In his 2001 book, The Mormon Defenders, J. P. Holding, in a chapter critiquing the Latter-day Saint doctrine of divine embodiment wrote that:
. . .the meaning of
Genesis 5:3, and the reason for the application to the Adam-Seth relationship and
not to others, is clear. The verse “indicates that the succession of the ‘image’
and the blessing are realized through sonship,” and that the blessing of dominion
and authority continued in spite of the Fall. The language is used of Adam and
Seth alone because the pledge of dominion was passed on through the patriarchal
blessing to the eldest eligible son. (J. P. Holding, The Mormon Defenders:
How Latter-day Saint Apologists Misinterpret the Bible [Self-Published,
2001], 15)
In his essay, then-LDS (now agnostic?) Kevin Graham wrote the following
rather ingenious argument, showing that J. P. Holding and others who use this
argument are shooting themselves in the theological foot:
Holding then misses my point completely and accuses me
of confusing the image of God with the image of Adam. He is incorrect. I
am pointing out that the two images are separate, and are not to
be conflated. But it is too late, however, since Holding has already done
so. Holding clearly implies that the two are equated when he says of Gen
5:3, “the blessing of dominion and authority continued in spite of the fall.”
This suggests to me that Holding believes the image passed on was the
image that already granted dominion and authority, which is of course the image
of God. So Holding's convoluted argument creates an image within the image:
1) The image of God which gives
everyone authority over the plants and animals.
2) The image of Adam that gives only
one member authority over his immediate family.
Holding has made the image of Adam greater than the image of God.
After all, it gives one man the right to rule over God’s other images
(humanity) whereas God’s images only have authority over plants and
animals. This is the pernicious scenario Holding's argument creates.
What special authority did Seth inherit from Adam that could possibly compare
to the authority Adam was already given by God? Holding has argued
himself into a hole, and if he wants us to consider his argument seriously then
these things need to be resolved, not blown under the carpet with obnoxious
artifice. (Kevin W. Graham, “A Tale of Two Images,” emphasis added; electronic copy in my
possession)
Further Reading:
Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment
