madhatter85
Transhumanist
I am curious what anyone else's thoughts on it are.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Interesting. I did get that impression from transhumanism as a whole but from a Mormon+transhumanist perspective there is the physical + spiritual aspect of becoming like Heavenly Father. I believe that spiritual perfection comes through the atonement definitely. The physical perfection part seems to be up to us through things like the word of wisdom and other laws. could it be possible that physical perfection may be the way we achieve it physically while at the same time achieve spiritual perfection through our savior?No. There are similar ideas, but are ultimately incompatible. LDS theology is concerned with becoming like God through following him and with his help. Transhumanism is concerned with becoming "gods" through our own efforts alone, with the aid of technology that we have created.
Interesting. I did get that impression from transhumanism as a whole but from a Mormon+transhumanist perspective there is the physical + spiritual aspect of becoming like Heavenly Father. I believe that spiritual perfection comes through the atonement definitely. The physical perfection part seems to be up to us through things like the word of wisdom and other laws. could it be possible that physical perfection may be the way we achieve it physically while at the same time achieve spiritual perfection through our savior?
From what I understand, the Mormon transhumanists connect the transhuman idea with our idea of resurrection. They say that it will be a process, and possibly a priesthood ordinance. First of all, I've never seen any of that in scripture or in any talks given by modern prophets or apostles.
Hmm,Secondly, I guess it just doesn't fit with what I understand and know of the Atonement. Christ died and was resurrected, and through that resurrection he allowed for everyone to also be resurrected. The resurrection part is the part we don't have to be worried about, and we can have complete confidence in, no matter what we do in this life. Why then ought we to be responsible for our own resurrection and carrying it out? Why should "some assembly required" be printed on our free gift?
Jesus Christ took up His body again "by the power of the Spirit," says 2 Nephi chaper 2 verse 8. It appears the same mechanism will play a part in the resurrection of each son and daughter of God. It was Joseph Smith's teaching that "God [will] bring [the dead] up again, clothed upon and quickened by the Spiritof the great God." - Words of Joseph Smith p.196
This may not be the only mechanism that plays a part in the resurrection process, however. Gospel scholar Robert J. Matthews notes:
Any doctrine or ordinance as fundamental to man's eternal salvation as the resurrection of the dead is of necessity regulated and performed by the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood. It is also part of the patriarchial order of the family. So far as the celestion kindom is concerned, the resurrection is a family event. We would at first naturally suppose that Jesus would resurrect Himself, but perhaps He did not. Jesus did not baptize Himself. The clear rendering of Acts 2:22-24, 32; 3:12-15; 5:30-32 ... represents Peter saying on three separate occasions that God raised Jesus up from the dead. If we read those passages literally and combine that concept with the teachings of President [Brigham] Young and Elder [Erastus] Snow, that only a resurrected being can perform a resurrection, we may gain an insight into the resurrection process as a patriarchial family order in which a righteous resurrected father would resurrect his son, and so forth. - Robert J Matthews, Behold the Messiah (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1994), 282.
Brigham Young put forward the idea in one of his discourses that "some person holding the keys of the resurrection, having previously passed through that ordeal, will be delegated to resurrect our bodies." - Journal of Discourses
He also explained that mortals do not currently posess "the ordinance and keys of the resurrection. They will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received thier bodies again... They will be ordained by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints" Elder Erastus Snow was even more specific about who would be granted this sacred privilege. He said those who have been "crowned kings and priests with God and the Lamb...shall...carry on the work of redemption and resurrection of the Saints of God." Such an idea is confirmed by Chales W. Penrose, who says that "in the resurrection [husbands and wives] stand side by side and hold dominion together. Every man who overcomes all things and is thereby entitled to inherit all things, recieves power to bring up his wife to join him in the posession and enjoyment thereof." - The contributor, vol 2 no. 11, August 1881, 339.
I
I have always thought about it as the Lord would make up for everything we could not do ourselves. Let me find the reference tonight and we can pick this up later.
Jesus Christ took up His body again "by the power of the Spirit," says 2 Nephi chaper 2 verse 8. It appears the same mechanism will play a part in the resurrection of each son and daughter of God. It was Joseph Smith's teaching that "God [will] bring [the dead] up again, clothed upon and quickened by the Spiritof the great God." - Words of Joseph Smith p.196
This may not be the only mechanism that plays a part in the resurrection process, however. Gospel scholar Robert J. Matthews notes:
Any doctrine or ordinance as fundamental to man's eternal salvation as the resurrection of the dead is of necessity regulated and performed by the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
It is also part of the patriarchial order of the family. So far as the celestion kindom is concerned, the resurrection is a family event.
We would at first naturally suppose that Jesus would resurrect Himself, but perhaps He did not. Jesus did not baptize Himself. The clear rendering of Acts 2:22-24, 32; 3:12-15; 5:30-32 ... represents Peter saying on three separate occasions that God raised Jesus up from the dead.
