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, April 14, 2018

Mormon Transhumanists, so Close, but yet so Far

If you prefer to listen rather than read, this blog is available as a podcast here. Or if you want to listen to just this post:



Or download the MP3



I’m always looking for a way to take a break, and by that I mean, engage in some activity which recharges my batteries a little bit, but which simultaneously doesn’t derail me or take up a huge amount of time. As it turns out this combination is difficult to achieve, and by any objective standard it’s one I’ve largely failed at. My breaks either end up taking too long, or completely derailing me from being productive, or draining my energy rather than replenishing it, and most of the time, all three.


One of the few effective ways I’ve discovered to take a break is reading a webcomic. Doing so takes almost no time (unless Randall goes crazy on XKCD), recharges my batteries (particularly on the all important scale of energy per unit of time) and mostly doesn’t derail me. (Though I’m still kind of working on that part.)


All of this is a prelude to talking about a specific webcomic: Existential Comics and I bring it up to illustrate my experience at the Conference of the Mormon Transhumanist Association (MTA) this last Saturday. The choice of this comic works on several levels. First the topic of existential despair came up several times. Second Existential Comics is all about philosophy, a subject which dominated the conference. Finally ,and most importantly, the most recent comic (at least at the time of the conference) seemed to really nail my relationship with the MTA.


The comic features Buddha and David Hume discussing philosophy in a bar. They quickly discover that they both agree that there is no “self”. No transcendental being separate from what’s experienced. After realizing this Buddha asks Hume what should be done as a consequence of this realization. Hume is sure, after being so in sync thus far, that their answers will be the same, and proposes that they respond simultaneously. And, on the count of three, Buddha responds, “Turn away from sensual pleasure and earthly passions into contemplation.” At the same time as Hume says, “Pursue only your sensual pleasure and passions over your reason!”


As it turns out, from the same premise Buddha and Hume reached exactly the opposite conclusion. This is kind of how I feel about the MTA. We both agree that technology has created an entirely new landscape, particularly with respect to religion, but they think it’s revealed how humans can assist in far greater measure with the project of salvation than was previously thought possible. While I think technology has gotten to the point where we can finally understand how truly impossible it is to assist with salvation, and more specifically our progress has revealed to a greater degree, that the limiting factor has always been our morality, not our abilities.


I should mention, at this point, before going any further, that I did enjoy the conference, perhaps because, as opposed to last year, there was more focus on the premise, where we are both in agreement, than on their conclusion, which is where we differ. But it’s also possible I enjoyed it more because I was presenting, which not only led to more interaction, but a greater feeling of control with the whole thing. I should also mention that no one brought up any of my previous criticisms. (I’m still not sure if they ever made the connection.) And everyone was kind and welcoming. And better than all that my presentation was very well received, which covers any number of other issues. (Here it is if you want to view it.) All of this is not to say that I’m going to join the MTA, or that I don’t think they’re making some fairly serious mistakes in their interpretation of LDS Theology, but I came away from this conference more aware of where we agreed, and more convinced that they are aware of some of the issues with their conclusion. I’m sure there are also issues with my conclusion. Finally, if any MTA members read this and feel that I’ve misrepresented them, they should definitely point that out. Since the remainder of this post will be commentary on the conference. I’ve made no secret of the fact that one of the big reasons I attend the MTA Conference is to get material for my blog, and I should use that material while it’s fresh.


(For those uninterested in Mormonism in general and the MTA in particular, I will return with something of more general interest next week.)
The first two presentations of the day actually made me think that I should have waited until after the conference before posting last week’s entry, since both downplayed the importance of  immortality, which I had made a major point of. That said, it is in their affirmation, and later presentations (including a keynote from the CEO of a longevity company) convinced me I wasn’t that far off. But, in any event, both of the initial presentations contributed to the positive feelings I mentioned above.


Turning our focus to just the first presentation, the speaker made the point that there is a danger in a purely technological approach to the world. That technology has a tendency to reduce everything down to a tool, and that it kills society and by extension humanity through this dissection. He mentioned the idea of turning humans into instruments and then referenced Robin Hanson’s keynote from last year’s conference where Hanson discussed his book the Age of Em. I suppose this is another illustration of humility, that you would use a presentation from last year as your prime example of what you don’t want to happen. And this is another thing I agree on, the world described in the Age of Em sounds kind of awful. But it does represent one of the potential logical end point of this instrumentalization he was talking about. Having said that what’s the solution?


The speaker’s solution was to complement technology with religion or at least a religious approach. Which is essentially another way of stating the philosophy and ideology the MTA and I both share. In other words, I couldn’t agree more, and, once again, this illustrates why I decided to engage with the MTA and even present.


Moving on, the first presentation was good, but it was really the second presentation that made me question whether I was misrepresenting the MTA in the post I had just published the very morning of the conference. The second presentation started out with the inevitability of death, and more than that, the presenter made precisely the point I made. That ethics and immortality were incompatible. That you can’t test something if the test never ends. And then to take it to the next level she illustrated this point with a clip from the Good Place. For those of you familiar with the show it was a clip from Season 2 where Chidi induces existential despair in Michael (Ted Danson) by finally bringing home the possibility of death. Which is what starts Michael on the path to understanding morality and ethics.


