In this podcast episode, Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon and panelists Jared Anderson, Brian Johnston, and Tresa Edmunds explore these questions and the historical attempts to answer them and explain the experience of transformation or renewed life through Christ that so many claim, including the panelists themselves. In general, the discussion explores the Atonement from the ideas that first show up in biblical sources and then onto the main Atonement theory categories: ransom, satisfaction, penal substitution, and moral influence. It also gives attention to various angles on the Atonement and Christ’s redeeming work that are emphasized the most in Mormonism, as well as a couple of Atonement models that are unique to it. The panelists then close the discussion with their own views regarding or experiences with the Atonement in their own lives.

This episode is longer than a typical Mormon Matters podcast, but if one is to believe the Atonement is the most important single thing to ever take place in this world, the discussion’s extra length is fitting for its subject (and even far too short)! We hope you will all join in and further the discussion in the comments section below.

_____

Links to articles/essays of possible interest:

Lorin Hansen Dialogue article that describes the main categories of Atonement theories while suggesting Mormon ideas are closest to the Moral Influence theory.

Eugene England essay on the Atonement, which also suggests a Moral Influence reading. He adds an attempt to do what Moral Influence has had trouble doing, which is to explain why it was “necessary,” how it is that “only Jesus” could effect this change.

J. Clair Batty Sunstone personal essay that shares his journey from confusion over God needing blood and anguish to forgive us to a sense of peace about the Atonement.

Link to an online posting of W. Cleon Skousen’s uniquely Mormon take on why the Atonement requiring Christ’s sacrifice was necessary.

Blake Ostler article outlining his views on how the Atonement works and comparing them to other Mormon theories.

Jared Anderson essay, “Jesus: Savior or Symbol,” mentioned a few times in the podcast. Anderson’s attempt to honor the reality of the experiences with the Atonement many persons have while not necessarily forcing one to see the Atonement as a discreet, literal event.

Official statements call for robust discussion, and this episode tries to provide just that through engaging not only the statement but also the human face of this issue and marriage of religion and politics that is often so prevalent in policy debates related to this issue. And it even ends with the episode’s panelists—Brent Beal, a business professor in Texas who for many years has served in LDS branches containing many undocumented church members, Ben Daniel, a Presbyterian minister in northern California who likewise ministers to many people here illegally and who recently wrote a book, Neighbor: Christian Encounters with “Illegal” Immigration, and Mark Alvarez, a Salt Lake City attorney, radio host, and advocate for smart immigration reform—sharing their ideas for better discussions and improved policies.

After listening, we hope you will share your ideas in the discussion below! We also extend a special invitation to contribute to the disccuion to those who advocate positions that differ from those of the panelists. If you favor a hardline approach to illegal immigration, support enforcement-only legislative approaches increased deportations, etc., we would love to engage with you, especially on the intersection between your political positions with your religious views.

HOST’S NOTE: In the months, weeks, and days leading up this Mormon Matters episode, I was blessed to be able to speak with many people about the immigration issue and various different framings for this podcast discussion, as well as possible panelists. All were gracious with their time, all made great suggestions, AND THEN I FORGOT TO THANK THEM DURING THE EPISODE! I know it’s not as fun to be mentioned only here, and I’m very sorry, but thank you, thank you Jason Echols, Ryan Cragun, David Knowlton, David King Landreth, Jana Riess, and Joanna Brooks!

Once there was a young teenaged boy that was inexperienced at driving and made the mistake of driving home at night without his headlights on. He had turned on his parking lights but had failed to pull the switch just a bit further for the headlights. The roads were well lit, so it was not obvious to such an inexperienced driver that something was wrong.

When a cop pulled him over, he was shocked to find that he had driven the whole way without his lights on. When he was required to go before a judge he immediately admitted his guilt and expressed gladness he had not hurt anyone.

The judge, sensing that this teen would not benefit from having to pay the ticket nor the additional insurance costs, threw the ticket out. The judge added “I’ve made the same mistake before myself. Just be careful in the future.”

Did the teen deserve the ticket? Of course, he was guilty. Would it be justice to have made the teen pay the ticket? Yes, of course.

Was this judge a “bad” judge? I think most of us would agree that he was not a bad judge, nor was he shirking his duties to society.

Did the repentant teen “deserve” the mercy the judge showed him? Of course not. Mercy is never deserved by very definition. This teen was pronounced “not guilty” by a judge due to no merit on his part.

Now pretend, just for a moment, that the same story had taken place, but instead the teen had shouted at the judge “I meant to drive with my headlights off and I’m going to do it again first chance I get!”

Suppose the judge was still in a merciful mood and still decided to throw the ticket out while still adding, “I’ve made the same mistake before myself. Just be careful in the future.”

Do you still believe this judge is a good judge?

What is the difference? In both cases we have the same judge performing the same act of mercy. Isn’t mercy a “good thing?”

It seems to me that we innately understand that for mercy to be “good,” it must only be extended to a person that has repented. The teen was not a threat to society so he could be shown mercy without harming either him or society. On the other hand, our non-repentant teen could be shown no mercy without harming both himself and society.

This example proves that what we do, specifically repentance, can indeed influence the outcome of a judgment. But that “influence” should not be mistaken for “merit.”