Are animals damned?

[anatess2]

20 hours ago, Carborendum said:

We all know that mosquitoes are the primary exception to the rule "all animals go to heaven".  Mosquitoes are the spawn of the devil and are forever possessed by the spirits of the Sons of Perdition.  Ergo, mosquitoes don't exist in heaven.  They are the very tools of torment in hell.

And cockroaches.

[The Folk Prophet]

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Give me an actual scripture then we can talk.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/11.23?lang=eng&clang=eng#p22

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I assume nothing of the sort. I'm well aware that Rob has his own church. I'm just waiting for him to make the official announcement one of these days.

I love it!  Man, @The Folk Prophet, I missed you when you were gone!

[zil]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And cockroaches.

They've already been resurrected - it's why you can't kill them.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

They've already been resurrected - it's why you can't kill them.

No, those are twinkies.  Which leads me to the question... twinkies have souls right?

[EricM]

10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

No, those are twinkies.  Which leads me to the question... twinkies have souls right?

That's what the cream is, right?

[mordorbund]

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/31608-do-dogs-go-to-heaven/?do=findComment&comment=505012

Quote

This thread inspired me to dig up my old mission letters. Some background: my initials are TSJ (I work that to my convenience). Also before leaving, I had trained my brother's cat to come over and sit when I called for it (it liked homemade bread, so I would use that for leverage). And my dad had just written me telling me that his friend was a little sad because his cat died recently. My dad told him (I assure you my dad did NOT tell him this, but told the story this way) that if it had been a dog, it would have gone to heaven. But because it was a cat, well, tough luck.

This was my reply (and because it was written by a missionary, it's practically scripture):

Quote

 

"There are bodies canine, and bodies feline; but the glory of the feline is one, and the glory of the canine another. There is one glory of the dog, another of the cat, and another of the fish; for one fish differs from another fish in glory. So also is the resurrection of pets - they are domesticated in corruption, but raised in incorruption." (The TSJ notes "bodies canine, and bodies feline, and bodies icthus, but the glory of the icthus is one, and the glory of ...)

Thus we see that while every animal is resurrected, those that are less valiant will receive a lesser glory than those that are diligent. This does not mean a cat cannot receive the highest glory; but in order to do so, it must abide the law of the canine kingdom, i.e. it must become trainable, willing to sleep outside, obedient, etc. That it can be done, we have so seen, but we have also learned through sad experience that if the creature is not carefully watched over, it will lose its higher habits and return to its base nature.

 

 

To which my dad replied in his focus-inspiring letter:

Quote

Quit dorking around.

Yeah, that's two letters that'll never get read in General Conference.

 

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, EricM said:

20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

No, those are twinkies.  Which leads me to the question... twinkies have souls right?

That's what the cream is, right?

So when we talk about soul-sucking ghouls, we're being literal?

[anatess2]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

So when we talk about soul-sucking ghouls, we're being literal?

Well... this makes my weight-loss endeavor a tad bit easier.  I just realized I'm a soul-sucking ghoul... and I don't want to be.  No more twinkies for me!

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, DoctorLemon said:

I love it!  Man, @The Folk Prophet, I missed you when you were gone!

It's funny, actually. @Rob Osborn demands that I use scripture to prove a definition or meaning of a word, meanwhile claiming that the word means something else that cannot be proven scriptural any better. Scriptures don't typically define words for us. Moreover, words are obviously, constantly, used differently in different contexts.

Sure. Once can associate damnation with dwelling in hell. (Just as one can associate loss of eternal progression with dwelling in hell). One can also associate, quite easily I might add, damnation with loss of eternal progression, not returning to dwell with the father, etc., etc.

The idea of proving what a word means or doesn't mean using the scriptures is so much nonsense. Reminds me of my Jr. High school days when we'd get together at lunch with the Jehovah's Witness buddies of ours and debate the Bible and what things "really" meant. Very useful. Everyone successfully proved to themselves that their rendering of the word's meanings was the correct one while the others were just being daft.

There's a reason we have living prophets and apostles.

[EricM]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

So when we talk about soul-sucking ghouls, we're being literal?

Only if said person eats the cream and nothing else. My children are soul-sucking ghouls when it comes to Oreo cookies.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, EricM said:

Only if said person eats the cream and nothing else. My children are soul-sucking ghouls when it comes to Oreo cookies.

Ugh, now my choices are getting narrower.  No more oreos either.  That better be 10 pounds weight-loss a week.

[zil]

1 hour ago, EricM said:

Only if said person eats the cream and nothing else. My children are soul-sucking ghouls when it comes to Oreo cookies.

