For the sake of man as created in the image of God (Elie Wiesel)

[Five Solas]

Earlier today, Elie Wiesel died.  (If you're unfamiliar, let Google be your friend.)  The Israeli Prime Minister issued a statement, saying, "His life was dedicated to the fight against all hatred, and for the sake of man as created in the image of God--he was a guide for us all."

This could go in a lot of directions, but I'd like to focus on those words in the middle--for the sake of man as created in the image of God.  This, according to Netanyahu, was Wiesel's motive.  It stems from the Book of Genesis (1:26-28, 5:1-3, 9:6).  Christians refer to the theological doctrine as Imago Dei.  It's why people are different from animals and why we must instinctively recoil that "survival of the fittest" be applied to us.  

LDS, of course have a bit different notion, including beliefs in a pre-existence (where good things, bad things, and fence-sitting things may have happened) and the notion that spirit intelligences are eternally coexistent with the "heavenly father." 

I'm not expecting this to be a long thread with many posts (quite possibly it will sink quickly without a trace).  But I am curious if any LDS have given consideration to Imago Dei and how it fits (or doesn't) into their worldview.

And  if anyone does want to digress on the broader topic of the person & work of Elie Wiesel, I certainly won't object.

:0) 

--Erik

[Freedom]

Since LDS's accept the bible, our doctrines on this matter are the same as any other bible believing worshiper. We were created in Gods image. Mosiah 7:27 states: 

And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth

And Alma 18:34 - I am a man; and man in the beginning was created after the image of God'

We add to this the notion that God's image is something we have in our countenance Alma 5:15

Which ties into D&C 1:16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.

 

The question that the bible does not answer is, what does it mean to be created in Gods image. We accept that he has a body like ours and if we saw him, we would see that we are the same species. But there is more to his image than the shape of his physical body. People who reject evolution do so without any explanation of any other way we came about other than to say God created us. There is no doctrinal support to find conflict between our eternal nature the the discoveries of science. 

Edited July 3, 2016 by Freedom

[ERMD]

We are physically created in His image, and as we progress through life (and afterward) the goal is to have His image grow in us and shine forth through us.  The fact that the goal is not and will not be reached by all is a function of agency.

"We have come to know Man as he really is.  After all, man is the being who invented the gas chambers of Auschwitz; however, he is also the being who entered those gas chambers upright, with the Lord's Prayer or the Shema Yisrael on his lips."    ----Viktor Frankl

[boblloyd91]

First off, I remember reading "Night" in high school and was very haunted by it. Beautiful but sad book in my opinion. In regards to Imago Dei, I think that's a great topic of discussion. I guess when we consider this in relation to Wiesel's work and the holocaust, it causes me to realize how deeply troubling sin truly is, as we do extremely unholy things when we are made in the image of the ultimate source of love and goodness. It makes things like the holocaust blasphemous (among other things). At the same time I feel that when we look at the humanities (one of my favorite subjects in high school and a passion of mine still) we see many examples of glimpses of how we are reflecting God's beauty. For example I'm working through studying the works of Vermeer, and how he captured the common settings of his day was breathtaking. I'm also reading Goethe's Faust and Dante's Divine Comedy right now and am getting glimpses of the heights we as human beings can go in our imagination and expression of beauty. 

I realize I may be rambling now, but as a Latter Day Saint, I always looked at it as all of us having a divine spark that could be either fully nurtured and realized in beautiful ways, or neglected and perverted in horrific ways. I have always looked at the parable of the slothful servant in the gospels along these lines. It may not be an accurate analysis but it's what my mind went to.

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Earlier today, Elie Wiesel died.  (If you're unfamiliar, let Google be your friend.)  The Israeli Prime Minister issued a statement, saying, "His life was dedicated to the fight against all hatred, and for the sake of man as created in the image of God--he was a guide for us all."

