lincoln-cannon

[lincoln-cannon]

I’m a practicing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest Mormon denomination. I love and support the Church, its members, and its leaders. But that doesn’t mean that I always agree with all of them, all of the time. Nor, of course, does it mean that other members or leaders always agree with me.

A friend recently read some of my thoughts about a recent General Conference of the Church. He observed, rightly, that “unquestioning veneration of LDS leadership is something that is inconsistent with your personal philosophy.” And he asked me some questions about my relationship with the Church.

Why a Specific Church Matters

First, he wondered “how loyalty to the formal LDS church organization relates to your philosophy.”

As context for my answer to this question, I distinguish between a religion and a church. And, in particular, I distinguish between the Mormon religion and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Religions, such as Mormonism, are more broad and abstract. Churches, such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are more narrow and concrete.

From a Platonic perspective, you might consider religion to be the form and church to be the instance. And, by extension, we would expect the form to admit of many possible instances. For example, the Dog form admits of both Lassie and Toto, among others. And the Mormon form admits of both The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Community of Christ, among others.

Various religions attribute more or less significance to their churches (or whatever term they might use for the formal organizations related to them). Christianity and Buddhism serve as a relatively clear example. Christianity tends to emphasize its formal organizations more than Buddhism does. And this seems to reflect differences in their fundamental philosophies toward this world and embodiment.

Mormonism, more so than any other branch of Christianity that I’m familiar with, emphasizes the value of this world and embodiment. It’s this world that should become heaven. And it’s these bodies that should become immortal. Whether or not some individual Mormons happen to aspire to merely abstract heavens, our authoritative theological tradition clearly and consistently advocates concrete heavens.

Accordingly, in my estimation, Mormonism also has a strong requirement for concrete churches. While it may be enough for a Buddhist to claim the religious identity and practice meditation on her own. Something like that generally wouldn’t be enough for a Mormon – not even close to enough. Mormonism mandates embodied expression on all levels, and even anticipates an increasingly robust expression of that embodiment going into the future.

So, for me, it’s highly important not only that I identify as Mormon but also that I participate actively in a Mormon church. Otherwise, I don’t think I’d be practicing Mormonism as fully as I’m capable of practicing it. I recognize that other people, now and in the past, have or have had different limitations and challenges. So I don’t intend this as universally prescriptive.

But why, then, am I a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular? In part, that’s because I was raised by parents who are members of the Church. But, as I’ve written before, I also feel that this is still the place, for both emotional and rational reasons. Notably, I esteem the Church as the best available, albeit imperfect, embodiment of formal communal advocacy for theosis.

The Utility of Church Practices

Next, my friend asked, “Do you find utility in obedience, orthodoxy, tithing, garment wearing, rigorous sabbath observance, avoiding coffee, tea and wine, and other aspects of the faith that (arguably) don’t have obvious practical benefits?”

I find utility in obedience that is conforming to the image of Christ, as exemplified by Jesus. I don’t find utility in what many recognize as “obedience culture,” which too often manifests as lazy pandering to some excessively opinionated authority figure. The former is the transformative heart of the Gospel of Christ. The latter is what D&C 121 warns us against.

I find utility in qualified patience with thoughtful expressions of perceived orthodoxy. But that’s mostly because I want to be charitable. Dogma should be recognized as the antithesis of Mormonism, which celebrates the necessity of dynamic faith in perpetual revelation and eternal progression. As Joseph Smith put it, “the creeds set up stakes, and say hitherto shalt thou come, and no further, which I cannot subscribe to.”

Tithing is easy, for me, to associate with utility. No formal organization can operate without resources, which tithing provides in our case. And, although I recognize some people don’t like how many resources the Church has amassed, I actually like that it has amassed those resources. I hope that the Church, under the influence of its members and the direction of its leaders, will eventually use those resources to realize some possibilities associated with genealogy that it may be uniquely positioned to realize.

I wish the garment design and manufacturing process were better. Some will consider that vanity. That aside, there’s utility in constantly wearing symbols that remind me of the transformative process in which I wish to be constantly engaged. Church members receive the garment in the temple when we’re literally anointed – literally christened to join in the roles and titles of Christ.

Rigorous sabbath observances are different for different members of the Church. If a particular set of rules and behaviors works for someone (and doesn’t harm anyone else), I’m fine with that. And, by “works,” I mean that I hope it genuinely functions to achieve the purpose of the sabbath as expressed in scripture. Not entirely joking, I sometimes embellish my sense of that purpose by claiming that God is Buddhist on the Sabbath.

I think it’s wise to avoid drinking alcohol. The evidence for health benefits seems to be mostly attributable to the non-alcohol parts of the beverages, which can be consumed in other ways. And the evidence for the social and health detriments is strong – soberingly strong, and I should write more about that sometime.

In contrast, I think the evidence for overall health benefits from coffee and tea is strong. So I avoid them only for symbolic reasons, as an expression of solidarity with members of the Church. And I consume nootropic components of coffee and tea in supplement form on a daily basis.

There are many other aspects of Mormonism that are controversial. In my opinion, some of the controversies are worthy of attention. And others aren’t. I’ve previously written some of my thoughts on the most popular Mormon controversies.

How the Church Is True

Finally, my friend asks, “Do you believe the church’s claim to be the only true church?”

As context for my answer to this question, I’ll share some interpretive thoughts on what I (and probably most Mormons) consider to be the two most important passages of scripture about the “only” true church. The first is in the opening section of The Doctrine and Covenants. Here’s the verse that receives the most attention:

30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually –

When reading this verse out of context, a careful reader should ask several questions.

For example, what are “these commandments?” Verses 6 and 17 make clear that the commandments are, at least, the content of a particular book. That book is The Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), which has evolved and continues to evolve in different ways among different Mormon denominations. Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated most of the original content of the book.

Why do I say, “at least?” That’s because verse 18 expands “commandments” to include that which God gave “to others.” And it’s not clear whether we should understand that expansion to be part of “these commandments” when the phrase appears in later verses.

Likewise, what is “this church?” Presumably, it’s at least the church that Joseph Smith organized. But the only reference to “church” outside verse 30, in the entire text, is in the first sentence. And that reference is ambiguous, with God addressing “my church” while the eyes of God are “upon all men.”

The subsequent text makes the reference to “church” even more ambiguous. The second half of the first verse says that God is addressing “people from afar; and ye that are upon the islands of the sea.” The second verse says that God is addressing “all men,” echoing the first sentence. Are these additional audiences or additional ways of describing the “church” audience?

So there are at least two ways that someone could read verse 30. It could mean that God gave Joseph Smith the power to found The Church of Christ, which was the original name of the specific organization that evolved into multiple Mormon denominations. Or it could mean that God gave both Joseph and “others” the power to found a church that consists, or perhaps could or should consist, of “all men” – all humanity.

At first, people who’ve long read the text in the first way generally discount the strength of the second reading. But there are reasons to consider the second reading more robust. For sake of time, I’ll point out only one, which I consider the strongest.

The Book of Mormon existed before The Doctrine and Covenants. And the opening section of The Doctrine and Covenants even references The Book of Mormon in verse 29, the verse just before the one in question. So the content of The Book of Mormon is important for contextualizing the meaning of verse 30.

The Book of Mormon also contains the other most important passage of scripture about the “only” true church. That passage of scripture is in 1 Nephi 14:

10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

According to this passage of scripture, there are only two churches. One is good. The other is evil. And there are no others.

In other words, if you’re not part of the good church then you’re part of the evil church. There are no exceptions. At least, that’s what the text seems to say. And the next verses elaborate.

11 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.

12 And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters; nevertheless, I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.

So, although there are only two churches, those churches are both spread across the entire Earth. The evil church is among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people. And so is the good church, even if in fewer numbers.

How does this relate to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Are we, as members of the Church, ready to esteem everyone in the Church as good and everyone outside the Church as evil? I’ve observed a few members of the Church who seem ready for that. But most of us, including most leaders, seem to have a different perspective.

Most members of the Church acknowledge that we see good people among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people. And most also acknowledge that we see good people among all religions, even when we have disagreements with them. So we must either discard 1 Nephi 14, or understand the good “church” as something other than an exclusive reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular.

What is that non-exclusive something else? As 1 Nephi 14 describes it, it’s the “church of the Lamb of God.” I think D&C 1 describes the same thing as “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.” And I think Paul describes the same thing in the New Testament as “the Body of Christ.”

I also think John describes the same thing in the New Testament as “the only true God.” Yes. I’m saying that I think the scriptures are intentionally ambiguous between God, Christ, and the only true church. I think God, Christ, and the only true church are ultimately the same thing: a synthesis of sublime persons and places.

Returning to D&C 1, it says that “those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness.” I trust that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has an important and unique role to play in bringing the only true church “out of obscurity and out of darkness.” I also trust that other people, including other religions, have different, important, and unique roles to play in that same work. This is an ecumenical approach to Mormonism, which perhaps apostle Orson Whitney described best:

God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people.

Does this mean that I think all churches are equally good for everyone? No. I do think we’re each unique, so there’s not one right answer for everyone all the time. But I also think that differences have real practical consequences.

Accordingly, I encourage compassionate missionary work, both by my Church and by other Mormon denominations and by other religions. A Biblical proverb says, “As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another.” I think we should all work to share our religions and other philosophies to the best of our abilities, with the aim of truly helping each other. I trust such work will tend to improve our understanding of life, our sense of purpose, and our practical ability to realize a better world.

Come to Church

In that ecumenical and missionary spirit, I invite you to come to church.

If you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I encourage you to renew your engagement. If you’re disillusioned, talk about it with people you trust. If you’re happy, kindly share the reasons for your happiness with others while listening to them too. We still have so much work to do, so let’s not “sleep through the restoration,” as apostle Dieter Uchtdorf put it.

If you’re not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this is an invitation to learn more. Don’t expect us to be perfect, because we aren’t. But we have a transformative message and practice that helps many people. Contact me about it, or I can connect you with the missionaries.

If you’re not interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, consider this an invitation to friendly competition. Come to church in your own way. And let’s see how our differing choices contribute to making the world a more compassionate, creative, and thriving place for everyone.

I trust that, ultimately, all of this brings the only true and living church out of obscurity and out of darkness.

Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on July 02, 2020.

[lincoln-cannon]

What a spring! Pandemic, shutdowns, layoffs, protests, riots – not to mention earthquakes and rumors of, what, murder hornets? I wouldn’t blame you if you’re tempted to think it’s the end of the world.

But I’ve got a proposal for you. Instead of the end, maybe it’s the beginning.

I’ve been spending some time thinking about scriptural prophecies. And I’m clearly not alone. Videos about prophecies in the Bible have been around a long time. But, right now, they’re getting many more views and shares than usual.

One video, shared with me by a friend, uses prophecies from the book of Daniel to make the case that we’re living in what the scriptures call the “end times.” And a family member shared with me another video that even tries to use the book of Revelation to calculate the timing of Jesus’ return. No one knows the day or the hour, says the Bible. But the person in the video claims that we can know the week.

The family member who shared the second video with me asked for my opinion. So here’s what I told her.

I think the primary value of prophecy is how it affects us – how it affects our thoughts, our words and actions. I don’t think that we should understand prophecy as fortune-telling or fate. But instead we can understand it as something like forth-telling.

Forth-telling would be an expression of envisioned possibility. It can be about good possibilities, or bad. But it’s always conditional on our faith – on our practical trust and action. And it’s always intended to provoke us, either to pursue the good or to avoid the bad.

It’s like the story of Jonah and Nineveh, in the Bible. God tells Jonah to tell Nineveh that they’re going to be destroyed, without qualification. So Jonah tells them. But they repent, God spares them, and Jonah gets mad at God for not fulfilling his prophecy.

Likewise, prophecies about the end of the world have different meanings for different people. Some who lived two thousand years ago thought these prophecies entailed the end of the world in their time. Some people who lived one thousand years ago, one hundred years ago, and even ten years ago thought the same.

Humans are highly capable of finding and making purpose from symbols. When we make an effort, we can apply any prophecy to ourselves and our time. And, as Nephi points out in the Book of Mormon, that can be a good thing. But it can also be a bad thing, depending on how our interpretations affect us.

For example, do our interpretations of prophecy give us hope? Do they motivate us to be more courageous and compassionate? Do they provoke us to work, to serve, and actually to show our love for each other in real action?

Or do our interpretations of prophecy weigh us down with distress? Maybe they motivate us to say cruel things or even to act violently? Or maybe they just make us apathetic to others’ suffering? We might tell ourselves, “they had it coming!”

I think that, at least on reflection, we each have a choice to make. We can choose how to think about prophecy. We can choose how to talk about it, and how to act on it. And that choice can have serious practical consequences.

So is this the end of the world? Well, it might be the end of some things. And let’s hope so! Poverty, war, disease, even death: they should all end, so far as I’m concerned.

And the scriptures seem to agree. Remember the prophecy of Joseph Smith, who wrote that the day would come when poverty and enmity will end. Remember the prophecy of Paul the Apostle, who wrote that the day would come when even death will end – the dead resurrected, and the living transfigured.