That stuff between the cardboard wafers of an Oreo cookie is not cream.  (Please forgive me if you actually believed it was.  You may wish to stop reading now.......   It's white Crisco + sugar.)

[CV75]

I don't want to share my Oreos in heaven.

[zil]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I don't want to share my Oreos in heaven.

In heaven, you'll get a magic wand that will make Oreos (or whatever) appear on demand.  And they will have no negative consequences to your health.  Though whether your wife yells at you for getting crumbs on the couch is between you and her.

[person0]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

In heaven, you'll get a magic wand that will make Oreos (or whatever) appear on demand.  And they will have no negative consequences to your health.

I desperately hope this is true.  I really, really enjoy eating delicious food.

[zil]

4 minutes ago, person0 said:

I desperately hope this is true.  I really, really enjoy eating delicious food.

I know, you're just trying to fill (and then expand) the measure of your creation!

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, person0 said:

12 minutes ago, zil said:

In heaven, you'll get a magic wand that will make Oreos (or whatever) appear on demand.  And they will have no negative consequences to your health.

I desperately hope this is true.  I really, really enjoy eating delicious food.

The joy of this magic wand would last maybe two weeks, tops. Then it's just Life As Usual.

[zil]

Just now, Vort said:

The joy of this magic wand would last maybe two weeks, tops. Then it's just Life As Usual.

Like children and Christmas presents.

[person0]

Just now, Vort said:

The joy of this magic wand would last maybe two weeks, tops. Then it's just Life As Usual.

I could care less about the wand, but the ability to consume endless amounts of delicious food with no repercussions, that is what I'm after!  I suppose the joy from that would wear off as well, but I still want it nonetheless!

[EricM]

Let's get back on track, shall we?

On 3/12/2018 at 1:09 PM, zil said:

Random thoughts...

Not a lot revealed on this, so this is pretty much speculation and deduction.  (Not at home, so I can't search, but didn't Joseph Smith say that animals would be resurrected and that humans would be able to communicate with them?)

I'm not sure. I do recall a seminary teacher mentioning that animals would be dispersed between the 3 kingdoms based off of a story where Joseph Smith referred to one of his horses as a "Celestial horse."

On 3/12/2018 at 1:09 PM, zil said:

Animal spirits and intelligences are presumably not the same as human intelligences.  Therefore, it is illogical to assume that unless they (the animals) can progress to be like God, they are somehow damned.

I guess this is where my beef (buh-dum-tshhh) stands with the issue. What makes their intelligence different than ours? On an Earthly scale, it's clear that we're a bit further along on an evolutionary progression brain-wise, but it doesn't seem completely outside of the realm of possibility for other animals to breach that gap one day. So why the spiritual limitation? Is it because spirituality applies to individuals, whereas evolution is more tied to populations? (I'm just thinking out loud here.) I know you said presumably, but do you happen to have a source for that thought?

On 3/12/2018 at 1:09 PM, zil said:

Scriptures teach that the planet Earth lives the celestial law by filling the measure of its creation and that therefore it will receive celestial glory.  If the Earth can do this, surely animals can.  (Further, when was the last time you saw a dog, for example, failing to fill the measure of its creation - as opposed to a human?)

I would agree, but this somewhat contradicts your previous statement.

On 3/12/2018 at 1:09 PM, zil said:

Finally, at least one key element of exaltation for humans is eternal lives - that is, eternal procreation - the ability to create spirit children.  Where, pray tell, do you think the spirits of animals come from if not from exalted animals creating the spirits for them?  (Now I could be entirely wrong, and perhaps God creates the spirits of animals differently from how the spirits of humans are created, but I personally suspect that it's the same pattern, just different exalted entities.)  If "continuation of seed" is how man receives glory in the next life, why would it not be the same for animals?

I do think this is logical, to a degree. But why would man's eternal progression hinge so much upon free will, while with animals have none and thus get a free pass? Either this is a ripoff towards the humans for having so much more responsibility, or it is a ripoff to the animals for never knowing nor understanding the joy of choice.

 

(To be clear, I am part of the "Trust the Lord, it will work out" camp. I really do believe it will be fine. But I am legitimately curious on the "how" of the situation, as we know so little on the subject.)

Edited March 13, 2018 by EricM

[zil]

Quote

Varied Creatures in Heaven
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44 Pg.291
I suppose John saw beings there of a thousand forms, that had been saved from ten thousand times ten thousand earths like this, -- strange beasts of which we have no conception: all might be seen in heaven. The grand secret was to show John what there was in heaven. John learned that God glorified Himself by saving all that His hands had made, whether beasts, fowls, fishes or men; and He will glorify Himself with them.