This could go in a lot of directions, but I'd like to focus on those words in the middle--for the sake of man as created in the image of God.  This, according to Netanyahu, was Wiesel's motive.  It stems from the Book of Genesis (1:26-28, 5:1-3, 9:6).  Christians refer to the theological doctrine as Imago Dei.  It's why people are different from animals and why we must instinctively recoil that "survival of the fittest" be applied to us.  

LDS, of course have a bit different notion, including beliefs in a pre-existence (where good things, bad things, and fence-sitting things may have happened) and the notion that spirit intelligences are eternally coexistent with the "heavenly father." 

I'm not expecting this to be a long thread with many posts (quite possibly it will sink quickly without a trace).  But I am curious if any LDS have given consideration to Imago Dei and how it fits (or doesn't) into their worldview.

And  if anyone does want to digress on the broader topic of the person & work of Elie Wiesel, I certainly won't object.

:0) 

--Erik

The doctrine is central to LDS theology, that God is embodied and we are in his image. That's what "Theomorphic Man" means. We are his children.  You didn't know that?  First Vision and all?

[Ahab]

21 hours ago, Five Solas said:

It's why people are different from animals and why we must instinctively recoil that "survival of the fittest" be applied to us. 

Even as man is created in the image of God there is still the idea of survival of the fittest.  Well, okay, maybe not survival of the fittest since we all will survive, but the idea that only the fittest and most valiant of our kind will come out on top as the best of our kind.  Everyone else of our kind will be somehow inferior to those who come out on top as the best of our kind.

[Calm]

Exaltation as a competition...nope, not buying it.  If people choose, there need be no one that doesn't receive exaltation.  And if all choose otherwise, everyone could be living the telestial life.  That is in no way a survival of the fittest set up.

[Vance]

Ether 3:6 And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear.

  7 And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; and the Lord said unto him: Arise, why hast thou fallen?

  8 And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood.

  9 And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger. Sawest thou more than this?

  10 And he answered: Nay; Lord, show thyself unto me.

  11 And the Lord said unto him: Believest thou the words which I shall speak?

  12 And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.

  13 And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.

  14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

  15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

  16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

[Five Solas]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The doctrine is central to LDS theology, that God is embodied and we are in his image. That's what "Theomorphic Man" means. We are his children.  You didn't know that?  First Vision and all?

No, I didn't know that.  I'd never actually heard of Imago Dei until after I became a Christian (okay, I'd probably at least heard it somewhere--but it didn't stick as anything significant).  As a child I was taught to sing the LDS children's hymn, "I am a child of God."  I thought of that literally, that I was the literal child of literal heavenly parents.  The whole notion of merely being an image-bearer would have seemed a cheapening, a dilution of my inheritance if someone had explained Imago Dei to me back then.

I know you're not going to like this, mfbukowski, but I will be interested when you tell me why:  You can't have a high view of man if you have a low view of God.  Imago Dei.  And when (as another LDS posted did previously on the thread) you assert God is the "same species" as you--well, that's a *very* low view of God.  Really, could it get any lower?

--Erik

Edited July 3, 2016 by Five Solas
can't type

[CV75]

23 hours ago, Five Solas said:

This could go in a lot of directions, but I'd like to focus on those words in the middle--for the sake of man as created in the image of God.  This, according to Netanyahu, was Wiesel's motive.  It stems from the Book of Genesis (1:26-28, 5:1-3, 9:6).  Christians refer to the theological doctrine as Imago Dei.  It's why people are different from animals and why we must instinctively recoil that "survival of the fittest" be applied to us.  

LDS, of course have a bit different notion, including beliefs in a pre-existence (where good things, bad things, and fence-sitting things may have happened) and the notion that spirit intelligences are eternally coexistent with the "heavenly father." 

I think the phrase “man as created in the image of God” is most interesting because it implies that there is a version of “man as not created in the image of God.”

