So What About The Animals, You Know The All Dogs Go To Heaven Sort Of Thing

[Stone holm]

I think it helps to realize there are things that live in places other than where our Father lives.  I mean, he lives wherever he lives now, and still there are fleas that live in the universe.  And so what if we someday live where our Father lives?  Will there still be fleas living somewhere, even if not on our planet where we are living with our Father in heaven?  Surely there must be, otherwise fleas wouldn't exist anywhere even though there would still be planets like this one where people are going through the same things we are going through now.  And why should they get to live in some place without any fleas?  Or why should fleas be wiped out of all of existence simply because they don't live where our Father lives?  Surely God would allow them to live somewhere, for some purpose, perhaps as food for other critters just as they are food for some critters who live on this planet?   Everything that lives now has lived for a long time and I see no good reason they can't go on living somewhere, forever, as long as they do what they do to make some more life forms, intelligences, that are like them.

 

Plus deep ecology would probably argue that even fleas have an important role to play that we may not understand as yet.  If everything God does has a purpose, then why place something down here in the first place if it has no purpose other than to spread disease.  Although, I think I and the moose would be happier if ticks didn't exist.

[CV75]

It possibly doesn't. Again I don't know.

I don't either! But someone asked, and another challenged, my opinion. Either could have let it rest.

 

My cat isn't particularly finicky. Though he doesn't like people food.

You cat is very wise.

 

Making food enjoyable helps ensure the continuation of life.

Yes, and the "life" in eternal life, that which makes it worth living, is joy.

 

I don't know as recycling is an eternal principle. Though it does make perfect sense on a planet with limits to resources.

"One eternal round" is a recyling of experience: our experieince is generated into new experience for our seed just as matter is made finer and finer.

 

God said they could die. So in that sense they weren't immortal. That being said; Whatever A&E's attributes we and all other animals have to eat in order to stay alive. How all that will work out in the next life is anyones guess.

But I am talking about while they were immortal, which we can apply to immortal beings that are resurrected.

 

The idea that imortal beings eat in order to conduct their affairs and experience joy in their activities within their order and sphere, even if anyone's guess, has obviously provided food for thought; at least fodder for discussion!

[Ahab]

I don't either! But someone asked, and another challenged, my opinion. Either could have let it rest.

 

You cat is very wise.

 

Yes, and the "life" in eternal life, that which makes it worth living, is joy.

 

"One eternal round" is a recyling of experience: our experieince is generated into new experience for our seed just as matter is made finer and finer.

 

But I am talking about while they were immortal, which we can apply to immortal beings that are resurrected.

 

The idea that imortal beings eat in order to conduct their affairs and experience joy in their activities within their order and sphere, even if anyone's guess, has obviously provided food for thought; at least fodder for discussion!

Let's not neglect to mention that our Lord ate after he was resurrected, so we know it's not just Adam and Eve who ate before they fell.

 

I think some people just don't know what immortal people would eat if animals are immortal, too.  Surely we wouldn't kill an immortal animal just to have something to eat.  But there will still be other planets then, too, with animals that aren't immortal.  Surely we would be able to go there and get some of that food, if we wanted to.  And there would also be trees and bushes that produced fruit without us having to think about killing those plants to have something to eat.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Ahab

[CV75]

Let's not neglect to mention that our Lord ate after he was resurrected, so we know it's not just Adam and Eve who ate before they fell.

Absolutely, and He will yet drink of the fruit of the vine on earth (D&C 27:5).

[Stone holm]

Absolutely, and He will yet drink of the fruit of the vine on earth (D&C 27:5).

 

Which I suppose raises the subject of Celestial toilets...oh well, and we thought fleas had issues...

[Ahab]

Which I suppose raises the subject of Celestial toilets...oh well, and we thought fleas had issues...

... something about an all consuming fire comes to my mind.  Like an incinerator.  And it's just one of the many forms he can take, with resurrected beings able to appear either in all of their glory or more like the form we are in as mortals right now.

 

No need to think he has to do it as we do it right now.  His body is different than ours even though it looks a lot like ours.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Ahab

[halconero]

The saving power is from sin. All are resurrected, regardless of their moral state.

I believe there are indications in the scriptures that indicate that the two powers are essentially one. All are resurrected, but not all resurrections are equal. A celestial body is different than a terrestrial which is different than a telestial. Our redemption from sin is reflected in our resurrected state. The glory of the atonement is brighter in those who have accepted and applied it to its fullest extent.

Furthermore, Moroni 8 states that children are redeemed through Christ. They are in heaven by virtue of his mercy. Why? Because they chose him as their Saviour in the pre-existence as evidenced by their coming here to this earth. They are without sin, but still in need of redemption from the effects of the Fall. Resurrection is just as much part of the At-one-ment as it raises us to be bodily present in the Kingdom of God.

My question is: If animals are resurrected is it through the suffering and death of Christ, followed by His resurrection. In effect, does Christ make them physically at one (through resurrection) with God?

[CV75]

Which I suppose raises the subject of Celestial toilets...oh well, and we thought fleas had issues...

I hope you feel free to expound to your heart's desire.

[CV75]

My question is: If animals are resurrected is it through the suffering and death of Christ, followed by His resurrection. In effect, does Christ make them physically at one (through resurrection) with God?

