Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 10

Chapter 9: D&C and Pearl of Gt Price

A FAIR Analysis of: Criticism of Mormonism/Books A work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

Chapter 11: Grace and Works

Index of Claims in Chapter 10: The Atonement

by Edward T. Jones

In the preface of their book, Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson claim that their book is written to help meet the needs of those who "have sought a resource that compares the teachings of the Mormon leaders, both past and present, with those of the Bible." They also claim that in preparing that resource they "have purposely made an effort to not alter the meaning of any quote" and invite their readers to check out the context of any quotation which they provide, to determine its accuracy.1 They claim to have "studied this movement for a great portion of our lives," and "our experience has shown that far too many Latter-day Saints have not taken the time to do an in-depth investigation into the history and doctrines of their faith."2 They claim "the student of Mormonism still needs to carefully weigh what LDS leaders have said and are saying, since it gives us an idea of what kind of men they really are. For example, if certain LDS leaders continually make irresponsible comments, we must take that into consideration." The emphasis here is between what former LDS leaders said (i.e., nineteenth century) and what current leaders are saying (i.e., twentieth century). They make this abundantly clear when they write "the current presentation given by LDS Church leaders is much different than earlier years. When Joseph Smith began his new religious movement in 1830, there was no great effort to meld or compromise the teachings of the Mormon Church with those of nineteenth-century Christianity. Instead, early leaders prided themselves on their uniqueness and they boldly and publicly proclaimed their differences. They made little or no effort to associate with what they considered 'apostate Christendom.'3

Messers McKeever and Johnson need to understand that the rule they have established here is a two-edged sword: what the Christians said in the early days (Bible and Church Fathers) and what Christians are saying today can also be checked, and double checked, against accuracy and agreement. If the differences become apparent, can we also state that we will then have "an idea of what kind of men [modern Christian apologists] really are"? Furthermore, if certain (unnamed) LDS leaders are making irresponsible statements, then doesn't one have the obligation to determine exactly from whose viewpoint they are to be considered irresponsible: the LDS church, or mainstream Christian apologists? If they are irresponsible from the LDS standpoint, then they ought to be ignored, as not representing the true position of the LDS Church on that particular point of doctrine or practice. If they are irresponsible from the point of view of mainstream Christians, then…

Well, I guess that is what this review is really all about: to determine if the LDS position is as consistent with, or perhaps more consistent with, the Bible teachings, as those of mainstream Christianity today. McKeever and Johnson seek to emphasize 'alleged' differences between the early LDS Church leaders and those of more current venue. This amounts to a bias on their part, because they assume, and want their readers to assume, that such a difference actually exists, and that the difference is significant, that it indicates an 'apostasy' of the LDS Church from its beginning to the present day. The only way they can make this position valid however is to ignore statements from both time periods, statements which, when made, indicate that there is no such division.4 It is the observation of this reviewer that what most evangelical writers wish to see is a Mormon Systematic Theology, a volume that will give answers to all their gospel questions, and explain Mormon doctrine in a very neat and concise manner. What they fail to recognize (or choose to ignore, since they have studied the subject for so long!) is that letters written to a son-in-law do not hold the same authority within the Church as a talk given at a General Conference, which in turn does not hold the same authority as the words of canonized scripture.

This review of their chapter on the Atonement will seek to present the LDS position, not in a 'favorable' light, but in an accurate one. And that is what is needed most here: accuracy and honesty. Those who would bear false witness against another person or Church are seriously condemned by the Savior, and if Messers McKeever and Johnson have studied The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as thoroughly as they claim they have, then they are certainly guilty of bearing false witness. They claim that their book "is the result of our concern for those who belong to the LDS faith as well as for those Christians who want to better understand the beliefs of their Mormon friends, relatives, and neighbors."5 As this review will indicate, those friends, neighbors and relatives of the LDS Church will not have gained any real insights into the LDS faith by reading this book. Indeed, they will have been seriously misled regarding what the Latter-day Saints truly believe.

The point of their preface is to indicate that the LDS Church began as an enemy of Christianity, but has recently made an attempt to become more mainstream. They ask: "Can an individual or organization willfully deny or distort the basics of the Christian faith and still be considered Christian?" Without going into the question of what constitutes "the basics of Christian faith," much less the question of who it is who speaks authoritatively for "the Christian faith," one thing is certain: McKeever and Johnson do not speak authoritatively for either "the Christian faith" or for the LDS faith. This review seeks to determine what the proper LDS belief is regarding the Atonement of our Savior Jesus Christ. It should be indicated at the outset that if Messers McKeever and Johnson understand the Christian belief on this subject they do not exhibit such understanding; if they understand the LDS belief on that subject, then they have distorted it, often beyond recognition. Such distortion can only be considered deliberate, with malice of forethought, as they claim that in the writing of their book they have been "moved with the same compassion felt by the LDS missionaries and lay members who attempt to defend what they believe to be true." This, of course, has nothing to do with why missionaries are sent into the world; they go to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to defend it against others' attacks. Most missionaries are totally unaware of anti-Mormon literature, at least for a month or two.6 In 1902 George Teasdale, of the Quorum of the Twelve, discussed the Great Mandate of Mark 16:15–6 to preach the gospel to all the world, teaching them to believe and be baptized. Elder Teasdale asked, and then answered, the question: to believe what? "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, in the atonement, in the resurrection, in holding communication with the heavens, in the spirit of revelation, in putting our trust in God, in doing good, in fulfilling our individual missions, and being in obedience to the principles of the Gospel." That is what the missionaries were expected to be teaching as they went out into the world.7 One would wish that Messers McKeever and Johnson had written a book detailing what they believe to be the true teachings of Jesus Christ, rather than an outright attack on the beliefs of others. Their approach to others' beliefs says much about their own.

