Last week ws Holy Week! Yesterday was Easter Sunday and we’re going to talk about Christ’s Atonement with Dr Diedre Green & Dr Eric Huntsman and their new book “Latter-day Perspectives on Atonement.” There are various models to talk about Christ’s sacrifice and we’ll dive deep into that and discuss how grace ties in.
Dr. Eric Huntsman earned a Ph.D. in ancient history from the University of Pennsylvania and previously taught classics at BYU. He specializes in New Testament studies, particularly the Gospels, and has periodically led tours in Jerusalem. Dr Green received her bachelor’s degree at BYU and then went on to Yale Divinity School, including a mission in South Carolina. She received her Ph.D. at Claremont and works in Latter-day Studies at Graduate Theological Union. She has been working on this book for 15 years.
Latter-day Saint approaches to Atonement 7:57
“Latter-day Perspectives of Atonement” is aimed at both an academic audience (non-Latter-day Saints interested in Religious Studies) and an insider audience (Latter-day Saints wanting a deeper understanding of LDS approaches to atonement). They are excited about Univ of Illinois press because it will expose it to a broader audience beyond the traditional Mormon press. All contributors to the book are practicing Latter-day Saints with academic training, while Sharon Harris brings a unique perspective as an English scholar.
Atonement Theologies and Critiques.12:44
Dr. Green explains that there are different approaches to thinking about atonement in theology, including classical, medieval, & Reformation era approaches. Diedre provides a feminist and womanist critique of these approaches, highlighting how they grow out of specific social and political contexts. These different models discuss various frameworks for understanding the atonement, emphasizing the importance of recognizing that different models are not mutually exclusive and can be helpful in different contexts and times. The focus on penal substitution (the most prevalent theory amongst Christians) and its focus on violence in the atonement can be problematic. There are other important aspects to consider, such as the infinite and eternal nature of the atonement.
Objections to Penal Substitution
Some people object to the Penal Substitution approach. This is the idea that an angry god must be avenged and that someone (Christ) must pay for an offended God. It seems like stone-age views of an angry God, not a modern view of a loving God. Eric and Diedre say that a hyper-fixation on the violence in penal substitution is a problem and that the book contains other models to understand Christ’s atonement.
LDS Atonement models, focusing on penal substitution.3:44
Most people are familiar with Elder Packer’s tachings about a penal substitution model on their understanding of the atonement.
Atonement Models in Christianity.5:28
Diedre acknowledges that many are uncomfortable with the penal substitution theory of atonement. Many see it as problematic due to its focus on violence. However other models, such as moral influence theory (promoted by Gene England) also have their own issues. A more nuanced understanding of atonement is needed, one that takes into account the complexity of the issue and the various models that have been proposed. Deidre and Eric discuss the concept of atonement in the Bible, highlighting the importance of understanding the different aspects of Jesus’ sacrifice beyond just moral sin and death. They emphasize that there are other factors that keep us from being like God, such as physical conditions like autism, are also covered by the atonement.
Atonement Models in Mormon Theology.11:44
There are other models of the atonement. Christ’s healing aspect often gets under-emphasized. JB Haws & Terryl Givens have proposed consequential substitution as a better model than penal substitution.
Reconciliation models in the Bible.16:44
Eric shares a personal story about teaching his children about reconciliation and the importance of understanding different models of atonement. It is important to have personal experiences and faith in Jesus. Diedre discusses womanist theology and its intersectionality with race, class, and other social factors, highlighting the diversity of feminist thought.
Other Atonement Models 0:02
Deidre Green and Eric Huntsman discuss various atonement models in Mormon theology, including moral influence, nonviolent, and womanist perspectives. Traditional atonement theories can be seen as problematic for women, particularly black women, due to historical exploitation and abuse. Diedre argues that moral influence theory is a bigger problem than penal substitution for marginalized groups due to its potential to valorize suffering. It is important to think carefully when it comes to the atonement, avoiding both dismissive and quick-to-embrace approaches. She believes there are helpful kernels of truth in both penal substitution and moral influence, but that we need to be mindful of the potential problems with each approach.
Atonement Theories and Suffering.10:18
Eric emphasizes the importance of understanding the nuances of the Atonement, particularly the distinction between expiation and propitiation, and how this relates to feminist critiques of the violent atonement model. He argues that while penal substitution is a valid theory, it is not the only one and that we cannot dismiss it without fully grasping its significance in the context of eternal law and the nature of the Atonement.
The Atonement and its Significance in Christian theology.12:52
Rick mentioned Chris Thomas, a pentecostal theologian, who emphasizes Christ’s victory over death and sin in a Christus Victor model of atonement. Eric finds a subjective model of participation in Christ’s atonement appealing. Christ overcame physical consequences of sin, including disabilities and sicknesses, and that participating in Christ’s atonement heals these things.
Mormon beliefs and the Garden of Gethsemane.0:02
Rick discusses the role of the Garden of Gethsemane in Mormon theology. Lutheran Pastor Willie Grills asked Rick about Bruce R. McConkie’s statement in “Mormon Doctrine” that emphsized Christ’s suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane as part of the atonement.
Jesus’ atonement and its significance in Mormon theology.1:38
Eric emphasizes the importance of understanding the full spectrum of Jesus’ atonement, from the Garden of Gethsemane to the empty tomb and beyond. He believes the church’s focus on the cross has been overemphasized, leading to a lack of emphasis on other aspects of Jesus’ atonement, such as his suffering and resurrection.
The importance of the cross in Mormon theology.4:37
Diedre and Eric discuss the need to balance embracing Latter Day Saint distinctives with acknowledging the centrality of the cross in Mormon theology. Eric emphasizes the cross as essential in Elder McConkie’s apostolic career.
The Atonement of Jesus Christ and Its Impact on Human Experience.8:51
Christ’s experience in Gethsemane and on the cross relates to human suffering and the Atonement, with a focus on empathy and understanding. Eric emphasizes Jesus’ empathy for those who have been betrayed, judged, or wrongly suffering, citing examples from his own life and the Book of Mormon. President Nelson emphasizes the importance of personalizing the Atonement of Jesus Christ, rather than just discussing it as a discrete or abstract concept.
The atonement and feminist perspectives.14:55
Rick asked about if feminist or womanist theology might approach the limitations of Jesus’ suffering, as a man who could not have experienced certain losses that women experience. Deirdre cautions against overly literal interpretation of atonement, emphasizing its maternal aspects and Christ’s marginalized experiences. Eric called Jesus a feminist, highlighting women’s voices and privileging their perspectives.
Are you familiar with other atonement models besides penal substitution? Do you think it gets over-emphasized in LDS Church?
Wheat & Tares 
Don’t blame penal substitution on Packer. His Mediator did not serve the debtor’s time in prison (penal substitution), he paid off the debt (restitution substitution). There is no violence implicit in restitution substitution and it completely eliminates any tension between justice (understood as making victims whole) and mercy. The “he took my lickin’ for me” story, on the other hand–last told in Conference by Faust, if I remember correctly–deserves to be relegated to the theological dustbin.
All of these differing ideas (LDS and non-LDS) about the Atonement seem like the ultimate example of the philosophies of men and women mingled with scripture. If you don’t believe that Christianity is the only way it seems a little ridiculous to debate all of it. It’s like debating Heartland vs. Hemisphere.
lastlemming, I would agree with you except for the idea you said about making victims whole. Nope. In Packer’s explanation, the debt is paid not to the human harmed by the sin, but to God to pay off the fact that God is offended by the sin. It was all about the debt owed to God, and nothing about the debt owed to other humans. For my first some 50 years in the church, I never once heard the idea that anything at all was owed to the victim of the sin. That is not a Packer idea at all, but more recent, and I don’t know who it started with, but I have never heard it from a GA.
I spent years trying to heal from abuse and asked every church authority I could how the atonement applied to ME as the victim of sin, and the most I got was a shrug and told how I had to forgive and healing the damage to my life was my problem and why the hell wasn’t I over it yet. I just don’t need THAT God. I first heard that idea that the “debt” might be paid to the human victim of sin from a non Mormon source.
Anna,
Your interpretation of Packer is certainly the orthodox one and it may even be what Packer meant. I always assumed that it was what he meant and that he had stumbled upon a profound truth by accident, but you forced me to do a little more research and I now think that Packer may have intended my interpretation all along.
I reread the Mediator as it was delivered in 1977 and at no time did Packer explicitly equate the lender with God, nor did he make reference to any offence taken by the lender beyond not being repaid. When presenting his plan to the lender, the mediator states “You demanded justice. Though he cannot pay you, I will do so. You will have been justly dealt with and can ask no more. It would not be just.” It is hard for me to imagine Jesus preemptively admonishing the Father for some foreseen injustice. But it is easy for me to imagine him discouraging a victim who has been made whole for seeking punishment for its own sake.
When you said that you have never heard the idea that anything was owed to victims of sins, my first thought was to the April 2020 talk by James Rasband. (I remember it because I had given a Sacrament Meeting talk on the subject a few months before and Rasband’s talk made me feel vindicated. But you’re right, the idea appears in very few talks.) Anyway, the money quote from Rasband:
<blockquote>
But was Alma’s joy focused solely on himself—on his avoiding punishment and his being able to return to the Father? We know that Alma also agonized about those whom he had led away from the truth.16 But Alma himself could not heal and restore all those he had led away. He could not himself ensure that they would be given a fair opportunity to learn the doctrine of Christ and to be blessed by living its joyful principles. He could not bring back those who may have died still blinded by his false teaching.
As President Boyd K. Packer once taught: “The thought that rescued Alma … is this: Restoring what you cannot restore, healing the wound you cannot heal, fixing that which you broke and you cannot fix is the very purpose of the atonement of Christ.”17 The joyous truth on which Alma’s mind “caught hold” was not just that he himself could be made clean but also that those whom he had harmed could be healed and made whole.
</blockquote>
What I missed the first time I heard this is that Rasband was relying on none other than Packer as his authority. Footnote 17 references a talk Packer gave in October 1995 titled “The Brilliant Morning of Forgiveness.” For the most part, it was a conventional “repent and be forgiven” kind of talk, but the inclusion of the quote referenced by Rasband makes me think that Packer really did understand the importance of making victims whole–indeed he calls it the “very purpose of the Atonement of Christ.”
I don’t mean to blame you for missing these references. It took me decades to put all the pieces together and I when I have taught the idea of justice meaning that victims are made whole, nobody has ever immediately embraced that definition. They too have never heard it before. But the idea is out there, even in conference talks.
Admins, I submitted a rather long response to Anna, but it has disappeared into the ether. Could somebody check the spam filer before I try rewriting it?
Thanks for letting us know LastLemming. There were about 10 comments on various threads that needed to be released. Sorry to those for who our spam filter was over-active.
Last lemming, thanks for your analysis. I have generally despised that video the church made with Packers talk as the narration. Your final idea that “Justice” if defined primarily as “the victims being made whole” is the only possible way I have been able to reconcile Mercy not robbing justice. I think our general concept of Justice however, as Anna notes, is focused on justice demand punishment. That focus on the perpetrator has two negative effects; 1) It ignores the victim 2 )It requires evil to be responded to with more evil. Number 2 is how we tie ourselves in all sorts of knots by becoming evil in the name of trying to eliminate it.
Justice, as Adam Miller states in his book “Original Grace” is “The art of knowing what good is needed to make things right”. If we take Jesus seriously in the Sermon on the mount, then Justice is responding to evil with good, not evil. Justice would, instead of asking, what is deserved? It asks, What good is needed to help things, gone wrong, to be made right? If justice demands punishment then mercy will always rob justice, and stands no chance of ever making things just.
What about Blake Ostler’s compassion theory? Blake really led the way in developing a coherent theory of atonement based on LDS teachings nearly 25 years ago.
I empathize with Anna who correctly writes that we hear little about making the victim whole in our church meetings. She’s right. But the victims will be made whole, even though we talk a lot about what the victims must do: they must forgive their abusers. That may be true, but before we get there, a little mourning with those who mourn, and weeping with those who weep might be helpful. We are taught in the scriptures that “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain.” I don’t know if we actively teach that. My brother was in an EQ lesson years ago when someone taught that pernicious and false (in my opinion) doctrine that everything bad that happens was planned by God for our benefit. There had been a story in the local news that week about a woman who was kidnapped, raped, beaten and left for dead, and who only miraculously survived. My brother asked about her and whether God had planned for that to happen to her for her good. The answer was yes. He proposed that bad people do bad things and innocent people suffer. To suggest that this woman was brutalized so that she could learn a lesson from his mistreatment–that she was brutalized for her own benefit–horrified my brother, and I am glad that he challenged that teaching. The church may not be able to make the victim whole. Preaching to the victim to forgive, while probably ultimately a true teaching, should come after much sincere mourning and heartfelt weeping with those who mourn and weep, but too many of our leaders focus more on administering programs than on pastoring and ministering to the people. While I don’t know how all tears will be wiped away, I hope and believe that it is true.
I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but Anna’s comment about making the victim whole, and how does the atonement apply to victims, struck a chord with me. I recall a couple of lines in Job. No doubt that he was a victim, and many people look at what happened to Job and reject God. But that isn’t what Job did, and there is a lesson. He pleaded with his so-called friends to quit accusing him and to mourn with him in his mourning. One verse, 6:14, which I understand is very difficult even in the Hebrew: To him that is afflicted pity should be shewed from his friend; but he forsaketh the fear of the Almighty” (KJV). A few other translations might make the point more plain. “For the despairing man there should be kindness from his friend; so that he does not forsake the fear of the Almighty” (NASB), “A despairing man should have the kindness of his friend, even if he forsakes the fear of the Almighty” (BSB), and “For the despairing man there should be kindness from his friend; so that he does not abandon (turn away from) the fear of the Almighty.” To a person in despair, we should offer kind words, not words of correction. If needed, words of correction can come later, but for now, kindness. I don’t think that this is always the case.
A few verses later, we get this, vv 25-26, in the NLT:
“Honest words can be painful,
but what do your criticisms amount to?
Do you think your words are convincing
when you disregard my cry of desperation?”
He or she who is suffering does not need correction. He needs to be heard in his cry of desperation. He or she needs words that assuage, and not that condemn. As Job said it, 16:1-5–
“Then Job answered and said,
I have heard many such things: miserable comforters are ye all.
Shall vain words have an end? or what emboldeneth thee that thou answerest?
I also could speak as ye do: if your soul were in my soul’s stead, I could heap up words against you, and shake mine head at you.
But I would strengthen you with my mouth, and the moving of my lips should asswage your grief.”
Yes, one can heap up words against the victim and shake one’s head at that person, but we should speak to assuage our friend’s grief. In other words, maybe leaders, who are supposed to be pastors, shepherds, and ministers, should not tell the victim or the injured party what they need to do–you must forgive your abuser, you must find out what lesson you were supposed to learn, you must be happy because God loves you (and if you aren’t happy it must be that you don’t trust God). Maybe our pastors should mourn with those who mourn, and weep with those who weep. Maybe words of correction and counsel should come only after mourning and weeping–and maybe the victim, not the pastor, gets to set the time table.
If we are harsh with those who suffer, or who have questions, or who are in despair, we will lose them. We then are not good friends, even if we speak truth. Sometimes what is right is mercy and compassion. Maybe this is what God means when he condemned Job’s three friends, saying: “My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath” (42:7). Maybe what is right, sometimes, is to speak words of comfort, but to withhold words of correction. Jesus did that with the woman taken in adultery, did he not? Maybe we need to train our bishops and leaders to say less, and not more.
Georgis, You have excellently provided the foundation for someone to give a great sacrament meeting talk — but if one must use a General Conference talk as a springboard to the words you cited from the scripture, is there any talk that would work?
What does it mean that victims will be made whole?