The Lord Is the First Victim In Any Crime/Sin ? Interesting!

[creator]

I just read an article titled "In My Own Image". It puts forth some insights that I'd never thought of, or understood, this way before.

From the article:
"“For a commandment I give, that every man’s brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man.” (Gen. 9: 13) This is the fundamental principle of God’s law-order and scriptural jurisprudence. It is illegal to murder a man not because the victim’s right to life would be violated, but because that victim is created in God’s Holy image. The Lord considers the murder of anyone of His children, created in his image, as an attack on Him."

"The primary offense for violation of any scriptural law is: desecration of the LORD’s image and likeness. This primary offense takes precedence over all other offenses within a specific violation."

"“Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” (See Matt. 25:34–45) From the LORD’s perspective, to murder a man is akin to murdering the LORD, to steal from a man is to steal from the LORD, to lie to a man is to lie to the LORD, to let a man starve is to starve the LORD. By contrast, to feed a man is to feed the LORD, to clothe a man is to clothe the Lord; to preserve the life of man is to preserve the sacred image of the LORD."

"Any violation of man’s right to life, to liberty, and to property is first and foremost a desecration of the LORD’s holy image. Under the laws of God, Man, as His creation, is so sacred, that he personally interjects himself on behalf of victims of every crime, no matter how small."

I highly recommend that you read the entire article (In My Own Image) to see much more evidence for these statements.
Looking forward to your comments on this.

[Jason]

Fascinating.....if you harm something of the creation....haven't you harmed the creator? or vice versa?

[SpeedRacer]

That is excellent. I always had the question about when Christ went into the garden to atone for our sins, who was actually demanding he do this. Laying the theory of Skousen aside, as particles may not have an independent will. This would mean God the Father really would be demanding this suffering as he is one that has to exact justice and would allow mercy.

[scottja]

This is a fascinating topic and has caused me to think a lot about it.
Not quite sure I can express what I am thinking, but I'll try.

The concept of justice requires that the penalty be paid. All of Gods Intelligences demand that the penalty be paid.

I don't think it was/is God The Father who demanded(s) the suffering, I think the Eternal concept of Justice requires the suffering, but as God The Father set up the Law, that does kind of make Him responsible. Interesting things to think about.

I believe that Jesus Christ chose to suffer for us, of His own free will and choice, thereby affording us the opportunity to partake of Mercy.

[jimmy k]

What about those being slaughterd in the womb?

[NoGreaterLove]

This made me think of the fact that we are the tabernacles of God. He dwells in us. I think he does so in the form of the Light of Christ. So we are literally abusing his body as we do harm to someone.

[Jason]

The thought that hit me on the way to work....whole new light to "vengeance is mine saith the Lord"....as the aspect of the wound being His and not ours....

[HeirofNumenor]

That is excellent. I always had the question about when Christ went into the garden to atone for our sins, who was actually demanding he do this. Laying the theory of Skousen aside, as particles may not have an independent will. This would mean God the Father really would be demanding this suffering as he is one that has to exact justice and would allow mercy.

You missed the part Of Dr. Skousen's talk where he said that every particle gets paired with an intelligence - THOSE are sentient and conscious beings in their own right...

[gruden2.0]

That is excellent. I always had the question about when Christ went into the garden to atone for our sins, who was actually demanding he do this. Laying the theory of Skousen aside, as particles may not have an independent will. This would mean God the Father really would be demanding this suffering as he is one that has to exact justice and would allow mercy.

You missed the part Of Dr. Skousen's talk where he said that every particle gets paired with an intelligence - THOSE are sentient and conscious beings in their own right...

Absolutely. This is especially evident in Abraham 4. For instance, in v. 18 it says "And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed." This implies that free will is also possessed by smaller intelligences. The whole chapter makes it clear that the creation was a cooperative process. All intelligences great and small have a will. It seems an integral characteristic of what defines an intelligence.

As for the Atonement, I think both interpretations can be correct. The intelligences demand justice, and God Himself observes the damage to ourselves via sin, and made a way to make it right for all.

[HeirofNumenor]

You're absolutely right...

[Nan]

I like this thought. Another thought is that in every sin is dishonesty.

[Rand]

I guess I am the first to have a problem with the premise of this article.
One, any mention of God and Jurisprudence in the same phrase puts my hackles up. Comparing God with Lawyers just riles me up. I guess I am prejudice. The"Jurisprudence of Spirituality"? It sounds like an attempt to humanize God. I think that is always a mistake.

