Introduction

Why was the passion of Christ necessary? This is probably not a question that occurs to most Mormons or Christians. We tend to take the necessity of Christ's suffering as a starting point for both our devotion and our understanding. Our primary attitude towards Christ is one of worship and thankfulness. This is all together proper and as it should be. However, the fact that we do not generally ask the question does not mean that it cannot be asked. Nor does it mean that there is no value in asking it. Thinking carefully about one's faith can yield useful insights and produce an appropriate humility as one comes to appreciate the limits of one's understanding.

A useful background to this question is to consider an alternative soteriology.³ In Islam there is no savior or mediator. There is only Allah and man. Man of course is sinful. He does things which are evil and wrong in Allah's sight. If he continues in sin he will suffer consequences in the next life. However, the man who turns from sin and submits his will to Allah will be admitted to Paradise.⁴ How is this possible? It is possible because Allah is merciful and compassionate. It is purely because of Allah's mercy that one gains admission to Paradise. There is no Christ figure. None is necessary. Indeed, for a Muslim to suggest that Allah could not bring about salvation without a mediator would be a blasphemous imputation upon divine omnipotence.

The parable of the prodigal son also provides an example of how a soteriology without a mediator might work. The prodigal son asks for his inheritance early and then "took his journey to a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living."⁵ After a series of misfortunes he finds himself competing with swine for a few husks of food. At this point his heart turns back to his father.

However, when he returns to his father he finds a different reception altogether. When he was yet "a great way off" his father saw him and ran and threw his arms around him.⁷ Despite the son's protestations that he is "no more worthy to be called thy son," the father kills the fatted calf, places a robe and ring upon him, and accepts him completely back into the family.⁸ In this story there is no one who intervenes to reconcile the father and the prodigal. There is no need for some innocent third party to suffer in order for the father to accept the prodigal back into the family. Rather by a sheer act of mercy, the father accepted his wayward son's repentance and "fell upon his neck and kissed him."⁹

Yet the necessity of Christ's passion and Atonement is the foundation of the Gospel. The third Article of Faith declares, "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." Notice that it is only through Christ that one may be saved. Lehi hammered this point home to his sons when he declared:

So what is it that happens in the Atonement? Why is it necessary and what does it accomplish?

On one level the answer to these questions are very simple. The Atonement is necessary to bring us back into the presence of the God. It accomplishes the reconciliation of man and the God. However, it in no way detracts from the profundity and truth of these answers to point out the more can be said. What follows is an overview of several theories that seek to account for the Atonement and answer the questions put by Wilford Woodruff and Anselm at the beginning of this essay.

Some Preliminary Discussion

Traditionally Mormonism has defined salvation with reference to two separate concepts: physical death and spiritual death. Physical death came into the world as a result of Adam and Eve's decision in the Garden of Eden to partake of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. As a result of their decision, we all have the opportunity to come to earth, but we do so in a mortal condition. Christ overcomes death for all mankind through his resurrection, which by some mysterious process allows all mankind live again. The second concept is spiritual death. Because people sin they become estranged from God. Somehow this estrangement can only be overcome through the suffering of Christ. The theories that I outline below deal primarily with this second concept. Thus, while I refer repeatedly to the Atonement, in reality I am only discussing half of what Mormons generally understand Christ's role as savior to be. The reality of death and the necessity of the resurrection seem much easier to understand, than the necessity for Christ's innocent suffering on our behalf. While there may be some risk in focusing only half of the Atonement for the sake of brevity I will risk it.

The Penal Substitution Theory

The most common understanding of the Atonement is what is generally referred to as the "penal substitution theory." This model was first formally articulated by Anselm of Canterbury in the eleventh century. While he was archbishop of Canterbury, Anselm wrote a treatise called Cur Deus Homo ("Why God Became Man"). In it he argued that God must punish those who commit sin. Were God to refrain from punishing sin, Anselm argued, he would deny the distinction between sinfulness and righteousness. It would also imply that God's kingdom was "unregulated." Perhaps most interestingly, Anselm argued that if God refrained from punishing sinfulness, then "it makes sinfulness resemble God. For just as God is subject to no law, the same is the case in sinfulness [if it is not punished]."¹² Ultimately, Anselm claims that God's nature requires that he punish the sinful. Unlike Allah he cannot simply extend forgiveness as the merciful and compassionate one. Christ, because of his love for mankind, however, agrees to suffer the punishment for mankind's sin. This allows God to maintain his honor while at the same time saving mankind from the terrible punishment that God's honor demands.