From this example she made the point that most of the time we are in either one of these two states. Either we’re like Michael at the end of the clip and we’re completely overwhelmed with how short and pointless life appears to be, or we’re like Michael at the beginning, where we care very little about morality because we think we’re going to live forever. Into this later category she places some members of the Church. Contending that sometimes we don’t care enough about mortal suffering because we think that in the end, it will turn out okay. That when someone is suffering, say from a bad home environment or just from living in a less-developed country, that the average LDS response might be that their suffering will all eventually be to their benefit. Her main example was a gentleman who recently caught on fire while barbecuing, and died after several days of agony, but, she contended, the average Mormon might respond, “it’s fine he’s going to be resurrected.”


Her contention is that these things are not fine, and that transhumanism is a virtuous middle ground between the two extremes. That it is better at solving existential despair than straight humanism and traditional technology and that it’s better at solving the actual suffering encountered in this life than straight religion.


I think this is an interesting argument in favor of transhumanism, but I’m not sure how far I buy it. If someone told me that certain Mormons are too blase about suffering, I wouldn’t argue with them. But I can’t imagine anyone, after being told the story of the man who burned to death, shrugging and saying “it’s fine he’s going to be resurrected.” I can imagine them drawing comfort in the midst of their despair and sadness from their hope that he will be resurrected, but I can’t imagine them declaring that sadness is inappropriate.


Now one could certainly imagine that Mormons might be slightly less inclined to spend resources to minimize harm in this life. Particularly as you get to the further ends of the spectrum, that is large amounts of resources for increasingly smaller harms. For example if we ever conquer aging, such that people are immortal, but can still get into accidents, then you could imagine those immortals becoming increasingly concerned with even the rarest kinds of accidents, and you could further imagine religious people, who believe in an afterlife, not, for example, wanting to spend billions of dollars and millions of man-hours to take the chances of an airplane crashing from 1 in 20 million to 1 in 21 million. Particularly if there are other places to spend that money and time.


All of which is to say that, as with so many things, there are trade-offs, which the presenter does a good job of pointing out, but as I have argued from the beginning, they frequently point out the pros of this tradeoff without giving much thought to the cons. If I may be so bold, I think one of the MTA’s arguments is that they can spend all this time focusing on the technology side of things (the T in the MTA) and be just as good a Mormon as everyone else, if not better (the M in the MTA). And my argument has always been that at a minimum there may be sacrifices they’re unaware of, and that, very likely, this focus creates a warping of the central Mormon Theology into something different. Which takes us to the third presentation.


The title of the third presentation was “Being Christ in Name and Power” and it was largely about how the presenter viewed the role of Jesus. And it was a great example of the ideological warping that, in my opinion, comes from too much focus on the T part of the MTA. The first part of the presentation was dedicated to showing that the title of “christ” was used a lot more broadly than just to refer to Jesus. That since “christ” basically means “one who is anointed” that historically Jewish kings and Jewish priests and even Cyrus the Great all got the title of “christ”. From this he basically comes to the conclusion that Jesus was just one of many “christs”, and that we should aspire to be one of the “christs” in the same way that the ancient kings and priests and even Cyrus the Great were.


Leaving aside, for the moment, whether this is an accurate reflection of the gospel, let’s examine why the presenter might have come to this conclusion. Transhumanism involves taking a lot of the things that most Mormons (and for that matter most Christians) expect to be done by God and Jesus and instead doing them ourselves. If these things are reserved to God and Jesus than taking them on is, at best, misguided at best and, at worst, heretical. On the other hand, if we’re all supposed to be “christs”, if we’re all anointed to take on the work of salvation, up to and including, figuring out how to resurrect people( and possibly even beyond that) then taking on all of the transhumanist projects is enlightened and orthodox, more orthodox even than the main body of the church.


When speaking of the presenter’s ideas, it’s possible that his very broad reading of who could be a “christ” came first, and that his interest in transhumanism came second, but I suspect it’s the reverse. That he started with the transhumanism and then broadened his interpretation of LDS scripture looking for ways to justify the things he was already inclined to do. I suspect it’s this way because it’s a very rare human who doesn’t work this way. For my own part, I come to this discussion with a more pessimistic view and the way I read the scriptures is going to be similarly biased by that. And you, dear reader, are going to have to account for my declared bias and the presenter’s suspected bias, and decide for yourself which interpretation makes sense.


With that out of the way we’re finally prepared to examine the merits of his argument. Which, as I said, begins with a broadening of the definition of “christ” and from there proceeds to the conclusion that we should be a “christ”. He suggests that we should do this in two different ways: that we should be Christ in name and that we should be Christ in power. He then gives several examples of being Christ in name which I mostly have no objection to. And then he gives several examples of being Christ in power. He says we need to love, console, forgive, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and raise the dead. This is an excellent list, and, really, I think the only aspect I disagree with, is how much of a role technology should play. But let’s start by looking at where we agree.


I don’t think anyone argues with the idea that we should become more Christ-like, that we should try to love as he loved, console as he would console, and forgive exactly as he would forgive. Further, everyone seems to agree that part of taking on his name consists of joining his Church, which carries his name, and which is where we are reminded of his commandments. Successfully doing all of these things comes from choosing a Christian morality and following a definite set of ethics. In short from choosing to be righteous.


In other words, being the kind of person who can be as forgiving as Jesus (which is super tough by the way) is, as far as I can tell, 100% about our morality and 0% about the technology we possess. Even healing the sick, if you believe at all in the power of prayer and priesthood blessings, comes about through the power of faith, with a definite dependence on our righteousness. It’s really only the last item on the list, raising the dead, where suddenly, at least according to the transhumanists, faith and morality aren’t enough, where you really want to bring technology into play. (I would contend that you can raise the dead with enough faith, merely that it requires a level of faith and righteousness which is exceedingly rare.)


To be fair, the presenter mentioned feeding the hungry and clothing the naked as examples of technology, but we don’t produce food because we intend to feed the hungry, we produce food to feed ourselves and make money (queue Adam Smith). It’s morality not technology that leads us to share it with the hungry. Meaning our list is all things we can accomplish almost entirely by just being more righteous, until we arrive at the last item. Where we transition from acts where morality is the critical component, to something where you don’t need much morality, but you need an awful lot of liquid nitrogen.


All of this stems from the idea that we are all christs of a sort, and to a certain extent, I, and most people in the church, I imagine, agree with this. But when that extends to ditching morality for (or even hitching morality to) technology, that’s where the disagreement starts. And my discomfort only increases when you combine all this with downplaying the role of Jesus. Which takes things even farther away from, what I believe to be, foundational LDS doctrine. As an example of what I mean consider this quote from Joseph Smith:


The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.


And there are hundreds of similar quotes from other LDS Church leaders. Including Jesus himself saying:


I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


I’m sure the MTA has a way of fitting all of this into their favored interpretation, but I think the plain reading (and coincidently, my presentation on AI) indicates that Jesus is critical to the entire thing, that his status as Christ is a difference not merely of degree, but also of kind from what we are being asked to do. Particularly when it comes to the atonement. The importance of which the presenter went out of his way to minimize as well. Mentioning, that it was only used in the New Testament once to refer to Jesus’ atonement and that every other time (69 in total) that it was talking about “other christs performing other atonements.”


There are people who believe that Jesus has done everything and that there is nothing left for us to do. People who believe that salvation is entirely through the grace of God, and that our works have nothing to do with it. I don’t claim to be any expert on this branch of Christianity (is it fair to classify everyone that’s in this category as a Calvinist?) But insofar as my assessment is correct (and I know there are nuances that mostly get missed) I certainly have my objections to this ideology, and if that’s the ideology the MTA was objecting to I’d be totally on board, but instead the MTA appears to want to take the opposite side of that dichotomy, and rather than the grace of God doing everything they want the technology of humans to do everything.


This is the spot where in previous discussions, someone from the MTA will show up and quote this part of their affirmation:


We believe that scientific knowledge and technological power are among the means ordained of God to enable such exaltation… (emphasis mine)


And, yes to be fair, they probably don’t expect humans to do everything, but they certainly appear to want humanity to do more than any other christian religion, so maybe they’re not all the way to the edge, but they have claimed the territory which lies closest to it.


My original intention was to devote only part of this post to the conference, and here I am almost out of space and I’ve only covered the first three presentations. Accordingly I’ll skip to the end and briefly cover the last presentation because in some respects it illustrates the danger of the entire project and indeed of most such projects.


This final presentation was a criticism of the how God behaved historically, specifically in the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon. But also bringing in the Hindu gods and the Hellenic gods. From this, concluding that he wanted to “design” a “good” God. He contended that this design was particularly important because we definitely end up with gods one way or the other, and recently we have replaced the cruel and warlike gods of history with gods of distraction and consumerism.


The presentation called on people to worship better gods, gods who aren’t racist, gods who don’t “privilege male over female”, gods who have “compassion over bloodlust”. And I understand the appeal of this, and I have all the sympathy in the world for the presenter’s personal faith crisis which led him to this point, but either God exists or he doesn’t, and if he does we need to figure out what he wants from us, and do it. And any attempt (of which the final presentation is just the most blatant) to impose our own values on God is just delusional hubris.


I’m sure there’s some of that delusional hubris in me as well (and of course if there is no God the entire conference was delusional), and it’s certainly possible that I’m wrong about everything (and not merely in this post.) But I would end by urging everyone to focus more on righteousness than technology, and more on understanding what God wants of us than in making demands of him.






I never make demands, I prefer to cajole, wheedle and beg. Speaking of which, have you considered donating?

24 comments:

  1. Jeremiah: “I think technology has gotten to the point where we can finally understand how truly impossible it is to assist with salvation.”

    If you’re right, neither of our opinions on this subject matters. If you’re wrong, well, then you should join MTA. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ahh... You definitely busted me. I was too glib. It should read, "I think technology has gotten to the point where we can finally understand how truly impossible it is TO USE IT to assist with salvation."

    But who knows. Maybe someday it will make sense to join the MTA... ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. If the revised proposition is true then this conversation doesn’t matter, and the opinions you and I express here don’t matter (even if one of us is right) because we’re using technology.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My sense is that Jeremiah is not strictly objecting to using technology in helping the work of salvation per se. For example, I presume he would not object to the various technological applications of geneological research to promote family history and temple work. It seems the objection he is making is using technology to supplant the role of God.

    Thus, the distinction is between using all the means we can possibly leaverage in order to faithfully fulfill the commandments God has given us (our role); and doing the same in an effort to take upon ourselves duties God has promised to fulfill himself (God's role). So if God promises resurrection, immortality, and exhaltation after this life; there's a difference between using technology to extend your life and your mission on Earth, and attempting to replace God's promise of a perfected body with a man-made alternative.

    In other words, it's possible to say, "I think technology will extend lifespan nearly indefinitely", (though personally, I think this is overplayed) without saying "therefore the resurrection promised by God has been achieved or is otherwise rendered moot." The first claim is not really at variance with LDS doctrine. The second claim appears directly at variance with LDS doctrines and teachings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes this is essentially an accurate reflection of my views.

      To steel man (at least a little bit) Lincoln's views. I think what he objects to is that I am fine with using technology for all sorts of things, including genealogy, as you point out. But I appear to have draw some arbitrary line between technologies I approve of and technologies I don't approve of. Is that more or less accurate, Lincoln?