And where there are endings, there are always beginnings. We can see this in the book of Revelation, where John concludes his prophecy by describing the beginning of “a new heaven and a new Earth.”

I don’t know about you. But I find – I feel – hope when I think about these new beginnings. And that feeling leads me to wonder, is there anything that I can do to help realize that hope? Is there anything that you and I, together, can do to make that better world sooner rather than later?

So it seems to me, when we hear a prophet say that it’s the end of the world, we get to choose. And we can be like Nineveh. We can understand that prophecies, even dark ones, are always invitations to new beginnings.

Of course each new beginning requires change. And change ultimately has to be more than just nice thoughts and words. It has to be the active and transformative change that the scriptures call “repentance.” It’s a difficult change.

But I feel like it’s at least a little easier, and way more effective, when I imagine the needed change as a new beginning. With that hope in mind, I’m more likely to “stand up and do something more than dream,” like we sing in the hymn. Then “doing good [really] is a pleasure” and less of a chore.

Okay. Here’s one last prophecy to think about. John in the New Testament and Moroni in the Book of Mormon both prophesy about the return of Christ. And they both say that “when he appears, we shall be like him.”

If they’re right, as I trust they are, the return of Christ seems to depend on our new beginning as better people – and not the other way around. In other words, Jesus isn’t going to force the new beginning on us. Instead, it looks like we have choices to make and work to do.

So, what’s next? What will next month bring? What comes after pandemics and riots? Honestly, I think that mostly depends on us.

Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on June 27, 2020.

[lincoln-cannon]

Kernel, the neurotech startup funded and led by Bryan Johnson, has been working quietly for four years. Finally, yesterday, they announced more information. They plan, at least initially, to focus on brain monitoring. And their first offering is Neuroscience-as-a-Service (NaaS).

The aim of neurotech in general is to enable interaction with the brain in ways that are more like those in which we interact with traditional computers. Read data from and write data to the brain. Network brains to traditional computers and to each other. Perhaps even backup and restore the substrate of consciousness.

Some neurotech startups aim to achieve such goals via implants. For example, the Utah Array has been around for decades. It records and stimulates the brain at a low resolution. And Elon Musk has launched a startup, Neuralink, that aims to scale recording and stimulation by orders of magnitude.

But of course most people don’t want implants. So others have explored noninvasive technologies. EEG (electroencephalography) is a well known example of noninvasive brain monitoring. For about a decade, companies like Emotiv have sold headsets that monitor electrical pulses from the brain.

Just yesterday, I was reading about tFUS (transcranial focused ultrasound), which is an example of noninvasive brain stimulation. It shoots ultrasound at the brain to elicit change, such as improvement to mood. Another well known example is TMS (transcranial magnetic stimulation), which stimulates the brain via magnetism.

Kernel has chosen to develop a noninvasive technology. Like EEG, it requires a helmet. And like EEG, it’s only for monitoring and not for stimulation. But unlike EEG, Kernel’s technology works with magnetism and light via MEG (magnetoencephalography) and NIRS (near-infrared spectroscopy).

Because of this difference, the Kernel helmet may be able to monitor the brain in greater detail than existing EEG helmets. And it would do this in a form factor (the helmet) that is more portable than existing MEG and NIRS devices. According to neuroscientist Edoardo D’Anna:

What’s new here is the package, miniaturization and ease of use. Far from trivial, these advances could allow both recording modalities to move out of the lab and into more ‘ecological’ settings (e.g. use during movement, daily activities, etc).

At least initially, Kernel is targeting research customers – not consumers. Although a helmet, it’s not yet light enough for prolonged use. And it’s probably not yet simple enough for an untrained person to set up and use alone. But it still appears to be a major improvement on existing technologies, reducing complexity and cost for brain researchers.

How important is an easier and less expensive brain monitor? It may be revolutionary.

By analogy, consider the importance of easier and less expensive DNA sequencing devices. Sequencing the first human genome took about $2.7B and thirteen years. Now we can sequence a human genome for a few hundred dollars. Consequently, the practical applications of genetic science have multiplied abundantly.

Today, brain science faces a challenge like the one that genetic science faced before we could sequence a genome. But the human connectome (the information pattern of which the brain consists) is far more complex than the genome. While a genome represents around three billion base pairs in a static linear relationship, a connectome represents around ninety billion neurons in dynamic three-dimensional relationships. So the human connectome is orders of magnitude more complex than the human genome.

And yet, mastery of the human connectome also promises orders of magnitude more practical applications. Kernel notes a few near-term possibilities on its website. Maybe we can improve autonomous car and drug discovery algorithms. Perhaps we can develop more realistic AI voice assistants, personalized education, and facilitated meditation.

Already, Kernel Sound ID can decode brain activity to identify a speech or song to which a person is (or was) listening. Here’s a visualization:

What about long-term possibilities? Pull out a science fiction novel. Or maybe read those dusty scriptures. A sufficiently advanced neurotechnology may be indistinguishable from resurrection. In a Bloomberg interview, Bryan comments:

We can measure pretty much everything in the known universe, from black holes to atoms to calories. … The only thing we can’t measure is our brains and our minds, which is what makes us ‘us.’

In any case, back in our present day, Kernel needs a product. And products must be practical now. So they’re targeting research customers with NaaS. Kernel expects that researchers will use NaaS to make faster progress in many domains of brain science and, indirectly, toward consumer applications.

Some people will be disappointed that Kernel isn’t planning to provide a consumer product any time soon. I have to admit, I look forward to amping up my brain with something like Nexus as soon as (safely) possible. But we’re not there yet. And we’ll never get there without the hard and sometimes tedious work of real science and iterative engineering.

Bryan is funding and leading an important part of that hard and tedious work. He’s both visionary and practical. That’s a powerful combination. Continue to expect great things from him.

Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on May 06, 2020.

[lincoln-cannon]

Today, COVID-19 is ravaging our world. Some of us are suffering physically. All of us are suffering socially and economically.

I don’t know for sure what will happen tomorrow. But I know what must happen. You do too, I trust, intuitively if not consciously. So let’s acknowledge and do it.

When we imagine a beautiful future, we think of many different things. We’re different people. We have different desires. And we have different perspectives.

But no matter how different we may be, there’s one thing that we all share in common. It’s that pocket of space that we call “Earth.” At present, we can barely reach beyond it. Maybe someday that will change, but for now it’s pretty much all we’ve got.

Because Earth is all we’ve got, there’s nothing else that any of us can use. To pursue our beautiful futures, we must use Earth. No matter our perspective or desires, and no matter our differences, we must use Earth. Earth is our only means, and we all need it.

Because we all need Earth, there’s something else that we share in common. It’s a hard thing. It’s the persistent and inescapable choice between coercion and cooperation.

On the one hand, if your beautiful future doesn’t require me, and if you think yourself powerful enough, you’ll choose coercion, at least indirectly. Maybe you lie about this, perhaps even to yourself. But that’s just how it works. That’s how it’s always worked.

On the other hand, if your beautiful future does require me, or if you don’t think yourself powerful enough, you’ll choose cooperation. But because I can never know infallibly that your beautiful future requires me, and because you can never know infallibly that my beautiful future requires you, we both have incentive to ensure that one of us doesn’t think herself powerful enough to dispense with the other.

If ever one of us becomes persuaded that she’s powerful enough to dispense with the other, there will be a revelation – an apocalypse. That one will reveal whether she thinks the other is part of her beautiful future. But there’s no guarantee that the revelation will go the way the other hopes. And there’s no guarantee that the revelation won’t change over time.

So it’s wise, and at scale even existentially essential, that we work against the risks presented by our dynamic power disparities. And probably nothing more truthfully says “you are part of my beautiful future” than our willing relinquishment and sharing of power. Nothing cultivates trust more than cooperation, except perhaps greater degrees of cooperation. And cooperation, at its limits, is practically indistinguishable from compassion.

Cooperation must happen tomorrow. And that’s not new. Cooperation has always been the hurdle, the gating or critical factor, between us and our beautiful futures. We have the opportunity, today, to think about what we’ll choose tomorrow because we were at least sufficiently cooperative to survive yesterday.

Tens of thousands of years ago, we survived by working together to hunt and gather. Thousands of years ago, we survived by working together to farm and build. In recent centuries and decades, we survived by working together to control nuclear weapons and build the Internet. And by surviving and learning from each of these phases, we gained more power to share, and we confronted yet greater risks.

In some ways, COVID-19 is just the latest version of an ancient threat. But in other ways, it’s a harbinger of emerging risk. Our technology-enabled proximity to each other puts global humanity at greater risk from ancient threats. It’s harder than ever before to avoid each other.

And that’s not all. The Internet is teaching more of us more than ever before. And biotechnology is making our new knowledge more actionable than ever before. The next virus pandemic may be not only spread by humans, but also created by humans – or not even humans, plural, but even just one human in her basement with a chip on her shoulder.

How will we survive this new risk? Again, I don’t know for sure what will happen tomorrow. But I know what must happen. The silver lining of COVID-19 is that it’s an opportunity for us to learn and prepare for greater challenges ahead.

We must take another determined step together toward cooperation at its limits. That is, we must choose to be more compassionate tomorrow than we were yesterday. Our survival almost certainly depends on greater compassion and its cascading practical consequences.

Greater compassion will take many forms. Most immediately, it must take the form of washing hands more conscientiously. And perhaps counter-intuitively, for a while, it must take the form of extra physical separation: declining hugs and handshakes with a friendly smile, and quickly quarantining ourselves as we notice any symptoms of illness. Sometimes a willing choice to separate ourselves physically is the best way of expressing our love for each other.

Beyond those immediate forms, compassion must ultimately take all the forms necessary for us to survive each new challenge as it comes. It must take all the forms necessary for us to use Earth, the one thing that we all share in common, to empower each other. And that empowerment must not be over each other, but rather for each other, and with an ever-expanding sense of all that’s encompassed within our efforts toward mutual empowerment (ultimately including Earth itself and beyond). That’s the most trustworthy and only practical way forward for all of us.

Your beautiful future, mine, and all futures worthy of being described as “beautiful” depend fundamentally on incrementally greater cooperation that, at its limits, becomes practically indistinguishable from compassion. Put more simply, greater love must happen tomorrow. And I’m confident that it will.

Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on March 12, 2020.

[lincoln-cannon]

I thought I was sitting down to watch another Transhumanist-themed documentary. I was wrong.

No. I don’t have anything against documentaries about Transhumanists or Transhumanism. To the contrary, I’m a huge fan. You might even find me featured in a couple Transhumanist documentaries this year!

But 2030, the feature film about FM-2030, turned out to be something else. And in this case, that was a good thing. It beat my expectations. And I bet it will beat yours too.

Who Is FM 2030?

The son of an Iranian diplomat, FM was born in Belgium on October 15, 1930. His original name was Fereidoun M Esfandiary. In early adulthood, FM competed as a basketball player for Iran in the Olympic Games. Then, after graduating from the University of California at Los Angeles, he served on the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine in the 1950s.

Later in life, FM became particularly notable as a Transhumanist. In the 1970s, he changed his name to FM-2030. The change reflected his hope to live until at least 2030, which he expected to be “a magical time” of technological achievement and perhaps the advent of indefinite life extension. He explained:

I am a 21st century person who was accidentally launched in the 20th. I have a deep nostalgia for the future.

FM formalized his identity as a Transhumanist with the book, Are You a Transhuman? Monitoring and Stimulating Your Personal Rate of Growth in a Rapidly Changing World. Published in 1989, the book consists of a series of self-tests that purport to measure psychological adaptation to accelerating social evolution. Whether or not they deliver on that promise, the questions are thought-provoking and might even make for a fun party game.

Unfortunately, FM contracted pancreatic cancer and died thirty years short of his goal. His death received attention from the New York Times. Alcor Life Extension Foundation put his body into cryonic suspension on July 8, 2000. And there it remained, protected in a cold preservation tank and surrounded by the hot Arizona desert – until at least 2016?

Although I’ve essentially been a Transhumanist since childhood, I didn’t discover explicit Transhumanism until a few years after FM died. So I never had a chance to meet or interact with him while he was alive. But I’ve learned about him and his ideas over the years. And I’ve found inspiration in, even if not always agreement with, his work.

For example, I agree with FM’s expectation that technology will enable indefinite life extension and unprecedented abundance. And I share in his hope that we will begin to experience the realization of those expectations within decades (not centuries). But I don’t agree with some of his social views, such as the notion that ancestry, ethnicity, nationality, and religion are generally oppressive constructs. To the contrary, I consider all such constructs to be powerful social technologies, not only for evil but also for good.

In any case, FM was and is an influential Transhumanist. Some have called him the “father” of modern Transhumanism. And if you want to understand Transhumanism better, you would be well served to learn more about him.

The (Not-Quite) Documentary

As described by its director, Johnny Boston, 2030 is “not quite a biopic or an homage or even a traditional documentary.” Rather, it’s “an engaging docu-drama with thriller and sci-fi flourishes that seeks to answer the deeply philosophical question: ‘What will it mean to be human when technology has finally given us a world where no one dies?’”

