This was such a wonderfully articulate piece, Roger! When I was considering topics for my capstone project for my MTS degree, I thought about doing an investigation of the various atonement theories present in LDS sacrament hymns. It would have been a sort of lecture recital. It still holds interest for me, because we are all over the map in our sacrament hymns in terms of atonement theories – some hymns even take on more than one within one hymn!
Thanks for your inviting and interesting analysis!
I love that idea. I’ll coauthor if you want to do it as a paper! It’ll be interesting to see, once the full new hymnbook is set, if there’s noticeable doctrinal drift from the old one.
Read “The Stature of Waiting” by GW Vanstone. No one understands the cost and price of God’s love in our behalf. I stopped believing in “The Mediator “ type stories long ago. Instead of using the term atonement. We should speak of real love, grace, sacrifice by God in our behalf, individually. The word atonement is thrown around too cheaply and without appreciation.
Thank you! This is lovely and insightful. The transactional god, I think, only works while we still have a very binary, good vs evil sense of the world. Once things get more complicated, it starts to fray. For me, one of the turning points of understanding the atonement was the speech given by James Rasband at BYU titled Faith to Forgive Grievous Harm. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/james-r-rasband/faith-to-forgive-grievous-harms-atonement-restitution/
My evolution in this faith sounds similar to what you are describing. Thanks for expressing these ideas with openness and humility. I continually am returning to the concept of the more I learn, the more I become aware of how little I actually know.
I have felt this way for quite a while now. It has brought me to really view sin in a new light. Particularly the idea that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Instead of seeing my follies and imperfections as keeping me from God, I now see this as a view of God’s character, of a parent who sees my pain and woundedness and is in pain with me. God, in all their beautiful love and mercy, provided the atonement to heal me not to provide justice for themselves. They cannot abide my pain, those loving parents reach out for me they do not turn from me.
I loved what you said about moral influence theory - I never heard of this before, but now I'm realizing it's what's been resonating with me lately.
It's so funny, I wrote an article about the atonement a few weeks ago and use a picture of the mediator Lds video as well in it, which is what caught my attention when I saw yours. It's nice to see there is sort of a Zeitgeist going on with how we understand sin, the nature of God, and the atonement right now!
When I was growing up, I thought of repentance as a punishment, but now the youth are taught to think of it as a gift. So I think the church as a whole is moving away from this penal/transactional understanding of the atonement.
I read through the link you shared about the different theories of the atonement, and my understanding of it can't be confined to just one of them. When our finite minds try to articulate something infinite, we do a poor job. But the more we try the closer we get. Thank you for sharing.
Roger, I really appreciate your perspective here. I like opening the door to other perspectives by saying that maybe Alma wasn’t trying to teach the single eternal truth on the matter, but was instead using his experience and perspective to speak to a son who needed some guidance. And, the beautiful result is that it seemed to work because we see that son continue faithfully in the ministry years later.
A few years ago The Church News interviewed President Eyring for his 90th birthday. Here's a quote of his from that interview I think about a lot.
"Because He — there is a law. … He’s bound by law, too. So, it is interesting, where — I love Him. I know He loves me. But I know there is a law. And that is why I say, ”I’m not ready to go yet.” I would like to — I want to be sure I have done everything I can to have the Atonement work so that where I have not done all the law asked [of me], I may say — have some forgiveness, because none of us are perfect, and none of us have done everything. But we need the Atonement. And I have faith that if I just keep trying to serve the Lord, that the Atonement will work in my life."
I’ll add a couple of other thoughts that for me complicate atonement theology.
1. In LDS theology, Jesus is Jehovah. This means that the punishments issued on the Hebrew Bible are performed by Jesus (e.g. destroying angel on Passover, the flood, sodom and Gomorrah, Uzzah for steadying the ark). Jesus also destroys 16 Lamanite cities in 3 Nephi 9. If Jesus dispenses justice and mercy, why can’t the Father do the same? See also John 14:9-11 where Jesus claims that he and the Father are unified.
2. 2 Nephi 9 describes what I call “The Great Cosmic Gamble.” If Jesus fails, all of us become slaves to the devil. Why would God risk all of creation to this fate? If you argue that God knew the outcome because he knows the future, then that also creates problems. God knows what we will do before we do it. Why not just judge us and send us to our eternal destiny without the complications of mortality? It feels like are being toyed with. At best, God is fully aware of the evil and suffering caused by a few, so why doesn’t God just prevent that? It’s hard to argue for a just and merciful God when the innocent suffer and God could have prevented it. I’m not talking about learning from our suffering—I’m talking about genuine evil like the holocaust, wars, slavery, sex trafficking, the inquisition, genocide, etc. God is either gambling with our eternal fate or already knows it and lets us toil and suffer anyway.
Loved this essay. I also have moved away from penal substitution in how I think about the Atonement.
I think that penal substitution works best when talking about interpersonal offense rather than sin. When I was grievously harmed, I found that it was easier to forgive when I realized that I could choose to let Jesus satisfy *my* demand for justice.
While I agree that it's okay that we don't have an official doctrinal word on what atonement theory is "correct," they're not all mutually compatible with one another.
Have you read any of Adam Miller’s thoughts? He talks about justice being about providing what is needed rather than what is deserved. He puts justice and mercy on the same side of the transaction rather than on opposite sides.
Also, the mediator film has always rubbed me the wrong way. Even before my faith expansion. 🤣
This was such a wonderfully articulate piece, Roger! When I was considering topics for my capstone project for my MTS degree, I thought about doing an investigation of the various atonement theories present in LDS sacrament hymns. It would have been a sort of lecture recital. It still holds interest for me, because we are all over the map in our sacrament hymns in terms of atonement theories – some hymns even take on more than one within one hymn!
