Joseph Smith, speaking on the atonement
Posted by Matt W. on May 29th, 2007What did Joseph Smith believe about the atonement of Christ? How did he understand it? It is known that he felt it was the central tenant and foundation of our religion, but what did the prophet understand of it’s place in the grand scheme of things. The following quote provides some clues.
It is reasonable to suppose, that man departed from the first teachings, or instructions which he received from heaven in the first age, and refused by his disobedience to be governed by them. Consequently, he formed such laws as best suited his own mind, or as he supposed, were best adapted to his situation. But that God had influenced man more or less since that time in the formation of law for His benefit we have no hesitancy in believing; for, as before remarked, being the source of all good, every just and equitable law was in a greater or less degree influenced by Him. And though man in his own supposed wisdom would not admit the influence of a power superior to his own, yet for wise and great purposes, for the good and happiness of His creatures, God has instructed man to form wise and wholesome laws, since he had departed from Him and refused to governed by those laws which God had given by His own voice from on high in the beginning. But notwithstanding the transgression, by which man had cut himself off from an immediate intercourse with his Maker without a Mediator, it appears that the great and glorious plan of His redemption was previously provided; the sacrifice prepared; the atonement wrought out in the mind and purpose of God, even in the person of the Son, through whom man was now to look for acceptance, and through whose merits he was now taught that he alone could find redemption, since the word had been pronounced, Unto dust thou shalt return. But that man was not able himself to erect a system, or plan with power sufficient to free him from a destruction which awaited him, is evident from the fact that God, as before remarked, prepared a sacrifice in the gift of His own Son who should be sent in due time, to prepare a way, or open a door through which man might enter into the Lord’s presence, whence he had been cast out for disobedience.
(Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols. 2:15)
Questions:
Joseph does not seem to teach the penal-substitution theory of the atonement, which theory do you believe he teaches? (I think he teaches my version of course, but I am not sure I am reading the text correctly.)
Is the disobedience here pre-mortal or mortal disobedience?
By saying we will return to dust, is Jospeh denying that spirits were eternal, or just talking about the physical mortal body?
Did Joseph ever link Gethsemane with the atonement? (and you can’t say yes in the book of mormon or D&C, as those do not represent Joseph’s beliefs, but God teaching him. Joseph may not have figured it out.)
I’m not sure he doesn’t teach the penal-substitution theory (though perhaps I would understand better if I knew exactly what you mean by that.) I think penal substitution is a simplified version of the same thing. Joseph’s discussion here touches on a deeper level of the Atonement. Christ paid for our sins because He had to in order to understand us. That is how He descended below all, and how He opened the door back to Heavenly Father. A mediator must understand both sides - in this case, the side of God and the side of man. In order to understand man, Christ had to understand and feel the consequences for man’s sins.
This is a tricky question. I think it means the disobedience performed in Eden. Therefore, it was neither fully premortal nor fully mortal. It was mortal in the sense that it was made (at least in part) through ignorance, but was premortal in the sense that they were not yet capable of physical death. In Eden, mankind still had direct conversation with God. God, as you already pointed out, could not cut off that communication without damaging agency. Therefore, man had to choose to distance himself from God in order to truly exercise the full measure of his agency and to discover which voice he wished to follow.
I think it is just the physical body as defined after the Fall. Before the Fall, “dust to dust” didn’t exist.
As for your last question, I don’t think the two (Gethsemane and the Atonement) are separable. From this quote, it seems Joseph understands Gethsemane to be part of the Atonement, perhaps the means by which the “sacrifice [was] prepared.” I think that here Joseph speaks of the Atonement in its entirety - birth, Gethsemane and crucifixion - as a whole whereby the door between the Father and His children was opened.
Anyways, these are just my first thoughts. Thank you.
Comment # 1 left by SilverRain on May 29th, 2007
What about this one from Joseph Smith?
It must be shedding the blood of the Only Begotten to atone for man; for this was the plan of redemption, and without the shedding of blood was no remission; and as the sacrifice was instituted for a type, by which man was to discern the great Sacrifice which God had prepared; to offer a sacrifice contrary to that, no faith could be exercised, because redemption was not purchased in that way, nor the power of atonement instituted after that order;
Doesn’t the whole shedding of blood = atonement/remission of sins sort of fit into the penal-substitution theory?
Comment # 2 left by Michelle on May 29th, 2007
Michelle, can you give me a reference?
Silverrain, I’m not ignoring you, just short on time.
Comment # 3 left by Matt W. on May 29th, 2007
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Two 1834–37, p.58
Comment # 4 left by Michelle on May 29th, 2007
Michelle,
There are views of the Atonement where the shedding of Christ’s blood (and everything that stands for) has a saving effect that has no instrinsic connection with a penalty imposed by a judicial authority.
Christ’s suffering must have a necessary, natural benefit, otherwise it begs the question of why he should be required to suffer in the first place. If the consequence of sin is purely judicial, why not just waive it (when appropriate) with the stroke of a pen?
