Download Print-Friendly Version

I recently asked the latest version of Claude to provide statements from various religions on artificial intelligence. 

Almost immediately, I received a 300-word paper outlining what various religions thought about AI. As someone with a background in interfaith work, I quickly realized that a few of the statements were not quite right, and others were actually wrong. 

I then asked AI to give me the references for the statements it had made. Claude apologetically wrote back: 

Good question—and I owe you an honest answer here. When I made those specific statements in my original response, I was drawing on general training knowledge rather than verified, cited sources. I should not have presented them as established facts without sourcing them first.

My experience illustrates how AI can, ironically, misrepresent faith perspectives about AI. As people of faith, we need to rely on good sources to understand different faith perspectives about artificial intelligence, rather than general, unverified sources (as Claude did).

Many faith and interfaith groups have been actively promoting ethical AI use that enhances, rather than inhibits, human flourishing and spiritual connection. As I wrote in a previous article, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has played a significant role in these discussions. 

As I read and study the statements of faith groups on AI, I am impressed by how similar they are. Recurring concerns include:

1. The effects of unethical use of AI on humanity and the environment,  especially in warfare, and on the unfair advantages countries with access to AI have over countries without access to AI.
2. The effect AI use has and will continue to have on our youth, specifically in areas of relationship building, personal communication, and individual learning.
3. The effect AI will have on personal privacy and on restrictions on religious belief and practice.

I will highlight selected viewpoints on AI from a sampling of faith groups to provide a picture of the questions people of faith may want to consider as we think about how to use AI toward its highest ends. This overview is illustrative, not exhaustive, and omissions should not be read as a sign that those groups lack serious engagement with questions about AI.

Roman Catholics

In February 2020, the “Rome Call for AI Ethics” emerged from a conference hosted by the Pontifical Academy for Life and received Vatican support. It defined the ethics of AI development and use this way: “AI systems must be conceived, designed, and implemented to serve and protect human beings and the environment in which they live.” It outlined six principles to guide AI ethics at the national and international levels:

1. Transparency: AI systems must be explainable.
2. Inclusion: Everyone should benefit.
3. Responsibility: The design and deployment of AI should be done responsibly.
4. Impartiality: Bias should not be part of AI systems; fairness and human dignity should be safeguarded.
5. Reliability: AI systems should work reliably.
6. Security and privacy: AI systems should respect the privacy of the users.

Since the Rome Call in 2020, the Vatican has hosted regular summits of religious leaders and AI experts to discuss these principles in the ever-changing landscape of AI development. The purpose of these summits is to keep AI development focused on what’s good for humanity.

The document contrasts human intelligence with artificial intelligence, which does not embody spiritual or relational intelligence. The statement asks this important question: “Given these considerations, one can ask how AI can be understood within God’s plan. To answer this, it is important to recall that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character but is a human endeavor that engages the humanistic and cultural dimensions of human creativity.” 

The Antiqua et Nova ended with a specific standard for the development of AI applications:

[I]t is essential to emphasize the importance of moral responsibility grounded in the dignity and vocation of the human person. This guiding principle also applies to questions concerning AI. In this context, the ethical dimension takes on primary importance because it is people who design systems and determine the purposes for which they are used. Between a machine and a human being, only the latter is truly a moral agent—a subject of moral responsibility who exercises freedom in his or her decisions and accepts their consequences. …The commitment to ensuring that AI always supports and promotes the supreme value of the dignity of every human being and the fullness of the human vocation serves as a criterion of discernment for developers, owners, operators, and regulators of AI, as well as to its users. It remains valid for every application of the technology at every level of its use.

The Vatican statement emphasizes the moral responsibility to view AI applications in the context of advancing human flourishing, rather than destroying the human, relational context of human intelligence.  

Southern Baptists

In 2019, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) issued a document titled “Artificial Intelligence: An Evangelical Statement of Principles.” It was one of the first major evangelical frameworks, asserting that AI is a tool created by human agency that must never supplant the Imago Dei (image of God) in humans. The Commission set forth 12 articles that reviewed the entire gamut of possible AI use and influence, from work to war. The basis of its principles is that “while AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.”

In June 2023, the SBC adopted its first official ethics statement on AI, “On Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technologies.” The statement reiterated the ERLC’s earlier points and called for discernment in developing and using AI. The statement also acknowledged the importance of using AI in honest, transparent, and Christlike ways, ensuring human dignity and avoiding deception and unjust gain. 

In September 2025, the ERLC released a 39‑page guide, “The Work of Our Hands: Christian Ministry in the Age of Artificial Intelligence,” advising church leaders to use AI to complement, not replace, human ministry. It warns against AI shortcuts in sermon preparation, emphasizing that preaching God’s Word is a distinct calling requiring wisdom, maturity, and prayer.

Buddhists

Buddhist leaders and scholars have also expressed concerns about the use of AI in spiritual matters. The Dalai Lama, one of the world’s most recognized Tibetan Buddhist leaders, hosted a formal dialogue on AI in October 2025, with over 120 academics, scientists, and policymakers gathering under the theme “Minds, Artificial Intelligence, and Ethics” to examine AI’s potential to alleviate suffering and its risks. In the Tibetan Review, Geshe Thupten Jinpa, chair of the Mind & Life board of directors, pointed out that His Holiness had two main objectives for this conference: (1) to bring the mind and contemplative study into AI and (2) to explore how science and compassion-driven motivation can serve humanity. Buddhist-framed AI ethics discussions often focus on how AI use must strive to decrease pain and suffering, according to the MIT Technology Review.