      In response I would make an argument similar to Mark's, that the line isn't arbitrary, that there are things we've definitely been commanded to do ourselves, and things which at a minimum, we've been cautioned against. I think any reading of Alma 42 would make someone worry about messing with death, thus I don't think the line is as arbitrary as Lincoln imagines. (Assuming my assessment of his views is accurate.)

      Delete
  5. That’s right. It would be a straw man to suppose I’m advocating supplanting God, or that I would agree with any distinction between the kind of immortality you imagine God to be promising and the kind I imagine God to be calling us all to contribute to providing each other in the name of Christ. And I do think you’ve adopted an arbitrary position.

    The perceived arbitrariness raises two questions in my mind. Can you name anything we’ve been commanded by God to do EXPLICITLY ONLY WITHOUT leveraging technology? And can you demonstrate from the Mormon authoritative tradition that God does NOT intend for us to participate in realizing the prophecy of universal resurrection? Jeremiah mentions Alma 42, and I’m not sure I see what he may have in mind there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For me I would say the theological problem is where you define lifespan elongation as assisting or participating in the resurrection.

      So as a corollary, look at faith healing. On one hand, LDS doctrine advocates faith healing through prayer and priesthood blessings, as was emphasized in the most recent general conference. However this is not meant to replace medical intervention. So you might look at that and say, "medical intervention isn't seeking to supplant God, it is seeking to fulfill an already-declared Earthly commission to alleviate suffering; that naturally leads to an outcome where the answer to prayer is, 'seek the best available medical intervention and you'll be fine'." To counter by saying medical advancement shouldn't be pursued because it would lead to a decrease in faith healing would be absurd, and would militate against our putting forth our best efforts at fulfilling the mission to alleviate suffering, which is a noble and divinely-sanctioned aim.

      I think the question Jeremiah and I have for MTA is: what is the noble, divinely-sanctioned aim in attempting to assist in resurrection? As far as I'm aware, resurrection is not itself a commandment, but rather a promised blessing. (Please point me to scripture where I may be wrong on this, as I've not previously considered the commandment angle here during my scripture study and could easily have passed over it.)

      Further, Alma 42 puts forward a strong case that death is part of God's plan, and that this plan would be thwarted were it not for death's existence. The idea is that God has appointed a probationary period bounded by death, and were man to undermine that the plan could not work. This is fairly explicitly stated in Alma 42, and it's clearly an important point for God, since He takes affirmative measures to prevent it.

      (Personally, I'm not concerned man will succeed in supplanting the resurrection. Beside the idea of the flaming sword, I've seen no evidence we're even close to extending lifespan. The underlying biology is not understood, so it's like debating warp-8 versus warp-9, at this point.)

      My question isn't related to extending lifespan, since that's not anathema to the Plan. My question is how you square with the idea that resurrection ought to be driven as a mortal pursuit, such that mortals abolish death instead of God? (Since if the technology is available the probationary period concept is effectively eliminated, and on a universal basis determined by technological access.)

      As an extension, if resurrection is meant to be achieved by mortal technological advancement, what becomes of those already dead? Is this still understood to be strictly God's charge?

      Delete
    2. Hi Mark.

      I don’t “define lifespan elongation as assisting or participating in the resurrection,” except indirectly. I’d say it’s more directly assisting or participating in the transfiguration.

      You mention that “saying medical advancement shouldn't be pursued because it would lead to a decrease in faith healing would be absurd.” I completely agree. And I think your line of reasoning on the matter is directly applicable to both transfiguration and resurrection.

      You ask, “what is the noble, divinely-sanctioned aim in attempting to assist in resurrection?” You’re in the best position to answer that for yourself. Why do you think it would be noble of God to resurrect us? Your answer is my answer to your question.

      Delete
    3. You mention, “resurrection is not itself a commandment, but rather a promised blessing.” Jesus explicitly commands us to “raise the dead.” Some people choose to interpret this narrowly as a command to raise the dead to mortality. Some choose to interpret it figuratively as a command to help others overcome spiritual death. The text provides no reason to choose those interpretations over the broad interpretation, which would include both of the other interpretations as well as raising the dead to immortality. Beyond that, Brigham Young and other early Mormon authorities explicitly taught that we would eventually participate in performing the “ordinance of resurrection” for the dead.

      You observe that “Alma 42 puts forward a strong case that death is part of God's plan, and that this plan would be thwarted were it not for death's existence.” I agree. But we should interpret it as a risk inherent in the plan and not a good thing in itself. Otherwise, other passages of scripture make no sense. For example, Nephi characterizes death (both spiritual and physical) as an “awful monster.” And Paul characterizes death as an enemy to vanquish. Lehi points out that opposition is necessary, which entails real risk must accompany real opportunity — death must accompany life. So I don’t suppose that risk ever goes away, not even among the Gods. The details change, but the principle persists.

      You ask, “how you square with the idea that resurrection ought to be driven as a mortal pursuit, such that mortals abolish death instead of God?” I don’t consider resurrection to be merely a mortal pursuit. And I don’t consider it fully attainable while we’re still mortal. That’s not the practical timeline. And it’s not the prophesied timeline. The practical and prophesied timeline is that we’ll gain the capacity to perform the ordinance of transfiguration in the “last time” (according to Joseph Smith), and then when we’re immortal we’ll gain the capacity to perform the ordinance of resurrection (according to Brigham Young). That makes sense from a stepwise technical process as well.

