[After posting this, my beautiful and sexy wife pointed out the huge hole in my thesis, so I am going to re-tool the post and re-post it in the near future, but I am leaving it up for now even though it is massively flawed.]
So, in light of some frustrating discussions lately with Mormons about the nature of the Atonement (most particularly this one), I think I have managed to nail down two competing Mormon Atonement narratives or models:
1. Heavenly Father requires your perfect obedience in order for you to qualify for exaltation (“There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—-and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.” D&C 130:20-21). Mortals are born innocent and fully able to obey Heavenly Father’s commandments, but we have free will and we are subjected to temptation, and so each of us will inevitably, sometimes, break the commandments. Jesus came to earth and suffered in Gethsemane to pay the price for all of our sins and transgressions, and because of his sacrifice, we are able to go through the repentance process and have our sins effectively erased, so that we are counted in Heavenly Father’s eyes as if you had kept the perfect standard (so mercy satisfies the irrevocably decreed demand of justice). However, over time, in the eternities, we will stumble and fall short less and less, and eventually progress to where we, like Heavenly Father, no longer need repentance.
Put simply, we qualify for exaltation by never deviating from the standard of perfection. If and when we do deviate, the Atonement erases the deviation so that it is as if we had never sinned. So our exaltation is something that we earn by perfect obedience, and to the extent we are unable to be perfectly obedient, Jesus takes up the shortfall if we have faith in him, repent and have our sins washed away by baptism (and regularly renew our baptism through taking the sacrament).
I think that this model is internally consistent, and generally more supportable from Mormon sources across the standard works and the words of latter-day prophets and apostles. I think that it reflects a Mormonism that can be found in Kimball’s Miracle of Forgiveness. I suspect that older Mormons, Mormons who live in more homogenous Mormon communities and more traditionally-minded Mormons are more likely to espouse this first model. If you had asked me to explain the Atonement as an adolescent or early on my mission, I would have explained it in terms of this first model.
I also think that this first model is thoroughly Pelagian.
2. Heavenly Father wants to bring about our exaltation, which is a thing of infinite worth and so it comes with an infinite price. We have no means of paying an infinite price, so justice demands that we can’t be given an infinite gift that we did not earn. Jesus came to earth and suffered in Gethsemane, paying an infinite price on our behalf, essentially purchasing our exaltation for us. We can then take part in the exaltation that Jesus has bought with his sacrifice when we fulfill the requirements that he has set: faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the holy ghost and enduring to the end.
In this model, we do not directly qualify for exaltation. We qualify for it only indirectly through Jesus, who pays the entire price to obtain it, and then grants it to us (or gives us access to it) if we, in a separate transaction, meet the requirements he sets out. Mercy thus satisfies justice twice: once when Jesus pays an infinite price for our exaltation that we cannot pay, and once when he gives it to us for a price we can.
I also think that this second model is generally internally consistent, but I do not think it is as consistent with historical Mormon sources. We could probably have an argument about the degree of tension it has with other Mormon ideas, doctrines and texts. I think that it reflects a contemporary, PR-conscious and interfaith-dialogue-minded Mormonism that emphasizes the role of Jesus Christ and the Atonement, minimizes historic Momronism, and is influenced by Stephen E. Robinson’s Believing Christ. I suspect that younger Mormons and Mormons who live in diverse, pluralist urban centers and Mormons who are more engaged with postmodern culture are more likely to espouse this second model. I would not be surprised if, in a generation or two, this second model becomes overwhelmingly the norm among Mormons and will be taught consistently from the pulpit as if it had always been the norm. I would have explained the Atonement in terms of this second model towards the end of my mission and as a Mormon adult.
I’m not sure if the second model is Pelagian or not (kinda doesn’t matter since it’s still based on a completely and thoroughly heretical Christology). I suspect that Mormons who espouse the second model would assert that it is consistent with Protestant ideas about salvation by faith through grace, but I think you would have to look hard to find a Protestant who would agree.
