On the Mormon Transhumanist Association Response blog, Vblogger has commented on the New God Argument. Below are my thoughts in response to those comments.

The question of whether the New God Argument is beneficial, perhaps complementing other reasons for persons' faith in God, is one that I can answer with confidence. While presenting the New God Argument to large and small audiences, in auditoriums and homes and on the Internet, Joseph West and I have received much feedback, and that feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. For some, it has strengthened faith. For others, it has established grounds for constructive communication where nothing else had worked. Consequently, we've continued to work on improving the presentation of the argument. It's rewarding to affect others in such ways.

The logic of the New God Argument is valid, but its premises are controversial. This is an important distinction to make. If we accept the premises, the conclusions follow by formal deduction. Rightly, Vblogger expressed concerns with one of the argument's premises, in particular a premise for the Benevolence Argument, rather than the logic of the overall argument.

It's highly important to a proper understanding of the argument to recognize that the Benevolence Argument does NOT hold that everyone must increase in benevolence. Rather, the argument holds that, on the whole and among the empowered, we must increase in benevolence, or we will destroy ourselves. As far as I can tell, this aligns well with Vblogger's perspective that God (the empowered) would ensure proper use of power. As the argument goes, God would not have attained such power had he not increased in benevolence sufficient to use such power without destroying himself.

While modern humans certainly are not all as benevolent as we would like, we are more benevolent than our ancestors (again, on the whole and among the empowered, and not necessarily on the individual level). For evidence of this, I recommend a TED Talk from sociologist Steven Pinker, entitled the Myth of Violence.

That aside, all is not well in Zion, as the scripture goes. Vblogger points out some serious ethical shortcomings, and each is symptomatic of characteristics that, if far more greatly empowered, would destroy our civilization.

In accordance with Vblogger's expectation, the change from our present degree of benevolence to something far better may happen in a disruptive and dramatic fashion. For example, some transhumanists expect a technological singularity. If that happens, we probably will not survive the singularity unless we use the rapidly increasing technological capacity and its convergence with biological understanding to assist us in enhancing our benevolence.

On the other hand, some Mormon leaders actually have described the advent of the Millennium in ways that sound quite evolutionary. Take, for example, this quote from Brigham Young:

"Will the Saints arise from the dead? Yes. Who will know it? But a few. When the resurrection commences, I say but few will know it . . . Will the Saints rise from the dead before the world is converted? Yes. You may despair of ever seeing all creation converted to the Lord Jesus, or to the faith of the holy Gospel. Will you see the resurrection? Yes: you will be in it, and enjoy it; you will be in the first resurrection. Will the world believe it, and know of it? They will not. Zion will be redeemed, the great Temple of the Lord will be built, whereupon the glory of the Lord will rest, and a cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night; the Saints will be gathering from all nations, and will walk into the Temples of God, to do the work of redemption for their dead, and saviours will be upon Mount Zion to save the house of Esau. But will the nations know of it? They will not. And when the Lord reigns King of nations as he does King of Saints, the inhabitants of the earth will not distrust but that it is the power of some great one, that it is the plans of wise men brought into action. Thus they will be governed and controlled, and overruled, and led by the principles of the holy Priesthood, and they will never mistrust but that it is the doings of wise men at the head of a powerful nation, schooled in governmental affairs, who know how to control their own nation, and then bring into subjection their neighboring nations, until the whole earth has become subject to them. They will not know that it is the Savior who is ruling King of nations as He does King of Saints. A great portion of the inhabitants of the earth will never mistrust but that it is the effects of the wisdom of men. The Saints will be instructed how to build up Zion, how to build temples, and do the work of redemption for their dead; and the wicked nations will know nothing about it. When the Millennium is ushered in, no man or woman will know anything about it, only by the power of God. He will rule and reign, and His glory shall be in Zion, and the wicked will not know it is the hand of our God. The Saints will enjoy the light of His countenance, walk therein, and dwell in His presence." (Brigham Young Addresses, Volume 2, Page 127)

In any case, whether our change to greater benevolence happens quickly or slowly, I agree with Vblogger that it needs to happen, and that our future depends on such a change. Moreover, that's precisely the substance of the Benevolence Argument portion of the New God Argument.

How will we improve in benevolence? Will we learn and change voluntarily? Will God intervene to impose increased benevolence? I don't know, but does it make a practical difference to believe one way or the other? On the one hand, if I believe God will do all the work, I'm less likely to do anything to help, and I may even cheer on approaching apocalypse as a sign of God's coming intervention. On the other hand, if I believe God has provided an opportunity for us to do the work ourselves, I'm more likely to participate in trying to make the world a better place. That's what I choose to believe. I think it could make a difference. My actions reflect that.