Centrality of the Atonement in LDS Thought

This is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross.8

McKeever and Johnson begin their discussion of the atonement by stating that mainstream Christians and Latter-day Christians "both accept the atonement of Christ." In thus stating it they seriously understate the position of the Church of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith, the founding prophet, stated that "the fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." Those appendages include the gift of the Holy Ghost, power of faith, enjoyment of the spiritual gifts, restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.9 The atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the central fact of all LDS theological teaching. Almost one hundred years ago LDS historian and theologian Brigham H. Roberts wrote that the atonement

is the very heart of the Gospel from whose pulsations the streams of both spiritual and eternal physical life proceed. It is the fact which gives vitality to all things else in the Gospel. If the Atonement be not a reality then our preaching is vain; our baptisms and confirmations meaningless; the eucharist a mere mummery of words; our hope of eternal life without foundation; we are still in our sins, and we Christian men, of all men, are the most miserable. A theme that affects all this cannot fail of being important.10

In 1917 President Joseph F. Smith delivered an official statement on principles of government in the Church, which included the following statement: "A man who says he does not believe in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ who professes to be a member of the Church…but who ignores and repudiates the doctrine of the atonement… [I say that] the man who denies that truth and who persists in his unbelief is not worthy of membership in the Church."11 In 1924 General Conference Heber J. Grant, then President of the Church, stated that "any individual who does not acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world, has no business to be associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."12 Fourteen years later President Grant was just as emphatic: "We want it distinctly understood that we believe absolutely in Jesus Christ, that He was the Son of God, and that He did come to the earth with a divinely appointed mission to die on the cross as the Redeemer of mankind. We do not believe that He was just a 'great moral teacher,' but that He is our Redeemer."13 Elder Bruce R. McConkie has stated that the "atonement of Christ is the most basic and fundamental doctrine of the gospel."14 Speaking with reference to all who call themselves Christian, which obviously included the Latter-day Saints, Brigham Young stated that "the moment the atonement of the Savior is done away, that moment, at one sweep, the hopes of salvation entertained by the Christian world are destroyed, the foundation of their faith is taken away, and there is nothing left for them to stand upon."15 Howard W. Hunter, of the Quorum of the Twelve, taught that "nothing is more important in the entire divine plan of salvation than the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We believe that salvation comes because of the Atonement. In its absence the whole plan of creation would come to naught."16 Twenty-five years ago Elder Gordon B. Hinckley reminded the Saints that:

No member of this Church must ever forget the terrible price paid by our Redeemer who gave his life that all men might live—the agony of Gethsemane …[or] the cross, the instrument of his torture… This was the cross on which he hung and died on Golgotha's lonely summit. We cannot forget that. We must never forget it, for here our Savior, our Redeemer, the Son of God, gave himself a vicarious sacrifice for each of us.17

Elder John K. Carmack, in April 2001 General Conference, took it to a more personal level: "Christ's Atonement is the central doctrine, but of even more comfort and benefit has been how wonderfully accessible and individual His mercy and help have been to me personally."18 The significance of the atonement was also brought out by the first prophet of the restoration, Joseph Smith, who wrote regarding:

The condescension of the Father of our spirits, in providing a sacrifice for His creatures, a plan of redemption, a power of atonement, a scheme of salvation, having as its great objects, the bringing of men back into the presence of the King of heaven… The great plan of salvation is a theme which ought to occupy our strict attention, and be regarded as one of heaven's best gifts to mankind.19

AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT: GETHSEMANE AND THE CROSS

McKeever and Johnson state that there are two main areas of disagreement between traditional Christians (as represented by McKeever and Johnson, at least), and the Church of Jesus Christ. These have to do with what it accomplished by the atonement and where it took place. The second issue seems to be the bigger of the two problems, at least for McKeever and Johnson, so it will be dealt with first.