Sikhs

The Sikh religion, like other religions without a hierarchical structure, does not have an official living leader to provide a definitive religious statement on AI. However, Sikh scholars are also actively thinking about AI’s spiritual implications.  In February 2024, AI and Faith published an interview with Sikh scholar Jasjit Singh, who shared his thoughts on AI from his faith perspective. Singh points out that while there is no official Sikh statement about AI, he believes Sikh principles apply to individuals’ responsibility to use AI for good and positivity. He said:

Rather than talking about AI specifically, the Guru Granth Sahib talks about the importance of intention when using a tool. In the Sikh tradition, there’s this real emphasis on the oneness of humanity, of recognizing that other human beings and creation itself is one thing. If the use of the tool is leading the individual to a positive outcome and as long as that tool is leading you towards this idea of oneness, then it’s seen as being used for the right sort of reason. 

Interfaith Efforts

Several interfaith groups are banding together to focus on the importance of keeping humans in control of AI and ensuring that it promotes rather than inhibits freedom of religion or belief, known as FoRB. They believe that AI should not become the master of humanity; instead, it should be a servant to humanity. The Article 18 Alliance and the Future of Life Institute are both organizations promoting AI governance frameworks that keep human rights, religious freedom, and human control central.

Article 18 Alliance Statement: Towards a FoRB-Sensitive AI Policy

The Article 18 Alliance is a network of like-minded countries committed to promoting worldwide freedom of religion or belief (FoRB), as articulated in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thirty-eight countries have joined the Alliance, including the United States. 

The final recommendations were to protect the most vulnerable communities, to develop effective policies to prevent AI from being misused to mobilize violence, and to leverage cross-governmental collaborations to set up global frameworks for the future of AI. Of the 12 signatories, the United States was not among them. FoRB must evolve alongside AI technologies to ensure that digital innovation strengthens human dignity and rights rather than inhibits or restricts them.

Future of Life Institute: Keeping It Human

The Future of Life Institute focuses on securing a human future and promoting AI development that promotes human flourishing and benefits everyone worldwide.  In March 2026, FLI announced The Pro-Human AI Declaration which focuses on keeping humans in charge, avoiding concentration of AI power in the hands of a few, protecting human agency and liberty, and ensuring AI companies are held accountable for what they are doing. FLI also places special emphasis on world religions and works with other faiths and interfaith groups to push its declaration. 

Faith Directions with AI

Given the throughlines between different faith and interfaith groups’ approaches to AI, there are significant opportunities for people of faith to work together to promote the use of AI in a way that contributes to human flourishing. Most religions believe that, if used ethically and equitably, AI can support societal improvements and increase human flourishing.

On the other hand, people of faith need to be very aware of their private use of AI and listen to religious leaders’ teachings and warnings in order to decide how best to use AI at work and in their homes.

The post The Soul Beyond the Algorithm appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

The story of the Trojan Horse is a reminder of the possible, hidden destructive power of a great gift. After a decade-long war, the Greeks gave the city of Troy a gift of a massive wooden horse and pretended to sail away. The priest of the city warned the people to “fear Greeks even when they bear gifts.” But the people would not listen. Inside the horse was a group of warriors. That night, while Troy slept, the Greek fleet returned under cover of darkness. The warriors hidden inside the horse emerged, opened the gates, and allowed the returning army to enter the city, resulting in the sack of Troy.

Most people have already let the Trojan horse of AI into their homes, opening their gates to something that they do not completely know or understand. We still do not completely know what is hiding inside AI and how it will affect humankind’s future. Is it good or is it bad? Probably both. Many faith leaders are like the priest of the city of Troy, trying to warn people that we, as humanity, should use restraint around AI while also encouraging people to take advantage of the benefits it has to offer. 

In this article, I focus on what the General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have said about artificial intelligence (AI), and the warnings they have given to Latter-day Saints and the world.

Statements from Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

A clear theme across recent statements from leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints is that artificial intelligence (AI) can be a helpful tool, but it must never replace divine inspiration, human relationships, or moral responsibility. Their comments emphasize spiritual grounding, transparency in AI use, and ethical use of AI, not as a weapon or a substitute for a person’s own thoughts and creativity.

Elder Bednar: A Warning about Technology Use

On November 3, 2024, Elder David A. Bednar, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ, spoke at a worldwide devotional for young adults on the subject “Things as They Really Are 2.0,” a reference to his 2009 talk on “Things as They Really Are,” focusing on technology use. He pointed to previous prophetic statements, such as President Brigham Young, the second church president, who said, “Every discovery in science and art…has been given with a view to prepare the way for the ultimate triumph of truth, and the redemption of the earth from the power of sin and Satan.” David O. McKay, a president of the Church from the 1950s and 60s,  prophesied that our modern-day discoveries would have “limitless perils, as well as untold possibilities.”

General Handbook of Instructions

Church leaders have affirmed that AI has limits when it comes to spiritual matters by adding AI usage as a part of the General Handbook of Instructions for The Church. In 2025, the Church updated the General Handbook (2025) to address AI usage stating that AI “cannot replace the gift of divine inspiration or the individual work required to receive it.” The handbook further cautions that “interactions with AI cannot substitute for meaningful relationships with God and others.” While AI may support learning and communication, it cannot replicate the spiritual processes of personal revelation, communication with God, and learning from the scriptures by reading the Word.

