Artificial intelligence continues to exert profound influence across a wide range of industries and disciplines, transforming how we work, communicate, learn, create and make decisions in both everyday life and professional settings.
As AI becomes increasingly ubiquitous, questions arise about its role in shaping religious practices, potentially redefining spiritual authority, and influencing the ways communities express and experience their faith.
So, what do Latter-day Saints think about AI?
In a fall 2025 survey of 514 U.S. Latter-day Saints (the majority from Utah) conducted on behalf of Organized Intelligence, an initiative that brings together Latter-day Saint voices from across disciplines to explore the ethical, social and religious implications of AI, a picture emerged of a community that is optimistic about useful tools, careful about sacred things, and varied in how it draws those lines.
More upbeat (but not naive)
Relative to Americans in general, Latter-day Saints tend to tilt more positive on AI. Two-thirds of church members (67%) believe AI can improve their lives and society (Americans overall sit at 49%).
A majority of church members say they will adopt AI as soon as it makes sense for them (54%), compared to 35% nationally.
When we asked about the next 20 years, 36% of Latter-day Saints surveyed expect AI’s impact on society to be positive, which is more than double the 16% we see in the broader public.
Overall optimism, however, comes with some fine print. By roughly two to one, respondents see AI as the latest chapter in a long story of technological change rather than an existential threat. Still, they recognize real risks and express a desire to set clear boundaries.
Red lines around sacred matters
Family history, a staple of Latter-day Saint religious practice, is seen widely across respondents as one area of sacred work where AI can make a significant and positive contribution. A majority (71%) approve of AI for genealogical work, which matches both the technical nature of family history and the faith’s distinctive emphasis on it. Majorities also support using AI tools for gospel study (56%) and preparing Sunday talks or lessons (50%).
Support drops once we move into more personal, spiritual matters. Only 27% approve of the use of AI tools for coaching oriented at spiritual growth, 21% for ethical advice, and just 14% for worthiness discussions (where Latter-day Saints sit down with a bishop or a loved one to discuss faith, behavior and personal commitment).
This is one of the most private conversations members have in the church. We included worthiness in the survey because it sits right where the private and the sacred meet. If anything was going to mark a firm limit for AI, this was it.
And it did. Even among the most AI-friendly respondents, fewer than half would take worthiness questions to AI (46%). As one of the authors of this survey has noted in his research, coaching apps exist for everything now, but many members do not want that model in sacred domains. It is the only use of AI that does not receive majority support.
Three groups, divided by practice not piety
We expected church activity levels to sort people into camps in terms of how they saw AI. But we were wrong about that. It did not, according to this data. After a cluster analysis, church participation levels were roughly even across the three groups we identified. Instead, comfort with technology, frequency of AI use, and views on spiritual use cases did the sorting. We labeled the clusters Silicon Saints (28%), Compartmentalizers (36%), and Spiritual Skeptics (36%).
- Silicon Saints use AI often, sometimes daily. They see value in using AI in both secular and spiritual settings. About 88% are fine using AI for gospel study, and 69% even see potential in AI as a spiritual partner or coach. Only 46% feel it is appropriate to discuss personal worthiness with AI.
- Compartmentalizers use AI for work and personal tasks, but deliberately not for worship and as an assist to revelation. Many are comfortable with AI tools for gospel study (79%), but only 30% would leverage AI as a spiritual coach, and just 6% find it appropriate for worthiness questions.
- Spiritual Skeptics rarely use AI and carry strong reservations. Only half consider AI appropriate even for gospel study, and fewer than 5% would bring worthiness discussions to an AI model.
Across all three groups, the top concern is impersonation. Eighty-three percent worry about AI being used to pose as someone else. In our open-ended responses, several mentioned “false representations of Church leaders” as a specific fear. Nearly three-quarters worry about inaccurate information, and similar shares raise privacy and misuse concerns. Many also anticipate threats to empathy, moral agency and genuine connection. Ultimately, whether you’re a Silicon Saint or a skeptic, everyone here holds concerns.
Spiritual worries
Most respondents reject AI claims in the more personal, spiritual domain. Sixty-five percent say AI cannot help someone communicate with the Holy Ghost, 57% say it cannot improve moral reasoning, and 55% do not trust it for doctrinal guidance. Nearly three-quarters affirm that AI can never possess a soul or spirit.
Members expect some negative spiritual spillovers of the technology as well. Fifty-two percent think AI will harm their capacity to receive personal revelation; 46% expect negative effects on prophetic revelation, and 44% predict weaker moral agency. Only Silicon Saints show notable optimism in those dimensions.
Everyone wants more guidance
The most unifying result of our surveying is a collective desire for guidance. Seventy-two percent want faith leaders to ensure AI is developed ethically. And 63% want parents to teach children about the righteous use of AI.
Across Silicon Saints, Compartmentalizers and Skeptics, majorities look to church leaders for ongoing direction as the technology changes. Only among Spiritual Skeptics do we see a sizable minority who would be disappointed to learn the church uses AI at all (40%). That sentiment is rare in the other groups.
We take comfort in the diversity of views and attitudes here. One can be a Silicon Saint and someone else could be a Skeptic, and still be engaged in the same faith community.
Every one of these groups seeks guidance from leaders. That diversity invites conversation about how to fit new tools into faithful lives without blurring sacred boundaries.
Clearly, further research is required in this space. We plan to extend the project with an additional survey and in-depth interviews. What we have presented are only early findings.
With a more systematic study in the works and forthcoming in the near future, our hope is that this snapshot helps our community begin to think clearly about what AI is good for, where it does not belong, and how we can keep our most sacred things sacred, while still using new tools for the right purposes.