 Today I'd like to talk about a subject that's really interesting of interest to me personally. I've given this talk at a few other conferences, but I felt like it was ideal to sort of set the stage for a discussion of what religion might look like in the future to talk about maybe a little bit about what religion actually is. During the past two centuries, social theorists have contributed to what has come to be called the secularization thesis. This thesis identifies three main trends. First, progress in science and technology tends to promote a disenchanted view of the world, where an ever-increasing number of events can be causally explained without turning to theology or metaphysics. Second, as governing structures adapt to scientific advances, churches and other religious organizations tend to lose their control over law, politics, public welfare, education, and science, and instead restrict themselves to their pastoral functions of providing for individuals spiritual well-being, turning religion into a largely private matter. Third, the increased prosperity brought on by industrialization and the rise of the welfare state reduced the need for reliance on a higher power to cope with life's inherent risks, but the secularization hypothesis is now showing signs of age. By this, I don't mean to imply that these trends have ceased altogether, but that there are significant discrepancies between the trends as described and what is actually happening. Sociologist and philosopher Juergen Habermas explains that among the expert community of sociologists, the secularization thesis has been a subject of controversy for more than two decades and that there is even talk of the end of secularization theory. He points out that while the data collected globally still provides surprisingly robust support for secularization, the weakness of the theory is due rather to rash inferences that betray an imprecise use of the concepts of secularization and modernization. Habermas goes on to describe these discrepancies in more detail and he calls this revised thesis post-secularization or post-secularism. He points out that the European model of secularization has actually been the exception rather than the rule. As a counter example, the religion is changing here in the US. It is still home to many vibrant religious communities and its proportion of religiously committed and active citizens remains high. Despite its religiosity, America nevertheless is the spearhead of modernization. It used to be seen as an unusual holdout against the secularization trend, but wider perspectives on other cultures and world religions now seem to indicate that it exemplifies the norm. Although churches have largely lost control over governmental functions, they continue to exert a powerful, soft influence by encouraging their congregants to be politically active and by clear messaging on issues that are of importance to them. And from a global perspective, as we've all seen in the last few years, religion, especially fundamentalism, is actually on the rise. So while post-secular theorists have a lot more to say for the purposes of what I'd like to talk about today, I want to highlight two important conclusions that I draw from post-secularism. First, religion has been misunderstood and perhaps most importantly, it's not going away anytime soon, so we had better try to understand it. So let's see if we can try to understand it a little better today. What exactly is religion? It has been notoriously difficult to define. We could easily spend hours on this topic and still not get to the bottom of it, but in general, I take the position that religion has been characterized too narrowly. We think of religion as the church on the corner, as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Judaism, but we forget that religion existed long before the popular denominations of today. A noteworthy example is the recent discovery of a vast temple constructed by a hunter-gatherer society over 9,000 years ago in Gebekli Tepi, Turkey. This structure has profoundly changed our understanding of a crucial stage in the development of human society. It shows that the erection of monumental complexes was within the capacities of hunter-gatherers and not only of sedentary farming communities, as had been previously assumed. As excavator Klaus Schmidt put it, first came the temple, then the city. Religion is starting to be seen as the catalyst and not the pinnacle of civilization. In his crowning work, Religion in Human Evolution, sociologist Robert Bella describes religion as a system of symbols that, when enacted by human beings, establishes powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations that make sense in terms of an idea of a general order of existence. You may notice that this description applies to a broad range of human activities, some of which may not traditionally be associated with religion. Hold to that thought, because we're going to talk about that later. Far from a peripheral aspect of human life, Bella draws on a wide-range array of biological, archaeological, and anthropological research to show that religion was not just an important phase of our evolutionary development, but is actually one of the conserved core processes that contributes to our ongoing survival and is part of our very nature. He traces its emergence in our evolutionary predecessors and describes some of the necessary components that preceded it. He stresses that human culture develops incrementally. While it may advance to new phases, it always retains elements of the previous ones, and he identifies three phases of cultural development—mimetic, in which primitive humans communicate primarily by mimicking and gesture, mythic, in which the development of language has enabled narrative or storytelling, and theoretic, in which the old narratives are questioned and reorganized, old rituals and myths are replaced with new ones, etc. Today I'd especially like to