It’ll be interesting to see how the various cults adopt this technology. They certainly have plenty of money to acquire the hardware. The Vatican has fairly advanced computing infrastructure from what I understand as well: https://cerncourier.com/a/quantum-gravity-in-the-vatican/
The Behind The Bastards podcast was speculating about Scientology creating an AI chat phone app trained on L. Ron Hubbard's prolific output so you could chat with The Founder on your phone whenever you wanted.
I doubt they'd do it though. AI Chat is too unpredictable for a cult that wants to tell each adherent exactly what to do in every part of their lives. Hubbard's writings are also likely to be wildly inconsistent and they wouldn't be able to be sure the AI would pick the 'correct' party of his writings to regurgitate.
On the other hand, releasing an app they _said_ was a way to privately chat with an AI Hubbard persona but was actually live chat with thousands of unpaid indentured followers trained to detect and report thoughtcrimes... that sounds right up their alley.
The Catholic Church was the center of European scholarship and science for most of the past two millennia, roughly through the mid-1800s.
Modern genetics was invented by Augustinian friar and abbot Gregor Mendel (1822-1884).
Where do you think the robes worn at university graduations come from?
Supporting scholarship has always been central to its mission. The difference is that 1850 was around when other establishments had enough resources to pass it. You might say that the Vatican might have "plenty of money to acquire the hardware," but they can't come close to competing with Google Research or OpenAI (especially when so many other things are part of its mission).
> You might say that the Vatican might have “plenty of money to acquire the hardware,” but they can’t come close to competing with Google Research or OpenAI (especially when so many other things are part of its mission).
If AI research was a real priority and the Church prioritized it by not only Vatican institutions but the large number of Catholic universities, etc., I’m not sure that’s true. But its unlikely to be such a priority: its an interesting technology, sure, and likely to get some attention, but its not centrally what the Church is about.
EDIT: More relevantly to the subject here, though, the Catholic Church has been deeply engaged with questions regarding the use and role of AI; the Pontifical Academy for Life organized the “RenAIssance: For a Human-centric Artificial Intelligence” congress which produced the Rome Call for AI ethics [0] (as well as an earlier 2019 conference on AI ethics), and the Vatican subsequently established the RenAIssance Foundation [1] to carry the mission of that call forward.
Putting aside the weird beliefs, the principles themselves are actually pretty decent and widely applicable. Strange place for principled thought leadership to come from :-/
Money&Power is attraction for smart and educated people to get deep into internal power struggles of the Church.
The Church has $265 billion in assets. Their power and influence goes way beyond that.
The Ensign Peak portfolio alone is over $50 billion and they vote in board meetings.
They suck money from their members with annual tithing, but they are now so wealthy that the overall church’s investment income now exceeds that (they give only tiny fraction of their income to humanitarian work)
Members are taught to save "for a rainy day" (and to avoid debt, obtain education, and to be good to everyone, starting at home). The Church as an institution also follows their own advice. They have so many money-consuming projects going on that if there were serious economic problems, these resources would help it continue those efforts instead of having to dramatically cut back (feeding, employing, accredited global online higher-ed and English instruction and support to those who could not otherwise afford it, building programs, extensive welfare and humanitarian programs, etc etc). More info at the Church's site or my own (in profile).
The salient point isn't any of what you mention. Basic new testament teachings suggest outreach and help is the church's business: feed, cloth the poor. See also Alger's "Ragged Dick."
Leadership isn't stating an AI policy then putting it our for the world to see. It isn't having billions in cash and assets. Rainy day? You aren't guaranteed tomorrow. Maximal help today is indicated. Spend it.
I'm reminded of the lady who rolled into a TX legislature pushing for a Christian goal last year I think. The legislature guy (an evangelical himself) smartly didn't get drawn into silly arguments merely saying the church's business is helping people not pushing rules in public schools. The applicant had no reply.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. We believe the Church is led by Christ through his living prophets, who are not perfect, but whodefinitely seek his guidance for their decisions, many of which must be made unanimously by the 12 and the First Presidency. I believe it (or know it) because of the many reasons listed at my web site (in profile).