The Church also published “Principles for Church Use of Artificial Intelligence.” While these principles are for church leaders to use in their responsibilities, it can highlight wise principles. It lays out four guiding principles: Spiritual Connection, Transparency, Privacy and Security, and Accountability. Under those principles, the Church says it will use AI to “support and not supplant” the connection between God and His children, clearly identify when people are interacting with AI, safeguard sacred and personal information, and regularly test and review AI outputs for accuracy, truthfulness, and compliance.The Church is neither rejecting AI nor embracing it uncritically. Rather, it is seeking to use AI in ways that are measured, ethical, and spiritually grounded. 

Elder Gerrit W. Gong on Responsible Use of AI

Elder Gerrit W. Gong, another apostle for The Church of Jesus Christ, has been a visible voice on AI. He has spoken internationally to the general public, as well as directly to members of the Church. He has also introduced guiding principles for Church employees, teaching that AI can help spread the gospel when used appropriately, but must be grounded in moral and ethical safeguards. These principles, cited above, were first shared in March 2024. 

In October 2025, Gong spoke at the Rome Summit on Ethics and Artificial Intelligence. He focused on three areas: (1) framing perspectives, (2) guiding beliefs regarding AI, and (3) faith and ethics AI evaluation to embed moral grounding within AI. Profit-driven companies should not be determining AI’s moral compass. There are core relationships that connect us in communion with God (Thou), community (They), harmony with nature (It), and self (I). Keeping these in society balance is what faithful people should be involved in. He ended with “We need humility, not hubris. …Made in the image of God our Creator with covenant belonging defining our core relationships, we have everything to look forward to – if and as we live with the gratitude, openness, authenticity, generosity of spirit, and joy of which we are humanly and divinely capable in an age of artificial intelligence.”

At the Organized Intelligence Conference in November 2025, he explained that general conference messages are “divinely inspired, not artificial” and that the Church will not use AI to prepare conference talks or create images of Jesus Christ.

Elder Quentin L. Cook: Follow the Prophet

Most recently at a BYU devotional on March 3, 2026, Elder Quentin L. Cook, another apostle for The Church of Jesus Christ, focused on the importance of integrity, eternal principles, and hearkening to the voice of living prophets in the AI age. Truth should be grounded in gospel principles. We need to focus on the words of the Book of Mormon, rather than listen to academic and/or supposedly knowledgeable voices that disparage these sacred words. Artificial Intelligence will never be a substitute for the Holy Ghost and personal revelation. Technology should be a servant, not a master. You need to choose truth rather than deception. Instead, focusing on truth and righteousness will allow all of us to go forward. Technology has been significant in furthering both missionary and temple work.

Cook pointed to past experiences when prophets have helped the Saints avoid societal problems if they followed prophetic guidance. He used the example of the revelation of the Word of Wisdom. Society pushed smoking and drinking in movies and advertisements as a common practice all adults should enjoy. Yet, years later, after the addiction and bad health resulting from these substances became apparent, society has now acknowledged the harmful effects of these habits.

Following personal revelation and prophetic guidance will save us from specific problems that artificial intelligence will bring and has brought to the world. In this uniquely challenging time, we would be wise to study the scriptures and follow the Lord’s prophet and Jesus Christ. The Savior also lived in a volatile world, and we should follow His example.  

Using AI as a Positive Tool for Good

Even with these prophetic cautions on AI use, AI has been and will continue to be a tool to move the work of the Lord forward in wonderful ways. At Roots Tech 2026, exciting new advances in AI, technology, and digital experiences for family history enthusiasts were presented that will revolutionize how fast one can find one’s ancestors and the connections we can make with past generations. Missionary work has also been quickened with the improvements in media generation through AI applications

On a personal note, my husband has worked in AI for 50 years as a computational linguist for IBM Research, Microsoft Research, and currently as a professor at Brigham Young University. I have seen my husband make it possible for other languages, even low-resource languages, to have a “voice” on the BYU and The Church websites. These AI translation tools are enabling the gospel to be preached in all the world to all people in their own language. The Lord has said: “For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Nephi 3:13). The technology of AI is helping this Book of Mormon prophecy come to pass.

Old Testament Warnings

I use AI every day to accomplish my work faster. I appreciate the goods of this technology. Society also needs to carefully restrict and review how new innovations affect, hurt, and curtail our and the next generation’s learning and emotional growth.

In the Old Testament, society became so prideful that they tried to make a tower that would reach up to God. When God saw the tower and society’s hubris, he said: “Nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do” (Genesis 11:6). In response, God decided to “scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9). The pursuit of Artificial General Intelligence, may be a similar kind of quest if pursued without appropriate safeguards.

To safeguard ourselves and our families, we should listen to Church leaders and heed their warnings for ourselves, our families, and society as a whole. If kept as a human-controlled tool, AI can be used for good. Without AI restrictions or regulations, human relationships and learning may be stunted, and the next generation may suffer. The warnings and invitations from Latter-day Saint leaders are clear. Spiritual flourishing should be our mantra, and our use of AI should always fall under that umbrella.

The post The Trojan Horse of AI appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

We live, increasingly, in two places at once.

Our bodies sit at a dinner table while our minds hover in an open browser tab. Our hands fold for prayer while our thumbs remember the muscle memory of scrolling. We attend a child’s story, a spouse’s worry, a friend’s quiet confession—and yet some part of us remains tethered to the possibility that something else, somewhere else, is happening.

This is not merely a productivity problem, nor only a “kids these days” technology complaint. It is, at its core, an attention problem—and attention is not a neutral resource. It is one of the most consequential forms of agency we exercise all day long.

Whatever captures your attention quietly shapes your discipleship.

The Attention Crisis We Don’t Like to Name

There are obvious culprits—busy schedules, social media, the breakneck speed of modern life. But those are surface-level symptoms of something deeper: what we might call the tyranny of elsewhere.

The tyranny of elsewhere is the subtle assumption that real life is happening somewhere other than where you are right now—in the next message, the next headline, the next update, the next comparison, the next microdose of novelty. It is a form of spiritual displacement. You are always near your life, but not quite inside it.

And because it’s socially normalized, it rarely feels like rebellion. It feels like being informed. Being connected. Being responsive. Being “on top of things.”

However, the gospel’s vision of a holy life is not primarily about being “on top of things.” It is about being in things—fully, faithfully, consecratedly present.

“An Eye Single”: Attention as a Spiritual Faculty

In Doctrine and Covenants 88, the Lord gives an arresting promise: “If your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light.” That promise is recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 88:67. He then adds the kind of line we might read quickly, even though it should stop us: “Sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God.” That instruction appears in Doctrine and Covenants 88:68. This echoes Matthew 6:22 and Doctrine and Covenants 82:19.

Notice what’s happening doctrinally.

1. “Single” is not merely “serious.”  It is not just intensity. It is integrity—wholeness. A mind that is not fragmented into ten anxious windows, a heart that is not constantly split between reverence and restlessness.
   
2. Light is not only a reward; it is a capacity.  The promise is not merely that God will be pleased. The promise is that you will become the kind of person who can receive, discern, and “comprehend.” Attention is the mechanism that God gives us for receiving that growth from Him.
   
3. Sanctification includes attention training. Sanctification comes through the Holy Ghost as we repent and keep covenants. When the Lord says, “sanctify yourselves,” He does not only mean “stop doing bad things.” He also means “become the kind of person whose inner life is ordered toward God” so we live in a way that the Holy Ghost can dwell with us. 

In that sense, presence is not cosmetic. It is covenantal.

Mindfulness, but With a Name and a Direction

It’s worth acknowledging: the modern mindfulness movement has rediscovered something true. Purposeful attention in the present moment—focus, concentration, awareness—really does change us. Many people feel, correctly, that distraction is costly.

In fact, research has repeatedly found that when our minds wander away from what we’re doing, our happiness tends to drop—even when we wander to “pleasant” thoughts. And intriguingly, other research suggests that many of us find it so uncomfortable to be alone with our own thoughts—even for a few minutes—that we will choose almost any stimulation rather than simply sit, reflect, and attend to the interior world.

So yes, mindfulness is real.

But the gospel adds something essential: mindfulness is not only attention to the present; it is attention consecrated toward God and toward people. It is presence with purpose—awareness shaped by love, gratitude, worship, and covenant loyalty. Or to say it plainly: disciples don’t just “live in the moment.” They learn to live in the moment with God.

Distraction as a Form of Spiritual Avoidance

If presence is the practice, what is distraction—spiritually speaking?

Often, distraction is not primarily laziness. It is avoidance.

• Avoidance of silence—because silence reveals what we’ve been carrying.
  
• Avoidance of weakness—because stillness makes us honest.
  
• Avoidance of other people—because deep attention requires vulnerability.
  
• Avoidance of God—because God, more often than not, speaks in what we rush past.
  

This is why phones are such a uniquely modern test of discipleship. They aren’t only tools; they are portable exit doors. With a tiny gesture, you can leave the room without leaving the room. You can opt out of the emotional demand of the present moment and relocate to something easier, shinier, safer.

This is also why “just use your phone less” rarely works as a long-term solution. The deeper work is to ask: What am I trying not to feel? What am I trying not to face? What am I trying not to hear?

Because the gospel is remarkably patient, but it is not casual about this: the life of faith is a life of turning toward—toward God, toward neighbor, toward responsibility, toward revelation.

The Covenant Verb We Keep Skimming: Observe

One of the most quietly illuminating patterns in scripture is how often the language of obedience is tied to attention.

Consider Mosiah 4:30: King Benjamin pairs a stern warning with a very practical diagnosis—“watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God.” That is not only about rule-keeping. It is about awareness. It is about living awake to your inner life, your outer impact, and your spiritual drift.

Similarly, the New Testament repeatedly pairs prayer with watchfulness: “Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving” in Colossians 4:2.

We could call this the tragedy of unattended grace—when blessings arrive, warnings are given, invitations are extended, and we remain too distracted to recognize what is happening. The scriptures do not treat that as a minor inconvenience. They treat it as spiritual peril.

A Brief Note on Phones: It’s Not Only About Content

When people talk about phone distraction, the conversation usually fixates on content—bad content, frivolous content, addictive content. That matters. But there is another layer that is arguably more insidious: even “neutral” phone presence can fragment attention.