focus on myth or narrative. Myth literally means story, especially in the context of religion, stories about transcendent human experiences. Contrary to the popular understanding of the word, myths are not untrue. They may even be based on historical events. In fact, they often are, but their strength is not derived from their historicity. It comes from their being powerful motivational narratives that will still be relevant long after the historical incidents that led to their emergence. Even myths that are obviously fables still contain overarching moral truths that help to order a people's worldview. Myths are symbols that point us beyond our present-day, everyday concerns to an overarching purpose. They bring meaning to our lives, and as human beings, we crave meaning. We want meaning so badly that we create it where it wasn't before. In fact, created meanings that are most compelling are the ones that tend to endure the longest. Which brings me to the last point that I'd like to make today. As we noted earlier, despite undergoing rapid change, religion today is alive and well, and even shows up in some unexpected places. In fact, in many instances, the secular narrative has taken on religious functions. Christian blogger Nathaniel Gibbons shares a few examples of this. One prominent and off-sided example. So I'm going to be quoting some sort of longish quote, so forgive me, but these are ideas, and we need to read those ideas sort of to understand them. He gives the example of environmentalism. The degree to which the green movement recapitulates all the high notes of Christianity is so brazen that it is ripe for parody, he claims. We all existed in a state of natural bliss and union with nature until the serpent of modern technology entered and we partook of the forbidden fruit of industrialization, thus causing us to be expelled from Eden and subjected to a barrage of artificial cancer-inducing chemicals. Now, all our children have autism from vaccines as the world labors under the weight of collective guilt. We are held sinners in the hands of an angry nature over the fire of catastrophic global warming, where repentance, carbon offsets, cannot purchase our freedom but is due nonetheless. It's basically Christianity without Christ. Now, he hastens to say he's not trying to argue against climate change here, but he's saying that the issue has weight not because of the science, but because of the narrative, the story that's being told. Everything is missing, and so we reached for a story or for some meaning or for religion to plug the hole and environmentalism fits the profile. Whether or not it's factually true is beside the point. This has been noted before, but what's been missed is that this is just not just a new veneer for Christianity, but it's an example of how religion is deeply and completely compatible with scientific rhetoric. He gives one more example. This example of the Sandy Hook Massacre, there were some headlines that said that after that incident that scientists would be studying the killer's DNA to try to make sense of the event, which he says is almost like casting bones and trying to figure out what the future holds. There's really no scientific purpose for this, but you see that society is reaching for answers to questions and it's looking to science to provide those answers. Our tendency to wax religious about seemingly secular issues can go in two different directions. Mary Midgley identifies these as cosmic optimism and cosmic pessimism. She says these are trends that scientists can get into if they're not careful. Robert Bella uses a few examples in his book. He talks about how this scientist, Eric Chesson, talks about some grand future religion in which all truth and all science will be known and understood and people of all ages and backgrounds will unite in the purpose of unifying all truth and knowledge. He calls this a powerful and true myth that can act as an effective intellectual vehicle to invite all cultures to become participants, not just spectators in the building of a whole new legacy. Then Bella responds to this and he says Chesson is in fact calling for a new church to go with his new religion. I have no problem with his endeavor. He has a lot of sympathy for it, but he says I would be happier if he had taken responsibility for what he is doing rather than implying that this is still science even if beyond conventional science. He says myth can be true, but it's a different kind of truth from the truth of science. It must be judged by different criteria and the myth he tells though it draws on science is not science and so cannot claim scientific truth. He goes on to say that religious myths also have many truths in them that are valuable and that contribute to our overall arching narrative. The next type of tendency that scientists have is to go towards cosmic pessimism and he shares this example. This is from Jacques Monod and he says it is perfectly true that science attacks values not directly, but it subverts them. If he accepts this message in its full significance, man must at last wake out of his millenary dream and discover his total solitude, his fundamental isolation. He must realize that like a gypsy, he lives on a boundary of an alien world, a world that is deaf to his music and as indifferent to his hopes as it is to his sufferings or his crimes. He says although he is a distinguished scientist and one of the founders of molecular biology, he's entered into the world of metaphysical speculation and of course not surprisingly he finds there the work of one of the famous existentialists. He's reaching into the world and he's making meaning out of the world that's far beyond what the science actually says about that. I have some more examples, just a couple that I'd like to share. Let me just make sure this is working. Is this going to play? Oh no. Anyway, these videos were inspiring quotes from Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson about how the universe and knowing about the universe sort of connects us with each other and provides meaning and value to our lives and we look at these gentlemen as scientists but we're looking to them for much more than science. We're looking to them for inspiration and what they're engaged in is religion in a sense and don't get me wrong on this, I really love these guys but what they're doing is far more than science and I just think it's important that we recognize that better. So he said, Bella ends by just saying that there's room for all of these different view points on the meaning of our existence and that we can disagree in a courteous and civil way. I have here a quote from Nietzsche about how his problem with scientists, which he called natural philosophers in his day, was not that they were like humble and sort of willing to admit where they went wrong but that they claimed that everything that they were pursuing was truth and that that was all they cared about but in fact what they did was just discover the things that they, the values that they already cherished. So that's interesting. So going back to Bella's definition of religion just to end here, he calls it a system of symbols that when enacted by human beings establishes powerful, pervasive and long lasting moods and motivations and I want to add to it this concept from William James that the capacity of the strenuous mood lies so deep down among our natural human possibilities that even if there were no metaphysical or traditional grounds for believing in the God, men would postulate one simply as a pretext for living hard and getting out of the game of existence its keenest possibilities of zest. Every sort of energy and endurance of courage and capacity for handling life's evils is set free in those who have religious faith. For this reason, the strenuous type of character will on the battlefield of human history always out where the easy going type and religion will drive irreligion to the wall. So he's talking about the importance of religion in our lives, of religion of all kinds. I mean, it could be sports, politics, whatever in a sense these are religious endeavors. We try to maximize the meaning and the value of the things we engage in as human beings and so I would like to sort of come up with this definition that religion is whatever symbols, rituals or narratives are capable of providing a strenuous mood in a community that inspires it to work toward a desired future. So I hope that we can be more careful about how we speak of religion and recognize when we're crossing over the boundary of science and into religion and that we can use our, we can use religion, utilize it. It's a social technology essentially is what I'm arguing here. That this is something we can utilize to make the world a better place to motivate people to help inspire people to work towards a desired future and I hope that we envision good futures and pursue those and I just want to end with that and turn the time over to my colleagues. Hi everyone, my primary objective today in my paper is to hopefully broaden our understanding of sexuality and procreation and how technology and religion is influencing that and oops, I'm already skipping, there we go. Imagine you're an infant that just left your mother's womb, you're being welcomed into the world by eager parents while a plethora of possibilities await your exploration. Upon your delivery they look at your new body and note the aesthetics of your genitalia and the doctor announces it's a girl in this fractional moment a socially constructed gender has become your identity and your destiny. The family of proclamation to the world states, gender is an essential characteristic of individual, premortal, mortal and eternal identity and purpose. I agree, however many interpretations of gender are overly simplified and underdeveloped. Gender is not static or binary and it is just as much expressive as it is biological. Having an eternal gender does not mean an unchanged destiny, eternal means existing forever and to exist is to be in a constant state of change or evolution. Some might even call it eternal progression. I am not the same person yesterday that I am today nor will you be the same person tomorrow that you are right now, biologically or mentally. Before we broaden our understanding of sexuality and procreation first we'll need to widen our perceptions of gender. As we deconstruct some of these overly simplified schisms of gender keep in mind this is just an introduction not a comprehensive overview. Gender identity is a person's sense of inner self of being male, female, combination of both or neither. Gender identity may be in likeness or contrast to biological sex. An individual whose identity matches the identity they were assigned at birth is considered cisgender. Gender identity though influenced by others should be determined by the individual self. For example, I identify as woman, I perceive myself as a woman and I call myself a woman for someone to come in and assign me a masculine identity against my own perceptions could lead to a host of negative outcomes. Gender expression is the external appearance of one's gender identity. This is expressed through various mannerisms, behaviors, apparel, voice pitch, style. Gender expression is mostly predicated on our socially constructed ideals of what constitutes as masculine and what constitutes as feminine. Many people express some sort of androgyny containing both masculine and feminine qualities. This classification is highly subjective and constantly changing based upon geographic location, time period and belief system. So for example, men in Scotland regularly were killed or Sulu's and Fiji and maybe in perfect compliance with social gender norms and their gender expression. However, if a man with a beard were to wear a dress to a wedding in the U.S., many people would consider this a social expression taboo. As time passes and