 So I've heard, of course my ears are pricked up for this, but I've heard the term narrative used in a lot of different talks, Carl Youngblood starting talking about how conventional narratives are no longer capable of inspiring people, Lincoln talking about the history or maybe this, not sure if it's more of a story or a history of the MTA, Jacob Baker talking about that this may all just be a story, and this idea of narrative and what narratives mean has kind of been weighing on me and I hope that my wrestling with narrative can shed some light or perhaps just invite your ridicule. So there are a few different meanings to the term narrative. A narrative film tells a story about the world, whereas a documentary film tries to capture the world as it is. A narrative is often used as a synonym for story, but more than story, narrative highlights the gap between the events of the story and the telling of the story. This is suggested by the fact that narrative is also a synonym for commentary. In the way I'm using narrative, that is a communal narrative, a narrative is not just a story about the community and it's not just commentary about the story or the community. A communal narrative gives structure to how community members relate to each other and to the world. In this way it can work like a myth, though perhaps closer, more freely changing and in principle more falsifiable. Unavoidably narratives are how humans structure and interpret the world, but narratives are abstractions from life. They're not the substance of experience. Narratives aren't self-justifying, but they work in a way to convince their narrators that they are correct. I may have a narrative that I'm a good break dancer. This narrative doesn't mean I'm a good break dancer, and it doesn't make me a good break dancer, but it may justify the time I spend working on different moves and routines and my choice in purchasing different flexible outfits. Unless I'm my only audience, I can't determine that my current break dancing ability constitutes good break dancing. My narrative is justified by sought goods, in this case good break dancing, which brings me to a world of communal goods. Narratives aren't islands, but live in the realm between sought goods and practices, rules, obligations, etc. Narratives are justified by sought goods, and they justify practices, rules, obligations and power structures in the absence of sought goods. This is the human context of narratives, but God doesn't care about narratives. God's work seems to be about bursting narratives. Though he was raised a prince in Egypt, Moses was different. He was a Hebrew descended from Levi. The narrative of his life could have taken a number of different tones. One, I've been blessed to be raised in comfort. My upbringing separates me from the Hebrews and solidifies my identity as an Egyptian. Two, I can identify and perhaps sympathize with the slaves in ways other Egyptians can't. Three, I don't belong with the Egyptians or the Hebrews. Regardless of what narrative he understood himself to be in, we understand him as playing out a narrative. Humans are built to make sense of experience through narratives. The decisive moment came when Moses, first checking to make sure no one would witness, slayed the Egyptian guard who'd been smiting a Hebrew slave. At this point, whatever his narrative was, it no longer mattered. As it always does for those with eyes to see, life had burst any narrative. Life has more content than any narrative can contain. Perhaps his thinking was that he could bring local justice about piecemeal, a sort of vigilante justice maker. His standing could be a buffer. But there were risks and indeed word got out and now Pharaoh sought to slay Moses. Yes, many narratives were burst that day, Moses' pharaohs, the slaves who witnessed his violence and more. So Moses fled to Midian for safety. His narrative was presumably that of a guilty party who fled for safety and went in hiding, with no intention of returning to Egypt. Moses might have thought things would work out like this. He'd remain in Midian and raise and care for his family, ever watchful of suspicious characters who might betray him. But so long as he kept a distance and undercover from Egypt, he could be safe. And safety, now not just for him, but for his family, was the key consideration, the sought good. This was the justification for his narrative. And then he sees a burning bush and his narrative is forever burst. If the scriptures teach us anything about God's view of narratives, it is that God bursts the self-assured insistence that one's current narrative is in fact the full, real, or eternal narrative. For a people seeking God, the uncomfortable truth is that God appears as the disruption of our narratives. C.S. Lewis will argue that God disrupts our home, our home building because the aim is not a home but a mansion. The God of Mormon transhumanism, at least my version, is much more radical than that. We've got to learn to become God's ourselves, the same as all God's have done. The LDS church and recent ex-Mormons have both fallen prey to religious and anti-religious dogma. This dispute mirrors those between religious and anti-religious dogmatists more generally. All sides have bought into a dispute that puts narrative claims about Mormonism as the whole of the case. The key issue in the dispute is whether the church is true, or in other words whether it has been consistent and honest in its narrative of historical and doctrinal claims, and whether this narrative corroborates with historical and spiritual fact. I think this is an important dispute. But these questions aren't