Mormonism's unique concept of God has allowed some LDS thinkers to formulate a modified version of this theory. Unlike the God of traditional Christianity, the God who revealed himself to Joseph Smith exists within an ontological framework. He is not the "ground of being" from which all existence flows. Rather he is a supremely intelligent organizer of eternally self-existent matter and spirits. He is embodied and exists within space and time (at a planet "nigh unto Kolob" we are told).¹³ This means that unlike the God of traditional Christianity it is at least theologically permissible to speak of the God of Mormonism as being genuinely conditioned by something outside of himself. Since the God of traditional Christianity creates everything ex nihlo, he cannot be conditioned by anything other than his own will. However, the God of Mormonism is at the very least conditioned by other self-existent entities such as matter and intelligence and perhaps by some eternally self-existent law.

LDS thinkers such as B.H. Roberts and John Widstoe have used the theoretical possibility of eternally self-existent law to explain Christ's passion in terms of penal substitution. Unlike Anselm, they posit that it is the eternally self-existent law which demands that God punish sinners. Thus it is God's obedience to law rather than his sense of honor that accounts for the necessity of a savior. Christ suffers the punishment demanded by the law, which allows God to be obedient to its demands while at the same time extending mercy to sinners. This theory allows one to posit a God who lacks the vindictiveness of Anselm's deity, which must punish someone to satisfy his own sense of honor.

The Ransom Theory

Another theory of the Atonement understands it with reference to Satan. This understanding, known as the "ransom theory," says that Christ's suffering is actually exacted by Satan. Ultimately this theory hinges upon a peculiar conception of sin. Rather than simply viewing sin as disobedience to God, harm to others, or perversion of the soul, the ransom theory views sin as a yielding of oneself to Satan. When a person sins, they come under Lucifer's power and they cannot escape by themselves. A slight variation on this theory says that because of the fall of Adam all mankind is in the power of Satan from birth.¹⁴ In order to release mankind from Satan's grasp, God strikes a deal with the devil. In return for releasing sinful humanity from his grasp, Satan is given the ability to torment Christ. Mormons unwittingly articulate this theory when they sing of Christ "from Satan's grasp he sets me free."¹⁵

This has been the least palatable theory from the perspective of traditional Christianity. Again, the problem lies in the conception of God's relationship to the universe and its inhabitants. In the traditional view Satan, like man, is one of God's creatures. The Lord created him ex nihlo by an act of his will. Lucifer is utterly contingent on God. Thus, there is no sense in which Satan can have any power that the Lord is bound to respect or that he cannot overcome. Anselm disposed of the ransom theory by saying:

The answer, according to Anselm, is that God can simply overcome the devil by fortitudinem ("mighty power").

Again, Mormonism provides some unique doctrines which allow one to partially rescue the ransom theory. The Doctrine and Covenants declares that,

The Book of Abraham teaches that Satan is one of these eternal intelligences. In the premortal council he "kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him."¹⁸ Thus Satan, like us, is not a creature of God. This can be coupled with a robust concept of free will that states that not only does God not choose to coerce the will of other intelligences, but he lacks the power to do so. Thus, it is possible to speak of there being metaphysical rather than simply ethical constraints on God's ability to coerce others. If this is the case, then the God of Mormonism cannot act against Satan by fortitudinem as Anselm says.

Another standard objection to the ransom theory, is that even if Satan acquires power over sinners because of their free agency, they are still able to choose otherwise and turn towards God. Put another way, if God cannot coerce the will of Satan, then why should Satan be able the coerce the will of repentant sinners. The LDS emphasis on the importance of bodies also points out a way in which the ransom theory might be modified to overcome this objection. The Book of Mormon prophet Jacob taught that it is not only sin but also death -- the separation of the body from the spirit -- that gives Satan power over our spirits. He taught:

Thus it is our status as disembodied spirits in the hereafter which gives Satan power over us. It is because of the resurrection that we regain our bodies and thus have power over the disembodied Satan. Such a theory is consistent with Joseph Smith's teaching that "every being of tabernacle has power over a spirit that has no tabernacle."²⁰ One difficulty of this modification of the ransom theory, however, is that it does not answer the question posed at the beginning of this essay. Put another way, if it is the empty tomb that liberates us from Satan, why is the suffering of Gethsamene necessary?

The Moral Influence Theory

Another theory denies that Christ's suffering serves as a substitution for anything, whether it be the divine punishment for sin or the price of a captive humanity. Rather, the moral influence theory posits that Christ's suffering serves to motivate humanity to live a godly life. Christ is the incarnation of God's love for the world. The Gospel of John declares, "For behold, God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life."²¹ The moral influence theory interprets this scripture literally. God sent Christ to show his love, and to give a us a guide back to him.