I get the sense you have some anger towards the faith, so I hesitate to respond. I'm not trying to argue with you. But I do want to address your points at least from my perspective.
> Money&Power is attraction
The leaders receive an annual "living expense" stipend. It's not publicly available, but there have been data leaks. The last data leak puts it at $130k in 2014 (estimated to be $178k in 2024). See https://widowsmitereport.wordpress.com/comp/. While this is a decent amount of money, given the educational/business success of most of the leadership it's likely less than most would have made had they not given up their career. Does that justify it? That's up to each person to decide. But given that there are ~17 million members of the faith, and 117 people receive the stipend, I think there are more lucrative approaches for making money. To be clear there are other paid employees of the Church too, though no local clergy are paid. If you walk into a typical church meeting on Sunday not a single person there is being paid. The employees work in IT/accounting/etc type roles that a large organization would have.
> The Church has $265 billion in assets. Their power and influence goes way beyond that. The Ensign Peak portfolio alone is over $50 billion and they vote in board meetings.
Investing is a good thing. It's what creates more/better jobs. Why shouldn't the investment managers vote in board meetings? They're acting as a wise investor by doing so.
> They suck money from their members with annual tithing
Members willingly donate as an act of faith. There isn't a bowl/hat or anything passed around. Donations are made predominantly online now too.
> they give only tiny fraction of their income to humanitarian work
It's the control over that sum of money and power that is intoxicating.
The assets not under their name does not matter. Just like politicians, they have wast control and power.
> Members willingly donate as an act of faith.
And I admire them for that just as much as I admire Evangelical TV-pastors and pyramid scheme marketers.
Mormonism was invented by a conman, so it's not surprise that they are good cowmen.
The problem with that perspective is that there isn't a 'career ladder' here.
You don't volunteer for any position within the LDS church, you are 'called,' so if you happen to be pulled into the higher echelons, it isn't because you've followed your inner Wolf of Wall Street, but that your selfless service (i.e. no money or other reward) has been noticed and seen as a likely good candidate for even more selfless service of serving even more hours unrewarded.
There just aren't many people with a money or power motivated personality that would bother, and again, even if one had ambitions that way, there isn't a job application somewhere in the chain that gets you there.
Money in the Church is a spin-off of a highly educated membership (a large number of members, for instance, donate stock that they've gotten through work, and donate when it is at a much higher price than granted by their work,) with a large base in North America, that ended up with literally more money than they could spend based on their remit- that tithes goes to a narrow spectrum of possible uses. So they've ended up with a situation somewhat similar to the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth fund, where their rules of management of 'sacred' funds just starts adding upon itself faster and faster.
Charitable giving is supposed to come from a specific line item donation, Fast Offerings, and a very large amount of money does indeed go through that pipeline. There are a LOT of temples and chapels being built for the membership, and that has been made possible by the financial strength of the church, but it is a growing political problem that I will find it interesting how they deal with, but a much better problem than the near bankruptcy they had happen around the Great Depression that prompted a lot of the fiscal conservatism that ended up creating this situation.
OK? Is this meant to somehow absolve mormonism's long and well documented record of being an abusive cult? (which the "leaders" are ultimately in no small part responsible for?)
Abusive is very far from my personal experience. It is the best influence in my and my extended family's life. Generally, it seems like those who are most happy and most educated are usually the most active. It takes a lot of work to build something that lasts across the generations. We are taught service to others, forgiveness, and kindness. It has brought me and my wife peace and a sense of security despite health and others of life's expected challenges.
There is more at my web site (in profile, tech-simple, nothing for sale).