Given the Mormon tendency to eschew systematic theology, I think that many Mormons probably hold oth models without giving it a lot of thought and without thinking about whether the models are consistent (not that Mormons lack the intellectual rigor to do so; I think they are just more likely to approach the atonement devotionally instead of theologically, and be satisfied* with any illustration or explanation of the Atonement that is sufficiently moving, reverent, and not obviously inconsistent with other Mormon doctrine).
To my Mormon readers: Do either of these models fairly represent your beliefs about the Atonement? Which one do you think is the most consistent with scripture and the teachings of latter-day prophets and apostles? Do you think that these models are mutually exclusive? If not, why not?
To everyone else, let me know your thoughts and observations. Let’s discuss.
*Did you see what I did there?
Sailing to Byzantium 
I think you quite nicely capture popular thinking about the atonement in mainstream Mormonism — I’ve never been satisfied with either of the ways you frame it above (but certainly not because they are — as you accurately point out — heretical from the perspective of most of the Christian world). I am drawn to the idea of the “moral influence” of Jesus as ultimately redemptive, but I’m quite agnostic about the eschatological implications of Jesus’ suffering. Others have made the case better than I could here (http://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V27N01_207.pdf).
I wrote about this a little at my blog a few months back (http://amateurmormontheology.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/the-atonement/).
I espoused option 1 for a long time myself.
I think another Mormon model of the atonement would be the good ol’ parable of the bicycle: A kid wants to buy a bicycle, but totally can’t afford it on their own. No matter what they do, they could never afford that bicycle. So their parent says that if they will earn $x, the parent will cover the rest.
It falls in the middle of numbers 1 and 2–with number 1, you theoretically could obtain salvation yourself, but practically, you fall short. With number 2, your parent has you do a certain number of chores–unrelated to money and buying the bike, and then buys it for you with a different currency.
Argh, you’re totally right, and the parable of the bicycle is not only subtly different from my second model, but it is also probably way more prominent among Mormons (given that, I invented my second model as an alternative to the Parable of the Bicycle, which I think I read in Believing Christ and disagreed with).
I may actually have to revise this post completely. x-(
So, in the Parable of the Bicycle, our exaltation is a thing of sufficiently high value that we are practically incapable of paying the price for it ourselves, especially given our vulnerability to sin and temptation. So
It is different from the second model above, because (unlike in my second model, where we do not directly contribute to the purchase of our exaltation but engage in a separate transaction with Jesus) in the parable of the bicycle, we do directly contribute to the purchase of our exaltation, even if only a little bit, and Jesus makes up the deficiency. So it has synergism (our efforts plus Jesus’s efforts equal the required sum of effort) in common with my first model, but like the second model, it frames exaltation as a thing we have to earn with our positive efforts as opposed to a thing we have to qualify for by not deviating from perfection (with Jesus taking up the slack in either case).
I am not as sure that the Parable of the Bicycle is as coherent though–I think that, in both of my models, the role of sin and the necessity of repentance and forgiveness are clear (in the first model, sin is the deviation from perfection that disqualifies you for exaltation and in the second model “repent of your sins” is one of the things that Jesus asks you to do before he will give you the exaltation he already purchased for you). I suppose you could argue that sin and repentance are the same in the Parable of the Bicycle and my second model, i.e., that repenting is something we have to do in order for for the Atonement to be effectual in our lives, and on top of that, in the Parable of the Bicycle, “don’t sin” is part of the cost of the bicycle that we metaphorically can’t come up with the money for.
Really though, I think that the problem with the Parable of the Bicycle is that it is devotional and not theological. It’s not a model; it’s an inspirational allegory. So it’s not really set up to withstand rigorous analysis–that’s just not the kind of thing it was intended to be. And as I said before, I think that’s a good example of Mormon atheology. Instead of a rigorous model we can think about and analyze, we have a sweet story that makes us feel good but doesn;t really answer any concrete questions, and at the end of the day we’re left with the same intellectual questions about the Atonement we started with.