According to this theory, the sheer power of the belief that Christ somehow mysteriously suffered for us motivates the sinner and brings man to God. From a theoretical point of view this is the least satisfying theory for the simple reason that it begs the question. If we are motivated by Christ's suffering because it was suffering for us, then we must understand in what sense it Christ's suffering was for us. Thus, the moral influence theory seems to assume precisely the point it tries to explain. However, despite its theoretical circularity, there is no denying the power of Christ's moral influence, nor the tremendous emotional impact of his suffering. Thus there is almost certainly more than logical circularity at work when we sing:

The Empathy Theory

A final theory understands Christ's suffering in terms of empathy. This theory partially inverts most Mormons' intuitive understanding of the Atonement. Rather than saying that the Atonement is necessary because of its effect upon mankind, the empathy theory states that the Atonement is at least partially necessary because of its effect on Christ. The scriptures teach us that Christ fills at least two roles in the plan of salvation: Judge and Comforter.²³ According to the empathy theory, it is the suffering of his passion which allows Christ to perform these two tasks.

Both judges and comforters must possess a certain kind of knowledge. The comforter must know about the suffering of the one he or she wishes to comfort. Likewise, the judge must know circumstances surrounding a crime and the suffering caused by it to render a just verdict. How does Christ obtain this knowledge? One might believe that by some mental trick of divine omniscience, Christ has a some miraculous mental experience by which he perfectly intuits this knowledge. However, the scriptures of the restoration tell a different story. In a sermon delivered to the people at the city of Gideon, Alma taught:

Here Alma is teaching that it is necessary for Christ to suffer both "temptations" and "infirmities" that he might know how to succor us (his role as Comforter) and "blot out [our] transgressions according to the power of his deliverance" (his role as Merciful Judge). Dennis Potter, an LDS philosopher, restated Alma's teachings by saying, "The suffering in Gethsemane is a miraculous event in which Jesus experience exactly what each of us experiences in our sinning. Only then can he fully understand why we do what we do. Only then can he fully understand the circumstances of our crimes. Only then can he know our remorse, and know whether our heart has changed. . . . It is the brining to his understanding the hearts and minds of humanity that is the atonement."²⁵

Conclusion

Ultimately, each of these theories is compatible (at least to some extent) with the scriptures. One scholar's commentary on the New Testament seems equally applicable to other scriptures. "There is no single New Testament doctrine of the Atonement there is simply a collection of images and metaphors."²⁶ Accepting one theory to the exclusion of other theories requires that at least some scriptural metaphors be given a more literal meaning at the expense of treating others as strictly metaphorical. Thus, in some ways the scriptures pose as many questions as they answer.

Hugh Nibley has observed that "in Latter-day Saint doctrine, the Atonement of Christ is far from being a merely theological, philosophical, or psychological exercise."²⁷ In this observation he is surely correct. However, this does not mean that Latter-day Saint doctrine is without resources for answering theological or philosophical questions about the atonement. Are there any uniquely LDS theories of Christ's suffering? Do unique LDS doctrines -- such as divine embodiment and the denial of ex nhilo creation for example -- provide new perspectives on the older theories? Hopefully this paper invites such questions even if it does not answer them.

1. Quoted in Gary James Bergera, "The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict Within the Quorums, 1853 to 1868" Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 13 (1981) no 2, 32.
2. Cur Deus Homo Bk. I, Ch. 8 in Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works, ed. Brian Davies and G.R. Evans (New York: Oxford UP, 1998) 275.
3. Soteriology refers to the theoretical understanding of salvation
4. The word Islam means "submission."
5. Luke 15:13
6. Luke 15:17-19
7. Luke 15: 20
8. Luke 15:21-23
9. Luke 15:20
10. Articles of Faith 3
11. 2 Nephi 2:8, emphasis added
12. Cur Deus Homo Bk. I Ch. 12
13. See Book of Abraham, A Facsimile From the Book of Abraham No. 2, Fig. 1.
14. Most Mormons would reject this variation on the ransom theory on the authority of the third Article of Faith, which states "We believe that all men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression" (A of F 3).
15. See Bruce R. McConkie, "I Believe in Christ," Hymns (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1985)
16. Cur Deus Homo, Bk. I Ch. 7.
17. D&C 93:29-30
18. Book of Abraham 3:28
19. 2 Nephi 9:8-9
20. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, ed. Joseph Field Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), ??.
21. John 3:16
22. "I Stand All Amazed!" Hymns.
23. For example in 2 Timothy 4:1, Paul refers to Christ as "the judge of both quick and dead," and significantly the scriptures refer to the Holy Ghost as the second Comforter.
24. Alma 7:11-13.
25. R. Dennis Potter, "Did Christ Pay for Our Sins?", unpublished paper available at <www.netoriginals.com/oman/LDSpapers.html>
26. William J. Wolf, "Atonement: Christian Concepts" s.v. in Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade (New York: Mcmillan Publishing Company, 1987) 1:496.
27. Hugh Nibley, "The Atonement of Jesus Christ: Part 3," Ensign, September 1990, 24. All four parts of Nibley's article, which appeared in the July, August, September, and October 1990 issues of the Ensign, contain an insightful discussion of the Atonement, although Nibley has little interest in the philosophical issues raised in this paper.