society evolves, our perceptions of normal gender expression begin to change. If a female to wear pants in the 19th century, many people would condemn her of being too masculine in her gender expression. However, today women may choose to wear pants and not be in violation of such gender norms. Religion also plays a role in this construct. In LDS Mormonism, some women have a designated Sunday as a wear your pants to church day, which challenges these social constructs in a religious context. Gender expression is a performance and it's not constrained to any singular act, but as the repetition and ritual of a person's performing a gender until it becomes naturalized. Our parameters of this acceptable gender expression are highly, highly subjective and constantly changing. Biological sex. So, Dorland's medical dictionary defines sex as the fundamental distinction between the type of gametes an individual produces. Smaller gametes called sperm are assigned male while larger gametes called ovum are assigned female. This definition is actually really quite fascinating because it doesn't take into account chromosomal, genital or hormonal factors in determining biological sex. So, while most people fall into male-female categories, some people are born with ovotesties, which are gonads that contain both ovarian and testicular tissue, and some people are born with external male genitalia with fully functional internal uteruses. Some people may appear completely male or female externally while containing XXY chromosomes, while others are born with very ambiguous genitalia. If a female were to be born with abnormally high testosterone levels, does this in some way make her more biologically male? If an infertile male does not have the ability to produce sperm or these gametes that qualify him as male, according to this definition, this no longer makes him male. What about a woman with a fully functional vagina and ambiguous penis? Penises generally are considered to be a male characteristic. However, she may identify her penis as feminine because it is her penis. So, perhaps our categories of male and female are not as simple as we'd like to believe, and that we should recognize the limitations in our medical terminology in assigning specific body parts with a gender. People who are born intersex may be various to many different types of invasive surgeries, not necessarily because they leave them any healthier from a physical standpoint, although some do, but because it allows people to conform to a cisnormative culture. Let's go back to the little girl I mentioned at the beginning. So, what happens when a person's gender does not match the biological sex they were assigned at birth? Transgenderism is one of the most controversial forms of gender. When these gender categories don't perfectly align to create a cisgender human being, some people may become confused, defensive, or even aggressive. However, I would contend that God too has been personified quite androgynously. The Bible contains multiple scriptures supporting the notion of a gender diverse, gender fluid, and God capable of radical morphology. The spirit of God appears in the Bible as a burning bush, a dove, and even invisible. If these verses are not to be taken literally, I question why we take the literal personification of God to a single male embodiment, so literally as well. From an LDS perspective, Elder Arata Snow of the Quorum of 12 stated, if I believe anything, if I have to believe anything God has ever said about himself, I must believe that deity consists of both man and woman. It is unclear whether this is a description of one embodiment or multiple embodiments. But in Genesis it states, both males and females are created in the image of God. From this we can reevaluate the image of God. If God is both male and female in some form, God must be male or female in some form, otherwise woman cannot be made in God's image. No matter where a person falls on the gender spectrum, according to the Bible, the image of God is both male and female. So accepting a broad diversities of gender almost seems required in order to display the fullest image of God. After all, we are not only encouraged to become like God, but are promised in Psalms that we are God's and children of the most high, and that God is no respecter of persons. In contrast to our biblical narratives, many religious people strangely contend that a particular type of embodiment comes with a particular type of unchanged destiny. So if God is not limited by this embodiment, why do we limit each other to a particular embodiment? Assigning a person's embodiment agenda comes with a host of social expectations and limitations that act as a determiner for that person's life and future. This identity of gender determinism gets the most retaliation when a person's biological anatomy does not conform to acceptable forms of sexuality. Sexuality, like gender, is extremely diverse. For practical purposes, I'll give a brief overview of just a handful of sexual identities to illustrate the diversity and nuance of sexuality. So a heterosexual is a person who is sexually attracted to a person of the opposite sex, a homosexual is a person who is attracted to a person of the same sex. However, the problem with these labels is that they conform to a cisnormative perspective while lacking gender identity nuances that people who identify as genderqueer or agender. If one does not identify as male or female, identities such as homo and hetero become less useful. More accurate terminology would identify sexuality independent of gender. So androphilia is sexual attraction towards men or masculinity, while gynephilia is sexual attraction towards women or femininity. Bisexuality is sexual attraction to two or more genders, commonly thought to be the gender binaries, but is not to be conflated with pansexuality. Pansexuality is attraction to all genders. Scholeosexuals are sexually attracted to persons who do not