Second, using the term "Victim" to describe God in any way is not appropriate. I am of the belief that we are to "Give Thanks To God in ALL things. Where is the victim in that admonition? We are to act or to be acted upon. Using our agency properly allows us to act. Being a victim is to be acted upon. God always acts and is never acted upon, thus He can't be a victim of anything.

And lastly: "The Lord considers the murder of anyone of His children, created in his image, as an attack on Him." The whole premise is staked on this leap of logic. It doesn't say that or imply that in the scriptures. If this were true, then the admonition to kill the killer would be an additional insult to God, and we would do harm to Him again. There would be no need for the blood of the innocent to cry from the ground for justice. It would be offensive to God if the murdered wanted justice when God was actually the one that was really hurt in the murder.

God knew from the beginning what would be, He is Omniscient. He isn't nor can be a victim of anything, because He knows what will come and what will be and He willingly entered this Eternity with that knowledge. Does it cause harm to God personally when we sin? Certainly Christ suffered for our sins. But is suffering the same as receiving harm? Our tribulations are constructive for us. Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth. JST Heb. 11:40 God having provided some better things for them through their sufferings, for without sufferings they could not be made perfect." Was suffering also essential for God to be perfect?

[SPARTACUS]

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law. It asks the question: what is law or what should the law be? By using the term scriptural jurisprudence I am saying what the scriptures (i.e. The Lord) declares to be the law. The Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our judge. I am not humanizing God, I am elevating law, His Law. You do not understand the premise of this article.

Did you read the article? Not once did I use the term victim in association with the Lord. Your rant about that concept is a strawman argument.

You consider the explanation given of JST Gen 9 to be a "leap of logic" yet you offer no scriptural justification. Three witnesses of this principle were given, from the OT, NT, and BOM. If my explanation is wrong you will have to do a much better job stating why.

You said: " If this were true, then the admonition to kill the killer would be an additional insult to God, and we would do harm to Him again.". Another strawman. Gen. 9 requires clearly commands execution for a murderer. Why? What is the reason given? Reread the JST of Gen 9.

[Rand]

I thought your article wonderfully thoughtful and very well done. I heartily commend your effort and goodness in it's creation. I am sorry if any of my comments have seem contentious, it is not my intent. I was just evaluating the ideas, and if we can help make each other better through that process we both win.

The title of this thread uses the word victim, and so did you in your article, " Under the laws of God, Man, as His creation, is so sacred, that he personally interjects himself on behalf of victims of every crime, no matter how small." If the crime is personalized to God as you imply, then He is also a victim of the crime. My earlier comments stand.

In my view, your idea that all sin or crime is personalized upon God is based in the interpretation of the scripture in the JST Gen 9: “For a commandment I give, that every man’s brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man.” I just don't see it. I see how you got to that interpretation. I just don't agree. If the comma after "man" were a semicolon or colon, then you could make that case, it is a comma, and to my reading and feeling, it doesn't mean what you have said it does. Once we have made a covenant with God, then we can sin against Him by virtue of that covenant. But it seems like it isn't true of all humanity.

1 Corinthians 8:12
"12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ." It sounds to me here that it is by sinning against their brethren, a covenant relationship that constitutes the sin agains God, not a personalized sin against God.

and others.
Alma 42:20
20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin." It is the law they sin against not personally agains God.

Matthew 18:21
21 ¶Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

Alma 27:6
6 But the king said unto them: Behold, the Nephites will destroy us, because of the many murders and sins we have committed against them." They had made not covenant with God to sin against. If they had, then they could sin against God. But outside of law and covenant, it is only against the person.

Doctrine and Covenants 95:3
3 For ye have sinned against me a very grievous sin, in that ye have not considered the great commandment in all things, that I have given unto you concerning the building of mine house;

Alma 45:12
12 Yea, and this because they shall dwindle in unbelief and fall into the works of darkness, and lasciviousness, and all manner of iniquities; yea, I say unto you, that because they shall sin against so great light and knowledge, yea, I say unto you, that from that day, even the fourth generation shall not all pass away before this great iniquity shall come.

This would also have to be true outside of the law, and apply to all human beings, even children. They can't sin because they are innocent, even if they did something that constituted a sin by common terms. So the idea that doing a service to one is the same as doing it to Christ, to me loses merit without the law and without covenant. Our covenants bind us to God and we sin against our covenant, not personally agains God. I don't believe our sins touch deity until we repent, and the atonement then swallows it up. Until then we carry the burden ourselves.