He’s right. In fact, I was surprised by my engagement with the story.

Of course, like all biographical documentaries, the film includes snippets from the subject’s life and ideas. There are pictures of FM, young and old. And there are recordings, in which FM’s voice expresses aspects of his philosophy.

And of course the film also includes snippets of interviews with relevant experts. For example, Ray Kurzweil talks about the evolutionary importance of expanding intelligence. Ken Hayworth points out that traditional conceptions of immortality are illusory because change is persistent. And Max More talks about preservation technologies.

But Johnny ties these usual snippets together in an unusual way. FM’s life story begins in minute one. And within five minutes, a second story begins. Are you ready for this?

The second story, interwoven with the first throughout the remainder of the film, is FM’s resurrection story. Wait! What? Was FM reanimated from cryonic suspension?

Find out for yourself. You can stream 2030 at Amazon. It’s time to become re-acquainted with the author, teacher, Transhumanist philosopher, futurist, and posthuman known as FM-2030.

Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on March 07, 2020.

[lincoln-cannon]

I love Battlestar Galactica. The story and characters inspire me. The reimagined TV series and movies bring them to life. And I recently decided to watch the show again – even better the second time!

But I ran into a problem when I was getting started. None of the viewing order and source guides that I could find on the Internet were good enough. For example, most don’t include Caprica, a prequel series that I consider highly under-rated. And most were written at a time when physical media sources (DVDs and such) were more popular than streaming sources.

So I’m fixing that problem. This is the ultimate guide to watching the reimagined Battlestar Galactica. It includes the best viewing order for all of the TV movies and series, as well as all of the webisodes. And it includes streaming source recommendations and links to help you access them all.

Battlestar Galactica originally aired in 1978. It was created by Glen Larson (a Mormon, who used many elements of Mormon mythology in the story). The reimagined version was created by Ronald Moore in 2003. This guide is about the reimagined version.

How to Watch Battlestar Galactica

The viewing order in this guide is almost entirely chronological. But The Plan, one of the TV movies, is a notable exception. It covers the same period of time that the first two seasons cover, but it does so from the Cylon perspective. To avoid spoilers, it’s best to watch The Plan after Season 4 Episode 15.

Razor, another TV movie, includes a scene toward the end that some people consider to be a spoiler. I think it’s actually more intriguing than spoiling. But if you want to avoid any risk then watch the last 10 minutes of Razor after Season 3. That would be a small change to the order that I indicate below.

Where to Watch Battlestar Galactica

There are DVD and Bluray sources that purport to provide the “complete series.” However, none of them contain everything in my list. So even if you decide to buy physical media, you’ll have to resort to streaming for missing parts.

Presently, you can stream almost all of the TV movies and series from Amazon. An exception is Razor, which you can stream from Vudu. The Resistance and The Face of the Enemy are compilations of webisodes that you can stream on YouTube and Dailymotion. I link each item in the list to its best streaming source.

Battlestar Galactica Watch Order

Now, find your comfortable place. It’s time to visit the twelve colonies, meet William Adama, and join in the Cylon war. Sit back, relax, and enjoy one of the best science fiction stories of all time. Let’s get started!

Caprica (Amazon)

Episode 1, Pilot, Part 1

Episode 2, Pilot, Part 2

Episode 3, Rebirth

Episode 4, Reins of a Waterfall

Episode 5, Gravedancing

Episode 6, There Is Another Sky

Episode 7, Know Thy Enemy

Episode 8, The Imperfections of Memory

Episode 9, Ghosts in the Machine

Episode 10, End of the Line

Episode 11, Unvanquished

Episode 12, Retribution

Episode 13, Things We Lock Away

Episode 14, False Labor

Episode 15, Blowback

Episode 16, The Dirteaters

Episode 17, The Heavens Will Rise

Episode 18, Here Be Dragons

Episode 19, Apotheosis

Blood and Chrome (all parts combined, Amazon)

The Mini-Series (Amazon)

Season 1 (Amazon)

Episode 1, 33

Episode 2, Water

Episode 3, Bastille Day

Episode 4, Act of Contrition

Episode 5, You Can’t Go Home Again

Episode 6, Litmus

Episode 7, Six Degrees of Separation

Episode 8, Flesh and Bone

Episode 9, Tigh Me Up, Tigh Me Down

Episode 10, The Hand of God

Episode 11, Colonial Day

Episode 12, Kobol’s Last Gleaming, Part 1

Episode 13, Kobol’s Last Gleaming, Part 2

Season 2 (Amazon)

Episode 1, Scattered

Episode 2, Valley of Darkness

Episode 3, Fragged

Episode 4, Resistance

Episode 5, The Farm

Episode 6, Home, Part 1

Episode 7, Home, Part 2

Episode 8, Final Cut

Episode 9, Flight of the Phoenix

Episode 10, Pegasus

Episode 11, Resurrection Ship, Part 1

Episode 12, Resurrection Ship, Part 2

Episode 13, Epiphanies

Episode 14, Black Market

Episode 15, Scar

Episode 16, Sacrifice

Episode 17, The Captain’s Hand

Razor (all parts combined, Vudu)

Season 2 (continued)

Episode 18, Downloaded

Episode 19, Lay Down Your Burdens, Part 1

Episode 20, Lay Down Your Burdens, Part 2

The Resistance (all parts combined, YouTube)

Season 3 (Amazon)

Episode 1, Occupation

Episode 2, Precipice

Episode 3, Exodus, Part 1

Episode 4, Exodus, Part 2

Episode 5, Collaborators

Episode 6, Torn

Episode 7, A Measure of Salvation

Episode 8, Hero

Episode 9, Unfinished Business

Episode 10, The Passage

Episode 11, The Eye of Jupiter

Episode 12, Rapture

Episode 13, Taking a Break From All Your Worries

Episode 14, The Woman King

Episode 15, A Day in the Life

Episode 16, Dirty Hands

Episode 17, Maelstrom

Episode 18, The Son Also Rises

Episode 19, Crossroads, Part 1

Episode 20, Crossroads, Part 2

Season 4 (Amazon)

Episode 1, He That Believeth In Me

Episode 2, Six of One

Episode 3, The Ties That Bind

Episode 4, Escape Velocity

Episode 5, The Road Less Traveled

Episode 6, Faith

Episode 7, Guess What’s Coming to Dinner?

Episode 8, Sine Qua Non

Episode 9, The Hub

Episode 10, Revelations

Episode 11, Sometimes a Great Notion

The Face of the Enemy (all parts combined, Dailymotion)

Season 4 (continued)

Episode 12, A Disquiet Follows My Soul

Episode 13, The Oath

Episode 14, Blood on the Scales

Episode 15, No Exit

The Plan (Amazon)

Season 4 (continued)

Episode 16, Deadlock

Episode 17, Someone to Watch Over Me

Episode 18, Islanded In a Stream of Stars

Episode 19, Daybreak, Part 1

Episode 20, Daybreak, Part 2

Episode 21, Daybreak, Part 3

Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on February 26, 2020.

[lincoln-cannon]

As a teenager, I inherited an old filing cabinet from my father. The filing cabinet was made of black metal. It had four drawers, stacked on top of each other. And each drawer was filled with green folders. The folders were empty when I received them. My father had transferred his papers to new filing cabinets. And the empty green folders had become mine to fill. But there were still two papers on the outside of the filing cabinet. My father had attached them to the black metal with clear tape. Both were white. And each bore a quote, printed in black ink. The first quote was attributed to Spencer W. Kimball. He was president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when my father had taped the paper to the filing cabinet. Kimball had since died. Here's the quote:

"Do it. Do it right. Do it right now."

The second quote was attributed to Theodore Roosevelt. He was president of the United States four decades before my father was born. Here's the quote:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

The papers bearing these quotes were on a side of the filing cabinet. I left them there. And, when arranging the furniture in my bedroom, I positioned that side of the filing cabinet to be visible from my bed. For years, the papers stared at me like large white eyes in the darkness before dawn and after dusk. That's how I remember them. Now, the filing cabinets are long gone and its papers have become digital. But the quotes continue to stare at me. I don't want to be the critic. I don't want to deconstruct. I do both. But they aren't what I want. I want to create. I want to create with other creators. And I want our criticisms and deconstructions to be only, and never more than, deliberate instrumental means toward creation. I don't want to be careless or afraid. I don't want to be the detached ascetic. And I don't want to be the clinging apologist. I want to love, deeply and broadly and with power. I want to love this world, this body and mind, and these relationships. This and these! Here and now! And I want to love them as they are. I want to love them as evolutions from the past, transformations to the future, and integrations within the universe. When I'm at my best, these are my motivations. My best hope is that we will care, act, suffer, and thrive together. My best prayer is for you to join me, and for me to join you, as those who are capable of true friendship. In any case, we're all burying papers in green folders that decay into black filing cabinets. Do you have any papers on the outside of your filing cabinet? And, if so, what do they say? Are they just descriptive labels or something more?

Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on December 26, 2019 at 03:42AM.

[lincoln-cannon]

A recent academic paper by Roba Megersa of Jimma University mentions my work on Mormon Transhumanism. The aim of the mention is to contrast my theology with that of persons who the author esteems to be "fundamentalists" and "bioconservatives." There's a clear contrast, for sure. But the author takes the contrast too far, and doesn't sufficiently recognize that Christian values are essential to my theology. Below is the relevant part of the paper. Judging from the English, I suspect it may have been translated from another language.

"However, some theologians who pursue God from secular perspective mandate humankinds to use science and technology as means in order to expand their capacity. For example, Lincoln Cannon states that the “Mormon Scripture” or “Mormonism” allows humans to use science and technology improve and save ourselves as a wisdom given by God. According to this secular version of Christianity, it is our mandate to use science and technology as a means to accomplish what we may want. Thus, Mormonism admits science and technology as among the means prescribed by God. In giving a prominent role to science and technology, Mormonism shares common elements with secular humanism and transhumanism."

Here's what the author gets right:

I believe that Christianity, and particularly Mormonism, mandates action using the means that God has given us to participate in saving ourselves.

I also believe that Christianity, and particularly Mormonism, sanctions science and technology as some of the means that we should use to participate in saving ourselves.

Here's what the author gets wrong:

I don't believe that humanity can save itself without a context of opportunity. Humanity can save itself only to the extent that it has received a context of opportunity, which is grace.

I wouldn't call my theology a "secular" version of Christianity or Mormonism. I would call it a PRACTICAL version, which is essentially an AUTHENTIC version. Technophobic Christians are counterfeit to some extent. As James put it, "faith without works is dead." And technology is works.

I don't believe that we should merely use technology to achieve "what we may want." Rather, I believe that we should use technology to achieve that which is holistically consistent with body's desire, mind's will, relations' rules, and environments' laws, to the extent that they are not oppressive. And I expect this will require an endless compassionate work of reconciliation or atonement.

Mormon Transhumanism, so far as this Mormon Transhumanist is concerned, is not remotely anything like individualistic secularism. To the contrary, I cannot imagine a coherent Mormon Transhumanism (or a coherent Mormonism or Christianity) without grace, practicality, and reconciliation. These are some of the reasons that Mormon Transhumanists are Christians. These are some of the reasons that we celebrate Christ. Only in Christ, as exemplified by Jesus, can we reasonably hope for sufficiency to the challenges that confront us. This is not a superstitious appeal to supernatural power. This is a practical appeal to the natural consequences of trusting in Christ. Christ is a role, exemplified by Jesus. It is the role of savior. It is the role of consoling, healing, and raising each other beyond death and hell. If we trust in Christ then we follow Jesus' example. We change from that which we are. And we immerse ourselves, body and mind, in that which we should become. We transform. We become Christ with Jesus. But none of us can do this alone. Our transformation requires power beyond our own. It requires a context of opportunity. The context must include physical laws that are ultimately consistent with our hopes. It requires reconciliation of relationships beyond jealousy, anger, and hatred. And none of us unilaterally controls either that environment or those relationships. But we can work and do our part. We can try to be like Jesus. We can try to console, heal, and raise. We can try to be Christ. Trust in Christ. Be Christ. Both are essential to Mormon Transhumanism. And that's what Mormon Transhumanists celebrate as Christians. Merry Christmas!

Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on December 14, 2019 at 03:23PM.