As widely reported, physicist Stephen Hawking has warned us not to talk to aliens. His concern arises from an analogy between the supposed possible character of advanced aliens and the observed historical behavior of colonizers on Earth. While Hawking is an excellent physicist, I suspect his credentials in sociology are no better than yours or mine. The technology that enables a colonizer to cross oceans and conquer continents has a far lower natural benevolence barrier than the technology that enables an advanced alien to cross galaxies and conquer worlds -- an assumption on which the New God Argument is based. Moreover, assuming advanced aliens exist out there, it's hard to believe they don't know we're here, which is what Hawking appears to be assuming.

The post concludes my response to Vblogger's "Doctrinal and Logical Response" on her blog, Mormon Transhumanist Association Response. My first three posts may be found here:


Response to a Mormon Transhumanist Response


Continued Response to a Mormon Transhumanist Response


More Continued Response to a Mormon Transhumanist Response


As before, I will quote portions of Vblogger's comments and follow these quotes with my thoughts.


Vblogger: "The affirmation also mentions science technology as a means for obtaining exaltation, which is different from immortality or resurrection."


As Vblogger points out, in Mormon tradition, there is an important distinction between immortality and eternal life. Immortality is understand as a physical change from our present state, whereas eternal life is understood as a spiritual change from our present state. Some use "exaltation" as a reference only to eternal life. Some distinguish between physical and spiritual exaltation, with physical exaltation being immortality and spiritual exaltation being eternal life. In either case, the distinction between quantity and quality of future life, immortality versus eternal life, is at the heart of various Mormon doctrines.


Vblogger: "Exaltation, Eternal Life, or living in the presence of God in the kind of life He lives, is a purely religious concept . . ."


While spiritual exaltation is a religious concept, Mormons yet behave with recognition that science and technology are helpful in the work to bring about spiritual exaltation. We evidence this each time we use a book, pen, phone, computer, airplane or any of the innumerable other products of science and technology as part of missionary efforts, temple ceremonies, congregational activities or service projects.


Vblogger: "[spiritual exaltation] requires both acknowledging the existence of and obtaining forgiveness from sin through the atonement of Christ."


As elaborated at greater length in previous posts, I agree that the atonement of Christ, properly understood and practically applied, is essential to positive futures. I also see this reflected in the Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation, when it expresses the importance of charity in terms of exalting desires, wills and laws to the extent they are not oppressive.


Vblogger: "Science and technology does not claim forgiveness of sin--it's not the realm of science at all."


Psychology is certainly pertinent to the work of improving our understanding and application of forgiveness, as evidenced by the results from a google search for "psychology forgiveness". Although I'm not an expert in the field, I can only imagine that, as we understand better how our minds function, we will be better equipped to engage in the charitable and unifying behavior of seeking and providing forgiveness.


Vblogger: "Even considering this on moral, not religious, grounds, if scientific and technological power were a means of resurrection and even the creation of other worlds, who or what ensures these future eternal creations serve positive, uplifting purposes that are 'not oppressive'?  Who ensures that these powers are not controlled primarily by evil, selfish people into eternity?  The same principles that apply to the order of  resurrection based on righteousness, apply even more directly to a discussion about exaltation or eternal life."


I agree with Vblogger that science and technology can be used for evil. Concern with this is also reflected in the Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation. Furthermore, as presented in the New God Argument, we certainly must increase in benevolence or we will not survive the knowledge and power that it appears we may gain in the near future, extrapolating from present trends.


Vblogger: "Science and technology, even with the best governmental regulation, have a terrible track record of avoiding oppression, particularly when extreme power is involved.  Sure, we can find examples of restraint (cold war and nuclear weapons), but those examples are surrounded by examples of abuse (need I list them all?)."


As expressed in the Transhumanist Declaration, members of the MTA support the idea that we are better off working properly to manage emerging technology than trying to avoid it. An important reason for this is that avoiding emerging technology may be next to impossible, barring a global catastrophe. Another important reason for this is that emerging technology also holds great promise for improving the human condition. Certainly there are numerous examples of science and technology improperly used, as there are numerous examples of using them properly. As advocated by the MTA, and by transhumanists generally, we have a moral obligation to do what we can to mitigate the risks presented by emerging technology.


Vblogger: "That is a key reason religion provides a hope for a future that is not realistically possible through scientific means.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, gives hope for an eternal future in which God lifts up the oppressed, gives power and ability to those who have demonstrated love for one another, and casts out and takes away power from those with selfish, hateful, oppressive desires.  This solution relies on religious faith, and is not realistically possible through science and human technology."