I would say yes, in a stewardship sense, as in D&C 88:67 and 50:27. Just as in Adam's Fall all things followed suit, all things are drawn up in Christ's Resurrection, and just as He is in and through all physical things that exist in the fallen world, He is in them in the eternal world (the rest of Section 88 addresses that).

[Stone holm]

I hope you feel free to expound to your heart's desire.

 

Oh I think that got thoroughly answered by the concept of the walking incinerator comment....which just left me speechless...well not quite, but the Selectboard meeting I just came from did...talking about heavenly fleas seems very reasonable in comparison.

[Robert F. Smith]

I believe there are indications in the scriptures that indicate that the two powers are essentially one. All are resurrected, but not all resurrections are equal. A celestial body is different than a terrestrial which is different than a telestial. Our redemption from sin is reflected in our resurrected state. The glory of the atonement is brighter in those who have accepted and applied it to its fullest extent.

Outer darkness is the fourth category, and as important as the other three.  However, you miss the point and seem confused on the purpose of an atoning sacrifice for sin.

 “It is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.

“Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin. …

“And … little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance … unto the remission of sins.

“But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world.” (Moro. 8:9–12.)

 

Furthermore, Moroni 8 states that children are redeemed through Christ. They are in heaven by virtue of his mercy.

They are without sin.  Justice alone admits them, even if the way back is provided through mercy.

 

 

 

Resurrection is just as much part of the At-one-ment as it raises us to be bodily present in the Kingdom of God.  Why? Because they chose him as their Saviour in the pre-existence as evidenced by their coming here to this earth. They are without sin, but still in need of redemption from the effects of the Fall.

Hebrew kpr and Greek katallage are two terms frequently found in Holy Writ meaning "purge, cleanse, purify; cover; reconcile," etc., and "atonement" is an English word used to translate those Hebrew & Greek terms dealing with sin and ancient sacrificial rites.  You are theorizing that young children need such rites, which is not true.  The only effect of the Fall for children is mortality (death), not some species of original sin, and does not require the remission via Jesus' vicarious expiation of sin (as the formal sacrificial Passover Lamb [or scapegoat?] offered by his Father).

 

A balanced and thorough article on "Atonement in the NT" is available by C. M. Tuckett, in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, I:518-522.

 

My question is: If animals are resurrected is it through the suffering and death of Christ, followed by His resurrection. In effect, does Christ make them physically at one (through resurrection) with God?)

The ultimate status of animals, plants, and microscopic organisms is a mystery to me, although they are not guilty of sin and therefore do not need an expiatory payment for sin before they might rise in glory.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[halconero]

Outer darkness is the fourth category, and as important as the other three.  However, you miss the point and seem confused on the purpose of an atoning sacrifice for sin.

 “It is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.

“Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin. …

“And … little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance … unto the remission of sins.

“But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world.” (Moro. 8:9–12.)

 

They are without sin.  Justice alone admits them, even if the way back is provided through mercy.

 

 

 

Hebrew kpr and Greek katallage are two terms frequently found in Holy Writ meaning "purge, cleanse, purify; cover; reconcile," etc., and "atonement" is an English word used to translate those Hebrew & Greek terms dealing with sin and ancient sacrificial rites.  You are theorizing that young children need such rites, which is not true.  The only effect of the Fall for children is mortality (death), not some species of original sin, and does not require the remission via Jesus' vicarious expiation of sin (as the formal sacrificial Passover Lamb [or scapegoat?] offered by his Father).

 

A balanced and thorough article on "Atonement in the NT" is available by C. M. Tuckett, in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, I:518-522.

 

The ultimate status of animals, plants, and microscopic organisms is a mystery to me, although they are not guilty of sin and therefore do not need an expiatory payment for sin before they might rise in glory.

Honestly...I think we agree with each other, but semantics are screwing us both up.

For instance, if someone were to ask if someone could pass final judgement and live in the Celestial Kingdom without being resurrected how would both of us answer?

I can't answer for you, but I would wager that the answer would be "no."

The Book of Mormon teaches us that if there were no resurrection we would be damned and become angels to the devil. We are saved from this through the power of the atonement. The spiritual and physical death of Christ would be for nothing if were not for the subsequent spiritual and physical resurrection.

By Christ's resurrection children are saved into the Celestial Kingdom. I don't suppose that they are stained with sin, but also believe that Christ's atonement is absolutely necessary for them. In this sense the resurrection is a saving power.

I am also arguing that the same might be possible for other organisms. No, they are not in the state of sin, and do not need an expiation of such on their behalf. Will they need the power of salvation from death in order to be raised to life? I imagine so.

In sum: Please stop saying that I believe children and animals are sinful and in need of salvation from sin. I'm arguing that they need salvation from death, as well as sanctification, which is just as vital to eternal life in the Celestial Kingdom. Salvation from death is provided through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

[Questing Beast]

I really have no clue how it all works, but if that is true, how do you explain the doctrine that God created all things spiritually before they were created physically?  It would seem that God could no longer be considered the creator of all things spiritual under your theory, but would only be the creator of all things physical. 

I consider the term "spiritually created" to mean "in the mind of God first before he caused it to be part of the world of humans". "God Is Spirit", which means he has a mind, or THE MIND, from which everything that exists derives....

[Stone holm]

I consider the term "spiritually created" to mean "in the mind of God first before he caused it to be part of the world of humans". "God Is Spirit", which means he has a mind, or THE MIND, from which everything that exists derives....

 

Yeah, but we are talking Mormon beliefs, I believe.