Some research suggests that the mere presence of your smartphone can subtly draw on limited cognitive resources—what some scholars have called a “brain drain” effect. At the same time, it’s also worth noting that not every study replicates these findings perfectly, which is a good reminder that human attention is complex and context-sensitive.

Still, most of us don’t need a laboratory to confirm what our souls already know: when our attention is perpetually split, our relationships thin out. Our prayers become more performative than present. Our worship becomes more distracted than devoted.

And perhaps most importantly, our capacity to love people well diminishes—not because we stop caring, but because we stop noticing.

Step 1: Pay Attention

So what do we do?

Let’s begin with the simplest, hardest, most foundational discipline: Purposefully pay attention in the present moment. Focus. Concentration. Awareness. This can sound like a self-help slogan until we connect it to the heart of restored doctrine: the Lord’s invitation to live with an “eye single” and a “mind…single to God.”

To “pay attention,” in a gospel key, means at least three things:

1. Attend to what is real. Not what is curated. Not what is imagined. Not what is feared. What is here.
   
2. Attend to what is holy. The Lord’s hand in the ordinary, the needs in the room, the promptings that arrive quietly.
   
3. Attend to what is forming you. Because your attention does not merely follow your desires; over time, what we give heed to shapes our desires.

This is why the command to “watch” yourself in Mosiah 4:30 is so psychologically astute and spiritually mature. It assumes that sanctification is not accidental. It is practiced.

Step 2: Narrow the Eye

A scattered life is not usually healed by dramatic overhauls. It is healed by small, repeated acts of singleness—micro-choices that train the soul to stay. Here are three “eye-single” practices that are simple enough to try and meaningful enough to matter:

1) Consecrate the first look

Many of us begin the day with a reflex: eyes open, hand reaches, feed loads. Consider a different liturgy: prayer before phone. Scripture before scroll. A few minutes of quiet before input. Not because phones are evil, but because the first thing you look at often becomes the first thing that organizes your mind.

If you want your mind to become “single to God,” it helps to begin the day by letting God be real before the world is loud.

2) Build phone-free “altars”

Altars are places where we offer something to God. In modern life, one of the most meaningful offerings might simply be undivided attention.

A few practical examples:

• Meals: phones away—not face-down on the table, but gone.
  
• Bedtime: the last five minutes belong to gratitude, not content.
  
• Church: treat sacrament meeting as attention training, not background audio.
  
• Ministering: let the visit be a human encounter, not a multitasked event.
  

These are not rules; they are rituals. They are ways of saying, “This moment is sacred enough to deserve my full self.”

3) Practice “holy noticing”

Once a day, choose to notice one person more carefully than usual.

• Ask a real question and wait for the real answer.
  
• Remember a detail and follow up later.
  
• Offer a sincere compliment that is specific—not flattering, but seeing.

This is presence as charity: to love is to attend.

Step 3: Witness the Life You’re Actually Living

There is a reason “witness” language runs through covenant life—baptismal promises, sacramental renewal, temple ordinances. Witnessing is not only what we do in courtrooms; it is what we do with our lives.

To witness, spiritually, is to be able to say: I was there. I saw. I remembered. I did not miss what mattered.

This is one of the quiet gifts of being present: you begin to accumulate a life that feels cohesive rather than scattered—because you were actually in it. And in a subtle but real way, this is where gospel presence differs from mere serenity: we are not practicing attention simply to feel calmer; we are practicing attention to become more faithful.

“Forever Is Composed of Nows”

In a First Presidency message, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, then second counselor in the First Presidency, quoted the line “Forever—is composed of Nows,” and then reflected on the spiritual significance of living in the middle—where real life, real growth, and real discipleship actually happen.

That is not just poetic. It is doctrinally provocative.

Because if forever is composed of nows, then the question is not only whether we will be faithful in the grand arc of our lives, but whether we will be faithful today—in this conversation, this ordinance, this irritation, this child’s question, this prompting, this quiet moment when the Spirit tries to get our attention and we are tempted to escape.

Holiness rarely announces itself with fireworks. More often, it arrives like a still, small knock. Presence is how you answer the door.

A More Luminous Ordinary

Imagine, for a moment, what it would feel like if a ward, a family, a friendship network quietly committed to being more present—not in an intense, performative way, but in a steady, covenant-shaped way. Sacrament meeting would become less about enduring and more about receiving. Ministering would feel less like an assignment and more like belonging practiced—seeing and naming one another, showing up with love, walking each other toward Christ. Homes would sound different, too. Fewer keyboard clicks and notification chimes. More laughter. More unhurried conversation. More silence that isn’t empty, but spacious—silence where prayer can actually land.

And perhaps, over time, we would discover something hopeful: that attention is not only a scarce resource being stolen from us; it is a gift we can still offer, intentionally, to God and to one another.

Not perfectly. Not constantly. But sincerely—and increasingly.

Because in the gospel, being present is not merely a wellness technique. It helps us keep commandments, practice gratitude, notice grace, and live with an eye single to the glory of God.

And that kind of singleness does something beautiful: it fills the ordinary with light.

The post The Sacrament of Attention appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Christine Rosen, author of The Extinction of Experience: Being Human in a Disembodied World (2024), updates Camus this way: “He fornicated and checked his phone.” But actually, if Rosen is correct, she should have gone one step further in her revision: “(Post)Modern man rarely fornicated, but instead used his phone to look at porn.”

