『Lincoln Cannon』のカバーアート

Lincoln Cannon

Lincoln Cannon

著者： Lincoln Cannon
無料で聴く

今ならプレミアムプランが3カ月 月額99円

2026年5月12日まで。4か月目以降は月額1,500円で自動更新します。

概要

 Lincoln Cannon is a technologist and philosopher, and leading voice of Mormon Transhumanism.2025-2026 Lincoln Cannon スピリチュアリティ
エピソード
  • 29 Thoughts on April 2026 General Conference

    29 Thoughts on April 2026 General Conference
    2026/04/05
    Yesterday and today, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints met for our worldwide general conference. The Saturday morning session was a solemn assembly in which we sustained our new Church president, Dallin H. Oaks. Oaks succeeded former Church president Russell M. Nelson upon the latter’s death, as is our custom. The act of sustaining a new Church president is an expression of support, not a vote. Often, while watching, I share my thoughts and feelings about conference in posts on social media. My intent is to promote deeper engagement with the conference. To that end, I generally express both affirmations and constructive criticisms. Below is a list of my posts during this conference. Elder Kearon points out that sustaining votes for persons called to fill positions in the Church don’t entail that we intend always to agree with them. They entail our willingness to support those persons in those positions. Still thinking about the structure of the solemn assembly, which implicitly emphasizes Church hierarchy and its predominantly male composition. Perhaps we should re-examine the extent to which doctrine demands this structure. President Yee says that “ministering is the essence of who God is,” implying that we become more like God as we minister to each other. President Yee says God needs help with the “staggering task of answering prayers.” Amen, sister. That’s practical faith. Love the artwork of Minerva Teichert, particularly the pioneer woman raising her arm, that Elder Gilbert references. It channels a substantial Earthy determination. Elder Gilbert addresses those “trapped in traditions,” illustrating with a story about people slow to join the Church, to honor another religious tradition. But this also applies to us in the Church, trapped in traditions that inhibit fuller emulation of God. Assuming technological change continues to accelerate biomedical interventions, Elder Bednar has the best chance of becoming the last president of the Church to receive the calling based on the death of a predecessor. Elder Bednar quotes D&C 93, emphasizing that Jesus, like us, did not begin with a fullness, but progressed grace to grace – again like us. This is the heart of theosis, exemplified by Jesus in Christosis. Elder Becerra speaks of tithing, suggesting it gates emergence from poverty. I think a communal case can be made for this, particularly when tithing is understood broadly. But I suspect many individual cases contradict this. Characteristically, President Eyring speaks of peace, encouraging prayer to facilitate that. He’s right, probably even for you, if you will. Look at the science. Elder Ortega compares theosis to climbing a mountain, where the direct path is rarely the fastest or safest. I’d add that there are also many ways up a mountain. Elder Caussé is something of a celebrity in my home. My French wife is currently posing for a photo offering him (on the tv) a piece of baguette. Oh la la. Elder Caussé points out that, although we may serve those we love, we also tend to come to love those we serve. This is a salient practical observation. Investment in cooperative ecosystems reinforces emotional attachment to those ecosystems. Elder Matswagothata has presence — capturing presence. The second he smiled, I wanted to listen to him. Elder Soares warns against the philosophies of men. Scripture advocates love of wisdom of God, which is the philosophy of God. Philosophy, the love of wisdom, in itself isn’t the problem. The problem is aspiration to anything less than divine wisdom. Good to see Elder Uchtdorf as the opening Easter speaker for the second day of General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He’s one of my favorites. Elder Uchtdorf says the Easter story of Jesus changed the world forever. This is objectively true, even from a non-religious perspective. No ideology in human history has come even close to the number of Christians. Elder Uchtdorf says he saw “with spiritual eyes” that Jesus is resurrected. When I was young, Church members commonly supposed that apostles must see Jesus more literally than “spiritual eyes” may suggest. That seems not to be as commonly supposed today. President Freeman says that God’s promises will be fulfilled in us, regardless of the bad days through which we must pass, if we trust. That’s how prophecy works. It’s not about fortune-telling. It’s forth-telling. We make it so. Elder Rowe quotes Jesus, ‘that which you have seen me do, that you should do.” The Bible says Jesus consoles, heals, and raises the dead. Do Christians take Jesus seriously? Do we aim to console, heal, and raise the dead? Elder Rowe again quotes Jesus, “be converted that I may heal you.” Consider the conditional or causal structure of that invitation. What is it about change that mediates healing? Elder Rasband echoes thoughts and feelings of previous speakers, celebrating Jesus ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Active Versus Passive Christianity