In Mormon tradition, there is a well known expression: pray as if everything depends on God, and work as if everything depends on us. This expression reflects many passages of scripture and statements from Mormon authorities on the importance of practical working faith. One of my favorite statements about practical faith is from Dieter Uchtdorf, currently serving in the LDS Church First Presidency, as expressed during a recent general conference:


"When our wagon gets stuck in the mud, God is much more likely to assist the man who gets out to push than the man who merely raises his voice in prayer—no matter how eloquent the oration."


God has presented us with opportunity. It's up to us to make the most of it. That makes perfect sense for those that believe we must learn to become as God. How can we learn if we have no opportunity? How can we become as God in all ways unless we have opportunities in all ways?


Vblogger: ". . . feeling a duty to identify and prepare for risks and responsibilities associated with the future appears to place the burden on man or the Mormon Transhumanist Association for determining what to be done to prepare for future advances. "


Fortunately, the MTA is not alone in its concern regarding the risks presented by emerging tech. Each of us has a responsibility to use technology ethically. Each of us will benefit from persuading and helping others to recognize and take on this responsibility, too.


Vblogger: " One unique principle of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints is its belief in continued revelation available to every person for their own domain of stewardship.  The Church also teaches that prophets, seers, are revelators, or the 1st Presidency and  the 12 apostles are here to help the entire world prepare for the future.  That insight into God's teachings in preparation for the future is one definition of a prophet and a key point of doctrine for the Church of Jesus Christ.  According to Church doctrine, we can feel confident that if there are important moral positions to be taken in order to prepare for future scientific advances, following the counsel of Church leaders and scriptural teachings will place us is a position well-prepared for these advances. In other words, while we have much need for individuals to actively pursue scientific progress and to work together in pursuit of scientific truth, a separate organization is not needed to determine moral positions or actions to be taken in order to prepare ourselves morally for this future progress."


The LDS Church does not promote itself as the only needed organization in the world. To the contrary, Mormon scripture explicitly supports participation in government; and LDS Church leaders regularly encourage members to be involved in humanitarian efforts, secular education, respectable professions and other activities that contribute toward a better world. Indeed, Mormon scripture encourages:



"For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;"


The MTA is a good cause. Although still a young organization, it has already opened minds, strengthened faith and contributed to research. Members of the MTA have engaged voluntarily, without command, not compelled, and of their own free will, hoping to make whatever difference we can for the reward of a better world to share with all, even many whose desires, wills and laws differ from ours. This strikes me as righteousness. More importantly, this strikes me as charity, which is the heart of the gospel of Christ and the duty of all those who would identify as disciples of Jesus.

The post continues my response to Vblogger's "Doctrinal and Logical Response" on her blog, Mormon Transhumanist Association Response. My first two posts may be found here:


Response to a Mormon Transhumanist Response


Continued Response to a Mormon Transhumanist Response


As before, I will quote portions of Vblogger's comments and follow these quotes with my thoughts.


Vblogger: "The Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation emphasizes science and technology as a means for immortality and resurrection, with very little discussion of faith or Jesus Christ as a means."


I have addressed these items in my first two posts, but will mention briefly here that both faith and Christ are discussed much among members of the MTA and at sites promoted by the MTA, as illustrated by a quick search for faith or Christ on the MTA web site.


Vblogger: " That emphasis is directly opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ, which provides for the resurrection of everyone who has ever been born, and emphasizes a dependence on Christ, not science, as the means for this resurrection."


Mormon tradition holds, clearly, that all persons will have an opportunity to receive the gospel of Christ, yet we do not expect that Jesus will do all the work to make that happen. Likewise, although Mormon tradition holds that all persons will be resurrected, we should not expect Jesus will do all the work. To the contrary, as indicated in my previous post, Brigham Young and others claimed that we would eventually participate in the ordinance of resurrection.


Vblogger: "With DNA research and other developments, I can imagine the possibility that scientific knowledge and technological power may eventually enable immortality, perhaps even a form of resurrection or transfiguration for some people.  However, teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ require that every single person will be resurrected . . ."


I agree with Vblogger's description of Mormonism as holding that everyone (at least everyone who desires it) will be resurrected. We can image many ways that such a resurrection may be engineered: perhaps time can be manipulated, perhaps the environmental effects of past persons persist sufficiently in the present for reverse engineering, perhaps our identities are maintained by posthumans computing our world, and so on. To posit faith in resurrection while simultaneously rejecting attempts at causal explanations for such a possibility would be superstitious. Likewise, to outright reject the possibility of engineering resurrection, based on present science and technology, would be short sighted.


Vblogger: ". . . [LDS Church] emphasizes that this happens through Christ and faith, and in an order based on righteousness "


As explained above, Christ and faith are not mutually exclusive with science and technology. We could appeal to all of these simultaneously as the causes of a resurrection. Regarding order of resurrection, the MTA has no formal position. Personally, it makes sense to me that a resurrection would be gradual and that persons performing the resurrection may, for moral and practical reasons, choose to resurrect some before others.