Only remediation of natural, unavoidable consequences can explain the necessity of a suffering atonement. The atonement makes no sense in purely judicial-punitive framework. No one was ever healed by beating someone else. In order to be worthwhile, suffering has to be incident to something intrinsicly productive. Restitution, healing, something like that.
Justice can be served by one person making restitution for the actions of another. But it would be pure insanity to throw one person in jail when you know the other person is guilty. No restitution is made, and the deterrent effect (perhaps the only legitimate reason for a pure punishment) is minimal.
Comment # 5 left by Mark D. on May 29th, 2007
So, Mark, I’m interested to hear the connection in your mind with the blood of Christ and healing, restitution, etc. To me, trying to “make sense” of the Atonement gets pretty fuzzy pretty fast because nothing about it completely “makes sense.” It just works.
But I’m still interested to see where there is a “natural” benefit to the suffering of Christ and how that fits into the interplay of justice and mercy.
Comment # 6 left by Michelle on May 30th, 2007
I suspect it is so hard to understand why punishing one man would pay for the sins of the other. The only way it can “make sense” to me - insofar as it can be a sensible and not an emotional thing - is that there is some natural law or other by which things must be balanced. I don’t know what that law may be (call it justice for shorthand), but the Atonement makes more sense if one accepts that the law of justice is eternal - that there is more to being God than just being close to Him, but that there are “natural” laws that must be obeyed. (”Natural” in quotes because they are more metaphysical laws from our perspective on this earth.)
In order for us to become like God, the natural laws must be met. It is more than simply a matter of one person paying for another. It must be one sinless person voluntarily submitting to the punishment in order to pay. That sacrifice cannot only be free of that particular sin, but must be free of all sin in order to work. Christ was the only one advanced enough to be sacrificed who volunteered for the job.
I believe that justice and mercy are not arbitrary laws set up by God, but are laws by which He, also, must exist.
Comment # 7 left by SilverRain on May 30th, 2007
I completely agree with Michelle -
I am new here, so I don’t want to hijack this thread - but I did want to ask a question. I have always believed the Atonement is universal. Christ suffered for EVERYONE….Everyone can repent because of the Atonement.
I have a co-worker that likes to discuss religion. He is not LDS. I am. His belief about the Atonement is that Christ only suffered for those that would take advantage of it. His reasoning is God is omnipotent, he knows who will take advantage of the Atonment (”be saved”), therefore - he only needs to suffer for those sins.
I apologize if this isn’t the right place to bring this up.
Thanks.
Comment # 8 left by Jason on May 30th, 2007
Michelle,
My view is simple. The consequences of sin and the incidents of mortality naturally lead to (spiritual) death. The suffering of the Savior is a consequence of his participation in a process that rolls back those natural consequences.
That is a substitutionary theory - Christ takes upon himself (lightens) our burdens, but not a penal substitutionary one - our burdens are not a punishment, but rather a natural consequence of sin and mortality.
Comment # 9 left by Mark D. on May 30th, 2007
Silverrain(1): this is a good place to start regarding the penal-substitution theory. Also here and here. It sounds like you fal in with the concept of the royal empathy theory. Where Christ atoned so he could learn how to succor us. Let me say that it took some hot and heavy analysis for me to move away from this concept of penal-substitution, but I really don’t want that to be the main focus here. I’m not looking for what I think, but I want to know what Joseph believed about the atonement. It seems to me that Joseph is satying the atonement is not to just take punishment away from us, but “to prepare a way, or open a door through which man might enter into the Lord’s presence”. Rather than Christ as the whipping boy, I see this more as Christ as the harbinger, sent forth by God for us.
Reading over my statment again, I believe you are absolutely correct in that Joseph is beging here where the bible does, in the Garden of Eden, and is not, at this point, addressing our pre-mortal state. This greatly changes the meaning I was pulling from the text, and so I wll have to consider it more…
Comment # 10 left by Matt W. on May 30th, 2007
Jason (#8) Blake Ostler and I went round and round on this very topic here. I eventually came to see a way to agree with him, though I am still on shaky ground. Comment there or here if you like.
Comment # 11 left by Matt W. on May 30th, 2007
Matt - Thanks for the link. I will read further.
Comment # 12 left by Jason on May 30th, 2007
I think I told myself I wasn’t going to get involved in discussions about atonement theory and I’ve already violated that decision so I’m stopping now.
Comment # 13 left by Michelle on May 31st, 2007
I think it’s more than royal empathy. It’s not just a matter of succor, it’s somehow necessary to “open the door.” It is part of the power that makes it possible for Him to pay for our sins. It’s not a whipping-boy sort of “someone must be punished,” but a “natural” balance that must be kept. In a way, it’s like airplane mechanics - His sacrifice uses “natural” principles to help us fly, though it might seem impossible by our current understanding of spiritual physics.
I hope I’m being articulate enough, it’s a difficult concept that I don’t think I truly understand yet.
Comment # 14 left by SilverRain on May 31st, 2007