[lincoln-cannon]

After reading some of my recent posts about the New God Argument, a Transhumanist friend wrote to me with some questions about the nature of God. He was raised as a Christian. And he's been wondering how God as described in the New God Argument relates to God as described in traditional Christianity, and particularly to Jesus Christ. That's a question I receive often. So I thought it would be helpful to share some brief thoughts about that here. First, let's contextualize why this is something that my friend and other Transhumanists may be concerned about. Given some assumptions consistent with contemporary science and technological trends, the New God Argument demonstrates that trust in the superhuman potential of humanity is logically consistent only if we also trust that superhumanity probably would be more compassionate than we are now and probably created our world. Such superhumanity may qualify as God. And such trust may qualify as faith. The New God Argument is particularly poignant (and therefore controversial) for Transhumanists because most of us strongly trust in the superhuman potential of humanity. But many reject faith in God. And the New God Argument stands as a strong criticism of that position. It demonstrates that atheist Transhumanism may be logically incoherent, depending on how broadly that atheism is construed. Atheist Transhumanists may maintain logical coherence by rejecting the existence or relevance of supernatural Gods. They may also maintain logical coherence by rejecting the existence or relevance of natural Gods whose origins are alien to that of humanity. However, if they reject natural Gods with origins similar to that of humanity then, as the New God Argument demonstrates, their trust in human potential is inconsistent with their account of probable human origins. When Transhumanists start to internalize this argument, they begin to wonder, like my friend, whether and how this relates to the accounts of God from traditional religions. He asked, "Is the historical Jesus Christ from the future?" Maybe. But not necessarily. Personally, I don't think so. I revere the historical Jesus as Christ. I also think the historical Jesus came from the same place that the rest of us came from: biological parents who descended from biological parents, who evolved from prehuman ancestors (who existed to some extent as information or "spirit" before that). What about the virgin birth? As I understand the scriptures, "virgin" describes a young woman -- not someone who has never had sex. My friend continued, "Is Jesus from a future Superhumanity coming back to give us instructions & teaching in our timeline?" Again, although I don't think so, it may be that the future can affect the past either through time travel or through more subtle mechanisms. I can't disprove such possibilities. But that's not the point of the New God Argument. The New God Argument doesn't say anything about time travel or inverted causation. The New God Argument does say something about the probabilities of our origins based on our hopes for the future. It observes that if we become superhumanity and procreate worlds that emulate our evolutionary history, then we almost certainly would not be the first or only to do so. So the New God Argument is describing a procedural recursion but not necessarily a temporal recursion. It is describing a process that may happen over and over again in similar ways with some variation (a cosmic evolution with intelligence as the mechanism of inheritance). But it's not necessarily describing a time loop or any other non-linear timeline. And yet my friend wondered, "Where does Jesus fit into all this?" I revere Jesus Christ, as described in the Bible, to be the principal example of the kind of person that we should become. Christ is not Jesus' last name. It is his role. And it is a role that, again according to the Bible, he not only exemplifies but also invites us all to participate in with him. The function of that role is compassion: to console, heal, and raise each other. The function of Christ is, ultimately, to save each other from our greatest enemies: death and hell. Accordingly, Jesus invites us to raise the dead and to reconcile (become one or atone) with each other. And that function figures prominently in the New God Argument. I call it the Compassion Argument. It is basically the idea that (a) humanity is likely to continue increasing in decentralized destructive capacity, that (b) nothing short of the limits of cooperation will be sufficient for surviving the limits of such power, and (c) the limits of cooperation are indistinguishable from sublime compassion. Jesus calls us, even commands us, to do and become that which we must to survive the glory of God -- to survive the power of superintelligence. Love your neighbor as yourself. And love God, that which you and your neighbor should become, with your whole mind and strength. Jesus' command is reflected in the heart of the New God Argument. Finally, my friend commented, "I was brought up to believe that Jesus Christ is God - the Trinity. So when you say God, I think of Jesus." And he asked, "Do Mormons believe in the Trinity?" Most Mormons will tell you that we don't believe in the Trinity. That's technically accurate insofar as formal theology is concerned. But there are some ways in which Mormon theology resonates with Trinitarian thought to some extent. There are many ways to describe God in Mormonism. Although we generally offer simple explanations like "God is our Heavenly Father." It's equally true that we consider other persons, notably Heavenly Mother, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost to be God. And, although the doctrine of theosis is not unique to Mormonism, we do emphasize it. Our scriptures attribute Godhood to some prophets, such as Abraham. And they teach that, as children of God, we all have potential to become God. That sounds like polytheism. But it wouldn't be technically accurate to call us polytheists for several reasons. And these reasons begin to illustrate some resonance with Trinitarian thought. The first reason that we're not polytheists is because we insist that, although the Gods are many, they are also one. We most commonly explain their unity as one of purpose. But our scriptures also suggest other ways in which the many Gods are one God. For example, both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants explain that the Father and the Son are One Eternal God because they are roles that one person may fill simultaneously. They use Jesus as the principal example of one person who fills both roles (with the caveat that he had to progress into filling both roles). And they teach that we, too, may eventually fill both roles. Another example is that our scriptures describe a power or influence that permeates time and space, referred to as the "light of Christ," which unites everything in God. It's a sort of panentheistic account of God (note that panentheism is not the same as pantheism, in that the former doesn't merely equate God with nature but rather esteems nature to be an expression of God). So God, in Mormon theology, is both one and many. And that may sound somewhat familiar to Trinitarians, even if there are significant differences too. In conclusion, I'll comment as I have before, that theology is not sufficiently appreciated among Transhumanists. It's really too bad. Highly intelligent humans have engaged in theology for thousands of years, doing their best to imagine and articulate the nature of what we, today, might call superintelligence. And just as alchemy and astrology contributed to the emergence of chemistry and astronomy, so theology has contributed and yet will contribute to the emergence of a science of superintelligence.

Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on September 29, 2019 at 11:21PM.

[lincoln-cannon]

The New God Argument has evolved over the years, as I've worked to simplify it and present it in more accessible ways. There's still a lot of work to do. Too bad I can't work on it for more than small amounts of time on an occasional basis! But I enjoy the process. And I was reminded of that process, this morning, when I received a copy of the audio recording of my latest presentation of the argument. That's available to you below. But first, here's some history. Joseph West and I formulated the first version of the New God Argument in 2008. With Chris Bradford, we completed the final touches of its first presentation on August 8, the evening before the Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City. At the conference, we presented the argument to an audience of about 50 attendees, from what I recall. I remember being fairly nervous. I'm not as nervous when I present it these days. Since the first presentation, I've explained the argument countless times to friends and family and small groups of people. And I've presented it to larger groups several times, including the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology and the Transhumanism and Spirituality Conference. Probably because I'm a software engineer, I've also versioned the argument as it has evolved. So you can see version 1, version 2, version 3, version 3.1, version 3.2, version 3.3, and the latest version 3.4. Generally, the versions correspond with major presentations or publications of the argument. The first publication of the argument was version 2.0 in Parallels and Convergences, a book edited by Scott Howe and Richard Bushman. The second publication was version 3.1 in the Journal of Theology and Science. More recently, version 3.3 of the argument has been published in both Religion and Human Enhancement, a book edited by Tracy Trothen and Calvin Mercer, and in two books edited by Newton Lee: Google It and The Transhumanism Handbook. My latest presentation of the argument was again at the Sunstone Symposium, 11 years after the original presentation. This time the audience was smaller, but it included a documentary team -- one of two that filmed the Mormon Transhumanist Association this summer. I presented version 3.4 of the argument, which includes some small revisions to the syntax of the Compassion Argument. And the reception was highly positive, as usual. Once internalized and understood, the New God Argument has a tendency to shift paradigms of thought in satisfying (and mind-blowing) ways. Someday, I hope, there will be a book -- not just a chapter of a book -- on the New God Argument. Friends keep encouraging me. Thank you, sincerely, for that. In the mean time, I recommend to you the audio recordings of the oldest and the newest presentations of the New God Argument, both from the Sunstone Symposium. Nothing like the combination of the old and the new to reinforce the argument's meaning. Enjoy. The New God Argument at Sunstone Symposium 2008 The New God Argument at Sunstone Symposium 2019 Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on September 20, 2019 at 02:38PM.

[lincoln-cannon]