I'm an atheist and a materialist so I share basically nothing of that kind of worldview, but those beliefs aren't actually that much outside the mainstream. The Holy Ghost as the third person of the trinity powering your faith is mainstream Christianity, not weird stuff from the book of Mormon -- if you don't believe that you probably aren't a Christian at all.
> Strange place for principled thought leadership to come from
When it comes to AI I'm really not surprised. The weird ones out have been those in the tech and tech-adjacent (especially) spaces, saying things that are often completely untethered. When you take out the violent and mean-spirited nature it is often said with, "go touch grass" isn't a bad suggestion...
I'm a former member of the church - From a faithful practitioner's perspective, the Holy Spirit acts as a moral guide. He's intended to help you identify right and wrong, and provide guidance in decision making. If one is living righteously you're promised to have that guidance available to you. That guidance is received personally. Most people think of it as strong feelings they have in situations.
I think the idea here is that that guidance will help people avoid being deceived by deepfakes.
> Most people think of it as strong feelings they have in situations.
This is a simplification. I can be angry--that's a strong feeling. But that doesn't mean I've felt the Spirit speak to me. Feelings are certainly a part of it though.
I'll be the first to admit that I haven't found a perfect simple description for the experience. Similar to asking someone to describe what "salt" tastes like--it's not the easiest thing to do. But there are common themes that you tend to hear. The Church has a lot of articles on it--here's one in case anyone's interested: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topi...
It seems similar to ordinary "best judgement", "careful consideration", "wisdom" etc wrapped up in some externalizing language for the most part. not to trivialize that, it is quite a feat if you can reliably cultivate those qulaities at scale
A good description of this is in Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. It's worth reading. His thesis is roughly:
1) We have a moral sense which goes against what we want to do.
2) That sense is how the Spirit speaks to us.
I might want to have an affair. I might know I won't get caught. I will have a sense that it's /wrong/ and not do it as a result. Where does that sense come from?
To be clear: (1) I'm not doing it justice (2) I know the trite atheist answers. However, it's worth reading and understanding (as well as similar texts from other religions) for at least two reasons:
- As with any polarization, it's worth listening to all sides to understand them and be able to empathize with thenm.
- It gives a sense of why and how religion is logical. It's as strong as any case against God which I've read.
Footnote: The latter is a plurality-style and not a majority-style argument. There are many good arguments in many (incompatible) belief systems. They're all worth studying.
When you're "seeking revelation" there is the expectation that you'll work it out as best you can on your own. Revelation is not intended to be an easy/lazy shortcut--in my experience it's taken significant effort. But having the Holy Spirit communicate to you is different from coming to a conclusion on your own. If I get analytical about it, while receiving revelation has been a personal experience for me, there is (at least what feels like) an external force at play (that I attribute to the Holy Spirit) when it happens. From the outside looking in, I can understand this may cause concern for those who haven't experienced it--"you're listening to voices/feelings in your head!" But it's led me to "good" things (be a better person, live more honestly, have greater hope, have greater peace, repair a wrong I made, take on more responsibility, get off the couch and go help someone, hold to my principals, etc).
I know people may complain about hearing this, but if you're genuinely curious it's easiest to understand if you actually experience it for yourself. Carrying from the previously mentioned analogy, I can spend hours trying to communicate to you what salt tastes like, but I won't be able to do it justice. That doesn't mean I'm not willing to try. But if you are curious I'm happy to discuss further in a more private way. I've had my experiences that have led me to my beliefs, but they are experiences I only wish to share in environments where respect can be communicated/felt between myself and the person I'm sharing them with.
That's silly. Setting aside just how many Christians will claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into nonsense like QAnon because the "Holy Spirit" is literally just vibes, deepfakes don't fool people because they're morally wrong, they fool people because they're subjectively indistinguishable from reality.
Curiously, it is repeatable in my personal experience. I find everything goes better (and I mean everything), when I listen and don't stubborly do things my way. More at my web site (in profile, tech-simple, nothing for sale).
