 I really want to give some thanks to the people who worked really hard to organize the conference. Carl was the head of that effort, so thank you very much to Carl. And he also got some very helpful assistance from Michael Ann Bradley, Brian Smith, Nathan Hadfield in the back, and Linda Nauman who is helping us with the refreshments in the back and setting up the table. So thank you to all of them. And we have a tradition to present some gifts to our keynote speakers. Those gifts have not arrived yet, so we'll have to provide those to you after the fact. But we're going to be presenting Rosalind with a copy of Eric's book. And Eric will be receiving Wrestling the Angel, Terrell Gibbons' book. And finally, we'd like to invite Eric and Rosalind to come join me up here for a few minutes. I think we have probably about between 15 and 20 minutes. Oh, yes, Nathan. To have our spring and more people to work. So in a society that you said that you'll be happy to be my friend, whatever, is making with someone else, how would that work in a society with politics, diplomacy, international affairs? How would that work? I have no idea. I mean, look, it obviously works to some extent, for instance, in, for instance, the polyamorous communities on the West Coast or the few that are on the East Coast. Go to Eugene, Oregon, ask them. They're into that stuff. Well, I mean, they are. And so somehow, I don't think that those future... One of the things about transhumanism is transcending humanity. And I know that I have a lot of human failures. I can be aggressive in inappropriate ways. I can be sexual in inappropriate ways. I can be... Have all sorts of emotions that come from a background that I would hope that transhuman erics would transcend. And so I would hope that transhuman politics in future universes would be a superior form of politics, something more virtuous. I enjoyed the thing on Zion that one would think that somehow, you know, I would posit a transfinite series of Zion's, but those will not have the same kind of politics we have here. And hopefully they would be better politics. LDS, for all three of you, I hope you want to close the door. No, no, we had been chatting earlier on with Alex. The LDS mythos begins in the beginning of the sense of a war in heaven. That very concept, war in heaven, is really part of our tradition. The way I see transhumanism is we can have more wars than heaven. If they're possible, once they're possible. Again, what are the conditions that you would, all three of you, what are the conditions that would provoke a war in the presence of the most advanced type, the most loving being, the exuding love upon everyone, and what conditions are there for them? I'll just say one thing, then I'm going to give it to you because this is your department. Well, I don't have to subscribe to the mythos of a war in heaven. But I certainly like, for instance, John Hick, who says, look, he describes the plurality of heaven as a series of heavens and so forth. And much of my original ideas are based on John Hick. Conflict doesn't necessarily have to be war. I like chess. Nobody dies. The pieces come back. And so Hick says, for instance, well, in the future worlds, there will be struggle. But the struggle that we have here is defective in many ways or incomplete in many ways. When I fight my opponent, even if I honor him or her or whatever, they die and they're killed. I don't see that that's required in a superior world. And so if there are wars in future heaven, they're going to be a lot. Maybe they'll be like Valhalla, right? We'll all go out and fight. And it'll be great. We'll have a great time slaughtering each other. And our bodies will rise at the end of the day and we'll go and get drunk and do it again tomorrow. You know, so yeah, why not? So you ask what conditions would give rise to a war in the presence of a supremely loving being? And I think there's really only one condition that's necessary and that is conflicting desires. Love by its nature is something that grants freedom. Love cannot be coerced and it is not coercive. And as a consequence, if there is a sufficient degree of freedom to have a conflicting desire, I think that's a sufficient condition to allow for a war. Now, obviously, love can be very persuasive, but I don't think it guarantees the avoidance of war and I don't know that there is a way to guarantee that that isn't simply the elimination of the desire that conflicts with yours. I was just going to see if we can get the two of you to sort of address each other's ideas in some way. I would love to hear that, please. Can you talk me back? Please don't answer the question. Okay, okay. Well, I mean, I'm hesitating because I don't really know. I haven't given a lot of thought. I would say I think the conditions that could give rise to another war in heaven are the same conditions, presumably that structure, a material cosmos as we know it. That matter has two aspects, right? One is resistance and one is availability. And resistance is the difference in the particularity. The availability is the willingness to enter into forms of relation. And even, of course, in a war, you've got both, right? You have the conflict, but