McKeever and Johnson begin by stating that "Mormon leaders have taught that this atoning sacrifice began in the Garden of Gethsemane."20 they then quote President Benson and Elder McConkie to the effect that the major portion of the atonement took place in the Garden.21 From this they conclude that one of the major themes of the LDS faith is that the atonement "took place primarily in the Garden"22 (which ought to lead one to conclude that it took place 'secondarily' somewhere else: perhaps the cross?) Despite the ambiguity of these statements McKeever and Johnson rather strangely write that "if Mormons doubt that their church emphasizes the importance of Gethsemane today" they should consider a statement from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, which they then quote. Again, this statement indicates that it took place "primarily" in the Garden.23 Even though the two passages quoted from Elders Benson and McConkie are unequivocal about the significance of the Garden for the atonement, all the other LDS passages quoted by McKeever and Johnson are just the opposite: they are totally equivocal. And for good reason: the Latter-day Saint leaders, including the two they cite, do not in any way restrict the atoning sacrifice of our Savior to the Garden. But they definitely consider the atonement to have had its beginning there. McKeever and Johnson write that the Garden of Gethsemane is only mentioned twice in the scriptures, apparently to suggest that anything mentioned so infrequently must not be of much value. They need to realize that the concept that "the Word was made flesh" is mentioned only once; would they therefore reject its significance also?24 Is it insignificant that 'Calvary' occurs only at Luke 23.33, and that there is absolutely no warrant for it in the Greek?25 It is also significant, as Leon Morris has written, "to find that, apart from the crucifixion narrative [in the Gospels]…Paul is the only New Testament writer to speak about 'the cross.'"26 Furthermore, a recent addition to the literature about the cross in the New Testament points out that even in Paul it is not used frequently. His first two letters, the two to the Thessalonians, make no mention of the cross or the crucifixion. Nor do the last three letters make any reference to the cross (i.e., II Corinthians, Romans, and II Timothy).27 Murphy-O'Connor refers to nine "fragments of traditional teaching" which appear in Paul's letters. These help to determine "the common doctrinal base that Paul shared with the rest of the early church… Not a single one of these formulae that he inherited from his Christian environment mentions the crucifixion." Our source goes on to indicate that only two of them "formally state that he died." Therefore, in the others it must be inferred by the fact that He was resurrected from the dead.28

These statements are not cited in order to devalue in any way the importance of the cross, either for McKeever and Johnson or for the Latter-day Saints. It is important to realize however that the cross is not necessarily as significant a concept in the scriptures as they would like it to appear. Leon Morris agrees with Murphy-O'Connor that aside from the writings of Paul, there are not many references in the New Testament to the 'death' of Jesus; indeed: "We would imagine that there are many New Testament references to the death of Christ. But, outside of Paul, there are not."29 And in this context it is important to remember that Paul's writings comprise less than one-fourth of the New Testament writings. Father Murphy-O'Connor also writes "during the first Christian centuries, the cross was a thing accursed. No one professed allegiance to Christ by wearing a cross." He indicates that it was only after Constantine lifted the ban against Christianity in general, and forbade crucifixion in particular, that a "new, more pleasant meaning for the cross was facilitated." But, he concludes, "even after the cross had been widely accepted as a symbol, there was a consistent refusal to accept its reality. Only two crucifixion scenes survive from the fifth century… The situation remains unchanged until the twelfth century."30 These comments are not intended to devalue the cross or the blood shed there, only to place these events in their proper context within sacred scripture. Despite the fact that Gethsemane is mentioned only twice in the scriptures, it has nevertheless engendered an enormous amount of secondary literature. A study on the study of the passion narratives published in 1989 identified seven books dealing specifically with Gethsemane during the previous 100 years and more than 100 articles. That represents a significant amount of discussion on something seemingly of no account!31

Messers McKeever and Johnson are so determined to make Latter-day Saint writers look so 'un-Christian' that they quote those portions of LDS statements which contain the information they want their readers to know, but only that much. Such contextual selectivity is a form of bearing false witness. For instance, they quote the following from Lorenzo Snow, in 1893:

The time approached that He was to pass through the severest affliction that any mortal ever did pass through. He undoubtedly had seen persons nailed to the cross, because that method of execution was common at that time, and He understood the torture that such persons experienced for hours. He went by Himself in the garden and prayed to His Father, if it were possible, that this cup might pass from Him; and His feelings were such that He sweat great drops of blood, and in His agony there was an angel sent to give Him comfort and strength.32

This quotation is meant by McKeever and Johnson to indicate that the LDS teaching on the atonement is that it took place "primarily in the garden." What they fail to do, however, is read further into the talk given by Elder Snow. He stated in the same talk that "when Jesus went through that terrible torture on the cross, He saw what would be accomplished by it; He saw that His brethren and sisters—the sons and daughters of God—would be gathered in, with but few exceptions—those who committed the unpardonable sin. That sacrifice of the divine Being was effectual to destroy the powers of Satan."33 Clearly the cross was important in President Snow's soteriology.