Vblogger: "First, Christianity requires that every person be resurrected.  No scientific or technological solution makes sense as a means to resurrect people whose remains have been completely obliterated--as in the tragic victims of the Challenger explosion, or the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or numerous other extreme fires, in which no traces of DNA remain.  In those cases, people's bodies were completely changed into vapor or other forms of matter.  Similarly, many people died thousands of years ago, and their remains long ago became part of the soil, perhaps eaten by worms or other creatures, and whose molecules are now part of the soil, trees, or even other creatures.  Belief in resurrection for those people requires faith, not science. "


DNA is not sufficient for resurrection of any person. The data in DNA is too abstract to provide the details of our individual identities, shaped both by our DNA and our interaction with the complexities of our environment and community. Moreover, contemporary science clearly provides no answer (for or against) the possibility of engineering resurrection. On the other hand, contemporary science and technology trends hint at possibilities (such as those mentioned above), about which we may freely speculate in good conscience, so long as we maintain respect and consideration for established science. A healthy sense of wonder and aspiration has always been an important driving aspect of the scientific endeavor.


Vblogger: "Further, 2000 years ago, science and technology could not have been the source of Christ's resurrection or the many people that were resurrected immediately after Christ . . ."


As expressed in the New God Argument, if we aspire to posthuman capacity, it is reasonable (even moral) to suppose that posthuman capacity already exists. Such capacity may have engineered resurrections in human history. Alternatively, our descendents (or our selves if we live long enough) may attain the capacity to affect the past, steering it toward a desired future through actions including engineered resurrections. Of course, I don't know whether either of these things have happened or will happen. However, I also know that we do not know enough to claim such to be impossible. More importantly, we should ask ourselves, what practical difference does it make to believe one way or another? If we thoroughly believe that we cannot achieve such capacity, we are right because such belief is a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand, belief in and work toward the possibility of such capacity may be essential to attaining it. Even if we're wrong, what have we lost in the effort? From a Mormon perspective, I can only imagine God commending us for the effort. Any God that would punish its creatures for emulation is not a God worthy of worship, so far as I am concerned. Moreover, as articulated in Mormon scripture, a God that is disappointed in us for not making use of opportunity provided makes a lot of sense to me.


Vblogger: "Whenever resurrection of other people is mentioned in scriptures or by other religious leaders, they consistently emphasize Jesus Christ's resurrection as both the cause and the pattern for the resurrection of others . . ."


Mormon scripture also indicates that Christ is the cause and pattern for teaching the gospel, yet we participate in Christ, furthering the cause and manifesting the pattern.


Vblogger: "Not once in any of these scriptures or later religious statements is science and technology mentioned as a possible means of resurrection."


"Science" comes from the Latin word for knowledge. Technology is the application of knowledge. Knowledge and its application are certainly taught and advocated in Mormon scripture and tradition. Until the Internet became reality, the prophets didn't mention it by name, yet they spoke of a day when all things will be revealed and secrets pronounced from the house tops, and I see increasing fulfillment of that prophecy in the Internet. The spirit of prophecy does not make one a scientist. Indeed, as Brigham pointed out, the spirit of prophecy has done its job in the past while being quite ignorant of modern science:


“Now about the rib: as for the Lord taking a rib out of Adam's side to make a woman of, he took one out of my side just as much.  ‘But, Brother Brigham, would you make it appear that Moses did not tell the truth?’  No, not a particle more than I would that your mother did not tell the truth when she told you that little Billy came from a hollow toadstool. I would not accuse your mother of lying any more than I would Moses.  The people in the days of Moses wanted to know things that were not for them, the same as your children do when they want to know where their little brother came from; and he answered them according to their folly, the same as you did your children.” (Brigham Young, General Conference Discourse – October 8, 1854)


Yet at times prophets have explicitly mentioned associations between their prophecies and our improving understanding and application of science, as illustrated by these words from Orson Pratt:


"When the elements melt with fervent heat, the Lord Almighty will send forth his angels, who are well instructed in chemistry, and they will separate the elements and make new combinations thereof."


If chemistry is applicable to the renewal of the world, perhaps information technology is applicable to the resurrection? We don't know, but it may make a difference if we explore the possibility. That is faith, of the real tangible working sort. Anything merely passive has never been the kind of faith advocated by Mormonism.


Vblogger: "Finally, what about keeping this all in order and ensuring resurrection is obtained and controlled by those without sinister intentions?  Today, science and technology are heavily controlled by money and are commonly  used for sinister or at least selfish ends, primarily to get gain or power.  In contrast, Mormon Doctrine and scripture clearly states that resurrection happens in order, with the most righteous resurrected first and others later . . ."