      You ask, “what becomes of those already dead?” We resurrect them too. Joseph, in D&C 128, said that God ordained from before the foundations of the world that which would enable US to redeem our dead. I think that means far more than that we would be capable of developing infotech to do family history work. I think it also means that the world was created in such a way that we would ultimately be able, through mining time and space, to access all the information required to recreate robust bodies and brains for all intelligent agents that have ever lived on Earth. And I think President Hunter hinted at such things too:

      “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." (Howard W Hunter, March 1995, Ensign)

      By the way, would you like to take a stab at answering the two questions I asked you in my previous post?

      Delete
    4. Lincoln, I'm honestly trying to understand your position. I think I'm coming closer to understanding your interpretations, but I still have a few questions that remain outstanding. I'm trying to be fair and understand your point of view.

      I brought up the case of faith healing vs. traditional medicine to distinguish between invoking the powers of heaven through priesthood blessings and invoking Earthly knowledge. Curing polio doesn't diminish priesthood blessings, and should be pursued so far as possible in an attempt to follow the multiple ancient and modern commands to minister to provide temporal aid to the sick and afflicted.

      My question to you was what you see as the divine command that is being followed in assisting materially with the resurrection. Your first post seemed to say, "transfiguration as a step to resurrection", which I don't see as a command anywhere from God. I see where you're extending some ideas from early church leaders, which I've always interpreted as "there's this ordinance of resurrection; like other ordinances such as baptism, marriage, etc. priesthood holders will someday participate in this ordinance as well, as part of the restoration". Your interpretation is a unique take, but I don't personally find it compelling. A priesthood ordinance is explicitly stated, and technological innovations that may be equally implemented irrespective of whether the person applying them is a priesthood holder seems at odds with the quotes cited.

      When President Hunter made the statement you quoted, I assumed he was referring to family history work. His proclamations are still fulfilled without tacking on the idea of perpetual lifespan elongation. I do not begrude you your interpretation, but by way of persuasion I'm just not there with you. I think it's a logical step too far.

      In answer to your question of why it is noble for God to ressurect us, I would say it is obviously for the same reason that it is noble of Him to send His son to mediate atonement and the forgiveness of sins. Since the Book of Mormon informs us that were it not for ressurection we would be under the power of Satan, and were it not for the atonement the same would apply, it seems like something a loving God would probably want to make a priority. Clearly God is not against having His children help in the work of salvation, and your argument is basically, "yeah, and he'll give us the technological tools to make it happen in due time." But it's also clear there are some things God chooses to do himself, since the "keeper of the gate is the holy one of Israel, and he employeth no servant there". For example, although we must forgive others for their trespasses, whether we forgive or not has bearing only on our own salvation. Our forgiveness does not grant absolution for others' sins. It's God's job to absolve sins.

      Resurrection is intimately tied to this. In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul states that resurrection is not just about getting a perfected body that doesn't die. He compares the differences in brightness of heavenly bodies, and says "so also is the resurrection of the dead." In other words, a celestial kingodom is inseparable from a celestial body. I know many LDS interpret kingdom to be a place you live, as opposed to a state of being. But I hope that if I don't judge you for an interpretation you've arrived at through independent study, you'll be similarly charitable toward my personal interpretations.

      And I suspect this is the one of two places where I just can't square your interpretation with mine. How would technology meaningfully contribute to the creation of celestial bodies? If it can't, I don't udnerstand where transhumanism is an important factor here. If it can, I don't understand how this doesn't fundamentally break the whole concept of God as the gatekeeper to celestial glory.

      Have I misunderstood your views?

      Delete
    5. Mark, thanks for your reply.

      Please give more consideration to your faith healing example. Again, I think it's the perfect example. We have an ordinance, and we have medical procedures. And the two are perfectly compatible. The one does not replace the other. In fact, they're MORE than compatible. They're complementary. They may actually facilitate each other in many ways. And keep in mind that faith healing in the Church is performed with the authority of the Church, but it is also done outside the Church just as effectively, from what I've observed.

      If something is (or will be) an ordinance, it is (or will be) a command from God by implication. But ordinances aside, Jesus gives two very clear commands in the New Testament: heal the sick, and raise the dead. A sick person who is perpetually healed is effectively immortal. A dead person who is raised is effectively resurrected. There may be degrees of immortality, with various magnitudes of embodied robustness. That's perfectly compatible with my position. But my position on this is quite simple: Jesus commanded us to heal the sick and raise the dead, and I think we should take him more seriously.

      You mention, "technological innovations that may be equally implemented irrespective of whether the person applying them is a priesthood holder seems at odds with the quotes cited." It's already the case that the physical aspects of all ordinances of the Church can be performed by persons without priesthood. Anyone can procreate, but as a Church we only recognize marriage when performed by priesthood authority. Anyone can dunk a person in water, but we only recognize baptism when performed by priesthood authority.

      You interpret President Hunter to be referring exclusively to family history work. That's a fairly mundane interpretation. How does that square with his claim that "our most enthusiastic projections can capture only a tiny glimpse of how these tools can help us"? As for my interpretation, I'm NOT talking about perpetual life extension. I'm talking about using information technology to resurrect the dead: potentially mining time and space to gather all the information required to regenerate the brains and bodies of all persons who have ever lived on Earth. Given some assumptions about the nature of mind/spirit, the natural consequence of increasingly detailed family history work would be resurrection.

