use of the means already provided, we suppose in vain. http://lincoln.metacannon.net/2012/10/mormonism-mandates-transhumanism.html

      I disagree with your interpretation of the Babel story. It's not a simple story intended to demonize aspirations and work (via tech and otherwise) toward Godhood. It couldn't be, if consistent with the remainder of scripture, because the remainder of scripture clearly advocates both the aspiration and the work toward Godhood, using all the means available to us. However, there are two would-be types of gods identified by Paul in the New Testament. One would raise us together in Godhood, and the other would raise itself above all else called God. The first is associated with Christ and the latter with Satan. If we use technology in the latter sense, it is hubris in accordance with the Babel story. If we use it in the former sense, it is ardent discipleship in accordance with the Ark story and many others.

      We're commended to redeem the dead. Not only have we built websites, but we've built gangantuan databases -- the largest for their purpose in the world. And we've built computer networks throughout our temples further to facilitate the work. And it's just beginning. As President Hunter put it:

      "In recent years we have begun using information technology to hasten the sacred work of providing ordinances for the deceased. The role of technology in this work has been accelerated by the Lord himself, who has had a guiding hand in its development and will continue to do so. However, we stand only on the threshold of what we can do with these tools. I feel that our most enthusiastic projections can capture only a tiny glimpse of how these tools can help us—and of the eternal consequences of these efforts."

      Jesus commanded his disciples to raise the dead. I take him seriously. The Book of Mormon calls death, not just spiritual death but also the death of the body, an "awful monster". I agree with that. The mission of Christ is to overcome both sin and death. And we are invited by Jesus to participate in that work, taking on the identity of Christ with him. We don't blink when someone says Jesus won't do all the work of taking the Gospel to all the world. But somehow many of us get bent out of shape when someone points out that the scriptures don't say Jesus will personally do all the resurrecting. To the contrary, the Bible depicts Christ presiding over a resurrection and judgment that are carried out by many.

      The notion that death is necessary is unscriptural. The scripture you reference doesn't say everyone has to die. It says that it wasn't "expedient" (that's an important word) for God to reclaim us from death, presumably in any immediate or simple way (given that the long term plan is clearly that of reclaiming humanity from death). Moreover, the scriptures emphasize cases of persons that would not die, even calling them "more blessed" in the case of the Three Nephites. And Paul in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 15: 51-54) claims that not everyone will die in the future, but rather they (or we?) will be transfigured to immortality.

      Delete
    5. There's precedent in the Mormon authoritative tradition of regarding both transfiguration and resurrection as ordinances or rituals. Joseph claimed transfiguration would be an ordinance in the "last times". And Brigham claimed resurrection would be an ordinance that immortals would perform for the dead. What are ordinances and rituals if not at least primitive expressions of works yet to be done more fully, intended to transform our thoughts and actions toward greater fulfillment of those works.

      MTA doesn't and never has claimed that we become Gods only through technology. MTA has claimed that technology is among the means. We have also emphasized other important means, notably compassion, without which no amount of technology or anything else will save anyone, let alone transform us into sublime creators as we imagine God to be. However, there is rampant passivity and superstition among Christians generally and even among Mormons particularly, many of whom are sitting on their hands waiting for God to do most of the work. In reality, God has already richly blessed us with the grace of pervasive and persistent opportunity, with abundant means at hand, and it is the position of the MTA that all humanity, Mormon and otherwise, is called to use these means (tech and otherwise) to participate in the work of God to transform humanity into Godhood.

      Delete
    6. “Many scriptural examples of using technology claim to be consequent to God's command, in some cases quite explicit and detailed, such as with the Ark and the Tabernacle, as cited above. Moreover, I consider the use of technology to be implicitly mandated by Christianity, and particularly Mormonism. As Captain Moroni put it, if we suppose that God will save us when we have not made use of the means already provided, we suppose in vain. http://lincoln.metacannon.net/2012/10/mormonism-mandates-transhumanism.html”

      You seem to have the rehearsed stump speech which while engaging, only vaguely relates to the points I’ve been making. I already said that using technology in response to a commandment is totally fine. If Captain Moroni uses swords and breastplates to protect the freedom of his family and his home that’s perfectly allowable. He’s been commanded to do just that, and yes if he refuses to take up his sword then that’s bad, but you’re still not showing any commandment to be immortal.

      “I disagree with your interpretation of the Babel story.”

      I think the vast majority of theologians disagree with your interpretation. Also I listed four ways to support your interpretation in my blog. I’ve yet to see you directly address any of them.

      “It's not a simple story intended to demonize aspirations and work (via tech and otherwise) toward Godhood. It couldn't be, if consistent with the remainder of scripture, because the remainder of scripture clearly advocates both the aspiration and the work toward Godhood, using all the means available to us.”

      Scripture and verse? Also once again being urged to be moral is not the same as being urged to destroy the cherubim guarding the way of the tree of life and put forth our hand and live forever. Something we’re specifically told is a bad idea.

      “However, there are two would-be types of gods identified by Paul in the New Testament. One would raise us together in Godhood, and the other would raise itself above all else called God. The first is associated with Christ and the latter with Satan. If we use technology in the latter sense, it is hubris in accordance with the Babel story. If we use it in the former sense, it is ardent discipleship in accordance with the Ark story and many others.”