We’re experiencing an epidemic of “excarnation”, says Rosen, which is an estrangement from our real, fleshy bodies and the real, fleshy bodies of other people as we increasingly embrace “mediated” forms of disembodied, technological existence. No more sex with a real human being, which can be clumsy and awkward and require practice, communication, and compromise. Instead, we have a smorgasbord of pixelated pornstars ready to cater to our most idiosyncratic kinks or pliant Chatbot girlfriends who send us AI-generated NSFW pictures directly to the phone in our palms, which leaves one hand free for—well, you know what.

We’ve accepted the premise of technology that everything “frictionless,” “seamless,” and more convenient is better. What we’ve discovered is that the source of much “friction” in social life is other people in their messy, awkward, unpredictable quirkiness. Almost overnight, we came to accept the idea that people should deliver our food to our doorstep, send us a photo of our bagged burritos, and disappear back into their cars before we are assaulted by their presence or inconvenienced by the pleasantries of small talk. And it’s not just DoorDash. A dozen innovations in recent decades, like AirPod headphones or self-checkout in grocery stores, serve the many of us who feel it should be an inalienable right to be insulated from face-to-face interaction with other people.

People are spending enormous amounts of time in virtual spaces. Some people, finding their own (real) lives lacking, pour their energies into creating an ersatz one on platforms like Second Life. But if you find this disconcerting, you’re liable to be shot down as a naive and backward-looking Luddite. Some have even gone so far as to argue that any preference for the real, flesh-and-blood material reality over virtual ones is mere prejudice. In a hilarious co-opting of the language of DEI, some technocrats have even claimed that such prejudice is merely “Reality Privilege.” Only some very privileged realities are rich and varied enough to compete with the abundance of virtual worlds, the argument goes. For most people, reality is dull, beige, and boring. And so, as one technocrat Rosen quotes puts it,  “Who is to say that a virtual life that is better than one’s physical life is a bad thing?” 

This mass “excarnation” of society—this estrangement from our own and others’ real, physical bodies—has serious consequences. We’re losing specific skills that make us human: the skills of reading others’ facial cues, of inferring others’ emotions, of understanding our own emotions, of navigating or orienting ourselves in a physical landscape, of appreciating the slow pleasures of art, of handwriting, of physical play, of daydreaming, of having sex. Almost all of these skills are being outsourced to technology, including those skills that seem most personal and most immune to technological encroachment. Consider, for example, the understanding of one’s own emotions. Certainly, nobody can understand our emotions better than ourselves! But some wearable technology companies promise to interpret your biometric data for you, such that your own messy interior emotional lives become simple and legible. No more difficult self-reflection necessary! 

Before Rosen, Yuval Harari predicted in his 2018 book Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow that algorithms will become so powerful and knowledgeable that we will consult them in making all of our decisions. In one of my favorite hypothetical examples, Harari imagines a woman consulting algorithms to help her decide between two suitors. She asks Google, do I marry John or Jerry? Google says something like, “Well, I’ve read all of your e-mails and text messages you’ve sent to John and Jerry and the messages they sent to you. I’ve analyzed their syntax and diction and have determined that you have better communication and romantic connection with John. A cross-reference of your wearable technologies confirms this—your heart rate and perspiration are greater when in John’s company than Jerry’s. Considering the relationships in your past, your family history, and John’s past and family history, I give you an 85% chance of a successful relationship with John. I know this upsets you—because Jerry is more handsome, and you value the social capital his handsomeness provides. But trust me. Your biological evolution puts too high a premium on good looks—but good looks have low correlation to long-term relationship success.” To Harari, this is a good thing. Algorithms will eliminate the biases and prejudices of human beings so that they can cut through the psychic smog and make the decisions that would actually result in the greatest happiness.

To hear Rosen tell it, the encroachment of technology into these most intimate parts of our lives has happened because we’ve uncritically accepted the myth of progress: the idea that human history is defined by a steady, linear improvement in knowledge, technology, morality, and overall quality of life. This myth, which assumes that change is inherently good and that modernity is intrinsically superior to the past, has blinded us to the costs and consequences of our innovations. In Rosen’s account, the myth lulls us into a kind of passivity, leaving us unaware and uncritical as technology encroaches upon our lives.

While this is surely part of the story, I think Rosen misses a deeper, more personal dimension of our uncritical embrace of technological “solutions.” One of the most valuable insights of existentialists like Camus, Kierkegaard, and Dostoyevsky is that most human beings experience freedom as a kind of burden and, in fact, one they are often anxious to give away. The staggering array of choices available to us today and the accompanying realization that we are wholly responsible for those choices produces what Kierkegaard called “angst.” Dostoyevsky observed that people are willing to relinquish their freedom to paternalistic authority figures in exchange for security and simplicity. And he was right; we are not merely passive victims of the myth of progress. Rather, we have actively sought out technological “solutions” to outsource the existential risk of making choices for ourselves, even in matters as profound as love and marriage. Today’s Grand Inquisitor isn’t a religious figure, it’s Mark Zuckerberg.