      Delete
    6. You say, "it's also clear there are some things God chooses to do himself." I don't think that's clear. To the contrary, the scriptures teach that we should be perfect as God, that we should do the works Jesus exemplified and greater works, and that God will make us equal in power and glory. And Joseph taught that we have to learn how to be Gods, the same as all other Gods have done before. I don't see any scriptural reason to believe there's even one thing that God chooses to reserve from us.

      You mention the example of forgiveness. I think that's actually a perfect example of God NOT reserving anything from us. I think the whole point of the story about Jesus forgiving the paralyzed man is to encourage us to recognize that we ALL have power to forgive each other. And I don't think our choice to forgive effects only our personal salvation. That can't work logically, as we separate ourselves from each other by choosing not to forgive. And despite some claims to the contrary (yeah, I know some Church leaders have taught otherwise), I see no evidence in scripture to support the idea that salvation is merely individual. We are saved as a community. We are saved as the Body of Christ. And the work is not done so long as even one lost sheep remains to be found. Joseph may have summed it up best (notably when talking about the importance of our work to redeem the dead): they without us and we without them cannot be made perfect. I think that applies to God's perfection every bit as much as our perfection, which entails, you may notice, that I consider perfection dynamic -- I'm not rejecting the perfection of God.

      Delete
    7. I share your interpretation of degrees of glory being states of being, although I'd add that that also entails communities of the same glory. So I think your interpretation is implied by the typical interpretation, as the typical interpretation is implied by your interpretation. And I consider these interpretations entirely compatible with my position. To understand why requires from additional work, which I'll mention just briefly. There are natural moral hurdles to technological development. For example, if we don't use nuclear technology at least morally enough not destroy ourselves with it then we don't survive long enough to develop biotechnology. I think the natural moral hurdles ahead will become increasingly momentous, presenting increasingly substantial risks, increasingly great opportunities, and increasingly high bars of moral necessity if we are to pass beyond them. The physical aspects of transfiguration will require capacities that could be abused in cataclysmic ways. And they still pale in comparison to the possible abuses of the capacities that would enable the physical aspects of resurrection. So I fully expect degrees of glory with correspondence between morality and technical capacity throughout eternity.

      You ask, "How would technology meaningfully contribute to the creation of celestial bodies?" Celestial bodies are bodies (among other things). They are physical, material, tangible, and impinging on time and space. They are dynamic. They are created and maintained. All of these things have causes that can be understood and intentionally engaged. That's perfectly compatible with our conceptions of science and technology. I don't for a second suppose us capable of fully comprehending celestial bodies now. I don't think we even have the anatomical capacity to do anything but hand wave in reference to them. But I trust that will change as we continue to learn and progress, grace by grace. And I think it's a practical mistake to suppose God is going to do anything more for us that provide means and opportunity to keep learning and helping each other.

      The utility of Mormon Transhumanism is, in its most basic form, the reminder that faith without works is dead. It's not enough to believe in God. The demons believe in God and tremble, James says. Faith is action. Faith is using the means God has already provided, and anticipating that they will lead us to discover and create yet more means. Faith is loving, serving, consoling, healing, and raising the dead, not merely in word but also in power. We're not attempting to usurp anyone's authority. We're simply engaging anxiously in a good cause according to whatever wisdom and inspiration God may have granted us.

      Delete
    8. Sorry about the multiple posts. It appears there's a length limit.

      Delete
    9. I went back and re-read your earlier comment and realized you'd asked two other questions you wanted me to answer. Sorry I missed those as I thought you were referring to the questions in your later reply.

      1. Does God command us not to use tech to achieve his commands? I do not contend this point. I just don't see "develop the technology to transfigure humanity" as a commandment. I'm not with Jeremiah if he's saying we shouldn't pursue lifespan extension technology for fear of trespassing on God's turf. Mostly because I think the projections of what our technology could achieve have been badly overestimated. But that's a separate discussion.

      As to the question of whether or not god wants us participating in the resurrection, I think we've been back and forth on this one. I agree there is some early church teachings intimating that this will happen at some point. You contend technology will be part of opening the door to that happening. I'm less sanguine about whether this is practically possible on the one hand. And on the other, I think the actual evidence is that God is interested in directing this work, and I don't see how we participate unless this whole thing is directed by God, which isn't what this project sounds like.

      Delete
    10. Thanks for being willing to engage and share your views. I think I have a much better understanding of where you're coming from at this point. (I've run into the character limit many times, so you're not the only long-writer, here. I can't complain if I'm complicit.)

      I remain entirely unconvinced, despite a good discussion. I don't think we fundamentally differ in doctrine too much, with perhaps a couple exceptions. It looks like our disagreements continue to stem from the two major points I mentioned earlier:

      1. I maintain some things God must do for us we cannot do for ourselves. I think this is a fundamental truth that is important to accept in order to lay hold on the healing power of the atonement. It's a matter of personal faith and experience, and I don't think you'll persuade me on this point.

      I think this applies equally to individuals and groups. CF the people at the tower of Babel, who tried to build a counterfit temple, which God rejected. Substituting direct divine intervention with the moral arc of history is, in my mind, hand-waving almost to the point of eliminating God altogether. (Also, based on the evidence, I'm highly skeptical of the theory of nuclear winter, as well as most projections of extinction-level man-made disasters. An odd position to take on this blog, for sure.) There's a difference between saying, "We can't close ourselves off and consider salvation as entirely individualistic," which I'd agree with, and the point you're taking it too. Again, "the keeper of the gate is the holy one of Israel, and he employeth no servant there." At some point, Jesus has to step in and perform His divinely-sanctioned role in salvation, both for resurrection and exhaltation. Our views of this role appear fundamentally incompatible. Please understand that I'm not saying, "you can't interpret scripture and doctrine that way!" I'm saying, "I don't interpret scripture and doctrine that way." And we can still be friends.