They quote President Ezra Taft Benson to the effect that "it was in Gethsemane that Jesus took on Himself the sins of the world." Had they but taken the time to seek out the entire article from which this statement is taken they would have noticed that Elder Benson continues by referring to "the glorious Atonement of our Lord which extended from Gethsemane to Golgotha."34 Even without having sought out the original text, they could have determined the incorrect judgment they made of President Bensons position. They could have quoted from the same volume the quotation immediately preceding the one they cited: "In Gethsemane and on Calvary, He worked out the infinite and eternal atonement. It was the greatest single act of love in recorded history. Thus He became our Redeemer."35 The atonement is clearly defined as having encompassed both the Garden and the cross. The cross is not in the least devalued or neglected. Had there been no death on the cross, whatever it was that happened in the Garden would have been superfluous. With the cross, the events in the Garden have meaning and significance.

Again, they quote Bruce R. McConkie: "it was in Gethsemane that 'he suffered the pain of all men… [and] took upon himself the sins of all men…" What they fail to quote, from the same source and on the same page, is this:

In some way, incomprehensible to us, Gethsemane, the cross, and the empty tomb join into one grand and eternal drama, in the course of which Jesus abolishes death, and out of which comes immortality for all and eternal life for the righteous.36

In point of fact, Elder McConkie writes in the same place regarding the darkness that surrounded the crucifixion: "Could it be that this was the period of his greatest trial, or that during it the agonies of Gethsemane recurred and even intensified?"37 Elsewhere Elder McConkie is very clear. In speaking to students at BYU he said: "We are saved because God sent his Son to shed his blood in Gethsemane and on Calvary that all through him might ransomed be. We are saved by the blood of Christ."38 As far back as 1948, in October General Conference of that year, Elder McConkie, then a Seventy, stated:

As I understand it, our mission to the world in this day, is to testify of Jesus Christ. Our mission is to bear record that he is the Son of the Living God and that he was crucified for the sins of the world; that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through his atoning blood… We believe that he came into the world with the express mission of dying upon the cross for the sins of the world; that he is, actually, literally, and really the Redeemer of the world and the Savior of men; and that by the shedding of his blood he has offered to all men forgiveness of sins conditioned upon their repentance and obedience to the gospel plan.39

In yet another place Elder McConkie wrote; "What then are the sacrifices of the true Christian? They are unending praise and thanksgiving to the Father who gave his Only Begotten Son as a ransom for our sins; they are everlasting praise to the Son for the merits and mercies and grace of his atoning sacrifice."40 In his article on "Atonement of Christ" in his Mormon Doctrine, a book that McKeever and Johnson claim to have read, Elder McConkie begins by quoting several scriptural passages. Some of these will be abridged here:41

   * "This is the Gospel…that Jesus came into the world to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world."42
   * "My Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross."43
   * "Behold [the Holy Messiah] offereth himself a sacrifice for sin."44
   * "as in Adam, or by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their sins… There shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ… Salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ."45

They also quote Elder Marion G. Romney that it was in the Garden of Gethsemane "that he suffered most." What they fail to quote is the rest of the talk, wherein he states that "we cannot of ourselves, no matter how we may try, rid ourselves of the stain which is upon us as a result of our own transgressions. That stain must be washed away by the blood of the Redeemer."46 Three years previously Elder Romney stated, "through repentance he may bring himself within the reach of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, so that thereby he may be cleansed from the effects of his transgressions and obtain forgiveness of them."47 The Cross

Messers McKeever and Johnson need to understand that the significance of Christ's death on the cross is of major importance to the members of the Church of Jesus Christ. It is found frequently in the Book of Mormon, as well as in modern scripture, and is frequently spoken of by all of the Prophets since Joseph Smith. Some of those statements follow immediately:

   * In his vision of the birth, ministry and crucifixion of the Savior Nephi, in the Book of Mormon, writes: "I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world."48
   * Jacob wrote "we would to God…that all men would believe in Christ, and view his death, and suffer his cross and bear the shame of the world."49
   * Following His death and resurrection in Jerusalem the Savior appeared to His disciples in the New World. There He reported that "my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works."50
   * In modern revelation it was reported "Jesus was crucified… for the sins of the world."51
   * In the revelation known as the Vision, the Prophet Joseph Smith learned that "this is the Gospel, the glad tidings…that He came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world."52
   * It is not without significance that the vision regarding the redemption of those who had lived prior to the birth of the Savior, received by President Joseph F. Smith in 1918, came directly as a result of his meditation on the meaning of the atonement. He writes: "I sat in my room pondering over the scriptures; and reflecting upon the great atoning sacrifice that was made by the Son of God, for the redemption of the world; and the great and wonderful love made manifest by the Father and the Son in the coming of the Redeemer into the world; that through his atonement, and by obedience to the principles of the gospel, mankind might be saved." After the vision had closed, President Smith continued: "And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross."53
   * This is a principle that has been taught from the beginning of the Church down to the present day by its leaders. Joseph Smith taught that God "foreordained the fall of man; but all merciful as He is, He foreordained at the same time, a plan of redemption for all mankind. I believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and that He died for the sins of all men."54
   * John Taylor, one of the first members of the Quorum of the Twelve, and the third President of the Church, taught that "it was necessary that [Christ] should give up his life a sacrifice for the sins of the world."55
   * President Wilford Woodruff stated in 1889 that "the Savior came and tabernacled in the flesh, and…laid down His life as a sacrifice for sin, to redeem the world."56 Two years later President Woodruff stated on behalf of the membership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that "we believe also in the atonement wrought by the shedding of Christ's blood on Calvary; that it is efficacious for all the race of Adam for the sin committed by Adam, and for the individual sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and who receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of authorized hands."57
   * In 1892 George Q. Cannon of the Quorum of the Twelve stated with reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, "we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Redeemer of the world, and that through His death and atonement we are redeemed."58
   * In 1896 a Methodist minister living in predominantly LDS Evanston, Wyoming, wrote that the Latter-day Saints "believe in the New Testament scriptures, the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the atonement for sin secured by his death. Their ritual consecrating the bread and water for the sacrament shows this, as do also the sermons of their preachers."59 His information is apparently based on personal exposure to the Latter-day Saint preachers, as well as to their sacramental ritual (Sacrament of the Lord's Supper). It is a valuable testimony that their leaders actually taught what is here being quoted.
   * In 1904 Hyrum M. Smith of the Quorum of the Twelve taught that Christ "was crucified for the sins of the world and His blood was shed for the redemption of mankind."60
   * James E. Talmage wrote that in order "that the supreme sacrifice of the Son might be consummated in all its fulness, the Father seems to have withdrawn the support of His immediate Presence, leaving to the Savior of men the glory of complete victory over the forces of sin and death."61
   * In 1921 Rudger Clawson of the Quorum of the Twelve stated "the atonement made upon Mount Calvary was the supreme sacrifice ever made in all the world."62
   * In 1921 Heber J. Grant made reference to "the atoning blood of Jesus Christ… Jesus is the Redeemer of the world, the Savior of mankind, who came to the earth with a divinely appointed mission to die for the redemption of mankind."63 He repeated that reference to His "divinely appointed mission to die for the sins of the world" in 1925.64 Thirteen years later President Grant reaffirmed that same belief, that "we believe absolutely in Jesus Christ… and that He did come to the earth with a divinely appointed mission to die on the cross as the Redeemer of mankind."65 In 1929 President Heber J. Grant wrote that Christ "died on Calvary for each one of us."66
   * The First Presidency, in their Christmas message for 1931, referred to the fact that the world was "redeemed through the shedding of His blood."67
   * Joseph L. Wirthlin, of the Presiding Bishopric, stated in October 1948 General Conference that the emblems of the sacrament (eucharist) provided a "deep and lasting impression of what the mission of the Lord Jesus Christ means and what his great sacrifice on the cross did for all of us."68
   * In 1949 George F. Richards, President of the Quorum of the Twelve, referred in General Conference to "his death upon the cross, of which it can be said in truth, that as a gift to mankind it was the greatest ever given; a sacrifice, the greatest ever made; a service, the greatest ever rendered; a demonstration of love such as is possessed only by the Gods."69
   * Six months later J. Reuben Clark of the First Presidency, also in General Conference, stated that "the central point in the great plan framed in the Grand Council of heaven before the world was formed, was the redemption from the mortal death brought by the Fall… His whole earthly career was pivoted about his atoning sacrifice, his crucifixion and resurrection."70 Later in the same conference he referred to "the cross when the Son of Man was offering himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world…"71
   * President Spencer W. Kimball stated, "In the meridian of time came the Son of God, born of an immortal father and a mortal mother, and as he climbed crucifixion's hill, he carried that Adamic penalty, and as the nails through his hands and feet, and the spear in his side, drained from his body all of his precious blood in this, his voluntary sacrifice, he neutralized and paid for all the Adamic sins."72
   * In 1975 Gordon B. Hinckley, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, stated that "no member of this Church must ever forget the terrible price paid by our Redeemer who gave his life that all men might live—the agony of Gethsemane, the bitter mockery of his trial, the vicious crown of thorns tearing at his flesh, the blood cry of the mob before Pilate, the lonely burden of his heavy walk along the way to Calvary, the terrifying pain as great nails pierced his hands and feet…. This was the cross on which he hung and died on Golgotha's lonely summit. We cannot forget that. We must never forget it, for here our Savior, our Redeemer, the Son of God, gave himself a vicarious sacrifice for each of us."73 In 1986 he bore his testimony thusly: "I believe that through His atoning sacrifice, the offering of His life on Calvary's Hill, He expiated the sins of mankind, relieving us from the burden of sin if we will forsake evil and follow Him. I believe in the grace of God made manifest through His sacrifice and redemption, and I believe that through His atonement, without any price on our part, each of us is offered the gift of resurrection from the dead…. I worship Him as I worship His Father, in spirit and in truth. I thank Him and kneel before His wounded feet and hands and side, amazed at the love He offers me."74 In April 1993 General Conference he stated "the heaviest price of all was paid by the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world. He gave His life on Calvary's cross for the sins of all mankind."75 In 1995 he stated that "nothing done before or since has so affected mankind as the atonement wrought by Jesus of Nazareth, who died on Calvary's cross and rose from the grave the third day as the living Son of the living God, the Savior and Redeemer of all mankind."76 Elsewhere he stated that "in the greatest act of human history, He allowed His quivering flesh to be nailed to the cross and lifted up in an act of atonement for each of us…. Nothing, nothing is of greater significance in all the history of the world than that atoning sacrifice of the Son of God."77 In the 1996 Christmas message he wrote that Christ "condescended to come to earth and give His life on Calvary's cross for each of us."78
   * In 1998 Vaughn J. Featherstone of the Quorum of the Twelve wrote "the marks in His hands and feet are constant reminders to worthy Christians that we are on His errand… We are His; we were bought with His blood. His atonement and redemption mean everything in heaven and earth to us… These wounds in [His] hands and feet (D&C 45.51)…are the absolute and indisputable signs that Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotten of the Father, the Shepherd of the flock, the Redeemer of the world. We will know Him and fall down before Him in exquisite relief and gratitude, wetting the earth with our fallen tears, for we will know that we are His beloved and that because of Him we have been redeemed from the Fall and from our sins."79