fall on the ends of the gender binaries. Demysexuals don't usually experience sexual attraction unless they have formed a strong romantic or emotional connection with that person. Asexuals may find people aesthetically attractive, but don't necessarily feel sexual desire. Greysexuals are fluid between asexual and sexual. Autosexuals are sexually attracted to themselves, and for self-gratification are other forms of sexual activity. Sapiosexuals find intelligence as the most sexually attractive feature. Polysexuals is a combination of different sexualities. For example, if someone could be a Scholeo-romantic or a sapiobisexual or a grey-autosexual. As you can see from this brief and very incomplete list, sexuality is extremely diverse, individualized, and unique. Sexual attraction may be influenced by a person's gender, but not necessarily deterministic. Technology is continually shaping our perceptions of gender, sexuality, and procreation. Within the last century, there has been an explosion of advancements in reproductive technology. Many religions have come to embrace these technologies in order to successfully create biological families. Latter-day Saints have exceptionally positive views of procreation. Mormon scriptures, prophets, and temple rituals teach that not only are we encouraged to reproduce, but we are commanded to multiply and replenish the earth, and then to nurture those children into Godhood. Using the power of procreation does not alienate one from God, but it enables mortals to become co-creators with God in a divine plan of eternal increased. Procreation is seen as a divine partnership. Church leaders have counseled members to seek inspiration with God as they use their individual agency to bring children into the world, quote, even in difficult situations and circumstances. So what does this mean for infertile individuals, or transgender people, or same-sex couples? Many people encounter difficult challenges when procreating, but reproductive technologies have allowed humanity to embrace their religious beliefs of creation while overcoming these natural obstacles. Some common forms of assisted reproductive technology include artificial insemination, which is the deliberate induction of sperm into a female's uterus or cervix in hope to achieve pregnancy when intercourse is an available option. Envrito fertilization is the adduction of a fertilized egg and sperm that has been donated from each parent into, and fertilization takes place in a laboratory dish and then is inserted into the woman's womb to be gestated. Envito fertilization can also take place with three biological parents. This is commonly used to prevent the passing on of mitochondrial disorders to their offspring. So a biological mother and a biological father would donate their sperm and egg and a third female donor will donate her healthy egg and mitochondria and that mitochondria will be replaced by the defective mitochondria and the first mother's egg. Then fertilization takes place in the laboratory dish and then it's put back into the mother's womb for gestation and that child is the biological offspring of two mothers and one father. Surrogacy is an embryo that is produced via in vitro fertilization but the uterus used for gestation is not the biological parent. They use the surrogate. 58-year-old woman in Texas was recently a surrogate for her daughter and son-in-law who encountered many difficulties conceiving their own child and even though the grandmother had already experienced menopause her uterus was still fully functional so she volunteered her womb to gestate her own granddaughter and she said, quote, it is such a blessing I can do this for my daughter. This exemplifies a reoccurring theme that technologies that enable us to live out our religious beliefs are seen as blessings. Uterus transplant is when a healthy uterus is taken and implanted into a woman with a faulty, dysfunctional, or absent uterus. In 2014, a healthy baby was delivered by a woman who received a uterus transplant and Dr. Brandstrom, who performed the surgery, said, quote, the baby is fantastic but it is even better to see the joy in the parents. Hundreds of uterus transplants are taking place right now giving hope to more couples who wish to conceive. Soon, uterus transplants may allow transgendered women the ability to carry children. Women born into male bodies may choose to undergo aesthetical sex change to match their biological anatomy with their gender identity. However, with advancements in uterus transplants it may soon very be possible for trans women to experience pregnancy. It seems fitting for individuals who are assigned a male sex at birth to aspire to motherhood when latter-day prophets teach. There is the highest and noblest work of this life is that of mother and motherhood is the highest and holiest service to be assumed by mankind. Please note that they said motherhood is to be assumed by mankind. Elder M. Russell Ballard also said there is no perfect way to be a good mother. Each situation is unique. Each mother has different challenges, different skills, and abilities. What matters is that a mother loves her child deeply. Stephanie Mott Transgender Educator elaborates on the desires of mothers by saying if medical advancements offer this possibility to transgender women it is no different than offering that possibility to cisgender women. Also on the horizon are reproductive technologies that would allow women the ability to procreate using their own reproductive cells without the need for sperm. This means that a lesbian couple would be able to produce their own biological daughter and indeed create their own biological family unit. Soon following would be children from two biological fathers. Perhaps more enlightened knowledge will allow technologists and physicians to create external wounds to gestate our offspring with more precision, safety, and control than an unreliable uterus that might spontaneously abort or miscarry the fetus. Some of these reproductive technologies may seem controversial, but keep in mind in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, and surrogacy were once considered highly controversial and are now accepted as useful means of assisted reproduction for many faithful Latter-day Saint families. The Church Handbook of Instruction states children conceived by artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization are born in the covenant. As reproductive technology rapidly progresses some might see this as a threat to traditional theology. However, I would contend these technologies are complimentary manifestations of our desires to be like God. There are many biblical and theological references to support broadening our understanding of sexuality and procreation. Conception is extremely controversial in the Bible. Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin. When the angel told her she was to conceive the angel, she replied, How should this be, saying I know not a man? The angel replied, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the highest shall overshadow thee. Perhaps these passages could be interpreted as a spiritual in vitro fertilization as Mormon doctrine has affirmed the virginity of Mary. Mary's cousin Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist, was made a joyful mother after being considered barren. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting the baby leapt in her womb and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. These highly unusual controversial and unorthodox pregnancies were considered a worthy celebration of life. The most notable example of same sex creation found in the Bible is found in canonized scripture and LDS temple rituals where women are entirely absent in accounts of creation. Adam's embodiment was created by Elohim and Jehovah to male personifications. Two males created a male. Eve's mortal body was created by two males and then formed from the rib of another male. There is no account of her physical embodiment having an earthly mother. Surely celestial procreation involves far more efficient and sophisticated methods of reproduction than our current mortal model. Insisting that post mortal reproduction would be congruent with our natural mortal model would be a contradiction with scripture and a limited interpretation of creation. In LDS theology, God organizes intelligences for matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Mormons are regularly invited to become just like God in participating in procreation. The reproductive technologies I have discussed are often the manifestations of our desires to organize matter into intelligences to follow the examples set forth in the scriptures to have families of our own and become like God. In conclusion, I hope we have a greater understanding of gender, sexuality, and reproduction so that as we are entrenched with love for all families, humanity can unite together as the body of Christ and more fully display the all-encompassing image of God because all are alike unto God. And perhaps the next time a baby is born and the doctor shouts, it's a girl. We will enable that child to use her agency to determine her own identity and destiny. Thank you. My name is Joseph West. I'm a sociologist. We're all members of the Mormon Transhuman Association. I think one of the things that we're trying to do at the MTA is present a thoughtful middle path between being Mormon through embracing a conservative neo-Orthodoxy and complete rejection of the faith. So my talk goes with the other two, but I decided to do something a little bit different. I'm going to try. I wrote an open letter to the lost children of Mormonism. So see how that goes. I wish to speak to those of you who are lost, the lost children of Mormonism. I see you, you camels and lions. I see how lost you are because I am lost with you. I wish to speak with you about wandering creatures in haunted forests hiding from dragons and witches. And I wish to strategize with you about how we can find our way out of this lonesome wilderness. I once read of a prophet less known to our people, a prophet named Zarathustra. Who spoke of three metamorphoses of the spirit, how the spirit becomes a camel and the camel a lion and the lion finally a child. There is much that is difficult for the spirit, said Zarathustra. The strong reverent spirit that would bear much, the spirit that kneels down like a camel wanting to be well loaded. This is similar to the burden spoken of in our Mormon tradition by the prophet Alma who spoke of bearing one another's burdens and standing as witnesses of God at all times so that we may have God's spirit with us. This is the weight that the camel gladly bears. But for Zarathustra, as within our shared tradition, the camel is not enough. An eternity of singing praises to Jesus as a servant is not the highest station that we Mormons are taught to aspire. We want more and we believe that Christ wants more for us. We want to create for ourselves and we believe that Christ wants us to create for ourselves. We want to become as the gods and we believe that this is our destiny. And so taking the burden on its back, the camel speeds into the desert, thus the spirit speeds into its desert. In the loneliest desert, however, the second metamorphosis occurs. Here the spirit becomes a lion who would conquer his freedom and be master in his own desert. Here he seeks out his last master. He wants to fight him and his last God for ultimate victory he wants to fight with the great dragon. Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call Lord and God? Thou shalt is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says I will. Thou shalt lies in the way sparkling like gold an animal covered with scales and on every scale shines a golden thou shalt. Values thousands of years old shine on these scales and thus speaks the mightiest of all dragons. All value of all things shines on me. All value has long been created and I am all value. The lion is needed for the creation of freedom for oneself and a sacred no even to duty. The lion is needed to assume the right to new values but the lion cannot create these new values and therefore a third metamorphosis occurs when the lion becomes a child. The child is innocence and forgetting a new beginning a game a self-propelled wheel a first movement a sacred yes. For the game of creation my brothers and sisters a sacred yes is needed. The spirit now wills her own will and she who had been lost to the world now conquers her own world. Becoming the child is the end of the vision of Zarathustra. However our prophet Joseph had even greater vision than that of Zarathustra. For Joseph saw beyond the child as the creator of values and saw it to the time when the child would grow up and become the creator of worlds without end. It is to this destiny that we should aspire and it is to this destiny that we can still aspire but alas we are lost we are camels and lions most of us wandering. The lost camels are the new orthodox the true believing Mormon the burden the camel bears can be a great one. Our prophet Joseph endowed us with great burdens worthy of our strength and filled with tools we could later use to build the kingdom of God but when the dragon saw the content of the treasures we were carrying it chased us into the loneliest desert. There we attempted to use the treasures we had carried and build a temple to our God but before we could finish the dragon found us and took away what our prophet had given us to carry. In our beginnings we are a radical people at its roots Mormonism is characterized by a radical willingness to create alternative family and social structures alternative models of economic exchange and challenging new belief systems that commit the grave heresy of teaching us that we can become as the gods. When we traveled into the desert this is the heritage that we carried on our backs this monster I mean but for the great but for the great dragon chasing us away was not enough and so he descended upon us again. This monster whose great power was predicated upon the dispossession of the lands of indigenous peoples the enslavement of African peoples and the subjugation of women a truly terrifying monster. We were mesmerized by the power of this great dragon and so we accepted the shackles and the burdens he gave us burdens we did not set out to carry. The lost camels are those among us who have come to reflect the image of the dragon and accepted as their own identity in a kind of twisted communal stock home syndrome. We have come to love that which took our heritage from us. We have come to be a great pillar of support to the very institutions and social structures from which Joseph was trying to free us. Instead of representing radical attempts at reorganizing family life we are the poster children for heterosexual monogamy. Instead of representing radical attempts at innovating alternative modes of economic exchange we're the poster children for American capitalism. With feigned intentions about the best interest of children and families we imposed discriminatory policies that tear families apart. With pompous arrogance and from the comfort of big purple chairs we proclaim falsehoods about the nature of gender and sexual identity and we do this to justify our stance that those who do not conform to the great dragon's hetero and mononormative standards must surely be banned from covenanting with each other in our sacred temples. We persist in claiming that no woman can be called to the highest offices of government among us. Feminine power still scares us and is therefore still cast out from among us as witchcraft. We continue to deny women what was promised to them by our prophet Joseph. Feminine power still scares us so much in fact that we've established a modern form of witch burning as a collective ritual that cycles in observable approximate decennial patterns. 1979 Sonia Johnson 1993 the September 6th 2004 Margaret Toscano 2014 Kate Kelly and these are just the highlights. Because we cast her out the divine power of the sacred feminine alludes us to us she is the witch in the woods a symbol of power to be feared but we must seek her out again. We must face her and ask her forgiveness and beg her help in finding our way through this wilderness for if she is persuaded she can tell us of the secrets that will enable us to reclaim our heritage. The lost lions are the archetype for ex Mormons post Mormons the secular Mormons in their anger they have destroyed the burdens the camel carries but it has come at a great cost. Lions are adolescent they seek new identity but can only strive for that new identity through the negation of the old identity. The ugliness of the lion's snarl is often transparent self-loathing of one who cannot find it within themselves to love the person that they used to be. This self-loathing often comes out as aggression and violence towards the camel but this aggression is misdirected. Our future liberation from this wandering loneliness requires that the lion focus its aggressive energy not upon the camel but on the real enemy the dragon. For this to happen the lion like the camel also needs to help also needs the help of the sacred feminine. The witch and priestess who has been cast out is sustained by the wilderness. She has become one with nature and has the power to tame the lion and feed the camel and show both wretched creatures the path out of the woods. She has the power to help those with faith transform again and become the child. She is the mother of the child and the one who will watch over the child as the child grows and learns to use its creative powers. Please I ask you fellow camels and lions join me in my quest to find the great witch in these dark woods. I'm tired of wandering alone. How much time do we have for Q&A? Are we finished? Ten minutes? Okay. Great. In case any of