the whole of the case, or even the most important ones. Critically the sought goods they justify, critically they miss the sought goods that justify a narrative, and for both sides sought goods are more essential than historical corroboration in order to criticize a narrative. And here's the church's narrative. And we can already sense points of tension, we can already sense points of tension and surfaces ready to erupt because after all narratives change. The church is true. By this has meant something like the leaders of the church are directed by Jesus Christ himself. Joseph Smith was the instrument through whom Christ's primitive church was restored. He was visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ when he was 14 years old. He translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates by the gift and power of God. The Book of Mormon contains the writings of ancient prophets of great civilizations who in reality lived on the American continents, and are ancestors of the American Indians. Several witnesses testified to the reality of the physical plates and the spiritual truths they contained. The line of prophets since Joseph Smith has been an uninterrupted chain of prophets through whom God has spoken and continues to speak his will. His doctrine, his plan, and his gospel and their actions and claims reflect these. The leaders of the church are God's authorized spokesmen, teaching God's unchanging doctrine. Obtaining authorized ordinances is the straight and narrow path to salvation. All the leaders, they can't lead you astray. As long as you don't leave the church or disavow any part of this narrative, salvation is yours. Great blessings await those who remain faithful to the church, by which is meant ascent to these claims. No work is more important than to gain a testimony of this narrative. If one fails in some way it's because their testimony of this narrative was lacking in some measure. We don't need to look far to find the prominence of this narrative as the solution to everything from crises to faith, to a penchant for sin, to a number of miseries and failures. The solution to these miseries and woes is to gain and maintain a strong testimony or conviction of the narrative. Not happy? Strengthen your testimony. Have trouble enjoying church? Strengthen your testimony. Having trouble with bad thoughts, bad language, bad behavior? Strengthen your testimony. Not sure if you've been saved? Strengthen your testimony. Surely, strengthen your testimony means something different and more than unreservedly ascent to the claims of the narrative, but we don't have a good common language for expressing that different and more, and in its stead, unreservedly ascent to the claims of the narrative is a prevalent and acceptable interpretation. Recent ex-mormons have turned this narrative on its head and proposed a counter narrative that is more or less a point-by-point negation of that narrative. The church is at a bit of a crossroads, insistence on this narrative and the centrality of gaining a testimony of its truth is responsible for the past growth of the church, and yet it appears to be toxic to its current and prospective health. Unavoidably and not uniquely, narratives change over time for a variety of reasons, historical research, cultural adaptation, scientific and technological progress, and revelation. When one has spent a lot of effort to ascent to a narrative, they can be excused for resisting when the narrative changes. I don't think it's too bold a claim to say that the church's rhetoric about the centrality of ascenting to its narrative is to blame for the current situation. With this approach of centering a narrative, the church is in a precarious position. So long as there are no other reliable justifications for the power structures and obligations, that is, the whole church structure, the only choice is to insist on the narrative, and as it is challenged to clarify, revise, and concede where appropriate, so long as there is still enough of a narrative for the center to hold for a critical number of adherents. In the past, we haven't needed better justifications. Appeal to authority, linked to God, was the ultimate justification. But when God becomes less an abstract teaching and more a realistic, science-backed aspiration, those appeals lose persuasive and moral power. A narrative is an abstraction from experience, or a structure imposed on experience. Understanding this helps us recognize what a narrative is not. The narrative of the church was not written on stone and handed to church leaders where it has been perfectly preserved and re-confirmed by God every so often. It was not a once and for all revelation, nor was it a historical document vetted and checked by historians, prophets, and PR folks, and occasionally stamped by God. That has developed as a way to identify ourselves within a community and to a wider world after. Narratives aren't self-justifying, rather a narrative works to justify activities, practices, rules, obligations, power structures, etc. But when do these need to be justified? Only when there is no other or no better justification. What else could justify practices, obligations, power structures, etc. Of course, sought goods aren't fixed and unchanging and they're subject to our judgment. And this is where the fixation on a narrative misses it. Indeed, this is what justifies not only the narrative, but also the practices and obligations, power structures, etc. In its absence, we can use narratives to justify these rules, obligations, and practices, etc. From the church side, this is the most powerful defense of its narrative, these