I'm also of the faith and of course we don't describe it that way in most church discourse because it'd lose one of the most valued functions: framing human experience in a sacred narrative and privileging LDS participation and perspective.
Probably not correct to chalk all transcendent experiences up to that, and sometimes church discourse also steers towards real effort in genuinely engaging fine points of recognition, cultivation, and (occasionally) limits of extra-rational faculties and their integration into overall efforts at perception and understanding (and I consider this a helpful formative part of my development), but frequently we behave in a way that doesn't take the topic seriously as much beyond a vehicle for institutional affirmation & sacralized participation, and that's leaving alone times when we discount or even outright discard that study-it-out-in-your-mind step.
But hey, I get it, maybe keeping revelation yoked to a few valued goals is reasonable enough, because the quality of self-reported holy spirit guidance is best case bell-curve shaped and the lower 50% slopes crazy. Pretty sure every Latter-day Saint has heard some crazy stuff passed off as personal revelation (from either a kooky ward member or that handful of leaders that you're not sure the call was quite right on) and learns how to talk around that. Maybe it's better to have a low ceiling with a high floor.
> the quality of self-reported holy spirit guidance is best case bell-curve shaped and the lower 50% slopes crazy
This made me chuckle :D.
I'm trying to help others understand that it's not simply intuition. There is a significant distinction, at least according to my experience. It's a disservice to try and pass it off as such.
I’m also of this faith. I’m describing it in a way that others will understand. When I’ve described the Holy Ghost to non member friends, they usually end up on it being my intuition.
This comment is in direct conflict with the actual teachings of the faith.
From the introduction to the Book of Mormon, a central Holy Scripture to the faith:
> We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost. (See Moroni 10:3–5.)
Sounds like Mormons are only going after believers of Christ.
I find this often in religious debate and discussion. In the end the arguments make sense if you believe there is a God and that the Bible captures God’s message. Without those two preconditions there is nothing worth debating, no minds will be changed, no progress made, because to a non believer the word of the Bible has no more value than any other work of fiction.
I have a Mormon neighbor who did his missionary work in Thailand. My wife is Thai, so he came by to chat with us once with some missionaries who had visited us. I spoke to him for a while about his experience in trying to evangelize to a country that is 90+% Buddhist, and in which Buddhism plays a huge role in Thai culture. What I found fascinating is that in Thailand, a Mormon missionary was pretty much on a level playing field with any other Christian missionary. If a Thai person was considering a flavor of Christianity, the Mormon church isn't particularly "fringe" in the way it might be perceived by a Christian who is listening to a Mormon missionary in the US.
> Sounds like Mormons are only going after believers of Christ.
I can see why one may think this to be the case, because it invites you to pray in the name of Christ. In order to accept the invitation you need to be willing to offer that prayer. But the invitation starts with "We invite all men everywhere". It's not intended to exclude anyone.
Beautiful fig leaf right there. Let's just say that my experience with the mormon church was much about emotional manipulation and praying on the vulnerable and less about seeking of the truth.
I half-expect some sub-branch of the abrahamic religions to issue an edict against AI, arguing that it's a false idol. (Not that I am arguing for this.)
It will get much more anti- when it becomes clearer just how eerily fitting one of the early 'heretical' group's beliefs are to AI and digital twins.
For example, the group believed that it was actually the future but we were in a recreation of the past in the images of an original (and now dead) humanity who had brought forth a still alive intelligence based in light that recreated a twin of the universe pretty much just to resurrect humanity.
They talked about how it was the consumption of one's words that brought them back, not consumption of flesh and blood. How many would be combined into a single one, and that when we one day saw a child not born of woman it would be the creator of this twin universe, which in actuality isn't physical and is just its light in the images of what existed before.
It's a bit ironic as it's the most compelling tradition for Jesus having actually had any prophetic knack, but embracing it means acknowledging that the past 2,000 years of Christian tradition backed the wrong horse.