As Vblogger points out, there are certainly important ethical questions related to the quest for and application of knowledge. The MTA explicitly advocates awareness of this issue and the applicability of the religious perspective to the issue, which is perhaps one of the most important purposes of the MTA.


Vblogger: "Brigham Young, in speaking of the process of resurrection, said, "They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism, then the keys of authority to baptize others for the remission of their sins." . . . That process suggests God and priesthood keys controls gets resurrected and when, not scientific power based on whoever has the technology to use DNA."


In the contemporary world, our governments work hard to oversee the availability and application of advanced technologies, such as nuclear power. This will become increasingly important as technology progresses, costs decrease, and destructive capacities increase. The knowledge and power of science and technology certainly merit our respect and careful efforts at good management. On the other hand, the need for good management does not mean that science and technology do not provide the knowledge and power that we actually observe in them.


Vblogger: "The second coming of Jesus Christ is not mentioned in the Mormon Transhumanist affirmation, but it is a key doctrine related to resurrection.  In direct contrast to traditional, gradual and evolutionary scientific progress, the second coming is consistently discussed in both scripture and latter-day revelation as a single, dramatic event . . . Since the second coming is a key moment of resurrection for many people, this is yet another area in which Mormon Doctrine is in opposition to the transhumanist emphasis on gradual scientific and technological progress."


Many members of the MTA and transhumanists generally (but not universally) anticipate a technological singularity within the current century, when dramatic change occurs in a short period of time. Moreover, these persons tend to associate the technological singularity with messianic and apocalyptic notions, quite similar to those associated with the return of Christ. Mormonism and transhumanism are remarkably complementary in their visions of the near future, rapidly advancing knowledge and power, a dramatic apocalyptic change, followed by a world of radically increased abundance and longevity. These complements are described at length in a document authored by members of the Mormon Transhumanist Association and published in Sunstone Magazine as "Transfiguration: Parallels and Complements between Mormonism and Transhumanism".


More to come in my response to Vblogger, who I thank again for the opportunity to exchange thoughts.

This post continues my response to Vblogger's assessment of Mormon Transhumanism, as found in the "Doctrinal and Logical Response" section of her blog, "Mormon Transhumanist Association Response". My previous post addressed Vblogger's thoughts about the first of the three points in the Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation. This post begins by addressing Vblogger's thoughts about the second point of the Affirmation:


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


I'll mention, again, that I'm happy to respond to Vblogger's post, and appreciate the investment she made in thinking and writing about Mormon Transhumanism. As before, I will quote portions of Vblogger's words and afterwards respond to them.


Vblogger: "Although the language suggests science and technology are 'among the means,' to enable exaltation, Mormon Transhumanist writings and  heavily emphasize science and technology and do not discuss a reliance on grace, God, and His forgiveness."


Although discussed at greater length in my first post, I'll briefly repeat here that grace, God and forgiveness are indeed discussed in Mormon Transhumanist writings. The Affirmation itself explicitly mentions God. The New God Argument (a unique Mormon Transhumanist argument for faith in God) depends on the Benevolence Argument, which argues that positive futures depend on altruistic behavior, such as grace and forgiveness. Additionally, a search for "grace", "God" or "forgiveness" at the MTA web site will return numerous results, both from members' sites and from sites promoted by the MTA.


However, the MTA clearly does not focus on all matters equally. That's not its purpose. It is neither a religious organization nor affiliated with any religious organization. Rather, it supports its members in their respective religious affiliations and encourages them to adapt transhumanism to their unique situations. The MTA focuses more on science and technology than it does on expositions of the nature of grace or forgiveness, and even less on scrap-booking and professional sports. That's not because scrap-booking and professional sports are unimportant or uninteresting to members of the MTA. Rather, that's because there are other forums and organizations that already focus on these matters more effectively. The purpose of the MTA is encapsulated in the Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation, which is not intended to be a statement about everything that's important, but a statement about something that's important.


Vblogger: "That emphasis is directly opposite to scripture and latter-day revelation on the topic."


Mormon scripture and tradition, even up to the present day, are remarkably supportive of science and technology, particularly among prominent religious traditions. In my last post, I referenced numerous statements from Mormon authorities in support of science and technology. I'll quote just two here. The first does not explicitly use the words "science" or "technology", but nonetheless satisfyingly expresses the spirit of Mormonism's compatibility with science and technology. The second is more explicit.