On Saturday 3 August, I presented the New God Argument at the Sunstone conference in Salt Lake City. As part of the presentation, I simplified the formulation of the Compassion Argument slightly. And I spent more time than usual elaborating on how the first assumption of the Compassion Argument arises from the Orthogonality Hypothesis and the Convergence Hypothesis, which artificial intelligence researchers have been developing for several years. In response to my presentation, a friend who was already familiar with the argument sent me several questions. This post (1) presents the latest formulation of the argument, (2) shares some elaboration on the Orthogonality and Convergence Hypotheses, and (3) responds to my friend's questions. The New God Argument is a logical argument for faith in God. Given assumptions consistent with contemporary science and technological trends, the argument proves that if we trust in our own superhuman potential then we should also trust that superhumanity probably would be more compassionate than we are and created our world. Because a compassionate creator may qualify as God in some religions, trust in our own superhuman potential may entail faith in God, and atheism may entail distrust in our superhuman potential. Faith Assumption The Faith Assumption is a proposition that humanity will not become extinct before evolving into superhumanity. The proposition may be false. However, to the extent we do not know it to be false, we may have practical or moral reasons to trust that it is true. In any case, the Faith Assumption is a common aspiration among secular advocates of technological evolution, and it may be consistent with the religious doctrine of theosis, also known as deification: the idea that humanity should become God. [F1 assumption] humanity will not become extinct before evolving into superhumanity Compassion Argument The Compassion Argument is a logical argument for trust that superhumanity probably would be more compassionate than we are. The basic idea is that humanity probably will continue to increase in decentralized power, so it probably will destroy itself unless it increases in compassion. If we trust in our own superhuman potential, we should trust that superhumanity would be more compassionate than we are. [CO1 assumption] EITHER humanity probably will become extinct before evolving into superhumanity OR superhumanity probably would not have more decentralized power than humanity has OR superhumanity probably would be more compassionate than we are [CO2 assumption] superhumanity probably would have more decentralized power than humanity has [CO3 deduction from CO1, CO2, and F1] superhumanity probably would be more compassionate than we are Creation Argument The Creation Argument is a logical argument for trust that superhumanity probably created our world. The basic idea is that humanity probably would not be the only or first to create many worlds emulating its evolutionary history, so it probably will never create many such worlds unless it is already in such a world. If we trust in our own superhuman potential, we should trust that superhumanity created our world. [CR1 assumption] EITHER humanity probably will become extinct before evolving into superhumanity OR superhumanity probably would not create many worlds emulating its evolutionary history OR superhumanity probably created our world [CR2 assumption] superhumanity probably would create many worlds emulating its evolutionary history [CR3 deduction from CR1, CR2, and F1] superhumanity probably created our world God Conclusion The God Conclusion is a logical deduction for faith in God. Given assumptions consistent with contemporary science and technological trends, the deduction concludes that if we trust in our own superhuman potential then we should also trust that superhumanity probably would be more compassionate than we are and created our world. Because a compassionate creator may qualify as God in some religions, trust in our own superhuman potential may entail faith in God, and atheism may entail distrust in our superhuman potential. [G1 deduction from CO3 and CR3] BOTH superhumanity probably would be more compassionate than we are AND superhumanity probably created our world Definitions faith : trust : belief that something is reliable or effective for achieving goals compassion : capacity to refrain from thwarting or to assist with achieving goals creation : the process of modifying situations to achieve goals intelligence : capacity to achieve goals across diverse situations superintelligence : intelligence that is greater than that of its evolutionary ancestors in every way humanity : all organisms of the homo sapiens species posthumanity : evolutionary descendents of humanity superhumanity : superintelligent posthumanity God : superhumanity that is more compassionate than we are and that created our world Orthogonality Hypothesis The Orthogonality Hypothesis has been developed among researchers of artificial intelligence. It is the idea that intelligence and final goals are orthogonal. In other words, we probably cannot predict the final goals of any given intelligence based on its level of intelligence (the Semi-Orthogonality Hypothesis is technically more accurate). Some have supposed that a high level of intelligence must necessarily be associated with particular kinds of goals, such as compassion. However, evidence strongly suggests otherwise. Great intelligence has been applied in ways that have both harmed and helped others. And it appears likely that great intelligence will continue to present such risk. So, as we imagine the final goals of artificial intelligence or any form of superintelligence (whether of artificial or hybrid origin), we should not simply assume that they will be compatible with the welfare of humanity. Convergence Hypothesis The Convergence Hypothesis, likewise developed among researchers of artificial intelligence, is the idea that instrumental goals are predictable, at least to some significant extent, no matter the level of intelligence. In other words, despite the orthogonality of intelligence and final goals, all intelligence may correlate with instrumental goals. From the simplest computer program to the greatest human genius, all require resources with which to operate. Thus, acquisition and maintenance of those resources is essential to pursuit of any final goal. And possible applications of resources overlap considerably. This is important because it brings intelligences together wherever resources are available. And when they come together, they must variously choose whether to try to conquer or cooperate (or some mix of the two) to acquire and maintain resources. Compassion Argument Assumption CO1 The first assumption of the compassion argument is derived from the Orthogonality and Convergence Hypotheses, and Game Theory. It observes that intelligences with approximately equal power are more likely to cooperate when they converge. If one intelligence is considerably greater in power than another, it's much harder if not impossible to predict whether it will choose to cooperate or conquer. Thus, to ensure the greatest likelihood of cooperative outcomes, it's best to maintain decentralization of power. If we don't maintain decentralization of power, the likely outcomes are either mutual destruction (the first part of the assumption's trilemma) or a singleton with centralized power (an implication of the second part of the assumption's trilemma). If we do maintain decentralization of power, the likely outcome is increasing cooperation, which, at its limit, is practically indistinguishable from compassion. Questions and Responses Now, I move on to questions and comments from my friend. They are in italics. My responses follow. 1) Compassion is necessary but not sufficient. There is a problem with compassion as a superhuman motive: It is an experience of normal human feeling that frequently does not lead to committed action for and in behalf of people (or particular entities.) A similar problem exists with the experience of empathy—a feeling that often remains passive. This is not a mere semantic quibble. I think you need a strong argument to sustain your presumption that compassion leads to helpful intervention or creative actions. I don’t think you will find such an argument without adding an additional motivating desire to actually expend precious psychic/physical energy for others. For rhetorical purposes you need a more accurate and compelling term that denotes and connotes an action-driving motive for superhuman beneficence. This is why love is often used--people get that it means caring service. Compassion has the ‘wimpy’ problem—like ‘universal love’ it sounds like everyone should like it philosophically; but we only viscerally experience loving particular relations that move us to act powerfully. We can imagine from interpersonal experience that love will motivate superhuman action more intensely than it does for us. I know there are several linguistic problems with the term love in English and other languages—but they could be (mostly) resolved by defining love as intentional desire and action for mutual good. Maybe the term is ‘compassionate love’ works if you want to keep compassion involved. I agree that compassion as a feeling, or even love as a feeling, would be insufficient as grounds for the Compassion Argument and thus for the New God Argument as a whole. Hopefully my elaboration on the Orthogonality and Convergences Hypotheses, above, will help people understand that compassion is not the proposed cause, but rather the proposed effect. The proposed cause is final goals, which we might understand to be desires among humans. It is desires, no matter their content, that brings us together. And it is decentralization of power to achieve those desires that leads us, predictably, to cooperate with each other. As decentralized power increases, so increases our mutual risk, hopefully leading to further increases in cooperation. And, as mentioned above, cooperation at its limit is practically indistinguishable from compassion. In other words, the Compassion Argument isn't even necessarily talking about a feeling, even in its conclusion. It's only talking about that which is practically indistinguishable from the behavior we generally assume truly compassionate persons would engage in. 2. Adequate is adequate—don’t overreach. Many would argue that humans over history are on a moral vector of increasing compassion or love, many would say human are not morally progressing. I do not know how we would measure this claim, but in the interest of rhetorical potency you need not address the more or less argument. You can say superhumans will evolve to be adequately compassionate and loving to keep from destroying each other because they already have done so—ending their world wars before extinction levels. I agree with this in part. The Compassion Argument is not about realizing superlative compassion in any final sense. It is about realizing ever-increasing levels of cooperation, as required by ever-increasing levels of decentralized power. At any given level of decentralized power, no more cooperation is required than that which actually suffices for survival. However, the decentralized power of our human-machine civilization is increasing rapidly, even accelerating. And it doesn't seem likely to slow down any time soon (unless we destroy ourselves). So there's practical merit to wondering about and preparing for our future at the limits of comprehension. As Arthur C. Clarke observed, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. To survive magic, we will need sublime compassion, which is indistinguishable from any sufficiently advanced cooperation. 3. Purpose understood is convincing. Why would superhumans desire to create more—why more simulations? I think you need to make an explicit supported claim that superhumans will desire to continually create more—qualitatively and quantitatively. This has two aspects: more of the SAME and more in the sense of ORIGINALITY. As to the same, you need to give plausible reasons why superhumans bother doing more emulative simulations inside other simulations inside other simulation, etc. ad infinitum? In short, why continue to expand superhuman sims at all when ‘they have seen it all’ a gazillion times? (Nietzsche’s answer was if we don’t remember it, life is interesting enough to continuously repeat it.) Why do sims desire more sims? Why are superhumans so human as to desire eternal continuation of PRIOR simulations like ours? Why do they want ‘kids’ (so to speak) that emulate what parents have gone through? Now as to experiencing originality, what is it? Is it something so unique or new that it is unintelligible—having NO prior referent? This is inconceivable (literally.) Superhumans must desire to experience something similar but truly different enough to be interesting—to be original. You could say that each sim world such an ‘original’ and infinite numbers of prior and future originals are plausible if superhumans have a problem with boredom. (See next point.) I am nudging you to suggest a probable motive that we now can now imagine for superhumans to ‘originate’ more once their survival is assured indefinitely. Is it compassionate love for future entities? That’s a hard one for us to grasp. This is a great question, aiming at the motivation behind the second assumption of the Creation Argument. Note that the Creation Argument doesn't require any particular creative mechanism. It generalizes the logic of the Simulation Argument across computation and any other feasible creative mechanism, such as terraforming or cosmoforming, as well as any possible combinations. So, for the purposes of the argument, we don't need to worry about the motivation for or feasibility of any particular mechanism. Rather, we can generalize the concern into two questions. First, why would intelligence apply itself to emulating its evolutionary history? And second, to what extent would that be possible via some mechanism? The argument doesn't purport to answer these questions. It encapsulates them both in an assumption. However, I'll briefly share my thoughts on each, in reverse order. Will it be possible? I imagine a combination of computation and cosmoforming (imagine 3D-printed versions of the most successful projects in SimCity) may prove viable. Why would we do it? I think we'll continue emulating our evolutionary history for all the diverse reasons that we currently do cosmology, archeology, and family history, which is an increasingly popular endeavor. I'm hesitant to characterize all of those reasons too narrowly, but I do think we might accurately characterize them all as important contributors to self-understanding and purpose-making, and therefore to general empowerment. In fact, it seems that interest in emulating evolutionary history may be a predictable instrumental goal (among higher level intelligences with the power to conceptualize and engage in such endeavors), no matter the final goal. 4. Let sleeping dogs lie . . . why superhumanity might not seek MORE. Expansion itself presents a problem of superhuman risk to whatever purposes they attempt to achieve—even the most loving or benevolent—because originality is not replication by definition and it has unknown, unintended consequences. Superhumanity presumably still does not know the future effects of its continually original experiments, and risks unintended consequences. We see that of course already with bio-engineering or with any social, cultural or technical innovative experiments for that matter. We tend to presume that to be superhuman is to have such high control of future events that foreknowledge and accurate prediction are assured. This raises a question of determinism and free will and good/bad outcomes for superhumanity that could helpfully be rhetorically addressed in the argument. Superhumanity could be simply included to the possibility of humanity destroying itself. So long as power is decentralized, there will remain strong incentive for intelligence to seek more power. And, as always, the seeking of more power will encourage some amount of risk-taking. If I don't risk, others will. And they may get an advantage that could be used against me. So, in accordance with the convergence hypothesis, intelligence will converge around instrumental goals that increase power. A thorough understanding of evolutionary history, and the procreation of more creators to participate in increasing decentralized power, both seem to be likely convergent goals. In contrast, only an exceptionally strong intelligence seems likely to take the risk of trying to minimize the procreation of more creators. And other intelligences would likely band together to work against that intelligence. This is essentially expressed in the Mormon narrative of the War in Heaven. 5. Most humans would grasp the notion that superhumanity living forever already somewhere might have become bored by now, and stopped simulating worlds. THAT our world came to be in the past few billion years (nothing to speak of in foreverness) implies that either it happened by chance or intention. If the latter, likely by superhumans who were not YET bored with the infinitely regressive activity noted in the section above. (Perhaps this is an aesthetic reason for Ray K’s intuition that superhumanity does not yet exist. He would rather say it all came by chance ONCE than face the boggling problem of infinite regressions.) I have tried above to suggest infinite creative regressions and progressions can always be NEW ENOUGH to keep superhumans interested in more creativity. I have added that a motive for more ‘new’ loving relations—each new one unique and changing—gives potency to the desire for the lively tension between stasis (order) and change (chaos). In short, love of particulars drives the desire for loyal CONTINUITY in risky CREATIVITY. In other words superhumans would have already achieved ‘final unity or non-differentiated oneness’ by now and there would be no need or desire for further experimentation. Again, as a critique of superhuman telos, I presume there has been enough time to come to a finality, and since we are in PROCESS now, I am looking to explicate a motive for furthering the PROCESS as opposed to a final stasis that was (presumably at a point in the past) a live option for superhumanity. Stasis is not only boring. It is also dangerous. And danger is an even stronger motivator. Perhaps there are old Gods who've become bored and opted out. But that seems to me to say more about the limits of our imagination than it does about the actual possibilities for superintelligent minds. In any case, creativity (and particularly procreativity) is probably an effective way to cultivate decentralization of power, which may reduce the risk of hostility, conquest, and destruction. 6. Ray K’s belief that the first gods do not yet exist aside, many would find it possible to believe in an optimal or final STATE that has been discovered or created by superhumans already. Such believers would either conclude from observing our world that, if benevolent superhumans exist, they would assist all entities they care about to eventually arrive at that final and best of all states. Process philosophers conclude to the contrary, that superhumans or god has no final goal in mind other than continuing the process of change—not attaining a state of being but forever becoming. The New God argument seems so loaded toward the process presumption that I think it should somehow be clarified. I find no place for the traditional God of Christianity, Judaism or Islam, but I might be missing something, of course. If Ray K is right, the process is emerging from chance, and we (along with our technically resurrected predecessors)--or if wrong, our superhuman descendants who have resurrected us—will find out or collaborate with superhumanity in developing new teloi ad infinitum. There is no certain template for an original first run of existence, not a plan for a finale. Some think the process has been ongoing for intelligent entities and that superhumanity probably already exists—and probably intervenes in worldly matters somehow (if they care about us benevolently and have not received the Prime Directive from the Star Ship Federation.) In either case, The New God argument presumes that a process of origination (creative risk) or emulation (repetitive mimesis) or both (see above) has been on-going ad infinitum by super-capable superhumanity that has learned both to deal with surprise and manage by design the extent universes—arising and collapsing. The process idea is perpetual in this argument. SO, rhetorically speaking, is there a compelling way to allow room for Final State people to buy into this argument? Could some teleological openness to concepts of both finality and process be coherent with the project? I have a problem helping with this because I find no way for the creation or simulation presumption to be finished or to have an end once it begins so to speak. Both NO telos and a FINAL telos (sheer chance or nirvana) seem incoherent with the New God Argument. The New God Argument is certainly compatible with process theology. And it's certainly compatible with the perspective that there's no original or final optimization. If I were persuaded that a universal optimization were possible, I would become an atheist again. So far as I can tell, the only ethical explanations for intentionally creating a world like that which we experience and observe (with all of its suffering) are dependent on the possibility of genuine creativity consequent to genuine risk. However, I don't think this is in utter opposition to the traditional theologies, or at least not in utter opposition to their authoritative texts. While the traditional theologies have been and often are expressed in terms of superlatives, those superlatives may be and often are understood as approximations relative to us. What does cooperation look like at the limits of human understanding? It looks like omnibenevolence. As long as we don't take that dogmatically, I think we're okay. The traditional theologies have been exploring superintelligence (code name "God") for millennia. They are to a science of superintelligence as alchemy and astrology are to chemistry and astronomy. They are where we started, that from which we've learned, and a foundation from which to build. 7. A final personal note undergirding my critique about superhuman entities’ motives to continue existing: I presume that superhumans access some notion of ‘infinitely regressive remembered social history of selves’ in thematic chapters or lives. This would allow them to have their exciting creative originality cake and eat their loyal comforting secure identity cake too. I make an argument for relative rates of change in material forms/persons that allows entities to experience enough apparent stasis for appreciation of an intelligible identity—even though slow changing entities in fact become different over time. Everything is in motion—even souls—but some entities have the capacity to remember and value special events because they are changing ‘slow enough’ relative to other entities. Gas, fluid, solid. This notion is a response to Buddhism’s treatment of ultimately un-endurable samsara. I agree with this. Identity is a dynamic psychosocial construct. It is not atomic. It is not static or final. However, it's not arbitrary. It has limits and thresholds. My identity is only as good as my ability to recognize myself. And it's only as good as my community's ability to recognize me. So I and we can change, but we must change together at rates that retain our mutual sense of identity. What rate is sufficient? That's always contextual. I call this the principle of psychosocial sufficiency. Whatever is sufficient is sufficient. If it's not sufficient, it's not. If I want to resurrect my dead ancestors, I'll have to do that within a context that is psychosocially sufficient for both them and me. If I want to live eternally with my family and friends, I'll need to do that in a context that is psychosocially sufficient for both them and me. All will change. Change is pervasive and persistent. But we can manage change and preserve purposeful identity. That's eternal life. Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on September 17, 2019 at 11:37AM.