But even if you are someone who would never consult Google about such questions of the heart, we must concede that, to some extent, we’ve all become accustomed to the “frictionless” experience. But we also have a sneaking suspicion despite all of this convenience we’re losing something valuable. For one, Rosen says, the experience of “serendipity” is on the brink of extinction. Serendipitous experiences like stumbling into a new restaurant, following only the cues of your nose, are increasingly unlikely because algorithms relentlessly nudge us in particular directions. We research Yelp reviews before trying a restaurant, scouring hundreds of photos of dishes and scrutinizing hundreds of customer reviews. In this way, we allow the aggregate mass of people to determine which restaurants we try, with no allowance that our own idiosyncratic tastes might differ from those of the many. When we go to a new city, there’s little chance we “lose ourselves” in the city’s nooks and crannies, alleys, or stores. Our GPS-enabled phones mean that we know exactly where we are at all times, and algorithms will send you personally tailored “push” notifications when you’re nearing your favorite, familiar haunts. The music and movies we enjoy are also algorithmically determined; no longer can we stumble into a record store or Blockbuster and have the coincidental experience of taking home something truly novel, something completely outside our usual patterns of consumption. The “Recommended For You” features on Netflix and Amazon narrow the scope of our possible experiences and make serendipitous surprises less likely.

According to Rosen, we need to be more skeptical about technology. More than a century ago, Thoreau wrote, “We do not ride on the railroad; it rides upon us.” We need to think more like Thoreau: when we use technology, how does it use us in turn? 

We need to remember that, despite all of our technological sophistication, we are human beings with human bodies. As Ecclesiastes put it, “You who do not know how the mind is joined to the body know nothing of the works of God.” Or, as Montaigne put it more humorously: “And upon the highest throne in the world, we are seated, still about our arses.”

We need to take account of the qualitative losses suffered on account of our uncritical adoption of technological “solutions” to human “problems”.  As Rosen writes at the close of her book, 

Accounting for what we have lost is also the beginning of the process of reclaiming it. Despite what Silicon Valley marketing messages insist, history is not always a steady march toward progress, and not every new thing is an improvement on the old. If we are to reclaim human virtues and save our most deeply rooted human experiences from extinction, we must be willing to place limits on the more extreme transformative projects proposed by our techno-enthusiasts, not as a means of stifling innovation but as a commitment to our shared humanity. Only then can we live freely as the embodied, quirky, contradictory, resilient, creative human beings we are.

During the Renaissance, humanists like Pico della Mirandola celebrated the unique place of human beings on the Great Chain of Being. Unlike animals, whose natures were fixed, human beings possessed a malleable nature: they could choose to rise to the divine heights of the angels or degrade themselves to the level of beasts. For Renaissance humanists, this capacity for transformation was a glorious privilege. But today, rather than becoming angels or beasts, as Pico Della Mirandola imagined, human beings are becoming machines. Or, more accurately, we are outsourcing our experiences of being human—thinking, feeling, connecting—to our machines, as if they could live for us. Rosen’s book is a call for a new humanism—one that rejects this abdication and embraces the messy, wondrous glory of embodiment, emotion, and connection.

The post The Epidemic of Excarnation: What We Lose When We Forget Our Flesh appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

As Elder Bednar discussed both the possibilities and the perils of modern technology, I was taken aback when he said:

Consider the following perilous possibility. An AI-developed companion, a girlfriend or boyfriend, can be ‘meticulously designed to [offer] engaging and addictive experiences, appealing to a wide range of emotional and social needs.’… The allure is further heightened by their 24/7 availability and the absence of the complexities often found in [authentic] human relationships…Counterfeit emotional intimacy may displace real-life emotional intimacy—the very thing which binds two people together.

My husband had been reading nearby but put his book down when he heard this. We exchanged bewildered looks and questioned if this was really a problem. With a heaviness, my husband said, “It must be if Elder Bednar is talking about it.”

We live in perplexing times, and even though Elder Bednar offered reassurance, his prophetic warning felt serious as a definite theme emerged—we must be on guard so we aren’t “transformed from agents who can act into objects that are only acted upon.” He repeated a variation of this phrase nine times, and when specifically discussing AI companionship, he said, “It is a set of computer equations that will treat you as an object to be acted upon, if you let it. Please, do not let this technology entice you to become an object.” 

Elder Bednar then taught something familiar but new in the way he applied it to the challenges of our day. He said, 

The fundamental purposes for the exercise of agency are to love one another and to choose God. Consider that we are commanded—not merely admonished, urged, or counseled—but commanded to use our agency to turn outward, to love one another, and to choose God [Emphasis added]. 

Using our moral agency to choose God and to love others is the purpose of our mortal existence, and we need to turn outward to do those things. This seems obvious, but if we are being warned so strongly by an apostle, it must be that the enticements to turn inward are so pervasive and the counterfeits so deceptive that they are successfully undermining human agency.     

Consider similar warnings against turning inward that were given at our most recent General Conference. Elder José A. Teixeira said:

When our lives are filled with purpose and service, we avoid spiritual apathy; on the other hand, when our lives are deprived of divine purpose, meaningful service to others, and sacred opportunities for pondering and reflection, we gradually become suffocated by our own activity and self-interest …[Emphasis added].

Elder Ulisses Soares taught:

[There is a] current growing trend in the world, adopted by so many, of people becoming consumed with themselves …This way of thinking is often justified as being “authentic” by those who indulge in self-centered pursuits [and] focus on personal preferences … My dear friends, when we choose to let God be the most powerful influence in our life over our self-serving pursuits, we can make progress in our discipleship and increase our capacity to unite our mind and heart with the Savior. [Emphasis added].