you also have the alliances and the cooperation on opposing sides. So I don't think that any other new condition needs to arise. I think the conditions are already present and always will be. Should we address each other's thing then? Because I want to say that, so you're Rosalind, and I'm terrible with names. You with the camera. What's your name? Blair. I was struck not being a Mormon and following, I do follow some of the things that go on in all sorts of religious groups in the United States today. And I've just been struck by the emergence of female voices in Mormonism. And I don't know if it's appropriate or not to say Mormon feminism. I'm not being involved in it. Well, I don't want to speak for others. But if there is, then fine, I've been following that and I say that I know there are vast religious changes, especially in younger generations. And certainly as a non-Mormon from what I've seen here, looks like Mormonism has a fascinating, fascinating future. That would be my take on a lot of the things that I've heard here. So, can you expand on it? What do you mean by segregation? A singular unified religion. But if you don't, then you get to have you sit in a different spiritual camp. And I have problems with this because I love my family. And I think Mormons love their families. And so that doesn't resonate with me, but the idea that women separated because of it and me too, but potential stops might be separated because of that. And so why... in the afterlife, are families so important? Why do we say... Yeah, I wouldn't want to defend that particular proposition. I'm not certain that that is indeed how it will be. I don't know that that's necessarily an inevitable reading of our understanding of the degrees of glory. I think there's a much more developmental and universal reading that's possible of eternal progression, not eternal stasis and eternal sorting into the division. So I think that there is a much more developmental and dynamic if we believe in... in a material universe that cannot escape from time, right? Then we really can't conceive of, you know, sort of eternal sorting into the laundry baskets and sitting there for all of eternity. That's not how I think we need to or even can read it. So I think you are free to... I think you're free to think of it in a different way. Yeah. We'll have just, what, three more minutes? All right. I just wanted to reinforce a little bit with a fun anecdote. When I attended BYU, I took some religion classes from Joseph Fielding McConkey, the son of Bruce R. McConkey, and he loved to tell the story about how he and his father always disagreed about whether these various groupings in heaven were physical separation or whether they were more like a state of being. His father had thought they were physical separation and he thought they were a state of being. And he says, and now that he's dead, he knows that I'm right. James. I'm not going to engage with your interpretation of the effects of the proclamation. I think we've seen those conversations happen. So I think we want to hold on to the proclamation, though. We're going to. It's not going to go away. So it's here. I think we want to, though. I think it's really, can you imagine anything in the Hebrew Bible conceptualizing men and women as equal partners, right? There's nothing like it in canonized scripture. This is the closest that we have to having a canonized basis for gender equality. Now maybe we would want it to be different. We would want to change it, but it's there. And it's there to be used. In the way that every religious community has used its sacred texts, right? Has reread, reinterpreted, redeemed, and saved relevant bits of its sacred texts and applied them moving forward. I think that's exactly what we are called to do with the proclamation as we are with all of the texts that canonization and the proclamation is not canonized. Perhaps that may happen someday. That the relationship that canonization structures between the believer and the text. So the problem of authority and Mormonism won't go away. And I don't have a solution to it. So I can't tell you what to do about church leaders who keep on saying things you don't like to hear. But all I can say is that we have it. I think we should read it and use it. And that's what I'm trying to do. Can I say one thing as a non-Mormon? The problem of authority might go way much faster than you think. There's nothing been in religion that's been fixed or eternal on this earth. And one of the things that if you study the history of religions, you see that not always, but very often, radical religious change can happen in a matter of years. So who knows? Joseph. I feel like there's that trick question. I'm not exactly sure what I'm saying if I say yes or no. I think that all scripture says much more than its revelator understands. I think we see that with Joseph. He didn't understand the meaning of every revelation that he produced. And that doesn't detract from the divinity of the revelation process. In fact, it may add to its mystery. So I don't know whether the current church authorities fully understand what the proclamation means and especially what it will mean going forward.