      2. I don't see technological trends extending lifespans by any appreciable amount in the offing. We have made literally no progress on this so far, and there's no reason to believe we are going to make any progress in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it doesn't seem to make much sense to worry about the subject. If I accepted all your premises above, I'd still have to ask myself, "so what?" If hundreds of years from now the prophet gets up in GC and says, "I've received revelation from God that we now have sufficient technology that God can give us the key to ressurrection and we can complete the process of transfiguration/resurrection. Today marks a new era and a turning point in the work of the church" that doesn't change anything for me today, nor does discounting this possibility and pursuing the current Work make me less able to pivot in the extremely unlikely event this happens in my lifetime. You can't say, "knowing this is our goal will help us move toward it!" because there simply aren't enough Mormon researchers to make any kind of difference in any of these scientific fields. Those fields will wander about wherever the current secular researchers decide to go, regardless of whether I accept MTA's hypotheses.

      So practically speaking I don't see where it gets me. It seems like a lot of mental gymnastics if all I get from it is, "take what God has given you and use it fully for the work of salvation." Especially if I've already come to that conclusion, without having to make what I would view as over-confident extrapolations of the current understanding of scientific progress.

      If there's one future prediction we can make given the best available evidence, it's that current predictions of future technology will be laughably inaccurate. Therefore, I don't hang my hat on any current projections of the capabilities of future technology.

      Delete
    11. One more thing: (I ran out of space ^_^)

      It's clear from scriptural accounts that multiple individuals have been resurrected in the past, including an unspecified number of previously deceased individuals directly after Christ's resurrection. God clearly has no compunction about engaging with humans in early pre-industrial societies in order to engage in ressurrection, so it doesn't make sense why He would wait until we develop a certain level of technology to resume this work.

      It's fair to ask the question, "okay, but if God can just do this kind of thing en mass, why doesn't he do so now?" And I would answer, "I don't know." The usual answer goes along the lines of "something about the timing doesn't seem right", or whatever. It's fair to say that standard explanations don't provide an acceptable answer to why God resurrected people in the past but doesn't do so in large numbers today. Sure, "Sometimes God just does His thing" isn't a very satisfying answer. But saying, "He's waiting for us to develop sufficient technological advancement" doesn't really answer this question either. Why wait, when we know He can do it already? So we can help? But presumably that also applied to the early Christian saints who were also resurrected - and without this technological advancement.

      TL;DR: Why do we need transhumanism to enable or even contribute to resurrection or transfiguration, when clearly they already happen without transhumanism?

      Delete
    12. Mark,

      You say, "I maintain some things God must do for us we cannot do for ourselves. I think this is a fundamental truth that is important to accept in order to lay hold on the healing power of the atonement."

      If, by this, you mean that we ALL require grace. I completely agree. But I think this applies as much to God as it does to you and me. As we cannot meaningfully or effectively force others to love us, no one can meaningfully or effectively force us to love God. Beyond that, however, I trust we have the potential to do EVERYTHING that God has done or could do (in the general sense, as the specifics always require unique interactions of grace). And I don't think anything in the scriptures contradicts that. In fact, I can't see how the scriptures could remain meaningful if we were to insist that we can never do what God has done, for many reasons, including the claim that God will make us EQUAL in POWER. To claim there's something God can do that we never can is to suggest God cannot make us equal in power.

      You mention, "CF the people at the tower of Babel, who tried to build a counterfit temple, which God rejected."

      That's an interpretation, but not the only interpretation that would be consistent with the scriptural text about the Tower of Babel. Here are some thoughts on that:

      https://lincoln.metacannon.net/2010/12/ethical-progress-is-not-babel.html

      You say, "Substituting direct divine intervention with the moral arc of history is, in my mind, hand-waving almost to the point of eliminating God altogether."

      I'm not proposing any substitution for God. I'm describing how I believe God operates, and how the world was organized, which seems remarkably conducive to cultivation of our sublime potential. If God interacted more obviously and invasively, I think it would almost certainly undermine our development, producing a bunch of mere dependents rather than genuine new creators (not independents but inter-dependents with substantial contributions to make).

      You say, "At some point, Jesus has to step in and perform His divinely-sanctioned role in salvation, both for resurrection and exhaltation."

      But the scriptures repeatedly suggest that Jesus intends to do all of that WITH us and often THROUGH us. The New Testament teaches that Jesus doesn't even reserve judgment of the world to himself, but rather that his disciples will reign and judge the world with him. That doesn't mean that Christ will not judge the world. Rather, it means that Christ is not Jesus exclusively. Christ is the whole body, operating together, according to our various and dynamic gifts.

      You encourage, "Please understand that I'm not saying, 'you can't interpret scripture and doctrine that way!' I'm saying, 'I don't interpret scripture and doctrine that way.' And we can still be friends."

      Thank you! I sincerely appreciate that, perhaps more than you would anticipate. I'm often vilified, and it's refreshing when people go out of their way to express good will despite disagreement. And it's particularly refreshing when my fellow Mormons do so.

      Delete
    13. Mark,

      You observe, "I don't see technological trends extending lifespans by any appreciable amount in the offing. We have made literally no progress on this so far ..."

      I'm not certain what you have in mind, but that statement appears false on its face. Human lifespans have been GREATLY extended by technology. And human population has been greatly increased by technology. Maybe you have in mind some of the newer technologies that haven't (perhaps so far) produced significant results? For those, time will tell. And evidently I'm more optimistic about the potential than you are.