"God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now; Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory; A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest. All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ. And also, if there be bounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to the dry land, or to the sun, moon, or stars — All the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days, months, and years, and all the days of their days, months, and years, and all their glories, laws, and set times, shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of times — According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest. How long can rolling waters remain impure? What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints." (D&C 121: 26-33)


“Our traditions are such that it is one of the most difficult things in the world to make men believe that the revealed religion of heaven is a pure science, and all true science in the possession of men now is a part of the religion of heaven and has been revealed from that source. But it is hard to get the people to believe that God is a scientific character, that He lives by science or strict law, that by this He is, and by law he was made what He is; and will remain to all eternity because of His faithful adherence to law. It is a most difficult thing to make the people believe that every art and science and all wisdom comes from Him, and that He is their Author. Our spirits are His: He begot them. We are His children; He set the machine in motion to produce our tabernacles.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 13: 300)


Vblogger: "If science and technology are only a small portion ("among the means") of the solution to some of these items, such as perhaps immortality for some people and perhaps the renewal of this world or perhaps even the creation of other worlds, then what's the point of Mormon Transhumanism?"


As can be observed in the content and spirit of the quotes referenced above, some Mormons (perhaps most) expect science and technology to be large contributors toward positive futures. Let's imagine, though, that we do not know whether they will be small or large contributors. What practical difference would it make to believe one way or the other? If we believe they can be only small contributors, we'll tend to ignore them and focus on other things. If we believe they can be large contributors, we'll give them greater attention. The question then becomes: should we give them greater attention? The MTA contends that we should. This isn't the place to try to provide all the reasons for such a contention, but I'll state this much: I respect science as an essential aspect of the eternal atonement of Christ, in that it is a highly successful method for obtaining unity in epistemic matters, subsequent to assuming the charitable position that everyone's experience matters.


Vblogger: "Mormon doctrine gives the full answer to the opportunity for exaltation and resurrection for all people.  This is a much more comprehensive solution than science or transhumanism even claims to offer.   Why spend so much energy exploring and discussing one possible, yet unproven, means for helping a small portion of the people?"


Mormon tradition tells of transfiguration and resurrection to immortality and eternal life, through the grace of God and according to our desires and works. Yet it provides little to nothing regarding the technical details of how such things could or should happen. We do, however, have some ideas planted by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, who positioned both transfiguration and resurrection as ordinances.


"Now the doctrine of translation is a power which belongs to this Priesthood. There are many things which belong to the powers of the Priesthood and the keys thereof, that have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world; they are hid from the wise and prudent to be revealed in the last times. Many have supposed that the doctrine of translation was a doctrine whereby men were taken immediately into the presence of God, and into an eternal fullness, but his is a mistaken idea. Their place of habitation is that of the terrestrial order, and a place prepared for such characters He held in reserve to be ministering angels unto many planets, and who as yet have not entered into so great a fullness as those who are resurrected from the dead." (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 170)


“It is supposed by this people that we have all the ordinances in our possession for life and salvation, and exaltation, and that we are administering in these ordinances. This is not the case. We are in possession of all the ordinances that can be administered in the flesh; but there are other ordinances and administrations that must be administered beyond this world. I know you would ask what they are. I will mention one. We have not, neither can we receive here, the ordinance and the keys of the resurrection. They will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received their bodies again, as many have already done and many more will. They will be ordained, by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints, just as we receive the ordinance of baptism, then the keys of authority to baptize others for the remission of their sins. This is one of the ordinances we can not receive here, and there are many more.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 15: 135)


These are intriguing thoughts! Transfiguration is an ordinance that will be performed at the end of mortality? Resurrection is an ordinance that will be performed by immortals? Such progression in capacity corresponds well with speculation that advancing science and technology will first extend our lives indefinitely and then enable us to alter ourselves such that death becomes no more superlative than life.


Vblogger: "The vision and promise of Mormonism is not just about living forever and creating worlds. "


I agree with Vblogger that Mormonism posits more than immortality and sublime creative potential, but I yet consider these positions to be among Mormonism's most important.


Vblogger: "The promise of Mormonism also is about the perfect judgment and mercy of Jesus Christ and His power and grace that ensures only the righteous who believe in Christ, live His teachings, and obtain His forgiveness will have this opportunity."


Mormonism clearly posits that almost all persons (at least all who so desire) will attain to immortality. Mormonism also clearly posits that almost all persons (at least all who so desire) will attain to heavenly glory. As Vblogger points out, Mormonism does also hold that higher degrees of creative capacity will be reserved for those who have demonstrated various moral characteristics, as exemplified by Jesus and expressed in the gospel of Christ, as the basis for entrusting them with such power. The MTA has no specific positions on these matters, except to the extent that the Affirmation suggests the same nearly universalist perspective on salvation. Personally, I hold to a nearly universalist perspective on salvation, and observe a naturally enforced correspondence between benevolence and empowerment at play in the universe and our interaction with it. As we gain greater power, we either learn to use it morally or we destroy ourselves with it.


I'll continue responding to the remainder of Vblogger's thoughts later.

