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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you think transhumanism and LDS theology mesh nicely?
- Thread starter madhatter85
- Start date
Arkholt
Non-vessel
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.
madhatter85
Transhumanist
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?
Arkholt
Non-vessel
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.
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?
madhatter85
Transhumanist
I didn't know this until about 2 years ago but I will have to dig up the reference when I get home. There's a few of them that actually do show that the resurrection is a priesthood ordinance and that Christ did not resurrect himself that God resurrected him. and from what I remember, i could be wrong on this but, I believe the priesthood lineage is they key to how we will be resurrected and then we will resurrect our families. Again i will have to wait till i get home to pull the reference from a book I have called "The Plan of Salvation: Understanding Our Divine Origin and Destiny" by Matthew B. Brown - Deseret Book.
Hmm,
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.
madhatter85
Transhumanist
OK, i found the reference:
The Plan of Salvation
Understanding Our Divine Origin and Destiny
Matthew B. Brown
Covenant Communications Inc.
www.covenant-lds.com
The Plan of Salvation
Understanding Our Divine Origin and Destiny
Matthew B. Brown
Covenant Communications Inc.
www.covenant-lds.com
Arkholt
Non-vessel
There are two basic things that were overcome by the Atonement: sin and death. Death was conquered, and everybody gets to be resurrected. It's free. No work on our part is needed there, according to my understanding.
Sin is different. Sin was paid for by Christ, but we must do our part to overcome it, and he will make up for our shortcomings. That's the part you're referring to.
EDIT: And please don't think I don't think work on our part is required for salvation. One, it's definitely a principle of LDS doctrine, and two, I'm definitely a student of Confucianism, and it definitely stresses self cultivation and refinement. However, from my understanding of LDS doctrine, this does not apply to the resurrection.
As for that quote... I see there some quotes taken out of context and construed to mean things they may or may not mean, as well as some rampant speculation. I'll take it apart:
Fair enough. The Spirit will obviously play a large role in our resurrection.
Begin speculation from a "gospel scholar"...
As far as the priesthood is the power of God, I'll agree to this. As far as the priesthood is His authority and responsibility given to man, I'm not convinced yet.
That depends. I wasn't aware that being sealed to your family was a prerequisite to entrance into the Celestial kingdom. The highest level of the Celestial kindgom, yes, but not any other part of it.
Secondly, what does the Celestial kingdom have to do with resurrection? Everyone, regardless of which kingdom they go to, will be resurrected (I always hear speculation on the sons of Perdition and resurrection, but they're not really important).
I would never naturally assume that, but I am sure he had some role to play in it. Why? Because he's Jesus Christ. Just because Christ may have had a role to play in his own resurrection doesn't mean we will.
This could very easily refer to the Father or Christ, since they both meet that criterium. At the most, I would expect the leaders of dispensations (Adam, Noah, Moses, etc.) to be involved in this.
The only convincing quote so far. Still, it sounds more like a few individuals whose calling it is to resurrect everyone, probably leaders of dispensations.
Begin misconstrued quotes:
The second quote here adds nothing, because it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with resurrection (this is why quotes taken out of context are often useless). The first quote mentions resurrection, but while it says Elder Snow is being more specific, he isn't really. It's very vague what he means there.
While I do thank you for that passage, I definitely think it's missing some things, as you can see. While the case can apparently be made for resurrection being a priesthood ordinance, it isn't clear that a large number of people will have the authority to do so, and it isn't clear what the ordinance entails.
Even with that, it becomes clear that we will not be responsible for our own resurrection. We can't be. Brigham Young says that we must be resurrected by someone else who has been through it. Therefore, we will have no role to play in our own resurrection.
My other major problem with transhumanism and Mormonism is the concept that resurrection will be a fairly long process. For transhumanists, the process has already started and will continue as technology gets better.
I don't know about other people, but I see a couple pretty clear statements in the scriptures on how long resurrection will take. First, Paul tells us that "we shall be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye." Second, Christ was in the tomb for three days, and rose on the third. We know it didn't even take the entire three days to resurrect, because he was preaching to the spirits in spirit prison during some of the time. These two things just don't seem to square with the transhumanist idea of perfection or the Mormon transhumanist idea of resurrection.
Last edited:
Orontes
Master of the Horse
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.
Last edited:
Lincoln Cannon
New Member
Hi Orontes.
I think I remember you from the Claremont conference. Thanks for making time to write your observations and assessment. Hopefully this response will interest you.
Technology is certainly an important aspect of transhumanism. Although some (too many so long as there's one, so far as I'm concerned) transhumanists focus on a narrow definition of "technology", others regard technology as a principle that encompasses far more than plastic and metal stuff bundled together within the last century. In a broader sense, technology is power, a prosthetic extension of volition, an embodiment of our spiritual esthetic. In contrast to apathy, wishful thinking or superstition, it results in practical work, defined in terms of our desires.
Likewise, science is an important aspect of transhumanism, yet again not merely narrowly. As technology is to power, science is to knowledge. It is the hard work toward achieving common experience, consequent to common understanding. Hypothesis, trial, verification, falsification, peer review, and the various other aspects of method commonly associated with science are important, yet none is individually essential. More essential, at a philosophical level, is the will to law, to shared subjectivity, to objectivity, or even epistemic atonement, to use the religious angle. Such science establishes context for technology, knowledge for power.
Of course, knowledge and power are important in Mormon theology, but are hardly sufficient. To paraphrase the scriptures, the demons know and tremble during the day of Satan's power. There is more. Love, charity, benevolence makes enduring power possible. Without that, there may be power for a time, but it will fail us. The resurrection of the dead may be an engineering problem, but eternal life requires a gamble on the side of compassion. Maybe tech can enhance our ethical inclinations, but the choice to do so and the definition of how to do so are defined prior to the application of tech, and prior to scientific discovery. Tomorrow's power and knowledge come only after whatever wisdom and inspiration we may have today.
Clearly the world is changing, and clearly the changes have accelerated. In ancient times, generations may have lived and died without observing the degree of ideological and practical novelty and diversity that any one of us has observed in the last decade. We sense this intuitively. Yet Moore's Law, even if inappropriately associated with "law", surpasses our intuitions. We measure the rate of change. We observe the consequences of change. We project such change into the future, at the historic rate . . . and we know either the rate of change must slow dramatically (for reasons we cannot identify, short of global catastrophe), or we have bigger revolutions than rocket ships or the Internet headed our way within the next few decades.
Will the future be brighter or darker than the present? None can say with certainty, but we can with confidence posit that we should be preparing ourselves for greater degrees of change in shorter periods of time than any in known history. Perhaps we'll anihilate ourselves with weapons we have not yet imagined? Or maybe we'll conquer the inevitability or permanence of death itself? With such risks and opportunities presenting themselves, I'm reminded of a passage from the Book of Mormon, in which Captain Moroni castigates his people for relying passively on the goodness of God without taking advantage of the means at hand for their salvation. We, Mormons, have a vision of the future and trust in the goodness of God, yet are we sometimes too passive? Are we always engaged in the good work without waiting for commandment? Have we fully internalized the call to take on the identity of Christ? It may be that we can do nothing to make a difference in the grand scheme of things, or it may be that we can. It seems that we lose relatively little by trying, and perhaps much by not. I imagine Jesus thinking such thoughts on the garden path to the cross -- to the empty tomb.
I hope this provides some helpful insight into one Mormon Transhumanist's perspective on technology, law, and their relation to salvation. Please, if you would, share your thoughts. Thank you.