[lincoln-cannon]

Many anti-religious folks claim to value science. But that claim is too often merely lip-service, as evidenced by their anti-religiosity. How is that? Well, science has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that religiosity generally results in greater physical, mental, and social well-being. So if you claim to value science then it's incoherent to be anti-religious unless (1) you don't really know much about the science of religion (which undermines your claim to value science); or (2) you're lying to yourself or others about the science of religion (which again undermines your claim to value science); or (3) you don't care so much about well-being. I doubt #3 is generally the case among the anti-religious, for the same reasons that it's pretty clearly not the case among humans generally. So that leads me to conclude that most anti-religious folks who claim to value science are either ignorant or dishonest about the science of religion. So, either way, they're just giving lip-service to the value of science, at least so far as its relationship with religion is concerned. My local congregation invited me to lead a discussion at Church yesterday, exploring the question: "Why do we go to Church?" As part of the discussion, I shared with them a few scientific studies and meta-analyses of studies about the effects of religious practice. Here are some summaries: Frequent attendance at religious services and mortality over 28 years. In 1997, this study observed that: "Lower mortality rates for frequent religious attenders are partly explained by improved health practices, increased social contacts, and more stable marriages occurring in conjunction with attendance." Religious Involvement, Spirituality, and Medicine: Implications for Clinical Practice. In 2001, this meta-analysis of studies observed that: "Most studies have shown that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes, including greater longevity, coping skills, and health-related quality of life (even during terminal illness) and less anxiety, depression, and suicide. Several studies have shown that addressing the spiritual needs of the patient may enhance recovery from illness." Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications. In 2012, this meta-analysis of studies observed that: "A large volume of research shows that people who are more [religious/spiritual] have better mental health and adapt more quickly to health problems compared to those who are less [religious/spiritual]. These possible benefits to mental health and well-being have physiological consequences that impact physical health, affect the risk of disease, and influence response to treatment." Some people point out that there's a difference between religiosity and spirituality. They're right. Scientists have observed distinct benefits associated with each. Here's an example: Differing Pathways Between Religiousness, Spirituality, and Health: A Self-Regulation Perspective In 2014, this study observed that: "Religiousness was strongly associated with better health behavior habits, including lower smoking and alcohol consumption and greater likelihood of medical screenings, but only weakly related to inflammatory biomarkers. Measures of spirituality were more strongly linked to biomarkers, including blood pressure, cardiac reactivity, immune factors, and disease progression. Religious alienation had adverse effects on both pathways." This last study is also particularly noteworthy in that it calls out a detriment of religion. The same social power that can lead to positive outcomes can lead to negative outcomes, when misapplied. I suppose some would be tempted to consider this reasonable grounds for anti-religiosity. But that would be like considering the risk of electrocution to be reasonable grounds for technophobia. As I mention regularly, religion is not inherently good or evil. It is simply the most powerful form of applied esthetics. And it's up to us to use it for good or evil, as is the case with all power. Don't be tempted to think you can simply ignore power. If you don't use it for good, someone else will use it for evil. In the Christian and Mormon traditions, our scriptures talk about both evil and good applications of religion. Jesus clearly condemns evil applications of religion, and most particularly the abuse of religious authority, in Matthew 23. And the Book of Mormon repeatedly condemns religious arrogance, such as in the story about the Rameumptom. Contrasting with those narratives, the Book of Mormon describes a good application of religion as follows:

"And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith. And the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls. And they did meet together oft to partake of bread and wine, in remembrance of the Lord Jesus."

I'll call your attention to two aspects of the religious practice, as described in this text. The first is that people are "nourished by the good word of God." And the second is that people "speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls." We might interpret "nourished by the good word of God" in many ways. The best way, in my opinion, is that which is elaborated upon by D&C 50. There, we read about the importance of understanding and edification. If our religious practice is not leading to understanding and edification (if it's leading to superstition, confusion, or alienation) then we should not revere it as a good application of religion. Change. Refocus on that which is comprehensible, enlightening, and edifying. Be true to life and love. That's good religion. And when I read that we might "speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls," my thoughts are taken to the heart of the Gospel of Christ, as taught by the apostle Paul in the New Testament. There, he observes that all of us, together, are the Body of Christ, in which each has need of all. When one suffers, all suffer. When one rejoices, all rejoice. And Paul goes on to exemplify the work of reconciling with each other, to atone as exemplified by Jesus. Don't be tempted to wait on God to do all the work. Trust that the grace of God has given us each means to participate, for the welfare of each other's soul. That's also good religion. Do you have to be a Mormon to do this? Do you have to be Christian? No. I don't think so. Good religion does not necessitate particular words. It only necessitates particular functions, which we can describe in diverse ways. However, that doesn't mean that descriptions are arbitrary. Particular words can and do facilitate particular functions. As the Book of Mormon puts it: "they did not suppose that salvation came by the law of Moses; but the law of Moses did serve to strengthen their faith in Christ." So don't apathetically or over-simplistically put aside the invitations of particular religions. Words matter, and not all words matter equally. In summary, if you value science, you should value religion. And of course you should not value religion arbitrarily, but rather you should advocate and engage in good applications of religion, which produce edification and reconciliation. The evidence for such effects is strong. And although religion can also produce strong negative effects such as alienation, I trust that we can work together to mitigate such risks, and to pursue and realize the opportunities presented to us by this, the greatest of social technologies. Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on August 12, 2019 at 12:05PM.

[lincoln-cannon]

In the New Testament, the apostle Paul prophesies about the end of death, forth-telling (yes, "forth-telling" in contrast to "fore-telling") what he characterizes as a "mystery." The mystery, he says, is that not all humans will die. But rather, some of us will transfigure from mortality to immortality without dying. Then the dead will resurrect to immortality, and death will be conquered. Over the centuries, Christians have interpreted this prophecy in ways that, today, we might consider figurative or supernatural, if not merely superstitious. But emerging technology now suggests the possibility of a more literal and natural interpretation of the prophecy. This subject came up in my home, today, as I discussed genetic technologies with my son. I commented that, when I was his age, no one had ever sequenced a human genome -- at least no one on Earth. I explained that the first successful human genome sequencing project took about 15 years to complete, and most of the work was completed in the last few years due to exponentially improving tools (both increasing computational capacity and scientific feedback loops that recursively improved theory and application). Instead of asking more questions about genetic technologies, though, he shot back: "What technologies are progressing slowly now but might end up progressing quickly and making a big difference in the near future?" The first idea that came to mind, and the one I shared with my son, is connectomic technologies. These are technologies related to scanning, interpreting, modifying, and emulating patterns in the nervous system, particularly the brain. Like projects that began scanning the human genome at the end of the last century, projects that are scanning the human connectome today appear to be progressing slowly relative to the massive amounts of information that they target. The human genome contains approximately 3 billion base pairs in a linear configuration. The human brain contains approximately 100 billion neurons in a non-linear configuration. In other words, the human connectome project is orders of magnitude more complex. Of course I don't know for sure how long it will take to complete the first full scan of a human connectome at the cellular level. And of course I don't know for sure what all the ramifications of such a capacity may be. But I have some speculations, based on patterns in historical technological trends and ideas with traction among philosophers and scientists who study consciousness. Technological development tends to follow an S-curve. Early development can be excruciatingly slow because theories are vague and tools are awkward. Over time, the theories and tools improve each other in a feedback loop, accelerating the pace of development. This acceleration, if graphed, tends to look like an exponential curve, or the bottom half of an "S". Over more time, the efficacy of a given tool relative to the complexity of new challenges tends to decrease. So it provides decreasing marginal returns. And if new theories and tools don't emerge then there's eventually an exponential decrease in the overall rate of development, which, if graphed, may look like the upper half of an "S". The human genome project exemplifies the first half of the technological S-curve well, with a slow beginning and subsequent exponential improvements that we seem still to be enjoying. Likewise, the human connectome project has begun slowly and may yet accelerate dramatically as theories and tools improve each other. So although it may seem like a complete neuron-level scan of the human connectome is centuries or decades away based on linear projections of the present rate of progress, I suspect it's much closer. How close? I'm not prepared, presently, to offer my own prediction of the timeline for the human connectome project. But here's how I'd go about predicting it, if I had the time. I would get a data point for the current resolution of brain scans. Then I would get the resolution for brain scans going back in time over periods of months or years. Then I would graph those data points, fit an exponential curve to them, and project that curve into the future. Others who have done such work, such as Ray Kurzweil, have predicted that we will have complete dynamic scans (emulations) of the human brain at the neuronal level before 2050. Whether before 2050 or later, assuming it happens, what would be the ramifications of full brain emulation? There's an influential hypothesis among philosophers and neuroscientists that some call "substrate independence." It's the idea that consciousness correlates with information processing (patterns), and a particular consciousness may be expressed by the same information processing in different substrates -- different bodies. If this hypothesis is true, it would mean that your consciousness doesn't necessarily require the specific kind of body you now have. It would still require a body. But it may be possible to transition your consciousness to new kinds of bodies, which may be more or less robust than your current body. It seems to me that the completion of the human connectome project may provide the theories and tools we would need to transfer consciousness from one body to another -- whether or not consciousness is produced by, shaped by, or attracted to the brain (and even whether or not we understand how consciousness correlates with the brain, which understanding certainly isn't required to associate consciousness with procreated infant bodies). Maybe we could do it gradually, artificial neuron by artificial neuron, such that you wouldn't perceive the difference except on retrospect over time. And maybe we could do it quickly, mapping your connectome right at the time of traditional death, computationally repairing any degradation associated with aging or disease, and then instantiating the revitalized information in a new substrate as a more robust body. These possibilities -- these speculations -- seem to me to be worthy of Christian anticipation and cultivation. There's much we still don't know, of course. We have faith. But the apostle James warns us that faith without works is dead. And I don't know of a better way to express living and working faith in the prophecies of transfiguration than by encouraging, supporting, and participating in the development of connectomic technologies. If you know of a better way (better as in less hand-waving dead faith), please let me know. In the meantime, I'll keep hoping that the transfiguration is near, and working to make it so. Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on May 21, 2019 at 08:52PM.

[lincoln-cannon]

This is an edited transcript of my presentation at the 2019 Conference of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. At the conference last year, I told you that I didn’t know how to raise the dead. That might not have been entirely true. It’s true that I don’t know how to do all the work. But I do have some ideas about how to get started – and even about how we’ve probably already started. Before I can share those ideas effectively, though, I need to do some theology. The scriptures, clearly and repeatedly, teach that Christ will raise the dead. And some have supposed that to mean that they shouldn’t do anything except verbally affirm their trust in Christ. But our scriptures also teach that trust without action is dead. And in this case, that’s as literal as it gets. Without action, the dead stay dead. So whose action will it be? Presumably, Jesus could tell us to relax. After all, the Bible says he raises the dead three times before God raises him and many others from the dead. But he doesn’t tell us to relax. Instead, Jesus commands us to "raise the dead." As precedent, in the Old Testament, Elijah and Elisha raise the dead. In the New Testament, Peter and Paul raise the dead. And in the Book of Mormon, Nephi raises the dead. Of course that makes perfect sense because Jesus also commands us to take the name of Christ, do the works he’s done, and even greater things. So the scriptures do teach that Christ will raise the dead. But those who’ve supposed that verbal trust is sufficient are wrong, because the scriptures also teach that Christ will raise the dead through us. The Book of Mormon says that God has prepared a way for our escape from death. Consider the words. God prepared our escape. God didn’t finish our rescue. And in the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith echoes that idea, claiming that “God ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem [our dead].” In other words, the scriptures would have us trust that the grace of God has provided means for us to act. And that reminds me of the words of Captain Moroni. He asks:

"[Do you] suppose that [you] could sit [on] your thrones, and because of the exceeding goodness of God [you] could do nothing and [God] would deliver you? ... Or do [you] suppose that [God] will still deliver us, while we sit [on] our thrones and do not make use of the means which [God] has provided for us? ... If [you] have supposed this [you] have supposed in vain."

The Bible says that we’ll reign with Christ and judge the world during the resurrection. It also says that we won’t all die, and the living will change. Joseph Smith said that we’ll perform the ordinance of transfiguration to make each other immortal in what he called the "last times." Brigham Young taught that, when immortal, we’ll perform the ordinance of resurrection for our dead friends and family. And Joseph characterized that time, when we “attain to the resurrection of the dead,” as the time when we become Gods, the same as all other Gods have done before. As I mentioned at the beginning, I think we’ve already started to raise the dead. And here’s how. I call this thought experiment "Resurrection by Family History."

A historian develops a model of a dead person.

Another historian improves the detail and accuracy of the model.

Other historians repeat #2 indefinitely, recursively improving the detail and accuracy of the model.

This has been happening for at least thousands of years. Ancient models were stories and pictures. Modern models added audio and video. Emerging models have extended to biometrics and simulation. And future models may incorporate data that we mine from the depths of time through what science fiction has called "quantum archeology." Given enough time, the natural consequence of our history project may be models that are practically indistinguishable from the persons who were dead. In other words, the natural consequence of our history project may be their resurrection. I don’t know of any organization that has done more to advance the work of family history, and thereby advance the possibility of natural resurrection, than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Howard W. Hunter wasn’t president of the Church for long. But that didn’t stop him from being prophetic. In 1995, at the dawn of the Internet, he observed:

"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."