And Elder Bednar warned: 

We always must be on guard against a pride-induced and exaggerated sense of self-importance, a misguided evaluation of our own self-sufficiency, and seeking self instead of serving others.

As we pridefully focus upon ourselves, we also are afflicted with spiritual blindness and miss much, most, or perhaps all that is occurring within and around us. We cannot look to and focus upon Jesus Christ as the “mark” if we only see ourselves. [Emphasis added]. 

Using our moral agency to focus outward on God and on others is a protection against suffocating self-regard. 

These warnings of church leaders bring to mind the great Jewish thinker Martin Buber (1878-1965), who voiced similar concerns. Buber cautioned against the objectifying tendencies that have accompanied scientific advancements. While he expressed appreciation for the good that has come with progress, he also warned about the possible negative impacts on relationships. 

Buber explored human relations through his theory of dialogue, in which he differentiated I-Thou from I-It relationships. He focused on the way in which each of us, as the “I,” relate and communicate with the other. There is a difference between the “I” who interacts with the other as a Thou in contrast to the “I” who interacts with the other as an It. Buber explained, “The primary word I-Thou can only be spoken with the whole being. The primary word I-It can never be spoken with the whole being.” In I-It relations, the ‘I’ looks to the other as an object, and the interaction takes place within the ‘I.’ In I-Thou relations, the subject-object dichotomy is overcome.

In genuine dialogue, when the other is recognized as a Thou, there is an understanding of the other as an individual while, at the same time, sharing an intimacy with them. In such a relationship, there is genuine effort to balance the contradictory expectation of an individual retaining personal uniqueness with the expectation that there will also be a sharing of each other in dialogue. “The real self appears only when it enters into relation with the Other. Where this relation is rejected, the real self withers away…” 

There is a pessimism in Buber’s writings as he observed that humans often fall short of I-Thou relations:

In our age, the I-It relation, gigantically swollen, has usurped, practically uncontested, the mastery and the rule … this I that is unable to say Thou, unable to meet a being essentially, is the lord of the hour. This selfhood that has become omnipotent, with all the It around it, can naturally acknowledge neither God nor any genuine absolute which manifests itself to men as of non-human origin. It steps in between and shuts off from us the light of heaven. 

In Buberian thought, if we are unable to enter I-Thou relations with one another, we are also unable to enter relations with God. Buber continues, 

Life cannot be divided between a real relation with God and an unreal relation of I and It with the world—you cannot both truly pray to God and profit by the world. He who knows the world as something by which he is to profit knows God also in the same way.” 

Conversely, however, if we seek a renewal of relation between humans, we will also experience relation with God. God transforms human beings “from self-centeredness to relationship-centeredness,” and it changes the obsession with the self into a genuine and renewing relationship with God and others.

Buber’s dialogical theory underscores Elder Bednar’s warnings about being transformed into objects that are acted upon. With the incredible advances in communication technology since Buber’s death, it is fascinating to imagine the heightened cautions he would now give.

It is sobering to think how our relationships can potentially be harmed. AI companions may not be the thing that entices us, but there are many other ways in which real human interactions, with their attendant complexity, can be replaced by simpler imitations. This goes so much deeper than wasting time on our phones to the neglect of family members, replacing in-person interaction with social media, or only seeking affirming voices online. It is those things, but it is also much more fundamental. It strikes at the core of who we are as human beings who need to be in real relation with one another. 

To better understand how objectification hurts individuals and their relationships, we can look at the uniquely powerful example of human sexuality. This most intimate of relations has the potential to profoundly bring a husband and wife together, or conversely, it can alienate men and women from one another. C.S. Lewis masterfully addressed what is lost when sex is used for one’s own use. His description predates the digital age with its easy access to pornography, but it becomes more meaningful, not less, when applied to our day. The temptation to turn inward has always existed, but it is heightened by virtual reality. He said:  

For me, the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back; sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides.

And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman.

For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no woman can rival.

Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover; no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification ever imposed on his vanity.

In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself … After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is to be avoided as all things are to be avoided, which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison.

Lewis’ description is powerful, and while his focus is the male viewpoint, women are also susceptible to counterfeits which offer to fill needs without the demands of real human interaction. The enticement of fake companionship, whether emotional or physical, is something everyone needs to guard against.  

There is a shared heaviness in these various warnings that I’ve mentioned, and it’s easy to feel discouraged or even alarmed, but Elder Bednar promises that there aren’t just perils but also great possibilities in this “remarkable season of the dispensation of the fulness of times.” As we use our agency to turn outward, we will be able to resist perilous self-focus, but we desperately need one another to do this. In the busyness of life, we may think at times that the toddlers at our feet, the youth we serve, the neighbors we share a fence with, the man full of answers in Sunday School, our co-workers, and our spouses are roadblocks to attaining our personal goals. They aren’t. They are the reason we are here on earth. Amidst the complexities of life, there is great sweetness, meaning, and growth to be found in relation with God and others.

So many voices call to us with the ‘how-to’ of living our best life. The ones to pay attention to are those undergirded by the command to “use our agency to turn outward, to love one another, and to choose God.”  

For “Every particular Thou is a glimpse through to the eternal Thou.”

The post Counterfeit Companion: The Dangerous Allure of Digital Companions appeared first on Public Square Magazine.