Says one, "I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts." Any man who would tell you that this could not be, would tell you that the revelations are not true. John heard the words of the beasts giving glory to God, and understood them. God who made the beasts could understand every language spoken by them. The four beasts were four of the most noble animals that had filled the measure of their creation, and had been saved from other worlds, because they were perfect: they were like angels in their sphere. We are not told where they came from, and I do not know; but they were seen and heard by John praising and glorifying God.

FWIW.  Nothing in the above suggests (a) that there's something these beasts are missing out on by remaining beasts, nor (b) that these beasts might eventually become something other than beasts.

12 minutes ago, EricM said:

I guess this is where my beef (buh-dum-tshhh) stands with the issue. What makes their intelligence different than ours? On an Earthly scale, it's clear that we're a bit further along on an evolutionary progression brain-wise, but it doesn't seem completely outside of the realm of possibility for other animals to breach that gap one day. So why the spiritual limitation? Is it because spirituality applies to individuals, whereas evolution is more tied to populations? (I'm just thinking out loud here.) I know you said presumably, but do you happen to have a source for that thought?

Are you suggesting that God evolved from a squirrel (for example)?  Or that a squirrel will one day evolve into a human shape?  My source is logical deduction based on the teaching that all things were created spiritually before physically, that our spirits look like our bodies (or vice versa) more or less, and that when resurrected we will look (more or less) like we do now.  There is nothing remotely hinting at the idea that after the resurrection, one's form can change, so why could animal forms change?  And why do you consider it a problem for an animal to remain an animal for eternity?  Is it a problem for a man or woman to remain a man or woman for eternity?  I see no reason whatsoever for this to be a problem.  And only if it is a problem does one need to find a way for a species to "progress" into another species.

Evolution, real or not and regardless of its extent, is irrelevant - each individual which has existed had, based on what has been revealed, a spirit which looked basically like its physical body, and it is in this form that it will be resurrected.

17 minutes ago, EricM said:

I would agree, but this somewhat contradicts your previous statement.

Where exactly is the contradiction?  The Earth has the opportunity to obey a celestial law and become a celestial planet.  A dog has the chance to live a celestial law and become a celestial dog.  A human has the chance to live a celestial law and become a celestial human.  I see nothing contradictory in any of that.

19 minutes ago, EricM said:

I do think this is logical, to a degree. But why would man's eternal progression hinge so much upon free will, while with animals have none and thus get a free pass? Either this is a ripoff towards the humans for having so much more responsibility, or it is a ripoff to the animals for never knowing nor understanding the joy of choice.

Who says animals have no free will?  Who says they have no agency?  Just because their intelligence, free will, and agency don't necessarily look like ours doesn't mean they don't have them in their own spheres. Just because the laws by which we are celestialized may not be the same as they laws by which they are celestialized doesn't alter the fact that apparently there are such laws.  An animal can only "never know or understand the joy of choice" if the only definition of "joy of choice" is the human definition - I don't see any reason to think that any animal will be upset about not being able to become human - I expect celestial dogs will be perfectly happy being celestial dogs and won't want to be anything else.

Again, from here, it appears that you think that unless everything eventually evolves into a single species, someone is getting ripped off, and I cannot comprehend why you would think that.  Were we to follow that to its extreme, we would also have to evolve into a single gender, single appearance, single personality, single identical entity - ickety ick ick - yawnville.  When the Lord says the following, I personally take him literally:

Quote

Luke 19:39 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.

40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

If the Earth (or even stones) have the power to cry out, then they have will, agency of some sort, so why not animals?

[zil]

The attached text file has every quote I could find related to the salvation of animals (I did not try every possible synonym, but searched as much as I was willing - there may or may not be more).  I searched the LDS Infobases (published in the late 80s or 90s, can't remember and I already shut down the VM it's installed on, so I'm not gonna go back and look; so that's why there's nothing super recent).

For what it's worth.

animals.txt

[Guest]

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And cockroaches.

No, cockroaches are telestial beings.  How?  Well...

Chocolate covered cockroaches are actually not that bad.

No one eats chocolate covered mosquitoes.

[askandanswer]

On 13/03/2018 at 5:29 AM, NeuroTypical said:

Not sure why eight gazillion fubrillion muchillion alotillion mosquitoes would even want to progress.  

I think you might need to recount. Last time I checked, it was eight gazillion fubrillion muchillion alotillion and three mosquitoes. But perhaps you are right because maybe the extra three mosquitoes reallly don't want to progress.

I think we are getting in tricky doctrinal discussions when we start making assumptions about the number of mosquitoes that might or might not want to progress. I haven't heard too many conference talks on this topic lately. 

Edited March 14, 2018 by askandanswer