2 Nephi 30 (II)

2 Nephi 30:12-18 And then shall the wolf dwell with the lamb; and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf, and the young lion, and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. Is this to be taken literally or do these groups of animals represent types of people?  Apparently most early protestant leaders (Luther, Calvin) believed that the animals are symbolic of human behaviors, and that this passage is to be interpreted generally, to indicate a state of security and harmony.  I'm not sure I'm with them.
In disagreeing with them, there are a few problems for me.  Obligate carnivores, (animals that depend solely on the nutrients found in animal flesh for their survival) lack the physiology required for efficient digestion of vegetable matter.  I'm not saying God can't change physiology, I'm just not sure why he would do it.  However, in counterpoint to that physical problem, you have a few additional biblical references to animal behavior.
Isaiah 62:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food.
Hosea 2:18 In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle will I abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety.

And in potential counterpoint, to be fair, Ezekiel 34:25 I will make a covenant of peace with them and rid the land of wild beasts so that they may live in the desert and sleep in the forests in safety.

The first two seem to support the idea that the animals will actually eat straw and other green fare.  The reference in Ezekiel may imply that the actual peace will be a surcease of war.  I'm not sure it matters in the long run but I am certainly interested in the fate of animals in the millennial day.

The greater point here, is certainly that if God is capable of altering the very physiology of animals so that ancient prejudices disappear, then he will have similar abilities when it comes to altering the minds and hearts of men.  Recall the story of Saul, When he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart. Which is harder?  The updated physiology or the new heart?  Does the new heart count as updated physiology?  When Christ forgave the sins of the man who was sick of the palsy, the scribes were pretty upset because he shouldn't have authority to forgive sins unless he was God, and he said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee: or to say, arise and walk? He was really asking them, which is easier? He continues, But that ye man know that the son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. And he arose and departed to his house. So here, you have Christ, miraculously rearranging physiology, and basically saying it is easier to do that than it is to change hearts.