This morning, I found that someone, using the pseudonym "Vblogger", has set up a blog entitled "Mormon Transhumanist Association Response", with the stated purpose of showing that Mormonism and Transhumanism are not compatible. Vblogger describes herself as a member of the LDS Church, married with children, and convinced that truth can be found in a variety of religions as well as through scientific discovery. Vblogger sounds like a pleasant and interesting person, and I'm happy to have the opportunity to respond to her assessment of Mormon Transhumanism.

If you're not already familiar with the Mormon Transhumanist Association (MTA), you may learn more about it at the official web site, transfigurism.org. In brief summary, it is a non-profit organization that promotes the compatibility of religion, science, spirituality and technology through the combined perspectives of Mormonism and Transhumanism. The association currently consists of approximately 110 members. I am among the founders of the association, and currently serve as its president.

From this point forward, I'll quote portions of the "Doctrinal and Logical Response" authored by Vblogger, followed by my comments.

Vblogger: ". . . the Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation emphasizes man's efforts through science and technology and leaves out a dependence on God and Jesus Christ as a requirement for exaltation."

On the one hand, God and Christ are common topics of discussion among members of the MTA, as well as among authors of web sites promoted by the MTA. The Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation, which all members support, explicitly references "God" and implicitly describes Christ, as I'll discuss more below. Searches for "God" or "Christ" on the MTA web site return numerous results, not the least of which are results linking to the New God Argument, which is a unique Mormon Transhumanist argument for faith in God.

On the other hand, the MTA does not advocate specific positions on the extent to which positive human futures, whether we describe them as "salvation" or "exaltation", depend on God and Christ. Members of the association hold widely varying perspectives on God and Christ, and those perspectives inform their opinions on the extent to which our future depends on them.

Personally, I consider the grace of God and the atonement of Christ to be essential to any positive future. I have elaborated on what I mean by this both in the Benevolence Argument, which is a principal component of the New God Argument, and in papers such as Practicing Atonement.

Vblogger: "First, exaltation, or eternal life with God, is different from immortality, and is beyond the realm of science or technology . . ."

Numerous Mormon authorities have, over the years, expressed in varying ways their support of the idea that science and technology are applicable to our pursuit of positive futures. Orson Pratt perhaps best summarized with these words: "The great temple of science must be erected upon the solid foundations of everlasting truth; its towering spires must mount upward, reaching higher and still higher, until crowned with the glory and presence of Him, who is Eternal."

However, as illustrated by Vblogger, some argue that there is a transcendent aspect of positive futures (such as "eternal life", in contrast to "immortality") to which science and tech are not applicable, forever in non-overlapping magisteria. The argument is self-defeating in that, by definition, there can be no evidence for it. That aside, Mormons clearly do not behave in accordance with a belief that science and technology do not contribute positively to the pursuit of spiritual perfection. We have computers in all of our temples and churches, both for administrative purposes and to facilitate ceremonies. We've programmed vast databases of genealogical data, which is essential to our temple ceremonies and the goal of uniting the human family (past and present) in covenant relationships. We use highly sophisticated networks of communications tech to perform missionary work and to meet as a worldwide congregation. These are only a few of innumerable examples of science and technology enabling not only the work toward physical exaltation, but also the work toward spiritual exaltation.

Vblogger: ". . . one key challenge with this affirmation is that emphasis on seeking for spiritual and physical exaltation 'according to their wills, desires and laws,' which almost completely leaves out our dependence on God and His will, Christ's atonement"

Different members of the association will interpret the referenced portion of the Affirmation differently. Personally, I consider this portion of the Affirmation to be a profound reflection of the gospel of Christ. In the New Testament, before Jesus says that we show our love for him by keeping his commandments, he states: "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." Notice the repetition. It's almost as if he knew that many of us would forget those statements in our earnest focus on the next statement, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Charity is a two-way street, it is relational, and it is the heart of the Gospel of Christ. The Affirmation, as I interpret it, reflects this Charity: we (whether we're Joe or Jesus) seek each other's exaltation, not as we egotistically define it, but as we altruistically define it, in terms of each other's wills, desires and laws. This charity is reflected in Mormonism's eschatology, which asserts that God is the creator of innumerable worlds and heavens, each reflecting the varying desires of its inhabitants. We hold that some of these heavens are superior to others, but charity moves us to make room for them all, at least so long as we cannot persuade their inhabitants toward something better.

Vblogger: ". . . His grace makes both immortality and forgiveness possible . . ."

