As Latter-day Saints, we know that every sin, every heartache, and all suffering can be redeemed through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We also know that the Savior is the only way to find redemption from and through these things. But how does the atonement do this? And why is it the only way? Honestly, I don’t think we fully know. There are a number of LDS authors who have provided insights, but I don’t think any of their theories are definitive.
I would just like to talk for a moment about the penal-substitution and the debtor theories of the atonement, and why I don’t like them very much. I think they are certainly useful metaphors, but neither describe the way I experience the atonement in my life. Let me explain: the penal-substitution theory of the atonement is, as C.S. Lewis states it, “the one about our being let off because Christ has volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us.” Every sin as a certain amount of suffering attached to it as punishment. Either we can suffer it ourselves, or Christ can suffer it on our behalf. Continue reading
Several months ago, Orson Scott Card published an article in the Mormon Times that describes the loneliness he felt when he was a child, when everybody seemed to value athletic prowess and neglect intellectual curiosity. He explains, “This is the era when kids who actually excel at school are called by sickening epithets like ‘nerd’ or ‘geek’; intellectual or artistic students are usually treated as pariahs by their peers, unless they are also either rich, rebellious or athletic.” There is, indeed, a culture among our youth that prizes athletic talent and downplays and even ignores academic talent. I don’t think these values come from nowhere. Children are taught what to value by their parents and their teachers, in addition to their peers.