If we read those passages literally and combine that concept with the teachings of President [Brigham] Young and Elder [Erastus] Snow, that only a resurrected being can perform a resurrection, we may gain an insight into the resurrection process as a patriarchial family order in which a righteous resurrected father would resurrect his son, and so forth. - Robert J Matthews, Behold the Messiah (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1994), 282.
Brigham Young put forward the idea in one of his discourses that "some person holding the keys of the resurrection, having previously passed through that ordeal, will be delegated to resurrect our bodies." - Journal of Discourses
He also explained that mortals do not currently posess "the ordinance and keys of the resurrection. They will be given to those who have passed off this stage of action and have received thier bodies again... They will be ordained by those who hold the keys of the resurrection, to go forth and resurrect the Saints"
Elder Erastus Snow was even more specific about who would be granted this sacred privilege. He said those who have been "crowned kings and priests with God and the Lamb...shall...carry on the work of redemption and resurrection of the Saints of God." Such an idea is confirmed by Chales W. Penrose, who says that "in the resurrection [husbands and wives] stand side by side and hold dominion together. Every man who overcomes all things and is thereby entitled to inherit all things, recieves power to bring up his wife to join him in the posession and enjoyment thereof." - The contributor, vol 2 no. 11, August 1881, 339.
I am curious what anyone else's thoughts on it are.
Hello Madhatter,
I have had a few exchanges with Mormon-Transhumanists. I also attended a conference on the subject held at the Claremont School of Theology's Mormon Studies Dept. so as to get an even better feel for the ideas of proponents. I was not impressed. I think the positioning is anachronistic and incoherent when applied to Mormon stances.
This is something I wrote to another after I attended the conference. It includes a very brief explanation of the movement proper and my experiences while attending:
Transhumanism is not a single position, but covers a range or movement. Common features seem to be a heavy reliance on technology namely, man's understanding and use of technology has gone through stages or epochs. Man is now in a state where Moore's Law is in effect (the idea computer power and capacity doubles every 18 months to 2 years). Because of this, within a relatively short amount of time, (many were arguing decades) technology is going to reach a technological singularity of sorts (a J Curve in exponential growth). The upshot of this also effects human biology. Man will move to being something Neohuman. The various speakers were drawing parallels with this line of thinking to Mormon ideas: Dispensations, The Millennium, Resurrected Beings etc. Most were taking the further step that this is the route the Gospel Plan is meant to proceed. I got the sense the proponents wanted Mormons to adopt this understanding so as to One), distance Mormonism from say fundamentalist Christians who need to pass anti-evolution agendas in local school boards and appear as generally reactionary and anti-science. Two), escape any superstitious element in religion and properly understand things along the lines of the old Arthur C. Clarke quote "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
I had two extended exchanges with the various speakers during the conference. I noted a heavy reliance by nearly every speaker on natural law appeals. I quoted one speaker who said "God follows natural laws" and "Exhalted Beings must be obedient to natural law". I asked: in referencing natural law, what natural law system is being appealed to? Is this natural law ala Stoicism, natural law ala Scholasticism or a natural law of your own conception? As you would expect, this muddled up a couple of the speakers. I shifted the question some then with the following: "Do you believe God is the source of the law or simply a knower of the law?" Then, "If the latter is the case (where law exists independently of God): where does it exist, and how does it effect material bodies? (all speakers had admitted to be being thorough going materialists). I didn't get any clear answers to these questions. Bushman* ultimately stepped in and said these things could be continued over lunch that was about to begin. I never got coherent answers on these questions.
My second exchange was later in the day. I first asked if the presenters truly believed that the advance of technology through what they described, is in fact the very method of Deity for the salvation and exhaltation of mankind. The answer was yes. I then asked them to then explain Abraham's case. I noted Abraham was a bedouin who lived in a pre-industrial, pre-rational cultural milieu and yet we are told in D&C 132 he is now a god. Some of the answers I got were: God must have used technology, but Abraham just didn't understand it. The respondee used the example of his driving a car, but not knowing all the intricacies of car mechanics: this of course begs the question. Another said, God uses various methods. This then leads one to wonder, if Deity can achieve His purpose without the reliance on technology, as in Abraham's case, then why the need later? Ockham's razor would seem to eliminate the technology appeal altogether.
All in all, it was hard not to see the conference speakers as simply having a Borg-fetish. I got the clear impression that these fellows, all men of hard science (eithe rprofessionally or by sympathy), did not understand the theoretical underpinnings of science and how those assumptions impact positions. I felt, because of this lack of consideration, they had led themselves into some theoretically sticky places. From me, Transhuman-Mormonism or Mormon-Transhumanism appears a confused position and not particularly interesting.
*Richard Bushman ( the historian and author of the Joseph Smith biograhpy "Rough Stone Rolling") is the head of the Mormon Studies Dept. at the Claremont and acted as the MC of the conference.