sought goods. From the critic side, it's the most powerful critique. And we can see this more clearly by considering a few different forums for communal narratives. A kitchen staff, America, and the church. The tasty meals delivered by the kitchen staff justifies its narrative that they deliver tasty meals. The narrative that we consistently deliver tasty meals justifies the rules, obligations, and power structures that we apply in the kitchen. Likewise, protected and expanded freedoms justify America's narrative that we are the land of the free, or the failure to do so challenges it. The strongest defense of the kitchen staff's narrative is made by pointing to the tasty meals it makes, of which it can't be the sole judge. It's not a tasty meal just because the kitchen made it. The narrative justifies the rules and practices, but they're all contingent on attaining the sought goods. By focusing on the narrative, the church is saying we are true. Therefore, our rules, obligations, and power structures are justified. It can feel a bit like this rule from the kitchen. Sought goods help us see when we need and don't need a narrative. We don't need a narrative to justify rules, obligations, and power structures for a kitchen staff if the rules, obligations, and power structures consistently lead to tasty meals. We don't need a narrative to justify rules, obligations, and power structures for America if the rules, obligations, and power structures consistently lead to protecting and expanding valued freedoms for more people. I don't need a narrative that I'm a good break dancer if my practices lead to wide acclaim for my break dancing ability. We don't need a narrative to justify rules, obligations, and power structures for Mormonism if the rules, obligations, and power structures consistently lead to salvation. It's just when we can't see the link or we can see that the link is broken or the sought good is so abstract that we can't tell whether we are progressing toward the good or not. If we focus on defending or defaming the narrative outside of the context of sought goods and rules, obligations, and power structures, we miss its role and we miss the more important practical and substantial defense and critique. I would suggest that God bursts or transcends narratives not only because they're short-sighted but also because they don't on their own bring about sought goods. If we're serious about our narratives, we must be doubly serious about our sought goods. These justify our narratives and the gauge for the success or failure of our efforts. The narrative is not the standard, neither are the rules, practices, and obligations. The standard is the sought goods. Deliver on sought goods and the significance of your narrative and rules fade. Fail to deliver sought goods and you'll spend a long time caught up defending your narrative or rules which will be little compensation. If a child drowns at your pool, no one cares how good your water safety policy is in principle. Among the benefits of Mormon transhumanism is a framework to take seriously sought religious goods such as immortality and eternal life that have to date been relinquished to abstract forums where no one could challenge progress because all realizations were reserved for a different realm. With the Mormon transhumanist framework, eternal life need not be a euphemism for death, nor an abstract mystery to be resolved in a different realm, but a serious aspiration with practical steps and benchmarks for progress. And I should say our current transhumanist speculations about these will be wrong, but at least they get us in the mindset of taking these aspirations seriously. In truth, our sought aims are nothing less than the highest aspiration for humanity. That then, moving toward which, no greater vision of humanity can be conceived. What this means will change and expand as we approach and pass benchmarks along the way, but it is we humans by the grace of God who must approach and pass the benchmarks with whatever inspiration we may need. There's not misfulfillment of prophecy because it doesn't look the way we expected or because we assume that that would be a chapter in a future narrative or there wasn't a clear narrative line that we anticipated because there never is from Agamemnon to Oedipus to Moses to Jesus. The success of this endeavor is not and cannot be guaranteed by a narrative or doctrine's rules or obligations. God transcends narratives and we must join them. Let us avoid the mistake of the basketball team that believes it has already won because it has an unbeatable game plan. Salvation may await us, but redefining it to mean participation in ordinances indicative of salvation in a different realm is just moving the goalpost and not taking the sought good as seriously as we can. We are not saved just because there is a plan of salvation. Even the great plan of salvation has no power to save us. It too is a narrative justified by the execution of principles and practices that actualize salvation. And of course this sought good will still require our judgment. And I'll close with an experience I had in graduate school when I was working with my advisor and it was part of my qualification for the exit exams and I brought a literature review that I had done for some topic from my dissertation and I presented it to him and said, hey, can you look this over? Can you tell me if this literature review is done? Is this complete? And he said, I don't know, is it? And I can imagine the same kind of experience that humans would go to God and say, all right, so are we gods now? And God responds, I don't know, are you? Thank you.