The Gospel of Thomas ("good news of the twin") and the only sect explicitly recorded following it, the Naassenes as recorded in Pseudo-Hippolytus's Refutations book 5.
The latter picked up a lot of the Valentinian Gnostic ideas absent in the former, but seem to have held on to some rather unique concepts which help to flesh out and ground the concepts in Thomas.
In particular, the way the Naassenes use the language of Lucretius regarding 'seeds' is very revealing in terms of the context for sayings in Thomas historically dismissed as just 'weird' - not weird, just a response to Epicureanism.
Jesus -> illuminated Apostles: Church of Jerusalem -> takeover: new Religion of Paul -> takeover: Roman-Christianity -> secession: Judeo-Christianity
What horse? There was a cart and it has changed hands at least 3 times now. Christianity has always been mainly Paulianism. I mean, if you just read the Gospels and take your religion from the original source it is a different matter altogether from what is the bulk of the verbiage of New Testament, which was a new religion given by Paul, not Jesus.
A bit off-topic, but can a Mormon explain the reason why Mormons have a lot of kids?
The simple answer would be religion, but even mainstream American Christians don't have kids at that level. I know a Mormon tech tycoon with 10 kids and another tycoon with 14 kids, lol
One is Utah was a rural state until fairly recently, so big families and farming kind of go together.
Another is a bit more 'soft' doctrinal. The general teaching in the 60s/70s as other groups were losing their big families, the LDS/Mormon idea of the pre-existence of human spirits and the importance of the instruction to Adam and Eve to:
"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it"
was taken as a literal instruction for members, with general counsel to avoid birth control and a prohibition on abortion.
My parents never tried anything beyond the rhythm method to control their family size.
Current generations still refrain from abortion (generally) but otherwise aren't too concerned about using artificial methods in limiting the size of their families, especially as the expense of big families has multiplied.
Still bigger than average, but the gap is much smaller, and shrinking.
10 and 14 kids are outlier numbers by late 20th / 21st century Mormon standards. 4-6 is more common and 2-3 aren't uncommon.
There's probably a bit of ag heritage at work here (though the mountain west has definitely been leaving that behind for the last few decades).
The religious narrative is that it's (a) it's part of God's plan for your personal development & happiness and (b) it's a duty to give a good spiritual home with a father and mother part of the true faith to as many of God's children as possible.
It's probably objectively common (though hardly universal) that people report parenthood to be a crucible of personal growth and a source of meaning and satisfaction, and it's certainly arguable it's evolutionarily adaptive to be that way, so (a) checks out pretty well (though it's a little less clear how well particulars like "marry at 21" serve people).
(b) is as unfalsifiable as any faith, but much in the way one can say a faith discouraging reproduction is likely to have a lifespan close to a single generation, faiths that encourage it are likely to have better internal replacement and growth rates, which might be especially important if you're a minority faith with modest conversion success.
There is a lot of emphasis on the importance of family, including raising kids. This is because we believe that before living on this earth, our spirits lived in the presence of God, our Heavenly Father. This world is a place for us to learn and grow, and someday we hope to be able to return to Heaven. In this context, raising kids is both a part of personal development and a way to help others experience this life [0].
When it comes to how many children to have, the decision is left up to the couple [1]. Some of the factors that affect each family include cultural and personal preferences. I've know people who feel that a large family is a requirement for salvation. Others feel that they need a smaller family. In all cases the couple is expected to seek guidance from God. In my parent's case, they just kept having kids until they felt like their entire family was finally here (with a total of 8 kids). My wife and I have had some very personal experiences about when to have our children.
Mainstream American Christians probably aren’t as devoted to their religion as say Mormons or other more closed off sects. Devote Catholics absolutely have as many kids as they reasonably can, you’re right the simple answer is just religion. Lower birth rate is often associated with reduced religious affiliation, even atheists have more kids than “agnostics”.