So here’s my enthusiastic projection – my tiny glimpse of how these tools can help us. Imagine a superintelligent historian. Using the tools of quantum archeology, she traces backward through time and space from effects to causes. Sampling a sufficiently large portion of her present, she attains a desired probabilistic precision for a portion of her past. The result of her computation is a highly detailed, highly accurate model of you. The future-you is distinguishable from the present-you, but no more so than the today-you is distinguishable from the yesterday-you. You are resurrected. As we imagine the eternal consequences of these efforts, some philosophical objections may haunt us. I know they’ve haunted me. But Jesus also commanded us to cast out devils. So in that spirit, let’s see if I can quickly exorcise six of them – seems like the number for devils. Objection 1: Jesus didn’t use technology to raise the dead. You don’t know that. Maybe you just don’t see anything that you recognize as technology in the depictions of Jesus raising the dead. My father died over 20 years ago. I tried praying for his resurrection. It was probably a good start, but it wasn’t sufficient. He’s still dead, so far as I know. And I’m pretty sure that holding a picture of Jesus over his tomb, or standing like Jesus with my hands raised in the air, won’t be sufficient to resurrect him either – although those actions, like the stories and pictures, may also function as motivating prayers. Something else is required. And just because technology isn’t obvious doesn’t mean it’s absent. After all, we already live in an age of invisible technology. Objection 2: Technological resurrection assumes that the body creates the mind. No. It doesn’t. Technological resurrection is compatible with that hypothesis. But it’s also compatible with other hypotheses. For example, it may be that the body individuates, concentrates, or channels mind from some pervasive or external source. Technological resurrection requires only correlation between body and mind. And it’s perfectly compatible with a belief that spirit is matter, like Joseph Smith taught, but independent from any particular body. Some Transhumanists call that a substrate-independent mind. Objection 3: The resurrected body wouldn’t really be mine. By that reasoning, the body you have now isn’t really yours. You don’t have exactly the same body that went to bed last night – let alone the same body that your mother birthed. Resurrection doesn’t require exactly the same body. It requires only whatever is psychosocially sufficient for individual and communal identity. In other words, if you’re comfortable identifying with your changing body throughout life, you should be comfortable with technological resurrection. Objection 4: The mind in the resurrected body wouldn’t really be me. By that reasoning, you might not be the person you think you are right now – which of course makes no sense. But seriously, you haven’t experienced and you don’t remember a perfect continuity of consciousness throughout your life – let alone whatever might have transpired before. Resurrection doesn’t require conscious continuity. Again, it requires only whatever is psychosocially sufficient. If you think you’re still you after full anesthesia, you should be comfortable with technological resurrection. And in any case, you wouldn’t know the difference. Objection 5: Technological resurrection would require a computer larger than our universe. No. It wouldn’t. Resurrection doesn’t require every detail of the universe, our world, or even our bodies. Once again, it requires only whatever is psychosocially sufficient. All humans combined, past and present, have only ever known a tiny fraction of the information of which we and our world consist, and we’ve cared about even less. If you’re not losing sleep over the precise number of prehistoric mosquitoes or the spacetime coordinates of your gut bacteria, we wouldn’t need to calculate those details. And if that doesn’t feel right, we can expand to whatever does, and it would still be only a tiny fraction of the universe. Objection 6: Technological resurrection could enable multiple copies of me. Yes. It could. And those copies could go on to have individuating experiences and separate identities. Maybe you’re already a copy of God that individuated. We could call that your "spirit birth." In any case, it’s not clear that the potential for copies is inherently bad. But it could be abused, so we would probably need to establish and enforce laws related to identity – perhaps the Gods already have. That reminds me of Brigham Young’s repeated claims that eternal life is the power to preserve your identity. Maybe he was on to something. Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on April 14, 2019 at 02:58PM.

[lincoln-cannon]

Imagine our surprise. Peter has finished preaching. We love him. We follow him despite the risks. After all, he teaches fulfillment of the Law in Messiah. He reveres the Law. He lives it. He still epitomizes all that was most grounding, meaningful, and purposeful in our lives before Messiah. And he has helped us understand how all of it culminates in Messiah. But we didn't expect what just happened. In hindsight, that's not because of any lack of divine warning. During our journey, Peter explained to us an unusual dream. He believed it was from God. And he believed it was revelation for the Church. But he wasn't sure how best to understand it. In the dream, Peter explained, he was very hungry. Heaven opened. And something like a large sheet was let down to Earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of things that the Law forbids us to eat. And a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Eat." "Surely not, God!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything that the Law forbids." The voice spoke to him again a second time, "Do not call anything 'forbidden' that God has accepted." This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven. After Peter shared the dream with us, we thought about it. Some of us thought we understood it. And maybe we did, in part. So we nodded naively, a few minutes ago, as Peter taught, "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts everyone who reveres him and does what it right." But that was a few minutes ago. We're in a room full of non-members. They've never been one of us, religiously, culturally, or otherwise. We couldn't be more different. They didn't know us before Messiah. And, of course, they've never been baptized. As Peter taught them about Messiah, they changed. Right here, before our eyes, they changed. It was subtle at first. But it intensified, and none of us can deny it. It's the Holy Ghost, that sublime esthetic that we aspired to receive in our own baptisms, as we each took on the name of Messiah. And it has every appearance of abiding with them. This is no fleeting experience. They have received the Gift, the Gift of the Holy Ghost. In our confusion, we had looked to Peter. He had noticed it too. And he too looked confused, but only for a moment. Then his face relaxed into calm conviction. And he spoke the words that are still reverberating through our minds: "Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Ghost just as we have." Just as we have?!? But how can they have the Gift of the Holy Ghost without baptism? How can they receive the Gift without the authorized ritual? How can that sublime esthetic abide with them? How can Peter, the head of our Church, say that? What about the Law? We know the words. They are in our minds and written in our hearts: "All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of Messiah, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of Messiah, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and there is never but one on the Earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when humans are dead." We thought we had understood. We nodded when Peter taught that God does not show favoritism. After all, we invite all to baptism. And we deny none, black or white, male or female -- not even those who knew nothing of us before Messiah. But the Law says that "there is never but one on the Earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred." There is never but one! And that, we supposed, was Peter. After all, he received the keys from Jesus himself. But Peter said that they have received the Gift of the Holy Ghost just as we have. And our minds reeled in fear. Is the Law false? Is it a lie? Is Peter just like everyone else? Is the Church just like any other religion? But now, peace -- still amazement, but peace. We remember what Jesus said to Peter: "John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." So if God gave them the same gift he gave us who believe in Messiah, who are we to think that we can stand in God's way. Peace. Salvation does not come by the Law. But the Law serves to strengthen our trust in Messiah. So keep hoping, through this trust, for eternal salvation. Keep relying on the prophecies of heaven. Peace. There is one who transcends the Earth at all times in whom this power and the keys of this priesthood abide -- one that ascends on high, descends below all, comprehends all, and is in and through all, enlightening our eyes and quickening our understandings. Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on April 08, 2019 at 11:09AM.

[lincoln-cannon]

Yesterday and today, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest Mormon denomination, met together for our semi-annual General Conference. I participated in the conference via webcast and Twitter, watching and considering the thoughts shared, and expressing some of my thoughts along the way. Below is a list of the thoughts I shared publicly, including both affirmations and criticisms, questions and elaborations. My intent, as always, is to promote real engagement with the messages shared at the conference, beyond the superficial cheerleading or indiscriminate ridicule that is so common among apologists and enemies of the Church. I welcome any feedback or questions you might have in the comments.

I enjoyed listening to the Tabernacle Choir sing "Let Us All Press On:" "If we do what's right, we have no need to fear." Doing what we believe to be right doesn't mean nothing bad will happen. But fearing what we can't control isn't practical.

I love my Church. That's particularly easy to do when the Tabernacle Choir is singing "Press Forward Saints."

Ulisses Soares mentions Paul's teachings on human transformation in the New Testament. The next verse encourages us to participate in the Atonement, by taking up our call to the "ministry of reconciliation." As God is in Christ, Christ is in us.

Becky Craven suggests that we can't find happiness in a $15 purchase. I share her esteem for more abiding things, but I've often also found happiness in a $15 purchase. Life just works that way.

Becky Craven says, "there is not a right way to do the wrong thing." I agree. But sometimes that actually does mean disagreeing with a leader, which we can do constructively. I wish she would acknowledge that.

Brook Hales contemplates divine foreknowledge. I don't know the capacity of superintelligence. But the exponential complexity of possible futures seems to limit even superintelligent foreknowledge, unless we're more determined than we like to believe.

Dieter Uchtdorf only has to mention "airplane" to get a laugh from the congregation. :)

Dieter Uchtdorf wants you to tweet more. It's a commandment. ;)

Dieter Uchtdorf says, "some will never join the Church ... that doesn't change our love for them." Amen, brother.

So I have to admit that, ironically, this session of General Conference has been far more normal than I anticipated. What about all those rumors about a change to the official interpretation of the Word of Wisdom?!? I now expect the unexpected.

"I Am a Child of God" is among my favorite hymns. My parents sang it to me when I was young. I sang it to my children when they were young. It's a beautiful expression of human potential in theosis.

Henry Eyring comforts those who worry about their family not being together in heaven, suggesting that God will make more wonderful accommodations than we can presently imagine.

When we recite the names of our Church leaders, it becomes painfully obvious that we need many more women in leadership.

Oh, wow. I don't remember ever hearing a vocal soloist in General Conference before. I like this.

Russell Ballard amends his quote of the Book of Mormon text about joy to include "women." I appreciate the implicit reminder that our scriptures can always be improved.

Russell Ballard doubles down, amending his quote of the Pearl of Great Price text about the work of God to include "women." It's not just the Book of Mormon text that can be improved. All scripture is subject to improvement.

Russell Ballard encourages us to observe the Sabbath in a way that "brings a smile to our faces." That reminds me of Jesus' comment in the New Testament: the Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath.

Russell Ballard encourages us to keep the Sabbath simple, without unnecessary meetings. Unfortunately, this may not make much of a practical difference, as most Church leaders sincerely think that all the meetings they schedule are necessary. 

Neil Andersen says truth can be "painfully complex to the secular mind." It seems to me that when we're sufficiently honest with ourselves, if should be painfully complex to the religious mind too. We're not the God in whom we trust.

Neil Andersen says we celebrate the discoveries of science and medicine. Good. He also says religious truths go far beyond those. I'm not sure "beyond" is the right comparison. It's not a competition.

Neil Andersen acknowledges that there are good persons whose lives do not fit neatly within the prescriptions of the Proclamation on the Family. This is important. The Proclamation doesn't actually say many of the things some assume it to say.

Joseph Smith claimed that truth, "let it come from whence it may," is a "grand fundamental principle of Mormonism." In that spirit, I hope we can do better to ensure that we don't cultivate the notion that religion is superior to science or medicine.

Jeffrey Holland recounts the mythic narrative of Adam and Eve. In my experience, there's inspiration to be found there. My experience also suggests it's important to remember that the story doesn't (couldn't) disprove evolution.

Kim Clark says we have priesthood power. That may be true. But that depends on more than priesthood. As D&C 121 emphasizes, no power may be maintained by virtue of the priesthood. Power comes from how priesthood is applied, with love.

Henry Eyring quotes my double-great grandfather, George Q. Cannon, claiming that God reserves the right to find fault with Church leaders, and members should not. Sorry grandpa. I disagree. And I still love you. And I still feel the Spirit saying so.

Dallin Oaks shares some practical thoughts on prioritization. We don't have time to do everything that's good. We have to choose, seeking to do what is better or best. He's right, of course. Such is life.

Russell Nelson is going into Greek etymology again. And he's pointing out that repentance is change, even physical change, not an event but a process -- transformation! I love it.

Russell Nelson says we should better honor women by giving them more attention. I agree. And I hope the Church will do more to set a clear example on this subject.

I love how the hymn, "How Firm a Foundation," puts the vocalist in the position of speaking the words of God. It is an under-recognized ritual through which persons take on Christ and speak the sublime words.

Dale Renlund shifts, in one sentence to another, from a discussion of the science of combustion to a discussion of fiery flying serpents in the Old Testament. I have to admit that was a bit jarring for me.

Dale Renlund says "sometimes we need to make tools before revelation comes." By extrapolation, sometimes we need to engineer technology before revelation comes.

Sharon Eubank points out that many stories about Jesus depict him reaching out to persons who were not broadly accepted in society. What is the implication, for those of us who aspire to take the name of Christ with Jesus?

Quentin Cook encourages us to a divine partnership that cultivates love rather than generates guilt in our interactions with others. Is it hypocritical to point out that some general authorities should give greater consideration to this advice?

Todd Christofferson repeats the prophecies of the Millennium: beyond traditional notions of enmity, poverty, suffering, and death. And he encourages us to prepare for that time.

Todd Christofferson quotes NT Wright, claiming that the resurrection of Jesus was the seed of ultimate hope.

Todd Christofferson says that the Church is a community willing to work and prepare for the Millennial world.