      You mention, "there's no reason to believe we are going to make any progress in the foreseeable future."

      I think there are MANY reasons. Sign up for the weekly newsletter from my business, Thrivous, and you'll get a regular stream of reasons to suppose progress is being made:

      https://go.thrivous.com/newsletter

      You say, "that doesn't change anything for me today."

      I trust that's the case for you, if you say so. However, that's not the case for me or many others. While today we cannot attain anything approaching immortality, there are still many practical things we can do to improve each other's lives, health, and well-being. And realizing the practical possibilities can also serve to renew persons' faith in God. I'm far from alone in returning from atheism because of Transhumanism.

      You say, "You can't say, 'knowing this is our goal will help us move toward it!' because there simply aren't enough Mormon researchers to make any kind of difference in any of these scientific fields."

      I strongly disagree. Small groups of persons have done incredible things in human history, and it's likely to happen again. But that aside, there's also the opportunity for Mormon Transhumanists to influence others who are not Mormons to approach the possibilities in ways that are more congruent with the values that Mormonism stands for. This is already happening. Mormon Transhumanism has had substantial influence on the Transhumanist movement, both among secular Transhumanists and among other religious Transhumanists. You might consider it a kind of missionary work. Consider this. Because of Transhumanism, I can talk about faith in God in ways that many atheists will listen to, and that's relatively unusual.

      You say, "If there's one future prediction we can make given the best available evidence, it's that current predictions of future technology will be laughably inaccurate. Therefore, I don't hang my hat on any current projections of the capabilities of future technology."

      Well, the only thing we know for sure is that we're wrong to some extent. But there are at least two ways to respond to that realization: optimistic and pessimistic. And history provides an astonishing array of technological pessimists who have been quite wrong:

      https://lincoln.metacannon.net/2007/07/skeptical-of-ideas-proposed-by.aspx

      You ask, "Why do we need transhumanism to enable or even contribute to resurrection or transfiguration, when clearly they already happen without transhumanism?"

      My answer to that question is you answer to these questions: Why do we need humans on Earth when the scriptures say they've already happened without humans on Earth? Why do we need new Gods when the scriptures say there are already Gods?

      In any case, the scriptures say Jesus did both of these things: (1) raise the dead; and (2) tell us to raise the dead. The reason seems pretty straightforward to me. Set an example. And then create an opportunity for people to learn and contribute and grow.

      Delete
    14. I haven't had the time to jump in, particularly given the river of back and forth I would be wading into. And even now I don't have a lot of time, I just barely finished reading the discussion up until this point.

      Thus, I don't have anything to add, particularly as I've already written easily 20,000 words on this subject, and anything I would say here I've said already. And on that note, as long as Lincoln is recommending his post on how the Tower of Babel does not apply, I thought I'd the link to my article on how it does apply:

      http://jeremiah820.blogspot.com/2017/02/building-tower-of-babel.html

      Delete
    15. It's been a good discussion, but I think we've largely reached an impasse. Lincoln, please note that I referred specifically to lifespan, not life expectancy. They are two different things, and the distinction is important. I recently started a blog, and as this has been top of mind recently I wrote a post on this subject. You can check it out at the following link to know my thoughts on the subject: www.patreon.com/posts/s-curve-killed-18245182.

      I hope my use of the Babel reference wasn't taken as a pejorative. I was concerned when using it that you might take it exactly as it seems you took it. My intent in bringing up the subject was that, per my interpretation of Tower of Babel (as you say, there's not much in scripture about it) there was a perfectly good path to God already available. The people of Babel could go there if they prepared themselves to worthily receive ordinances in God's temple. Instead, they built a counterfeit edifice and tried to just 'do it themselves'. That is my concern here.

      I think from reading your views this is not what you're driving at, and indeed you go out of your way to point out any hoped-for future progress will be directed by God. I couldn't agree more on the subject of scientific discovery (my next blog post will probably be about the true story of Watson and Crick's discovery of DNA's structure, which I think points directly to divine intervetion of technological improvement). So I guess I should rescind my Babel reference with an apology.

      I still don't agree with your other interpretations, and I suppose I could respond to all the many places where you've accused me of not sufficiently considering ancient and modern prophets, and how I disagree with your interpretations of salvation, but this would go round and round forever, and Jeremiah would never sleep. Thanks for the discussion.

      Delete
  6. Jeremiah, how would you reword your statement to make it true and reflect your position? I think we both agree that the revised version isn’t there yet.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I honestly don't understand how the Age of Em is a "potential logical end point of this instrumentalization." Each em pursues their own end, and while they use each other, they don't do that any more than we do in our world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First, thanks for taking the time to leave a comment on my humble blog.

      Second, I was largely quoting the presenter...

      Third, that said, I'll try to speak to it. If instrumentalization means means making humanity into tools then ems have some tool-like qualities which are not possessed by normal human beings. The ability to be sped up or slowed down, to be copied, backed up, preserved, archived, sent somewhere else at the speed of light, etc.

      Your point seems to relate to autonomy which appears to be increasing even now, well before we get to the ems (though there is evidence that medieval peasants had more free time than we did, though fewer choices for how to spend it.) And this is a solid counterargument given that most tools don't have any autonomy.

      Though as I recall Scott Alexander used Age of Ems as an example of a bad endpoint in one possible race to the bottom in his Meditations on Moloch post (spoken word recording done by yours truly.) So the presenter (and to a lesser extent myself) is not the only one who thinks it's undesirable, whether it fits some definition of instrumentalization or not.

      Delete