    Active Versus Passive Christianity
    2026/03/29
    At Easter, Christians celebrate the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ – the culminating expressions of the compassionate and creative power of God in the exemplary life of Jesus. Arguably, at least from a theological perspective, Easter is more important than Christmas. Easter ultimately realizes that which Christmas originally envisions. But too many of us, too often, celebrate the realization of Christian vision with passive interpretations that weaken or altogether undermine the real practical power of our faith. To illustrate, I list in the table below several important Christian concepts. Each is followed by two additional columns. The first provides a passive interpretation of the concept, as is too commonly imagined by nominal faith. The second provides an active interpretation of the concept, that provokes the power of real faith. Before sharing the list, I want to emphasize that I don’t consider these interpretations, either the passive or the active, to be the only such interpretations of Christianity. There are many others, quite as common or as genuine, that I could include to illustrate both approaches to interpretation. These are only examples. [ Visit the webpage to view the table. ] The apostle Paul writes, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.” And in case that isn’t enough, he continues, “Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.” This is, he concludes, how “God has chosen to make known … the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” This isn’t passive faith. Neither is it a rejection of grace. Rather, it’s a recognition of grace in the power of possibility that transcends anything we can do alone. Paul’s faith rejects passive interpretations of Christ that could become excuses for inaction. Like Paul, we can have a practical and bold faith in Jesus Christ. We can actually trust in and work toward consoling the sad, healing the sick, and even raising the dead, as he repeatedly exemplifies and invites. If we take Jesus seriously, atonement and resurrection aren’t just miraculous events that we commemorate once a year. They’re mandates that would prophetically provoke us to engage in real work with real means afforded by real grace to overcome suffering and death, for eternal life that is as real as light and as warm as love. This Easter, I hope we choose the active interpretation. Not because the passive is always wrong, but because it’s almost always insufficient. The full power of Christianity has never been in merely believing in Jesus. It’s always been in trusting his invitation to participate in Christ, in courageously becoming compassionate creators who work together to transform our world into something worth saving.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Postsecular Christian Transhumanism

    Postsecular Christian Transhumanism
    2026/03/19
    A Comment Magazine article, “ Which Future Do We Want? ”, presents its perspective on three competing visions of humanity’s future: anti-humanism, Transhumanism, and Posthumanism. It then positions “Christian humanism” as the corrective to all three. But it mistakes a conservative pit stop for the destination. And it mischaracterizes the tradition most capable of bridging the tensions it identifies. Caricature of Transhumanism The article presents Transhumanism as a desire to escape creaturely dependence. This is common, but reductive. Transhumanism is the ethical use of technology to enhance human abilities. If you think technology can and should enhance human abilities, while being concerned with the ethics, you’re a functional Transhumanist, whether or not you apply the label to yourself. The deepest problem with the article is what it leaves out. Transhumanism is as ancient as theosis, the idea that humanity can and should become like God, which may be as ancient as religion itself. In Christianity, theosis isn’t peripheral. It’s a central doctrine, interpreted variously in Orthodox, Catholic, and Mormon theology. When the article warns against “the desire to be like gods,” it unwittingly warns against the scriptural mandate, with countless examples. Paul tells the Romans they can inherit the glory of God with Christ. Peter encourages us to become partakers of divine nature. And, perhaps most notably, Jesus tells his disciples to do the same works he does, and even greater works. The future, as envisioned by Christianity, isn’t a modest static humanism. Rather, it’s a perpetual participatory transformation into that which is superhuman. It’s functional Transhumanism, even if many Christians seem incapable of recognizing that. The emergence of Transhumanism may have been a cultural consequence of Christianity’s increasingly timid advocacy of theosis. God always finds a way. If Christians won’t proclaim the full implications of our own theology, the inspiration can move, even donning lab coats instead of traditional frocks. Then, of course, some Christians complain about it. Naturalism The article portrays Transhumanism as a rejection of embodiment. But only the least educated Transhumanists fail to recognize that all minds have bodies, which are the substrates that shape and empower those minds. Minds (like spirits in Christianity) may be substrate independent in any specific sense (like death in Christianity), with capacity to move from less to more robust substrate (like resurrection in Christianity). But that doesn’t make minds substrate independent in a general sense. Like almost all Transhumanists, I’m a thorough naturalist. So far as I’m concerned, even God is natural. Yet that doesn’t somehow prevent me from experiencing and acknowledging that which is sublime – the holy. Rather, it grounds the sublime in the physical universe, the experientially and scientifically accessible universe, where it can actually do the work of transformation. For theists, naturalism is simply consenting that God can teach us everything about creation through creation. Resurrection, transfiguration, and immortality need not be magical violations of physics. They can be natural possibilities, even practical aspirations, toward which increasingly intentional technological and spiritual evolution may converge. Mormon eschatology facilitates recognition of strong naturalist parallels between Christian and Transhumanist views of the future. It envisions resurrected bodies of varying types and degrees of glory in worlds without end, including those of Gods with “power to organize elements,” as Brigham Young once put it. Other Christian traditions may not elaborate on the ideas of embodied resurrection and material theosis to such extents. But Mormonism inherits those ideas from Christianity. Most ironically, the article’s “Christian humanism” would seem to treat our current biological limits, a strict Humanism in contrast to Transhumanism, as permanent features. If so, that’s a nominal “bioconservative” position that’s not what it supposes or presents itself to be. It’s actually the radical proposition that we should change human nature by making it static. But human nature never has been static, and never can be meaningfully. Compassion The article rightly insists on relationality and communion. I heartily agree, advocating nothing short of superhuman communion. And it’s precisely this relationality that requires us to work, both to decrease suffering and to increase thriving. As expressed in the New God Argument, if we trust in our own superhuman potential, as Transhumanists do, then we should also trust that superhumanity probably would be more compassionate than we are. Our rapidly increasing power will probably destroy us unless we increasingly decentralize that power and cooperate in its applications. And such behavior, at its limit, becomes practically ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
まだレビューはありません