Is it really possible, after viewing all these statements, from both modern scripture and from modern prophets, to say that Latter-day Saints do not believe that the death of Christ on the cross was efficacious for all mortals? Several of the works cited above were cited (and presumably read) by McKeever and Johnson, and others were clearly available to be read by them if they had so chosen. Either they failed to avail themselves of the opportunity to read these works, or they ignored what they read (and we need to remember that they claim to "have studied this movement for a great portion of our lives"). This latter possibility is a clear evidence of bearing false witness. The truth was before them and they falsified it by ignoring it. We can only agree with them when they write that "we would be remiss if we ignored the many statements that have come forth from these leaders."80 They have indeed been remiss! And in their ignorance of these passages, they have continued to falsify the Gospel to those who will read their book. The Blood

It is also clear from what McKeever and Johnson write elsewhere that they are unclear about the LDS attitude towards the blood shed by the Savior. In discussing "Christianity's definition of atonement" they quote from Leon Morris that "because Christ's blood was shed, all who believe in him have access into the very holiest of all."81 Later McKeever and Johnson point out "Hebrews 9.22 states that there is no remission of sins without the shedding (not sweating) of blood."82 The parenthetical comment in this last quotation is a referral back to McKeever and Johnson's comment that "the New Testament says nothing about this phenomenon [of 'sweating great drops of blood'] having any role in the atonement."83 Our authors then quote from several New Testament passages which refer to the fact that Christ died, or died on the cross, for us.84 It should be clear from the LDS references cited above that these Biblical passages also are all accepted by the Latter-day Saints. They believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross to redeem humankind. He shed His blood for us. Many of those earlier statements refer to the blood that was shed by Him. LDS apologist Michael Hickenbotham has written that "Latter-day Saints emphatically affirm our reliance on the atoning blood of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, as attested to in the Bible," and then refers to Colossians 1:14, 1 Peter 1:18–19, 1 John 1:7, and Revelation 7:14. He then refers to those references found in the Book of Mormon: 1 Nephi 12:10; Mosiah 3:7, 11, 4:2; Alma 5:21, 27, 21:9, 24:13, 34:36; Helaman 5:9; Ether 13:10; and Moroni 4:1; 5:2; 10:33; and in modern scripture: D&C 20:40; 27:2; 76:69; and Moses 6:62. He then continues:

Even the sacrament prayer for the administration of the water affirms the symbolism of the atoning blood. It states in part: "…bless and sanctify this water to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them."85

King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon taught "salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ."86 King Benjamin lived long before the Savior was born; sometimes this has led to criticisms from our enemies. Cullen Story of Princeton Theological Seminary, in a recent article on Justin Martyr, has referred to what he calls Justin's use of the "prophetic perfect." In his discussions with Trypho on the correct interpretation of Isaiah 53:7 Justin, according to Story,

wanted Trypho and his friends to understand that the prophetic Spirit could and did speak "as if the passion has already occurred" Sometimes, he explained, the prophetic Spirit "has spoken concerning the things that are going to occur, uttering them as if at that time they were occurring or even had occurred."87