Thanks for your inviting and interesting analysis!
I love that idea. I’ll coauthor if you want to do it as a paper! It’ll be interesting to see, once the full new hymnbook is set, if there’s noticeable doctrinal drift from the old one.
I would love to read that!
Read “The Stature of Waiting” by GW Vanstone. No one understands the cost and price of God’s love in our behalf. I stopped believing in “The Mediator “ type stories long ago. Instead of using the term atonement. We should speak of real love, grace, sacrifice by God in our behalf, individually. The word atonement is thrown around too cheaply and without appreciation.
Just bought that book and am partway through it. Really loving it so far.
Thank you! This is lovely and insightful. The transactional god, I think, only works while we still have a very binary, good vs evil sense of the world. Once things get more complicated, it starts to fray. For me, one of the turning points of understanding the atonement was the speech given by James Rasband at BYU titled Faith to Forgive Grievous Harm. https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/james-r-rasband/faith-to-forgive-grievous-harms-atonement-restitution/
I’ll check it out, thanks! Even just the title is compelling.
My evolution in this faith sounds similar to what you are describing. Thanks for expressing these ideas with openness and humility. I continually am returning to the concept of the more I learn, the more I become aware of how little I actually know.
I have felt this way for quite a while now. It has brought me to really view sin in a new light. Particularly the idea that God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. Instead of seeing my follies and imperfections as keeping me from God, I now see this as a view of God’s character, of a parent who sees my pain and woundedness and is in pain with me. God, in all their beautiful love and mercy, provided the atonement to heal me not to provide justice for themselves. They cannot abide my pain, those loving parents reach out for me they do not turn from me.
I loved what you said about moral influence theory - I never heard of this before, but now I'm realizing it's what's been resonating with me lately.
It's so funny, I wrote an article about the atonement a few weeks ago and use a picture of the mediator Lds video as well in it, which is what caught my attention when I saw yours. It's nice to see there is sort of a Zeitgeist going on with how we understand sin, the nature of God, and the atonement right now!
When I was growing up, I thought of repentance as a punishment, but now the youth are taught to think of it as a gift. So I think the church as a whole is moving away from this penal/transactional understanding of the atonement.
I read through the link you shared about the different theories of the atonement, and my understanding of it can't be confined to just one of them. When our finite minds try to articulate something infinite, we do a poor job. But the more we try the closer we get. Thank you for sharing.
I truly believe God is a God of natural consequences.
Roger, I really appreciate your perspective here. I like opening the door to other perspectives by saying that maybe Alma wasn’t trying to teach the single eternal truth on the matter, but was instead using his experience and perspective to speak to a son who needed some guidance. And, the beautiful result is that it seemed to work because we see that son continue faithfully in the ministry years later.
Roger, thank you for this beautiful essay. As a struggling member of the church, it brought peace to my soul.
A few years ago The Church News interviewed President Eyring for his 90th birthday. Here's a quote of his from that interview I think about a lot.
"Because He — there is a law. … He’s bound by law, too. So, it is interesting, where — I love Him. I know He loves me. But I know there is a law. And that is why I say, ”I’m not ready to go yet.” I would like to — I want to be sure I have done everything I can to have the Atonement work so that where I have not done all the law asked [of me], I may say — have some forgiveness, because none of us are perfect, and none of us have done everything. But we need the Atonement. And I have faith that if I just keep trying to serve the Lord, that the Atonement will work in my life."
Great essay, Roger. Thank you for sharing.
I’ll add a couple of other thoughts that for me complicate atonement theology.
1. In LDS theology, Jesus is Jehovah. This means that the punishments issued on the Hebrew Bible are performed by Jesus (e.g. destroying angel on Passover, the flood, sodom and Gomorrah, Uzzah for steadying the ark). Jesus also destroys 16 Lamanite cities in 3 Nephi 9. If Jesus dispenses justice and mercy, why can’t the Father do the same? See also John 14:9-11 where Jesus claims that he and the Father are unified.
2. 2 Nephi 9 describes what I call “The Great Cosmic Gamble.” If Jesus fails, all of us become slaves to the devil. Why would God risk all of creation to this fate? If you argue that God knew the outcome because he knows the future, then that also creates problems. God knows what we will do before we do it. Why not just judge us and send us to our eternal destiny without the complications of mortality? It feels like are being toyed with. At best, God is fully aware of the evil and suffering caused by a few, so why doesn’t God just prevent that? It’s hard to argue for a just and merciful God when the innocent suffer and God could have prevented it. I’m not talking about learning from our suffering—I’m talking about genuine evil like the holocaust, wars, slavery, sex trafficking, the inquisition, genocide, etc. God is either gambling with our eternal fate or already knows it and lets us toil and suffer anyway.
I couldn't agree more, and if you want to read my thoughts on this subject, you might want to check out this series I published at Wayfare Magazine: https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/p/atonement-metaphor-and-fairy-stories
Loved this essay. I also have moved away from penal substitution in how I think about the Atonement.
I think that penal substitution works best when talking about interpersonal offense rather than sin. When I was grievously harmed, I found that it was easier to forgive when I realized that I could choose to let Jesus satisfy *my* demand for justice.
I love this. Thanks for sharing this perspective, I’m going to be thinking about this for a while.
While I agree that it's okay that we don't have an official doctrinal word on what atonement theory is "correct," they're not all mutually compatible with one another.
Have you read any of Adam Miller’s thoughts? He talks about justice being about providing what is needed rather than what is deserved. He puts justice and mercy on the same side of the transaction rather than on opposite sides.
Also, the mediator film has always rubbed me the wrong way. Even before my faith expansion. 🤣
Love Adam Miller. Thanks for the reminder on how good that perspective is.