You wrote: "It is illegal to murder a man not because the victim’s right to life would be violated, but because that victim is created in God’s Holy image. The Lord considers the murder of anyone of His children, created in his image, as an attack on Him." Capital punishment would be a crime as well, unless murderers are no longer considered His children or creation. Unless killing, executing and murdering are different in your eyes.

I am probably nit picking on the jurisprudence idea, but I have always been uncomfortable when we put too much of a worldly term, such as Jurisprudence, ego, etc into an explanation of Gospel principles. I am not a lawyer, so don't resonate with the words usage as you probably do. I didn't intend offense, I just don't like the infinite Gospel described by mortal terms that to me seem so lacking.

[SPARTACUS]

The title of this thread uses the word victim, and so did you in your article, " Under the laws of God, Man, as His creation, is so sacred, that he personally interjects himself on behalf of victims of every crime, no matter how small." If the crime is personalized to God as you imply, then He is also a victim of the crime. My earlier comments stand.

Am I the author of this thread? Was the LORD the author of Leviticus 6:2?

"If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour..."

This law deals with a crime committed between men, i.e. theft, robbery, fraud. Yet the initial declaration is that such actions between men are first and foremost a trespass against the LORD. This is not the same as a victim of a crime. I never said it, and you are putting words into my mouth. Your earlier comments do not stand and I am puzzled that I even have to argue this point.

In my view, your idea that all sin or crime is personalized upon God is based in the interpretation of the scripture in the JST Gen 9: “For a commandment I give, that every man’s brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man.” I just don't see it. I see how you got to that interpretation. I just don't agree. If the comma after "man" were a semicolon or colon, then you could make that case, it is a comma, and to my reading and feeling, it doesn't mean what you have said it does.

This is a strawman. You are not including all of the verses in context, so here they are.

12. And whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for man shall not shed the blood of man.
13. For a commandment I give, that every man's brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man.

(1) The LORD gives two commandments in verse 12. Murder is outlawed based on the phrase "man shall not shed the blood of man". The second commandment is the requirement to execute via bloodshed, a person who is guilty of murder.
(2) The LORD then introduces another commandment, (which in my view is the commandment to establish government), with the phrase "For a commandment I give, that every man's brother shall preserve the life of man."
(3) The reason for these principles and commandments is given with the phrase "for in mine own image have I made man". i.e. Don't murder because man is created in mine image. Execute a person who commits murder because they have desecrated my image. Preserve the life of man because he is created in mine image. All of these concepts are interrelated and form the foundation for the LORD's system of law.

These commandments were given to Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japeth, whom according to Gen. 9:19 populated the entire earth.

Once we have made a covenant with God, then we can sin against Him by virtue of that covenant. But it seems like it isn't true of all humanity.

Correct me if I am wrong, but what you seem to be saying here is that if a person has not made a covenant with the Lord, then he cannot be guilty of sin. In other words, if a person commits murder, but hasn't made a covenant to obey that law, then he cannot be found guilty. While it is true that the LORD atones for the sins of those who had no law (Moroni 8:22) they are covered through the atonement. I.e. they have still sinned, but since they did not know it, the LORD is merciful unto them. They have still violated a law however, and this in inescapable.

1 Corinthians 8:12
"12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ." It sounds to me here that it is by sinning against their brethren, a covenant relationship that constitutes the sin agains God, not a personalized sin against God.

Reread Leviticus 6:2. The opening line says "If a soul sin". There were strangers (i.e. non-covenant persons) in Israel. Strangers were clearly under the jurisdiction of the law even without being members of the covenant and the law required equal treatment for them under the law (see Ex. 12:43, Ex. 12:49, Ex. 22:21) So even if a non-covenant member committed armed robbery against a covenant member, the law of Leviticus 6:2-5 would apply. The offender commited a trespass against the LORD whether the non-covenant member believed in the LORD or not. The LORD would require a restitution payment to the victim. If the offender wanted to reconcile himself to the LORD he would obey v.6 and 7. This aspect of the law could not be enforced however, as man is allowed to choose whom he will believe and follow. Under scriptural law, all persons living under its jurisdiction are accountable to God and his law, whether they believe in him or not. Scriptural law protects both covenant and non-covenant members equally however. The law has the authority to coerce men into making restitution between men, but does NOT have authority (or ability) to force reconciliation with the LORD.

and others.
Alma 42:20
20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin." It is the law they sin against not personally agains God.

This is a completely false interpretation of scripture, in 3 Ne. 15:9 the LORD Jesus Christ said: "Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life." To sin against the law is to sin against the being who gave it. The LORD is the law.