D&C 45:3–4 has the Lord speaking: "Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—saying: 'Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thy self might be glorified.'" There are many other statements regarding the shedding of Christ's blood, and its relationship to His redeeming sacrifice. Some of those statements from the Church leaders are:

   * Joseph Smith made reference to "the atonement and mediation of Jesus Christ; by whose blood they have a forgiveness of sins."88 He also taught that "God…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… 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."89 In 1840 M.L. Davis wrote a letter to his wife outlining some of the things he had heard the Prophet state in a public sermon. He said that Joseph Smith expressed "his total unbelief of what is termed original sin. He believes that it is washed away by the blood of Christ, and that it no longer exists."90 Brigham Young later reaffirmed this position: "We must believe that this same Jesus was crucified for the sins of the world, that is for the original sin, not the actual individual transgressions of the people; not but that the blood of Christ will cleanse from all sin, all who are disposed to act their part by repentance, and faith in his name. But the original sin was atoned for by the death of Christ."91 George Laub recorded in his journal in 1844 that the Prophet taught "Jesus Christ left his blood to atone for the sins of the world."92 One of the principles of the LDS faith is enunciated by the Prophet (and by Brigham Young, the second President of the LDS Church) as stated above by M. L. Davis: that original sin had been done away with in the death of Jesus Christ. The absence of original sin means that the baptism of infants is not necessary. The Book of Mormon is clear on this matter: "Little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world."93 D&C 29:46 says "little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten." Joseph Smith referred to children as "having been redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb."94 In 1917 Hyrum G. Smith, the Patriarch of the Church, stated that "through the blood of his atonement [little children] shall come forth in the morning of the resurrection with his saints."95
   * Brigham Young stated that "the Latter-day Saints believe…that Jesus is the Savior of the world; they believe that all who attain to any glory whatever, in any kingdom, will do so because Jesus has purchased it by His atonement."96
   * In 1882 Heber J. Grant, then of the Quorum of the Twelve, encouraged the Saints to "read the revelations given upon the subject and you will find that all mankind, except those who have had the testimony of Christ and rejected it, denying the blood of Christ, will ultimately be saved."97
   * That same year John Taylor published his book entitled Mediation and Atonement. After quoting Colossians 1:12–15 he wrote that this passage teaches us "that our redemption is obtained through the blood of Jesus."98
   * Joseph F. Smith, in 1895 as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, referred to the conditions that Adam "had to be redeemed from by the blood of Christ."99 A week later, at the Juab Stake Conference in Nephi, Utah, Elder Smith stated that "by the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ, he, Adam, was redeemed from the fall and the power of Satan…and we are indebted for our redemption to Jesus our Lord, and our Deliverer."100
   * Francis M. Lyman of the Quorum of the Twelve stated that "Jesus Christ shed His blood for our sins—not for His own, for He was immaculate and without blemish—and He laid down His life that you and I should be redeemed from that death which had come upon us because of the fall of Adam. By His death are we redeemed. By His blood are we cleansed from the conditions of the fall."101
   * In 1901 Rudger Clawson of the Quorum of the Twelve stated that "the souls of men are so precious in the sight of God that he gave to the world his Only Begotten Son, that by the shedding of his blood he might draw all men unto him."102
   * In 1916 Anthon H. Lund of the Quorum of the Twelve stated that the bread and wine "are simply emblems of his body and blood" and that the wine "represented his blood that was to be shed for the remission of sins."103
   * In 1937 Charles A. Callis of the Twelve testified that Christ's "blood atones for all our sins, through obedience to righteousness."104
   * In 1949 when Alonzo A. Hinckley of the Quorum of the Twelve learned that he had a terminal illness he wrote a letter to the First Presidency of the Church. Part of that letter was read at the October 1949 General Conference. He said, in part: "As to the future, I have no misgivings. It is inviting and glorious, and I sense rather clearly what it means to be saved by the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ."105
   * A year later Marion G. Romney of the Twelve stated that "through repentance he may bring himself within the reach of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ, so that thereby he may be cleansed from the effects of his transgressions and obtain forgiveness of them."106
   * Robert Millet, Professor of Religion at BYU, has recently written about the regeneration of fallen man. He states, "the renewal of which we speak is a conversion from worldliness to saintliness, from being lured by the lurid to being enticed by holiness. It comes to us by virtue of the cleansing blood of Jesus and through the medium of the Holy Ghost, who is the Sanctifier."107

All the above statements from scripture and prophets ought to convince even the most casual observer that the Latter-day Saints do indeed believe that the death of Jesus Christ on the cross was a major component of the redemption wrought by our Savior. It should also be evident that the shedding of His blood was an integral part of that atoning sacrifice. The Song of the Righteous

From the earliest times Christians have "sung hymns to Christ as to a God."108 The singing of those hymns was a method of instructing the congregation in the doctrines of the Church. Paul wrote to the Colossians that at their religious gatherings they were to "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord."109 He taught the same concept to the members in Ephesus: "speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord."110 Most frequently those hymns are meant simply as a means of expressing devotion to the Savior, or to His Father. But at times they have been polemical, a means of inculcating new doctrine, as in the period following Nicaea.111 The hymns penned by John and Charles Wesley "were more than specimens of devotion. They were tools for doctrinal instruction."112 The hymns of the Latter-day Saints have also been an effective means of instructing the membership of the Church about their relationship to the Savior. It has been so from the earliest hymnal, published in 1835, to the present. A look at some of those hymns will indicate the centrality of the Savior's atonement, and the elements of it that were taught to the membership.