Man is spirit (D&C 93:33, as created in the image of God) is manifest at various junctures of his progress, such as: spirit, premortal, paradisiacal, mortal (his spirit and element temporally and temporarily connected), post-mortal spirit, and immortal (his spirit and element inseparably connected). There are children of the father which is in heaven (Matthew 5:45) and children of the devil (1 John 3:10). There are the children of Christ, of the rebirth (1 John 5:18, 1 Peter 1:3). The man as not created in His image (“the natural man”) becomes so by choice, and this can happen at any juncture along the way from “co-existence” through mortality. But through Christ we can always progress by choosing to be created in the image of God in the next expression of progress.

Speaking in terms of evolution (theoretically and hypothetically just for the sake of discussion), whatever gene pool might have been acted upon by the light of Christ or the power of God so as to produce the unique Adam gene that all the spirits (scripturally "man") now share in the flesh is what men as created in God’s image once were, but now aren’t.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

No, I didn't know that.  I'd never actually heard of Imago Dei until after I became a Christian (okay, I'd probably at least heard it somewhere--but it didn't stick as anything significant).  As a child I was taught to sing the LDS children's hymn, "I am a child of God."  I thought of that literally, that I was the literal child of literal heavenly parents.  The whole notion of merely being an image-bearer would have seemed a cheapening, a dilution of my inheritance if someone had explained Imago Dei to me back then.

I know you're not going to like this, mfbukowski, but I will be interested when you tell me why:  You can't have a high view of man if you have a low view of God.  Imago Dei.  And when (as another LDS posted did previously on the thread) you assert God is the "same species" as you--well, that's a *very* low view of God.  Really, could it get any lower?

--Erik

Is Jesus now not God because he is embodied?

[Five Solas]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think the phrase “man as created in the image of God” is most interesting because it implies that there is a version of “man as not created in the image of God.”

And I submit this is a gross misreading, CV75. 

The notion that all of us are image-bearers gives us all dignity, gives human life significance, and it explains why we are our brother's keeper.  If your reading is right & there's an implication that some of us are *not* image bearers of God (e.g., we were fence-sitters in the LDS "pre-existence"), then Wiesel was a naif.  We must suppose his persecutors had a better grasp of reality than he...

--Erik 

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

And I submit this is a gross misreading, CV75. 

The notion that all of us are image-bearers gives us all dignity, gives human life significance, and it explains why we are our brother's keeper.  If your reading is right & there's an implication that some of us are *not* image bearers of God (e.g., we were fence-sitters in the LDS "pre-existence"), then Wiesel was a naif.  We must suppose his persecutors had a better grasp of reality than he...

--Erik 

Go ahead, gross-misread away! You are just plain gross, twisting what i said into that. Try asking clarifying questions instead of reading your prejudices into it.

[Vance]

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

And I submit this is a gross misreading, CV75. 

The notion that all of us are image-bearers gives us all dignity, gives human life significance, and it explains why we are our brother's keeper.  If your reading is right & there's an implication that some of us are *not* image bearers of God (e.g., we were fence-sitters in the LDS "pre-existence"), then Wiesel was a naif.  We must suppose his persecutors had a better grasp of reality than he...

--Erik 

Perhaps he could have been more clear in his statement.  But you should have asked for clarification rather than jump to conclusions about what he meant.

 

I think he is referring to the concept put forth in these verses.

Alma 5:14 And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts?

  15 Do ye exercise faith in the redemption of him who created you? Do you look forward with an eye of faith, and view this mortal body raised in immortality, and this corruption raised in incorruption, to stand before God to be judged according to the deeds which have been done in the mortal body?

  16 I say unto you, can you imagine to yourselves that ye hear the voice of the Lord, saying unto you, in that day: Come unto me ye blessed, for behold, your works have been the works of righteousness upon the face of the earth?

  17 Or do ye imagine to yourselves that ye can lie unto the Lord in that day, and say—Lord, our works have been righteous works upon the face of the earth—and that he will save you?