Todd Christofferson recounts the prophecy that we must construct Zion on Earth, and that we must make it our greatest object, before expecting fulfillment of prophecies regarding the Millennium. 

Todd Christofferson says God is hastening the work, employing our contributions, to join Zion on Earth with Zion above. I enjoyed his reminders of the scriptural vision of global transformation.

I could listen to Sharon Eubank's speech again. Her emotional delivery, cultivation of hope, and encouragement to persistence were moving.

When we talk about Atonement, it's often mystery rather than comprehension, and magic rather than work. By contrast, per Paul's account of Atonement in the New Testament, we are each called to participate in it, in comprehensible and practical ways.

Russell Nelson says that everyone will be resurrected but all relationships will end if not sealed in covenant. Consider that the function of covenant doesn't always require ritual. In the Bible, some receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost without baptism.

I disagree with President Russell Nelson's claim that salvation is an individual matter. Unless there's someone who can and desires to live in solitude, salvation requires at least some extent of relationship.

Nice, Gerrit Gong. Now I won't be able to think of counting sheep to fall asleep without thinking about Jesus' parables about sheep. Thanks for that. 

Gerrit Gong tells a story about how a woman comes to understand the Atonement of Christ by saving another person. This is a key observation. Atonement is a work we can and should all participate in, reconciling with and saving each other.

I'm deflated by memes advocating: "salvation is an individual matter." I sympathize with interest in supporting President Nelson. But I think the phrase, unintentionally, cultivates misunderstanding. Nothing in the Gospel is only an individual matter.

Exaltation is a family matter, for sure. And it's also a friend matter, and a community matter, and a global matter. We're all in this together. The function of covenant is that which binds us together in aspiration for better worlds without end.

There's a sense in which it's true that salvation is an individual matter, but in that sense it's also true that exaltation is an individual matter. In both cases, we have both individual and communal responsibility.

Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on April 07, 2019 at 04:44PM.

[lincoln-cannon]

This is an edited transcript of my presentation at the 2018 Conference of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. I talked about the Return of Christ. I touched on how it relates to Transhumanism. But my focus was on some foundational theology that leads to what I believe is a more robust Christian and Mormon Transhumanism. First, here are some thoughts for friends that might not be Christian, on why this is still important. As measured by number of adherents, Christianity is by far the most influential ideology in human history. And the prophecy of the Return of Christ is the most important prophecy in that religion. It's had incredible influence on the thoughts of billions of human beings, their words and their actions. And those actions have shaped our world. They continue to shape our world. So even if you're not a Christian, the effects of the prophecy of the Return of Christ may still be momentous in your life. With that in mind, let's consider how the Bible describes the Return of Christ. We can read that in the 24th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible. And Jesus introduces the subject by saying, “Watch out that no one deceives you, for many will come in my name claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many.” So will the Return of Christ be in the wilderness, maybe as a return to simplicity? The Luddites would love this but Jesus actually says no, that's not going to be the case. In Matthew, where he describes his prophecy of the Return of Christ, he says, “If anyone tells you, ‘there he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out.” How about in the inner rooms, maybe as some kind of carefully shared secret? Just yesterday, for example, I received a Google+ message – this is a true story – from somebody who told me that he wanted to invite me to a secret priesthood. And he introduced himself, and said: by the way, I am Jesus, literally. And, as it turns out, Jesus says no to this one too. In Matthew 24, he says, “If anyone tells you, ‘here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.” I pointed this out to my would-be Jesus. And I’ll quote his reply to me. He said, “Goodbye, Satan, the Lord rebuke you.” And, as it turns out, that wasn't the first time I've been called Satan. So I just let it go. So if the Return of Christ won't be in the wilderness and it won't be in secret rooms, maybe it will be in great signs and wonders. Maybe we can recognize Christ in some extraordinary, some comprehensible event. But, yet again, Jesus says no. “False messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect,” he says. So, then, what's left? Matthew 24 reads – these are the words of Jesus: “For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. … on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.” (Matthew 24: 27, 30) That’s how Jesus describes the Return of Christ. And, on its surface, that description can be hard to distinguish, I admit, from “great signs and wonders,” against which he had just warned us. So maybe it shouldn't come as a surprise that many Christians understand the Return of Christ too narrowly. I have two questions for you to think about. The first question: why does Jesus speak in the third person, and why does he refer to himself as the “Son of Man?” The second question, as you look at this picture – an artist’s depiction of what Jesus was describing: who is Jesus looking at? I’ll return to those questions later on. Let's explore the meaning of the word “christ.” The English word, “christ,” comes from the Greek word “christos.” The English word, “messiah,” comes from the Hebrew word “mashiach.” And, as it turns out, both “christos” and “mashiach” have the same meaning. Literally, a christ or a messiah is somebody who is ritually anointed. Or, in other words, they’re anointed with oil as part of a ceremony. Figuratively, a christ or messiah as someone who is set apart or designated with a special purpose. And that special purpose is typically to serve God by helping the people overcome their enemies. Those enemies can be concrete like, say, an invading army or an oppressive government. Or those enemies could be abstract: maybe spiritual alienation from God or from each other. In the Bible, Jesus is not the only person designated as a christ or as a messiah. This, up here, is a picture of King David – or soon-to-be-King David, as it turns out – preparing to be King of Israel and Judah. He's being anointed with oil, literally making him a christ. And figuratively, he's becoming a christ with responsibility to protect the people and to establish justice. The Hebrew Bible designates David as a messiah multiple times. And it regularly designates other Jewish kings as messiahs, including Saul and Solomon. The Hebrew Bible doesn't stop there. It actually designates a non-Jewish king as a messiah as well. The prophet Isaiah talks about Cyrus the Great of Persia. Cyrus happened to rule the highest percentage of humanity of any empire in human history. And during his reign he liberated the Jewish people to establish their religion in Jerusalem. Here are Isaiah’s words: “This is what [God] says to his messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of, to subdue nations before him, and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him, so that gates will not be shut: I will go before you and will level the mountains; I will break down gates of bronze and cut through bars of iron. I will give you hidden treasures, riches stored in secret places, so that you may know that I am [God], who summons you by name. … I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor [“messiah” or “christ”], though you do not acknowledge me.” (Isaiah 45) Right. Cyrus was not a Jew. I find these words from Isaiah fascinating on multiple levels. And I'm going to refer to them again later, as we go along. The Hebrew Bible also designates Jewish priests as messiahs. Like Jewish kings, they were literally anointed with oil during a ritual to make them priests. And figuratively, they were christs in their responsibility to the people, to help people reconcile with God and with each other. In the King James English translation of the Bible, all but one of seventy uses of the word “atonement” are references to ritual sacrifices performed by Jewish priests. That might surprise some Christians who look at the word “atonement” as being associated uniquely with Jesus. So, in other words, many times in the Bible, before it designates Jesus as Christ, and many times before it designates his work as atonement – which it only does once – 69 other times, it tells us about other christs performing other atonements. Despite the precedent of many christs, some Christians seek to raise Jesus exclusively above others. Idolizing him, they exalt him over everything that is called “god” or is worshiped, which happens to be the way Paul describes the Son of Perdition. And they do that despite Jesus' refusal to exalt himself over others. In the Gospel of John – who's there, depicted laying on Jesus’ lap – Jesus prays to God, saying, “I pray also for those who will believe in me [christians]. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one.” The Apostle Paul – who actually is writing closer in time to the life of Jesus than the Gospels – repeatedly, over and over again, emphasizes that Christ should be in each of us. To the Romans, he writes, “we are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ” (Romans 8). To the Corinthians, he writes, “you are the body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12). And “Christ Jesus is in you” (2 Corinthians 13). To the Galatians, he writes, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2: 20). And “all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (Galatians 3: 27). And to the Colossians, he writes, “God has chosen to make known ... the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you” (Colossians 1). The apostle Peter – there pictured receiving keys from Christ, from Jesus – adds: “Divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life, through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature … For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith … godliness.” (2 Peter 1) And for centuries following Peter, countless other Christian authorities have repeated, they have elaborated, they've celebrated the idea that we should all become one in Christ with Jesus. This is called the doctrine of “theosis,” or “divinization” for the Catholics, or “apotheosis” for the Eastern Orthodox. Some people call it “deification.” Some people have called it “Christosis.” Pope John Paul the Second – this might surprise some of you – wrote: “[God] incorporates us into the Body of his Christ; through the anointing of his Spirit who flows from the head to the members, he makes us other 'Christs.' … So then, you who have become sharers in Christ are appropriately called 'Christs.'” The Book of Mormon explicitly and repeatedly encourages us to take on the name of Christ. Perhaps most poignantly, King Benjamin says: “[You] should take [on] the name of Christ … [Whoever does] this [will] be found at the right hand of God, for he [will] know the name by which he is called; for he [will] be called by the name of Christ.” (Mosiah 5) Benjamin's words remind me of Isaiah’s words to Cyrus of Persia. As you recall, I mentioned those earlier. “I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor.” (Isaiah 45) Maybe we should consider Isaiah’s words to Cyrus to be a prophecy about all who would take on the name of Christ. But of course names aren't enough. As the Apostle Paul points out in the New Testament, the Kingdom of God is not a matter of words but a matter of power. So in practice, then, what does it mean to be Christ? How can we be Christ, not only in name but also in power? Jesus says that we should love. He says that we should console. He says that we should forgive. One of my favorite stories about Jesus is when people bring a paralyzed man to him and ask Jesus to heal him. Instead of healing him, though – almost as if it’s kind of a joke – Jesus forgives the paralyzed man. I can imagine his friends looking at their feet wondering if Jesus actually understood what they were asking him. So Jesus asks them: what’s easier to do, to heal or to forgive? Then he goes on to explain. Again using the third person and again using the “Son of Man,” he says, “the Son of Man has power to forgive.” And then, finally, he goes on to heal the paralyzed man. I think this story is teaching that, although it may be hard for us to heal each other, we all have the power to forgive each other. All of us are the Son of Man or, we might say, the Children of Humanity. And that can inform how we interpret Jesus’ description of the Return of Christ, when he also uses the third person and references the “Son of Man.” Per the Apostle James, he says that we should feed the hungry and clothe the naked. And it’s not enough, he says, that we simply tell them to be fed and clothed. Rather, we have to actually feed them. We have to actually clothe them. “Faith without works is dead,” he says. So like today, when James lived, food was generally a product of agriculture, a technology. Clothing was generally a product of manufacturing, more primitive than today but nonetheless a technology. So when James exhorts us to show our faith through our works, he’s telling us to use technology to help each other. And that is power. Jesus goes even further. This is a depiction of Lazarus being resurrected. Jesus tells us that we should heal the sick. And he says to his disciples, “raise the dead.” That's a pretty audacious idea. Modern medicine can help us treat each other, help us heal each other. But do we take Jesus seriously when he tells us to raise the dead? How do we do that? I don't know the answer to that question, of course. Otherwise, I'd be doing it. But the Book of Mormon has some helpful advice for would-be christs in its many stories of people finding or making means to live up to the name of Christ. The stories motivated a generation of Mormon pioneers to cross plains and mountains and to begin to build their vision of Zion here in Utah. The practical attitude behind these stories is perhaps best expressed by the words of Nephi and Captain Moroni in the Book of Mormon. Nephi says, “I will go and do the things which [God has] commanded, [because God gives] no commands [without preparing] a way [to] accomplish [them].” And Moroni asks, rhetorically, “[Do you] suppose that [you] could sit [on] your thrones, and because of the exceeding goodness of God [you] could do nothing and [God] would deliver you? … Do you suppose that [God] will still deliver us, while we sit [on] our thrones [we could say, “sit on our hands”] and do not make use of the means which [God] has provided for us? … If [you] have supposed this [you] have supposed in vain.” (Alma 60) In the same spirit, Joseph Smith wrote: “[God should not] command in all things … [people that are] compelled in all things … [are] slothful and not … wise. [Everyone] should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will … For the power is in them.” (D&C 58) And then, directly on the subject of redeeming the dead, Joseph exemplified faith that we could find a way, that we would find a way. And his claim, in the 128th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, is that “[God] ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem [our dead] out of their prison; for the prisoners [will] go free.” In closing, let's return again to the Return of Christ. The Apostle John writes, “When Christ appears, we [will] be like [Christ].” (1 John 3) The Book of Mormon repeats and affirms those words from John. And I think that they are the key to understanding the Return of Christ. So let’s hear Jesus again. He says, “For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. … on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24: 27, 30) Remember the two questions I asked you think about earlier. The first one: in this description of the Return of Christ, why does Jesus speak in the third person? What does he mean by this reference to the Son of Man. Well, as I mentioned before, I think that, whenever Jesus talks about the Son of Man, we should understand him to be talking about all of us, the Children of Humanity. So, re-reading his words with that replaced: for as lightning that comes from the east is visible in the west, so will be the coming of the Children of Humanity on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And then the second question I asked you to think about was regarding the picture. Who is Jesus looking at? And I'll suggest to you that Christ is looking at Christ. Originally published at lincoln.metacannon.net on April 05, 2019 at 08:21PM.