inquiringmind Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 What are animals?Are they organized intelligence?Did they have a pre-existence?Do they ever progress (or do they always stay animals)?
CV75 Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 What are animals?Are they organized intelligence?Did they have a pre-existence?Do they ever progress (or do they always stay animals)?Animals, as all other forms of non-human life, are beings under man's stewardship and as such support the plan of salvation in countless ways. Moses 3 teaches that animals were created spiritually before they were naturally upon the earth. Regarding the role of intelligence, personally I believe they choose what they are and what they become, as do all forms of life. D&C 77: 2-4 offers some insight that animals enjoy eternal felicity in their order or sphere and possess knowledge and power, evidence of some progress from what they experience in this world.
Jeff K. Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Animals are things that I like medium rare with a side of baked potato and condiments. Yep, those are definately animals on my plate.
Jason Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 What are animals?Spirits united with flesh in forms other than the human.Are they organized intelligence?Of an animal sort, yes. They are not capable of making moral decisions like a human being is, however.Did they have a pre-existence?Yes they did. Do they ever progress (or do they always stay animals)?Would it really be progression for a dog to become a man, or would a dog that becomes a greater dog be more in keeping with a dog's basic nature?
thesometimesaint Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Barney the Purple Dinosaur not withstanding. I have no big need to meet a T-Rex up close an personal. Anyone see Jurassic Park?
mfbukowski Posted February 23, 2011 Posted February 23, 2011 Would it really be progression for a dog to become a man, or would a dog that becomes a greater dog be more in keeping with a dog's basic nature?As stated in modern revelation they are here to "fill the measure of their creation and have joy therein", so I agree with you.I think that's the definitive word on the subject- as intelligences, they are "lower" than humans I presume, but like all intelligences are here to be the very best they can be at what they are. I am not sure that we quite understand how a tiger fills the measure of it's creation, but some day perhaps we will. We are also omnivores, so it gets interesting I guess.Let me throw one out just to stir things up. Maybe this is in the "theological fiction" realm- any writers out there?Suppose some animals are MORE intelligent than humans. Possible candidates: Orcas, dolphins. They are so well adapted to their world that they did not need to make alterations to it by building shelters etc, but have incredibly complex communications.Suppose they are not capable of what we call "sin" and thus are actually more spiritually advanced than we are, and have no need of an atonement. Suppose their entire spiritual mission here is something other than ours.Like I said- just some ideas I am throwing out there! We are so locked into seeing the world the way we see it, I am just suggesting there might be other ways to see all this!
TAO Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 What are animals?Are they organized intelligence?Did they have a pre-existence?Do they ever progress (or do they always stay animals)?There's a certain verse in the D&C that deals with this. Don't remember which one... doesn't answer all these questions, just some. I remember the word 'felicity' or something related to that. =P
mfbukowski Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 There's a certain verse in the D&C that deals with this. Don't remember which one... doesn't answer all these questions, just some. I remember the word 'felicity' or something related to that. =PDude, you are scary!Ran a search of D&C for the word "felicity" and got this:Doctrine and Covenants 77:3Q. Are the four beasts limited to individual beasts, or do they represent classes or orders? A. They are limited to four individual beasts, which were shown to John, to represent the glory of the classes of beings in their destined order or sphere of creation, in the enjoyment of their eternal felicity.
TAO Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Dude, you are scary!In a good way or a bad way? XDRan a search of D&C for the word "felicity" and got this:I believe in that same chapter there is also a verse that talks about spirits of animals, but I don't have time to look right now... sorryz =P.
CV75 Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 In this immortal exchange:Leo Bloom: Actors aren't animals! They're human beings!Max Bialystock: Have you ever eaten with one?
Nofear Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Animals are things that I like medium rare with a side of baked potato and condiments. Yep, those are definately animals on my plate.Not sure a baked potato would make the fathead fish worth it.
Eitan Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 The comments up above suggest that we are not, ourselves, animals. In fact, we are. our taxonomy goes something like this: Kingdom - Animalia/MetazoaPhylum - ChordataClass - MammaliaOrder - PrimatesFamily - HominidaeGenus - HomoSpecies - Homo Sapiens...and I guess you could extend that to Subspiecies - Homo sapiens sapiens (or modern man)
Jason Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 The comments up above suggest that we are not, ourselves, animals. In fact, we are. our taxonomy goes something like thisBecause the nomenclature used by scientists is proof that there is no real difference between us and a tapeworm?
Eitan Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Because the nomenclature used by scientists is proof that there is no real difference between us and a tapeworm?Of course there is a difference between us and tapeworms, just as there are vast differences between tapeworms and bacteria, staphylococcus, say. That is precisely what the nomenclature you refer to does, it attempts to sort by very specific differences.
Jason Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Of course there is a difference between us and tapeworms, just as there are vast differences between tapeworms and bacteria, staphylococcus, say. That is precisely what the nomenclature you refer to does, it attempts to sort by very specific differences.Well, I'm glad you put "attempts" in there. Still, how is it proof that we are animals?
Eitan Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Well, I'm glad you put "attempts" in there. Still, how is it proof that we are animals?So it is your position that we are NOT animals?
thesometimesaint Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Eitan:I've seen humans with as much sense as vegetables.
Eitan Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Eitan:I've seen humans with as much sense as vegetables. I like that response, Saint. I was going to ask earlier, if we're not animals, are we plants?
Jason Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 So it is your position that we are NOT animals?No, we're not. Animals cannot make moral decisions - we can.Animals are not sons and daughters of God with the potential to become gods - we are, and we have that potential.There are no human beings who fail both of those conditions, and there are no animals that meet them both either.
thesometimesaint Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Jason:Some humans are incapable of making moral judgments. Does that make them plants?That is a religious definition. The Supernatural is not something the Natural can address.Therefore humans are animals. Naked Apes to be more precise.
Eitan Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Animals cannot make moral decisions - we can.Is that an absolute? Are you sure about that?
Jason Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Some humans are incapable of making moral judgments. Does that make them plants?To quote myself:"There are no human beings who fail both of those conditions, and there are no animals that meet them both either." Of course it's a religious definition, in that it relies on knowledge of God and our ultimate origins and destination. It is also, however, a practical one.
thesometimesaint Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Jason:Human children, the mentally ill, or developmentally disabled are incapable of making moral judgments. Are they now plants? Religion is outside of the normal boundaries of science. You are trying to impose a Supernatural definition on a Natural product. Biologically speaking we are Naked Apes.
Jason Posted February 24, 2011 Posted February 24, 2011 Human children, the mentally ill, or developmentally disabled are incapable of making moral judgments. Are they now plants?You didn't read the "both conditions" thing in my last post, did you? Religion is outside of the normal boundaries of science. You are trying to impose a Supernatural definition on a Natural product.That would presuppose that we are a Natural product, wouldn't it? Biologically speaking we are Naked Apes.Nonsense. If you shave an ape you do not get a human being. The differences between animals and humans are more than the merely biological.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.