How do plants and animals progress, post-Resurrection?

[Nofear]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you saying plants and animals will not be resurrected?

Resurrecting everything seems to me ... dubious. Some animals I believe will be. Not sure which though. Probably cats. Dogs, not so much.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/all-the-biomass-of-earth-in-one-graphic/

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

This allows that the celestial beasts described in D&C77 are not resurrected beings, but continue to exist in spirit form that assumes an order (or a particular estate or state of being), that enjoys eternal felicity. Didn’t we also once enjoy eternal felicity in the presence of God, as premortal spirit innocents? And that such spirits/beasts may someday qualify to become resurrected by virtue of becoming human beings (how do they do that?). In the meantime, they also enjoy paradisaical and telestial felicity as their placement may be. Some in the early restoration may have referred to this process as “reincarnation,” allowing that all forms of life or element may follow suit.

Maybe you are right!

But on things like this, I put epistemology ahead of metaphysics.  In other words, HOW we can possibly KNOW these things is more important than speculating about castles in the sky that we could never know about.

In other words, putting the "science" (ie: speculating about mechanics and engineering of the world and biology of resurrecting beings) AHEAD of the question of how we could possibly know if our speculations are correct doesn't seem very logical.  That's why I call it "science fiction".

On the other hand, if such speculation leads to another way of seeing the existing incomplete paradigm, and then praying to find out of the paradigm I have created is "true"- at least for me- that is a different thing!!.   So one can adopt this approach or not.

For me, I think more about what- in my opinion-  we COULD KNOW about the science/mechanics/biology etc of resurrecting beings BEFORE I speculate on the "fiction" of how it might be.

The way my mind works, is that IF I don't see a way we could ever, here on earth, KNOW these things, I am not going to bother trying about how it might work metaphysically.   So again, for me the epistemology comes before the metaphysics.  Or as Ken would say, "your mileage may vary"

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Maybe you are right!

But on things like this, I put epistemology ahead of metaphysics.  In other words, HOW we can possibly KNOW these things is more important than speculating about castles in the sky that we could never know about.

In other words, putting the "science" (ie: speculating about mechanics and engineering of the world and biology of resurrecting beings) AHEAD of the question of how we could possibly know if our speculations are correct doesn't seem very logical.  That's why I call it "science fiction".

On the other hand, if such speculation leads to another way of seeing the existing incomplete paradigm, and then praying to find out of the paradigm I have created is "true"- at least for me- that is a different thing!!.   So one can adopt this approach or not.

For me, I think more about what- in my opinion-  we COULD KNOW about the science/mechanics/biology etc of resurrecting beings BEFORE I speculate on the "fiction" of how it might be.

The way my mind works, is that IF I don't see a way we could ever, here on earth, KNOW these things, I am not going to bother trying about how it might work metaphysically.   So again, for me the epistemology comes before the metaphysics.  Or as Ken would say, "your mileage may vary"

 

For me, considering how speculation /new consideration might be supported by what I do know (e.g., animals are resurrected; animals are not resurrected until their spirits become human) offers constructive opposition to what I already know for myself, so that knowing and practicing the way to choose, believe, know, etc. (Moroni 7, Alma 32) increases.

Of course, I am biased in what I am willing to consider in the first place, as a function of this same process. The most important of course are the fundamentals of our religion, but saying that out of the gate may discourage exploration leading to deeper appreciation and application of these fundamentals. I think the OP offers an opportunity to reflect on, appreciate and improve being human!

[Teancum]

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

For me, considering how speculation /new consideration might be supported by what I do know (e.g., animals are resurrected; animals are not resurrected until their spirits become human) offers constructive opposition to what I already know for myself, so that knowing and practicing the way to choose, believe, know, etc. (Moroni 7, Alma 32) increases.

You know this?  How do you know this?  Can you point me to the evidence for this?

Edited May 1, 2024 by Teancum

[mfbukowski]

47 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You know this?  How do you know this?  Can you point me in the evidence for this?

I don't think he meant that they are or are not resurrected, I think he meant, in his reply to me, that questions like that challenge us to get used to pondering issues like these,  even if we never CAN know that they will never happen.   Why they CANNOT happen is a strike against fundamentalist literalism, and perhaps allow for folks to follow, as mentioned, Alma 32 etc.

Faith is HOPE for things unseen.  I think it is about pondering what IS "unseen" to see if it makes any sense at all.  Again, for me, I see it as a kind of science fiction-in which also I have virtually no interest at all.  But some might be interested in a discussion on if "The Force" is "actually" what we call the  "Light of Christ."   Are the two concepts identical?

But I also do not play games either.   I see them as worthless.  I was an only child and never did figure out fully the whole "sibling" competition thing.     So you "win".  Good for you.  Neener neener.

Useless. 

EDIT:

Going back at this, it could be seen as a criticism of @Teancum, which was not intended. "So you win" was not about Teancum's argument- it is about the uselessness of winning children's games!