Matthew 18:21
21 ¶Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

You are using this verse to imply that my premise is incorrect. There is nothing contradictory here whatsoever. Did I ever say to the effect that to commit robbery against another man is exclusively a trespass against the LORD? No. I only stated the hierarchy of the offense. Every violation of law is first and foremost against the LORD. Victims of crimes are lower on the hierarchy.

Alma 45:12
12 Yea, and this because they shall dwindle in unbelief and fall into the works of darkness, and lasciviousness, and all manner of iniquities; yea, I say unto you, that because they shall sin against so great light and knowledge, yea, I say unto you, that from that day, even the fourth generation shall not all pass away before this great iniquity shall come.

Again, read 3 Ne. 15:9

You wrote: "It is illegal to murder a man not because the victim’s right to life would be violated, but because that victim is created in God’s Holy image. The Lord considers the murder of anyone of His children, created in his image, as an attack on Him." Capital punishment would be a crime as well, unless murderers are no longer considered His children or creation. Unless killing, executing and murdering are different in your eyes.

I have no idea where you are coming from here. Captial punishment is clearly authorized by the scriptures in JST Gen. 9:12. Capital punishment is not a crime and is completely different than murder. Capital punishment and murder are different based on the statements made by the LORD, not me. To deny this is to deny what the scriptures say.

I am probably nit picking on the jurisprudence idea, but I have always been uncomfortable when we put too much of a worldly term, such as Jurisprudence, ego, etc into an explanation of Gospel principles. I am not a lawyer, so don't resonate with the words usage as you probably do. I didn't intend offense, I just don't like the infinite Gospel described by mortal terms that to me seem so lacking.

Yes you are nit picking. Jurisprudence = the philosophy of law. I don't like to use the word philosophy when discussing things from the LORD's perspective, but it is the easiest way to transmit ideas to people. Ammon built on the common understanding with Lamoni, regarding his belief in the great spirit. Rather than argue with Lamoni that there was no such thing as the great spirit, he simply used what he already knew to build a correct foundation. I am not going to waste a couple of paragraphs in my article to explain something that is a heavenly way of stating the same thing summarized with the word jurisprudence. My intended audience was mortal man who is unfamiliar with scriptural law, and you kind of come off as a little condescending with such statements as your last paragraph.

[wiser2]

The definition of "sin" that I use is to act against God's will. People sin due to a combination of ignorance and weakness.

This would mean God the Father really would be demanding this suffering as he is one that has to exact justice and would allow mercy.

I believe that God is just (ie. fair). I believe that the idea that justice demands suffering is a warped idea of justice - actually injustice. From the perspective of the victim, justice requires 1) the damage be corrected, 2) that the victim be protected in the future from additional injury, and 3) the victim be compensated (something extra for the trouble). A victim that knows God would be further harmed by others' suffering, not benefited.

In our world where darkness/ignorance abounds, the eye for an eye technique found in the law of Moses can be helpful in providing educational and motivational feedback to perpetrators, thereby helping to provide items 2 and 3. In most cases, they specifically hamper the ability to provide item 1.

The atonement and God's judgment provide justice perfectly. Especially beyond this life, as the veil is lifted, God provides light and knowledge, providing the educational and motivational aspect that imposed suffering could have provided. Jesus Christ's willingness to redeem us, not just suffer and die, but more importantly to our victims (and to us as victims), pay our debt by providing items 1 and 3 to our victims, allows us to escape the death and chains of sin, if we are willing to try to stop causing damage by repenting, and if we are willing to recognize Him as the one who pays our redemption.

I also do not find much useful insight in the idea that THE primary problem with sin is the destruction of God's image. Although I do agree that is A problem. Certainly we demean Him in many ways, and we should work to stop that. By definition, God is the victim of sin, as it is an act against His will. And, ultimately He is the only one capable of fully fixing the problems caused by sin, so our sin increases a debt that He must pay.

[Rand]

Wiser2, well stated, and I agree with your thoughts.

Spartacus, I admire your thoughts and efforts. I struggle to put together the thoughts I have in a clear and concise way. It does disservice to you to expect your time and effort to continue a back and forth. I thank you for the responses, and wish I were more capable in this interaction in this medium.

I guess if you would answer a few questions to clear up what can be fundamental problems in communication. I want to understand better what you are teaching. I thank you for the effort to respond if you choose to.

When you say God is harmed, do you mean the Father or the Son?

How is He harmed? Is it a subtraction of light and truth? A diminishment of virtue? A loss of kingdom?

[SPARTACUS]

If someone walked into the visitors center in Salt Lake and started to paint or deface the statue of Jesus Christ, what would your reaction be? Has Jesus Christ himself been harmed by that action? Of course not. All that has actually happened is a stone has been painted differently than before. I assume such an action would upset you. You might even try to stop the man. It would make me angry, because he is doing more than painting a stone. He is defacing a representation of the savior. That is what evokes the emotion. What is more sacred, a human being or the statue of Jesus Christ in Salt Lake? Man is created in God's image so we are therefore sacred or set apart from all other life on earth. This principle in my view establishes a boundary or limitation on what man or government can do to other men. If it would anger you to see someone deface a representation of Jesus Christ, how much more angry should it make you to see a government deface God by treating his children as slaves via coercive taxation. If a man performs a prohibited action against another man, he is in effect, challenging the sovereignty of God. The Lord cannot be overthrown. His authority cannont be successfully challenged. You can either submit your will to His, or be cast out. If you submit to his will, he will grant you all that He has. If you do not then you will be forever damned in your eternal progression.

Does this answer your question?

[Jason]

If someone walked into the visitors center in Salt Lake and started to paint or deface the statue of Jesus Christ, what would your reaction be? Has Jesus Christ himself been harmed by that action? Of course not. All that has actually happened is a stone has been painted differently than before. I assume such an action would upset you. You might even try to stop the man. It would make me angry, because he is doing more than painting a stone. He is defacing a representation of the savior. That is what evokes the emotion. What is more sacred, a human being or the statue of Jesus Christ in Salt Lake? Man is created in God's image so we are therefore sacred or set apart from all other life on earth. This principle in my view establishes a boundary or limitation on what man or government can do to other men. If it would anger you to see someone deface a representation of Jesus Christ, how much more angry should it make you to see a government deface God by treating his children as slaves via coercive taxation. If a man performs a prohibited action against another man, he is in effect, challenging the sovereignty of God. The Lord cannot be overthrown. His authority cannont be successfully challenged. You can either submit your will to His, or be cast out. If you submit to his will, he will grant you all that He has. If you do not then you will be forever damned in your eternal progression.

Does this answer your question?

Sweet summary....thank you!!!

[Rand]

If someone walked into the visitors center in Salt Lake and started to paint or deface the statue of Jesus Christ, what would your reaction be? Has Jesus Christ himself been harmed by that action? Of course not. All that has actually happened is a stone has been painted differently than before. I assume such an action would upset you. You might even try to stop the man. It would make me angry, because he is doing more than painting a stone. He is defacing a representation of the savior. That is what evokes the emotion. What is more sacred, a human being or the statue of Jesus Christ in Salt Lake? Man is created in God's image so we are therefore sacred or set apart from all other life on earth. This principle in my view establishes a boundary or limitation on what man or government can do to other men. If it would anger you to see someone deface a representation of Jesus Christ, how much more angry should it make you to see a government deface God by treating his children as slaves via coercive taxation. If a man performs a prohibited action against another man, he is in effect, challenging the sovereignty of God. The Lord cannot be overthrown. His authority cannont be successfully challenged. You can either submit your will to His, or be cast out. If you submit to his will, he will grant you all that He has. If you do not then you will be forever damned in your eternal progression.

Does this answer your question?

That does a great job. I thank you again for your patience and kindness in sharing thoughts on this interesting topic. I hope I never offended or came across as too strident in any comments. Thanks again.

[creator]

LDS Liberty recently interviewed Gabriel Fink regarding the article which was the basis of this discussion. He mentions additional scriptural references that validate the thought that when we do harm to someone we are sinning against God... Listen to the interview here: http://www.ldsliberty.org/created-in-the-lords-image/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rose Garden]

My difficulty with this article is that it does not reflect the love that God has for us. In saying that He is offended by sin because it mars His image makes Him sound terribly self absorbed. He does all things for us. His purposes are entirely selfless. I can accept that sinning against anyone is a sin against God, but only because He loves us so much that it causes Him pain to see the suffering of His children. Anyone who truly loves another person can understand this concept. It causes pain, sometimes even physical pain, to see one you love suffer. I find the idea that a sin is against God because it mars His image to be a jump in logic not specifically supported by the scriptures.

This article begins by stating that understanding God is key in understanding ourselves. God is love. Any gospel discussion into God's character that leaves this element out cannot by fully accurate. While there is certainly a great deal of truth in this article, I think it has missed the mark somewhat by leaving out this most important element.