I think that the big problem (or, my big concern) with the Parable of the Bicycle is that it limits the amount of Christ’s atonement to the sum of all the sins. Like, Jesus suffered only the sum total of sin and depravity in the world, not an infinite atonement.
As much as I might like to think that I could theoretically contribute to becoming closer to God… I feel like in reality that’s like asking my dog to understand what we watch on TV.
I’m a believing, practicing Mormon. I subscribe to the second model and have always been turned off by the first. I probably fall into your category of young, urban (34, DC), certainly influenced from Stephen Robinson both in book and in class. I can see the shift in rhetoric from Brigham to Kimball to Hinckley, I think some of that is in reaction to issues and norms of their day and being men of their day…sometimes the saints need a kick in the pants to be more diligent in keeping their covenants, sometimes they need to distinguish themselves from the world, sometimes they need to have more faith and trust, I think that is just the way guiding a people through the wilderness goes.
I tend to subscribe to the Parable of the Bicycle, with the caveat so ably noted by KatyJane (the fact that Jesus gave the bike store owner a blank check backed by a bottomless account). I also think that in some senses, your models are either substantially similar (we do what we can and must, repent for our failures, the Savior makes up the difference) or you fail to adequately distinguish between them for my Friday brain; I don’t see the separate transaction part of the deal as being all that big a differentiator. But I may be misunderstanding something. In any case, I’ve pretty much always gone with #2 flavored with #1 – I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive.
I thought Robinson’s book was mostly a different way of talking about the same thing – if anything, a more “Joseph Smithian” way of talking about it.
They don’t seem mutually exclusive to you because Mormon Atonement theology is sloppy. If you’re used to talking about something vaguely and generally, as opposed to precisely and systematically, the kinds of distinctions that precise and systematic approaches make don’t seem like they make a difference.
But they do make a difference–I intend to write a separate, full blog post about this issue in the future, but if you can’t say precisely what the Atonement does, you can’t really rely on the Atonement.
I’ve been curious to learn the history of atonement theology in the LDS church. In reading Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, I don’t see much (other than blood atonement). You have the Book of Mormon, which speaks of an “infinite and eternal” sacrifice, and you have D&C 19 which says Martin Harris has to suffer “even as I.”
But it seems that later LDS theologists (B.H.Roberts?) were the ones who started describing the atonement as something done in Gethsemene, not on the cross, and that the pain of Gethsemene surpassed that of the cross “more than man can suffer” (so could Martin Harris really do it too?). Then there is confusion about what “infinite” means from the Book of Mormon. Was Jesus’ atonment a total sum of suffering for all the world’s sins, so that effectively we can lessen his atonement when we choose not to sin? Or was it simply “infinite” in the sense that it was the same huge price to pay regardless of whether the world’s sins were small or great? And then theologists like Stephen Robinson have been trying to frame the atonement and place it within the works/faith debate we have with Evangelicals.
My personal view is that there is nothing magical about the atonement. It was simply Jesus dying on the cross, not with any extra metaphysical suffering. I think that our views of the extra metaphysical suffering come decades of theological writings stemming from a certain kind of interpretation the Book of Mormon, but you don’t have to read it that way. Jesus did it to show us how to suffer in the world, and to participate in the suffering of the world. Grace itself is independant of the particularities of the the passion of Christ. It is a universal aspect of God’s identity: “I will forgive whom I will forgive.” Grace is not dependant upon suffering. Rather, suffering is it’s own universal, something that God participates in to the fullest extent.
And what about the Bible?
. . . but if you can’t say precisely what the Atonement does, you can’t really rely on the Atonement.
That seems like a very strong claim to me. I am interested to know why you feel that way.
It seems to me like a tautology. If you don’t know what the Atonement does, you can’t rely on the Atonement to have done any particular thing.