| Thoughts on the Atonement from a Reform Mormon Perspective by R. Frederick Lauer |
| In Orthodox Christianity, Christ had to suffer to atone for the Original
Sin of Adam, which sin has been passed on to every human being. Since Mormonism
rejects Original Sin, and believes that humans are born innocent, for what
does Christ's suffering atone? In Orthodox Christianity, Christ suffered so that humans (tainted by Original Sin) might escape eternal damnation and eternal suffering in Hell. According to early 1830s Mormonism, one is never punished for eternity; one is merely punished in Hell for the duration needed to atone for one's sins. In the end, all are saved. If one accepts this theology (the belief in universal salvation after individuals suffer in Hell to atone for their own sins), then what is the place of Christ's atonement in this early Mormon scheme of things? In later Kirtland-era Mormonism, Joseph taught all that Hell (being the English translation of the Hebrew word "shaol") refers to nothing more than the spirit world--the place to which all people go upon death to await the resurrection--and that come the resurrection, all (even sinners) are glorified in one of the three degrees of glory. How does the Atonement fit into this theological construct? What would be the function of Atonement in this theology? In Nauvoo-era Mormonism, Joseph taught that all are saved, and that exaltation in the highest degree (achieving Godhood) is not given by God but comes as the result of an individual's work, the knowledge gained, virtues cultivated, etc. If exaltation is the result of one's efforts, what is the role and function of the Atonement? My own personal beliefs regarding Jesus as the Christ/Messiah are more informed by ancient Jewish Messianic concepts than by Orthodox Christianity--or the Book of Mormon theology (which is traditionally Protestant with regard to the Atonement). I think that the traditional Christian concept of the Atonement is a Gentile misreading of the Epistles of Paul--a misreading that ignores the fact that Paul lived and died a Jew (or at least desperately wanted to be a Jew); that his concepts of the Messiah and the Messianic Age were typically Jewish; that Paul's comparisons of Jesus's death with Temple sacrifices were geared to a Jewish audience while his remarks about the role of the Mosaic Law with regards to salvation were all directed at a Gentile audience. These facts, along with ignorance regarding the 1st Century Roman rhetorical devices employed by Paul, led later Christian thinkers to develop the doctrine of the Atonement for Sin by virtue of Christ's suffering and death. In ancient Judaism (3rd century BCE--1st Century AD), it was believed that the Messiah would usher in the Messianic Age (what we would call the Millennium) by doing the following: --Ascending to the throne of David and establishing the Kingdom of God on earth --Resurrecting and judging the dead --Convincing all the Gentile nations to acknowledge the God of Israel as the only true and living God. Since Jews did not believe in Original Sin, since they did not believe in Hell and eternal damnation, since they did not believe that Gentiles had to convert to Judaism in order to please God--the Christian concept of Atonement as traditionally understood seems anachronistic in a first century context. In light of early Judaism, it seems that Christ's resurrection is central to acceptance of him as the Messiah. Paul all but says this when he writes that if Christ isn't raised from the dead, then his (Paul's) faith is in vain. Nauvoo-era Mormonism--by rejecting the Christian doctrines of Original Sin and Hell, by accepting Universalism, and teaching that the degree of glory one inherits in eternity is the result of knowledge obtained--seems compatible with the belief that Jesus' Messiahship is linked to his resurrection. But apart from the resurrection, what would be the need or purpose of an Atonement? For what does Christ's death atone? It seems to me that the Christian doctrine of Christ's Atoning is built upon a particular understanding of a concept found in the Torah: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." (Lev. 17:11) Of this, Paul wrote: "And almost all things are by the law [by the Torah/Mosiac ritual law] purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." (Heb. 9:22) For me the question comes down to this: does one believe in Blood Atonement? Is there a universal truth behind the Israelite ritual of animal sacrifice to atone for a Jew's violation of the Torah? (Remember, that the Law of Moses applied only to the Israelites/Jews. As Paul wrote, Gentiles were under no obligation to obey the Law of Moses; in fact, a Gentile could please God by virtue of exercising faith in Him, without obeying the Law of Moses.) Consider also that in Utah during the mid-1850's, the belief that only the spilling of blood could atone for sins led Brigham Young and the LDS Apostles to preach that the death of Christ could not atone for certain sins; that a blasphemer, adulterer, covenant breaker and murderer had to spill their own blood in order to be forgiven. I personally reject the idea of Blood Atonement in all its various incarnations; the doctrine has no place in my personal Reform Mormon faith and philosophy. (The Resurrection does--but not Atonement via suffering, death or bloodshed.) The Mormon paradigm is one of Eternal Progress--not Salvation from Damnation--and in this paradigm I see no purpose for Blood Atonement. Orthodox Christian theologians have, for ages, been saying that Mormonism is not Christian because in the Mormon scheme of things one works out one's own salvation/exaltation; one is not dependent on the death of Christ on the Cross for redemption from Original Sin and Hell. Because other forms of Mormonism (LDS, FLDS and RLDS) have tried to reconcile Nauvoo-era Mormon theology with the Protestant Theology found in The Book of Mormon and early 1830's Mormonism, their Church leaders continue to wrestle with the concept of the Atonement. On the other hand, Reform Mormonism-- by using later Mormon theology/philosophy as it's starting point and by viewing scripture as art--avoids the issue altogether and frees itself to move beyond it. In the end, there are and will be Reform Mormonism who may find great meaning in the traditional concept of the Atonement, and this, in turn, may facilitate their spiritual and moral progress. |
return to top