 

 

Edited May 1, 2024 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You know this?  How do you know this?  Can you point me to the evidence for this?

@mfbukowski answered for me! As to whether I know x-y-z and how, or point you to the evidence for x-y-z, the ABCs are in Alma 32.

[3DOP]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

What does being made in the image of God really mean?

 

All creatures on earth are made of the same stuff. The only reason humans thing we are special is because in the past few hundred thousands of years homo sapiens have evolved sufficiently enough to ask questions like this.  Religion has evolved along with us because it tries to answer questions like this and has had societal and cultural benefits.to humans. There are many religions the precede the monotheistic religions of the Bible that answer such questions differently than Christianity does and they were around for a long time.  But no, we are not made in and God's image.  But God is made in our image because humans made up the God of Christianity just like all the other gods before.  It had become intriguing to me that Christianity basically posits that God created the entire universe just so one species of hairless apes could live on this speck of a planet and worship this god.  That is a pretty egocentric position IMO. 

As Carl Sagan used to say, everything is made from stardust and everything will eventually return to stardust, including us.

Well I maybe should not have even jumped in here since I lean agnostic. But my take is we are all biological creatures and I believe all species, plants and such have a right to life in that species realm of being. What creatures are sentient and which are I cannot tell.  But I try to not even kill a bug if I can help it. Buy hey I could be wrong about all of this.☺️

Teancum, hi.

Thanks for the reply. I could be wrong too. Are we not fellow agnostics then, in some respect?

 

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Teancum, hi.

Thanks for the reply. I could be wrong too. Are we not fellow agnostics then, in some respect?

 

Well I am not sure?  Can you expand upon your comment?

[3DOP]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well I am not sure?  Can you expand upon your comment?

If one thinks one can be wrong about a particular thing, and another thinks he or she can be wrong about the same particular thing, even though they tend to disagree, are they not agnostic? Without knowledge about this particular thing?

Me not clever. Just using the word agnostic according to its etymology, as opposed to the most common usage today, in reference to belief in God. And so, in a certain sense, I find agreement with a fellow agnostic who admits like me, that I might be wrong about the same thing being discussed.

Edited May 3, 2024 by 3DOP

[CV75]

Mortal felicity ain't half bad, either!

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/02/asia/orangutan-medicinal-plant-study-scli-intl-scn/index.html

Headline: "Orangutan observed treating wound using medicinal plant in world first"

[Bernard Gui]

On 4/30/2024 at 7:31 PM, mfbukowski said:

Long time no see!  Glad you are back!

Needed some time off.

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Needed some time off.

Makes sense to me.  I am always on that edge myself.  Plus there is more to life, or at least I have heard that. 

 

[nuclearfuels]

On 5/1/2024 at 8:37 AM, MiserereNobis said:

On 4/29/2024 at 5:07 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Sentient forests could be nice though

I don’t know, man. The old forests of Middle Earth are rather malignant. Old Man Willow? No thanks! (I suppose we could build the High Hay of Buckland and burn any attacking trees in the Bonfire Glade)

I vaguely remember hearing or reading somewhere that the Redwood forest roots were actually connected. So plus one for the Redwood Forest ward / stake.

More recently I read about some molds that synchronize communication - and where they grow for example on old bread. Plus one for the mold wards and stakes.

D&C 88:37 THere is no space in which there is no kingdom and no kingdom in which there is no space.

[nuclearfuels]

On 4/30/2024 at 10:32 PM, 3DOP said:

irrational animal

Bruh - I appreciate the shout out, mentioning me by name and all.

I dont worry about grass and dandelions. 

I'm just not sure I can declare that I know what will happen to all plants and animals, throughout eternity.

[nuclearfuels]

On 5/1/2024 at 11:55 AM, smac97 said:

On 4/29/2024 at 4:57 PM, nuclearfuels said:

Seems contrary to the nature of God to presume that all plants and animals are unable to progress or damned (being unable to progress) after they die, and are resurrected at the Savior's Second Coming. 

Are you saying plants and animals will not be resurrected?

Thank you, Smac97

I'm not saying plants and animals will not be resurrected. The sources you provided and the scriptures, to me, suggest plants and animals will be resurrected.

I don't understand how God could be God (kind of like 2 Nephi 2, Alma 42) and at the same time, withhold the ability / opportunity / lessons for the plants and animals to progress. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Thank you, Smac97

I'm not saying plants and animals will not be resurrected. The sources you provided and the scriptures, to me, suggest plants and animals will be resurrected.

I don't understand how God could be God (kind of like 2 Nephi 2, Alma 42) and at the same time, withhold the ability / opportunity / lessons for the plants and animals to progress. 

This is one of those imponderables.  We lack revelation on the subject, so I'm not prepared to speak definitively on this, one way or another.  We'll learn more once we get to the other side, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

On 5/1/2024 at 11:26 AM, mfbukowski said:

... Or as Ken would say, "your mileage may vary"  

You rang?