      Like most of your examples you are stretching things in an extreme fashion to fit your own narrative. It’s great that you by squinting you can find support for your non-standard interpretation in Paul. Where is the support for your position from the current, living prophet?

      “We're commended to redeem the dead. Not only have we built websites, but we've built gangantuan databases -- the largest for their purpose in the world. And we've built computer networks throughout our temples further to facilitate the work. And it's just beginning. As President Hunter put it:

      ‘In recent years we have begun using information technology to hasten the sacred work of providing ordinances for the deceased. The role of technology in this work has been accelerated by the Lord himself, who has had a guiding hand in its development and will continue to do so. However, we stand only on the threshold of what we can do with these tools. I feel that our most enthusiastic projections can capture only a tiny glimpse of how these tools can help us—and of the eternal consequences of these efforts.’”

      Do you even read my comments? The MTA is the only organization who thinks Family Search and cryonics are essentially the same thing.

      “Jesus commanded his disciples to raise the dead. I take him seriously.”

      So he did. But did Peter use technology to do it? And are you sure raising the dead is the same as resurrection? Did Tabitha immortal after Peter did this? If your goal is to be righteous enough to raise the dead, I have no problem with that. But if you want to chop off someone’s head and stick it in a freezer at -196 deg C and call that following the commandment to raise the dead, I’m going to continue to say that you are misinterpreting things.

      Delete
    7. “The Book of Mormon calls death, not just spiritual death but also the death of the body, an "awful monster". I agree with that. The mission of Christ is to overcome both sin and death. And we are invited by Jesus to participate in that work, taking on the identity of Christ with him. We don't blink when someone says Jesus won't do all the work of taking the Gospel to all the world. But somehow many of us get bent out of shape when someone points out that the scriptures don't say Jesus will personally do all the resurrecting. To the contrary, the Bible depicts Christ presiding over a resurrection and judgment that are carried out by many.”

      Yeah… Christ presiding. I’ve already mentioned how Christ’s current representative on Earth doesn’t seem to be talking about any of the things you’re talking about.


      “The notion that death is necessary is unscriptural.”

      Your group is the only group that thinks that. A search of LDS “Death is Necessary” returns over 200k hits. Including this one from President Packer:

      https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/04/the-book-of-mormon-another-testament-of-jesus-christ-plain-and-precious-things?lang=eng

      In which he explicitly calls out three passages of scripture which show why death is necessary. Perhaps you need to take it up with them. I’m just following the clear text of what they say.


      “The scripture you reference doesn't say everyone has to die. It says that it wasn't "expedient" (that's an important word) for God to reclaim us from death, presumably in any immediate or simple way (given that the long term plan is clearly that of reclaiming humanity from death). Moreover, the scriptures emphasize cases of persons that would not die, even calling them "more blessed" in the case of the Three Nephites. And Paul in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 15: 51-54) claims that not everyone will die in the future, but rather they (or we?) will be transfigured to immortality.”

      Yes, all sorts of things could happen after the second coming or the millennium. We’re told the Lion will lie down with the lamb. Does the MTA have a program where they’re trying to breed herbivorous lions?

      Delete
    8. “There's precedent in the Mormon authoritative tradition of regarding both transfiguration and resurrection as ordinances or rituals. Joseph claimed transfiguration would be an ordinance in the "last times". And Brigham claimed resurrection would be an ordinance that immortals would perform for the dead. What are ordinances and rituals if not at least primitive expressions of works yet to be done more fully, intended to transform our thoughts and actions toward greater fulfillment of those works.”

      You draw a lot on early church leaders who had no idea of the challenges and capabilities of 21st century technology, and yet very little on any current leaders, who have a much better grasp. And even among these early leaders I’m still waiting for some reference to a command to be immortal.

      “MTA doesn't and never has claimed that we become Gods only through technology. MTA has claimed that technology is among the means. We have also emphasized other important means, notably compassion, without which no amount of technology or anything else will save anyone, let alone transform us into sublime creators as we imagine God to be. However, there is rampant passivity and superstition among Christians generally and even among Mormons particularly, many of whom are sitting on their hands waiting for God to do most of the work. In reality, God has already richly blessed us with the grace of pervasive and persistent opportunity, with abundant means at hand, and it is the position of the MTA that all humanity, Mormon and otherwise, is called to use these means (tech and otherwise) to participate in the work of God to transform humanity into Godhood.”

      This is your Motte (https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/) when all else fails you fail back on the idea that technology is just “among” the methods. When in reality it’s the entire thing that differentiates you from everywhere else. You can’t divorce or minimize your advocacy of technology as a huge part of your vision for salvation. The MTA lives or dies on its technology position. It’s got no reason to exist otherwise.

      Delete
  2. Thanks for sharing your opinions about MTA. As you feel MTA mischaracterizes Mormonism in some ways, I likewise feel that you mischaracterize Mormonism in some ways. For me, our agreements and disagreements are now satisfactorily expressed here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well thanks for engaging and responding. I am going to be at the MTA Conference on April 8th, unless your cybernetically enhanced bouncers throw me out, of course. Also I'm working on a another blog post about the MTA. I think you'll like it better. Though maybe not. I'm not a great judge of these things.

      Delete