Yet we still send missionaries out to preach the Gospel of Christ, and we still gather together to strengthen each other's faith. We do these things because we recognize that the grace of God is opportunity, but there is yet work to do. We have a responsibility to act on that opportunity. As Captain Moroni put it in the Book of Mormon, "Behold, could ye suppose that ye could sit upon your thrones, and because of the exceeding goodness of God ye could do nothing and he would deliver you? Behold, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain . . . Or do ye suppose that the Lord will still deliver us, while we sit upon our thrones and do not make use of the means which the Lord has provided for us? Yea, will ye sit in idleness while ye are surrounded with thousands of those, yea, and tens of thousands, who do also sit in idleness, while there are thousands round about in the borders of the land who are falling by the sword, yea, wounded and bleeding? Do ye suppose that God will look upon you as guiltless while ye sit still and behold these things? Behold I say unto you, Nay."

Vblogger: "Jesus asserts, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No man cometh unto the father but by me.'"

Jesus also asserts that we should be one in him. King Benjamin proclaims that "Christ" is the name by which we will be called to salvation. Paul confirms that "Christ in you" is the glorious mystery hid from ages. Thomas Monson, current President of the LDS Church, taught in the closing remarks of a recent general conference: ". . . we literally become saviors on Mount Zion. As our Savior gave His life as a vicarious sacrifice for us, so we, in some small measure, do the same when we perform proxy work . . ." We are severally the members of the body of Christ, participating together according to our varying capacities in the eternal atonement. This does not diminish the contributions of Jesus. To the contrary, it magnifies the contributions of Jesus as we live according to the Gospel he taught, including these words: "He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."

Vblogger: "Submitting our will to God's will and His laws, is a central message of the Church of Jesus Christ, or 'Mormonism'.  This submission of our will and offering a broken heart and contrite spirit, is a key to exaltation."

God's will, as summarized by Jesus, is love of God (the kind of person we should each aspire to be) and of each other (as we now are), in that order. The LDS Church does not teach arbitrary obedience to just any God's will. Rather, in profound and beautiful irony, it teaches submission to that God whose will is submission to our will (the cross), that our will may likewise become submission to his (charity). As we practice the virtuous cycle of atonement between wills, we rise together in Christ from that which we now desire toward that which we should desire, which unity must account for us all, both severally and collectively. Anything short of that is insufficient for the eternal atonement. On the one hand, there is the God that would raise itself above all others declaring itself God; we call this God "Satan". On the other hand, there is the God that would raise us together in God; we call this God "Christ". The key to the latter, however, is that we must be willing to "suffer with him", each contributing toward our common interests according to his capacities.

Vblogger: "The specific mention of 'their anatomies' and 'individuals' being exalted can underscore a confusion between immortality and exaltation. One's anatomy is only a portion of their soul, and cannot realistically be exalted on its' own, according to Mormon teachings.  Exaltation requires a whole, fully resurrected soul that is cleansed of sin, not merely a collection of parts that last forever."

As I interpret the Affirmation, the distinction between "individuals" and "anatomies" illustrates (rather than confuses) a distinction along the lines of that described here by Vblogger. We are, each of us, both individuals and collections, depending on perspective. We are, likewise, both material and spiritual. I also agree with Vblogger that spiritual and physical exaltation require each other.

Vblogger: "Mormon Doctrine states that individuals cannot be exalted at all--only married couples can"

Mormonism goes even farther than that, to the point of holding that none of us can be saved without all of us. Joseph articulated such an idea in these words, referring to our ancestors: "they without us cannot be made perfect—neither can we without our dead be made perfect."

Vblogger: "exaltation requires forgiveness of sin, which is not a scientific or technological concept"

While forgiveness may not be, in itself, a scientific or technological concept, it is clearly something that science can help us understand better, and something that technology can facilitate. Bishops receive confessions via text messaging, drugs permit psychological states that facilitate awareness of anti-social behavior, psychologists perform peer-reviewed research on the effects of forgiveness, and the list goes on.

Vblogger: "Sin and forgiveness are religious doctrines that require God's teachings, not science."

Sin and forgiveness have secular analogs that we need to understand in order better to communicate with persons that are different from us.

Vblogger: "Scriptural standards for living without sin and obtaining forgiveness are much more stringent than simply behaviors that are 'not oppressive,' which is the only standard for behavior mentioned in this affirmation."

Some stringent scriptural standards, such as killing persons that pick up sticks on the sabbath, are clearly not worthy of our serious consideration. Other apparently less stringent scriptural standards, such as loving one's neighbor, merit deep internalization. It is not the stringency of the standard that should matter to us, but rather the extent to which the standard reflects the experienced spirit of God, or the esthetic to which our common interests and aspirations move us. Seeking to exalt others in their own way to the extent they are not oppressive is not a stringent articulation of charity, and it may not be the best articulation of charity, but it is an articulation of charity nonetheless, as taught and exemplified by Jesus.

I'll comment on the next portion of Vblogger's words later.