you are wondering all three of us are members of the Mormon transhumanist association and there has been some curiosity about what we're about and what some of the ideas in the association are and Chris Bradford who is also an MTA member and co-founder will be speaking shortly after this and will give a brief at Dorothy D.C. as well. I was just going to mention Chris is going to be giving a brief intro to the MTA. So in case you're curious just hold off some of that curiosity a little bit longer and it will be satisfied. But are there any questions for the panel? Okay. So the question is I mentioned secular Mormons I guess I guess I was talking about like categories of Mormonism. I don't know. I don't think I have much more to say about that. I was talking loosely about archetypes and people that tend to fit into those archetypes but I wouldn't want to speak too strongly about that about any particular person. And maybe if you have a more specific thing. I was just hearing that term secular Mormons or for Jack Mormons and in a field where is that that was a creation? Yeah. Yeah. I mean I guess broadly I think that there's a trend towards more orthodoxy or rejecting the faith. I think that the LDS Church has successfully made those the two living options that most people see in front of them. And so I think that those two kind of like paths are represented well in the metaphor about camels and lions. Was it cultural? Or did it fit into them? For sure. Or did it fit into themselves? Culturally long ago? Yeah. I mean I wondered if people I think it's not really something to get hung up on is like what you fit into you know. I mean I think we're all both camels and lions and and so that's not something I'm stressed about. So I think there's no one that involves a creation story. Right. I was wondering like how that split. She's questioning how do people not notice so blatantly the same sex story of creation that is the story of creation. I think just sometimes when you're presented with a certain narrative and you're not taught to question it in a certain way or you're taught to perceive things a certain way you just tend to ignore the the holes the spots and the story that don't make sense. But I think sometimes when we're presented with things in our own lives that these holes start to become more apparent. And so sure. Yeah. For me it for me it was actually quite personal because I had some difficulties conceiving and things like that. And I have problems with my uterus. And so in a lot of ways it causes people well at least for women there's so much emphasis put on motherhood for women that if I'm as good as my uterus right. And so if my uterus doesn't work you know what am I? Does this make me less female? What does this make me? And it really caused me to question people who have way more biological issues going on than me someone who's born intersex. And so it really caused me to look at things in such a perspective that it's just like this is way more it's not even it's not even black white it's not even gray it's like this whole broad spectrum of color right. And so when you start to see the world that way I think sometimes you start to see your narratives differently these things that were presented to you when you go to the temple and you think well what if God was intersex what if what if you know you start to think of these things differently and you're like wow there really is no women in the creation in here that's why I feel so bad in the temple sometimes you know so yeah this is like my one day sure that was the sentence that I remember so when we're talking about God we're talking about that hardship so I'm just wondering and what you're talking about here is he she as a mother as one being is that what you're saying or I just can I feel like I've lost her yeah I think there's definitely a lot of ways to interpret that narrative so to have the actual binary male and female come together as one to create the single you know what constitutes as God as heavenly mother and heavenly father together that's fine too for me personally I see it even broader than that I see this plurality of God plural that exists through a reflection of us that God could not even be contained to even one embodiment or two embodiments and this idea that God is it's a community it's a reflection of us right we are made in God's image therefore that image bounces back right so God is just as diverse as every single individual human being that's kind of the way I see it that was a little radical they're like I don't know what the heck did she just say sure sure I think yeah there's yeah speaking to monotheism and polytheism definitely I think well even from just the most conservative standpoint of Mormonism polytheism is heavenly father heavenly mother Jesus Christ so we already have three right there off the bat so that's polytheism and I think that sometimes might upset certain Christian groups who don't necessarily identify with that polytheistic perspective they like the monotheism right so for Mormonism that's one of the most appealing things to me about Mormonism is it's radical ideas and perspectives on God and Joseph Smith you know he taught a lot of things about God that really kind of reflect this broad diversity and plurality of God that I find quite inspiring I'm just going to mention for me the communal aspect of God is really important and that I think the meta Paul's metaphor of the body of Christ is a really good way of expressing what heaven may look like at least in sort of the conception of heaven that really appeals to me that it's a unified sort of being but it's also composed of many members so I think that in that paradoxical way we can speak of God and as both singular and plural and I think that it fits so well with the Mormon community aspect of living and ways of the Zion view so that really resonates with me I think we're about out of time right? are there yeah okay we're out of time so thanks