  18 Or otherwise, can ye imagine yourselves brought before the tribunal of God with your souls filled with guilt and remorse, having a remembrance of all your guilt, yea, a perfect remembrance of all your wickedness, yea, a remembrance that ye have set at defiance the commandments of God?

  19 I say unto you, can ye look up to God at that day with a pure heart and clean hands? I say unto you, can you look up, having the image of God engraven upon your countenances?

  20 I say unto you, can ye think of being saved when you have yielded yourselves to become subjects to the devil?

  21 I say unto you, ye will know at that day that ye cannot be saved; for there can no man be saved except his garments are washed white; yea, his garments must be purified until they are cleansed from all stain, through the blood of him of whom it has been spoken by our fathers, who should come to redeem his people from their sins.

  22 And now I ask of you, my brethren, how will any of you feel, if ye shall stand before the bar of God, having your garments stained with blood and all manner of filthiness? Behold, what will these things testify against you?

  23 Behold will they not testify that ye are murderers, yea, and also that ye are guilty of all manner of wickedness?

  24 Behold, my brethren, do ye suppose that such an one can have a place to sit down in the kingdom of God, with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, and also all the holy prophets, whose garments are cleansed and are spotless, pure and white?

  25 I say unto you, Nay; except ye make our Creator a liar from the beginning, or suppose that he is a liar from the beginning, ye cannot suppose that such can have place in the kingdom of heaven; but they shall be cast out for they are the children of the kingdom of the devil.

  26 And now behold, I say unto you, my brethren, if ye have experienced a change of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now?

  27 Have ye walked, keeping yourselves blameless before God? Could ye say, if ye were called to die at this time, within yourselves, that ye have been sufficiently humble? That your garments have been cleansed and made white through the blood of Christ, who will come to redeem his people from their sins?

  28 Behold, are ye stripped of pride? I say unto you, if ye are not ye are not prepared to meet God. Behold ye must prepare quickly; for the kingdom of heaven is soon at hand, and such an one hath not eternal life.

...

 

 

 

[Ahab]

On 7/3/2016 at 1:26 PM, Calm said:

Exaltation as a competition...nope, not buying it.  If people choose, there need be no one that doesn't receive exaltation.  And if all choose otherwise, everyone could be living the telestial life.  That is in no way a survival of the fittest set up.

Not everyone will choose exaltation, though, even though there is no better option, so the ones who don't choose exaltation are making an inferior choice/ selection that could be thought of as having something to do with natural selection, losing what could be thought of as the race/ competition for becoming the best of our kind of being.

The apostle Paul thought of it as a race with exaltation being the ultimate prize, so even though you may not see it all as a competition, that doesn't mean that some other people can't correctly see it that way.

[Ahab]

On 7/3/2016 at 2:54 PM, Five Solas said:

Really, could it get any lower?

Yes, of course.  Like if anyone thought our kind of being was at some time an inferior kind of being, as the theorists of evolution sometimes propose.

By stating that God/Jesus and mankind are the same kind of being; however, we are stating that the kind of being Jesus was before he was born as a mortal man was the same kind of being he was as a mortal man and also the same kind of being he was when he was resurrected, thus remaining the kind of being we refer to as "God" during the whole process.  Not saying God is any lower than the kind of being he is or that mankind is any lower or higher than the kind of being we refer to as "mankind".

[Ahab]

23 hours ago, CV75 said:

Go ahead, gross-misread away! You are just plain gross, twisting what i said into that. Try asking clarifying questions instead of reading your prejudices into it.

He may not be able to correctly comprehend what you were talking about, though, because of the state of his mind right now, and while thinking he is right and all contrary views are wrong.

It's not as if everyone is equally intelligent.

 

[theplains]

On 02/07/2016 at 7:27 PM, Freedom said:

Since LDS's accept the bible, our doctrines on this matter are the same as any other bible believing worshiper. We were created in Gods image. 

Were Adam and Eve deities when they were created?

Jim

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Were Adam and Eve deities when they were created?

Jim

It depends on what you mean by "deity".

Our LDS understanding is that God and mankind are the same kind of being but we still recognize that there are different stages of develop of our kind of being.  Like how a fetus is still a person but not yet a fully developed person.  And likewise how a mortal person is still a person but not a resurrected person.  But still we're all people.  And only our kind of being can be correctly referred to as people.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Ahab

[Freedom]

8 hours ago, theplains said:

Were Adam and Eve deities when they were created?

Jim

I am unclear what this has to do with my post, but as Ahab says, perhaps you should define deities and what why you asked the question. 

[Five Solas]

On 7/3/2016 at 5:52 PM, mfbukowski said:

Is Jesus now not God because he is embodied?

A curious reply to my question, mfbukowski (but it got you 4 likes--so gabba gabba hey!)  As you may already know, Christianity teaches Christ's dual nature, fully God, fully man.  So the answer to your question is of course, no.  The theological expression for this is the "Hypostatic Union."   Perhaps I'm not understanding you (or perhaps you were just firing off a quick, crowd-pleasing shot).  Do you mean to suggest Imago Dei (the topic of my OP) and Hypostatic Union are in conflict?  If so, I'd love to hear you unpack this further.

--Erik

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

A curious reply to my question, mfbukowski (but it got you 4 likes--so gabba gabba hey!)  As you may already know, Christianity teaches Christ's dual nature, fully God, fully man.  So the answer to your question is of course, no.  The theological expression for this is the "Hypostatic Union."   Perhaps I'm not understanding you (or perhaps you were just firing off a quick, crowd-pleasing shot).  Do you mean to suggest Imago Dei (the topic of my OP) and Hypostatic Union are in conflict?  If so, I'd love to hear you unpack this further.

--Erik

I will be glad to do so a little later, but I consider the idea of two natures a strictly semantic game which begs the question from the start.

Until I get back I suggest you look up "virus dormitiva", which is the creation of a supposed new category out of words alone. Also please read up on "category mistake"

Both will be prominent in our discussion. 

This two nature solution is dreamt up strictly to supposedly solve the problem but it doesn't. It is smoke and mirrors, logically 

[theplains]

On 05/07/2016 at 5:40 PM, Ahab said:

It depends on what you mean by "deity".

Our LDS understanding is that God and mankind are the same kind of being but we still recognize that there are different stages of develop of our kind of being.  Like how a fetus is still a person but not yet a fully developed person.  And likewise how a mortal person is still a person but not a resurrected person.  But still we're all people.  And only our kind of being can be correctly referred to as people.

If God and mankind are the same kind of being (of the same nature), then it seems to mean 
you view Adam and Eve as deities (i.e. gods, whether or not they are more mature than 
other spirits in the progression path). If true, Adam and Eve were also gods when they 
were procreated by heavenly parents.  

As for the fetus, it is a human life (the same nature as the parents).

Thanks,
Jim

[theplains]

On 06/07/2016 at 0:48 AM, Freedom said:

I am unclear what this has to do with my post, but as Ahab says, perhaps you should define deities and what why you asked the question. 

The post related to man as created in the image of God.

Jim

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

If God and mankind are the same kind of being (of the same nature), then it seems to mean 
you view Adam and Eve as deities (i.e. gods, whether or not they are more mature than 
other spirits in the progression path). If true, Adam and Eve were also gods when they 
were procreated by heavenly parents.  

As for the fetus, it is a human life (the same nature as the parents).

Thanks,
Jim

Very close, except remember we are always hopefully progressing. For us, Adam is the mortal Michael who assisted in the creation

He was aware of his preordination to participate in the fortunate fall which was necessary to give us all the personal choice between good and evil. 

Like all of us, they were proto-gods, but they had progressed father than any of us in the pre-existence , though they still had to go through their earthly progression