The 1835 edition of the hymnal was a collection of ninety hymns, over one-third written by members of the young church, and put together by Emma Smith, wife of the Prophet.113 Twenty-six of those hymns are still in the current hymnal, which includes many written by non-LDS authors. The 1835 edition (which is not available to me) includes hymns with the following thoughts expressed: "Blest inhabitants of Zion, purchased by the Savior's blood; Jesus, whom their souls rely on, makes them kings and priests to God."114 Another hymn, by Isaac Watts, stated, "The Lord of Glory died for men. But lo! What sudden joys were heard! The Lord, though dead, revived again."115 Another hymn, by LDS writer William W. Phelps, indicated that Christ "died for us."116 One of the more popular hymns in the current edition, also written by W.W. Phelps, is "O God, the Eternal Father," and appeared in the 1835 edition. It included the phrases "Jesus, the Anointed…gave himself a ransom to win our souls with love… And die, or all was lost."117

In 1889 another edition of the LDS hymnal appeared. A third reprint of this particular edition was published in 1906. Many of the current hymns also appeared in it, but it also included hymns no longer in the current hymnbook. Among this latter group of hymns, for which no authors are listed, are several which declare the importance of the Atonement of the Savior. "Spirit of faith, come down, reveal the things of God, and make to us the Godhead known, and witness with the blood. 'Tis thine the blood to apply, and give us eyes to see; who did for every sinner die, did surely die for me."118 Another hymn includes the phrase "remembering God's incarnate Son, who suffered death on Calvary to set the contrite sinner free."119 Another taught the Saints "when He our Savior did the same, without a place to lay his head, a pilgrim on the earth he came, until for us his blood was shed."120 Another hymn records that "they follow their General, the great Eternal lamb—His garments stained in his own blood—King Jesus is his name."121 Another, applicable to participation in the Eucharistic celebration (Sacrament of the Lord's Supper), reads: "O Lord of Hosts, we now invoke Thy spirit most divine, to cleanse our hearts while we partake the broken bread and wine. May we forever think of thee, and of thy sufferings sore, endured for us on Calvary, and praise thee evermore. Prepare our minds, that we may see the beauties of thy grace; salvation purchased on that tree for all who seek thy face."122 Another tells the family not to weep for their dead child, for "your child is saved through Jesus Christ [for they have] washed their robes and made them white in Christ's atoning blood."123 Another hymn, penned by LDS poet Eliza R. Snow, first appeared in an LDS hymnal in 1871, and continues today. It reads, as per 1906: "How great the wisdom and the love, that filled the courts on high, and sent the Savior from above to suffer, bleed and die! His precious blood He freely spilt, his life He freely gave; a sinless sacrifice for guilt, a dying world to save."124 Another hymn indicates that Christ "died that we might live."125 Yet another refers to "him who died, that we might live."126 Another hymn refers to him "who died to save."127 One proclaims the activities of the missionaries who go out in order to teach "that divine and glorious conquest once obtained on Calvary."128 Another hymn, written by LDS author William W. Phelps, found in the 1835 hymnal and still very popular today, refers to "that sacred, holy offering, by man least understood… when Jesus the Anointed, descended from above, and gave himself a ransom to win our souls with love… He was the promised Savior." The recent edition includes a fourth verse that concludes "and die or all was lost."129 Another hymn, still in the modern edition, tells that "Jesus, our Lord and God, bore sin's tremendous load."130

There are simply too many hymns in the current hymnal to recount all of them satisfactorily. But there are several which need some attention. First though, it should be remembered that there are several hymns in the current book which were written by non-LDS authors, and which bear on our theme. Many of these have already been mentioned above. The current hymnal contains many sentiments relative to our theme. "I am the sacrifice offered for thee."131 "…thou Son of God, who lived for us, then died on Calvary."132 "Thou gavest thy life on Calvary, that I might live forever more."133 "Let me not forget, O Savior, thou didst bleed and die for me when thy heart was stilled and broken on the cross at Calvary."134 "For us the blood of Christ was shed; for us on Calvary's cross he bled… Jesus died that justice might be satisfied."135 "Oh, wondrous plan—to suffer, bleed, and die for man!… For Jesus died on Calvary! That all thru him might ransomed be."136 "May we forever think of thee and of thy sufferings sore, endured for us on Calvary, and praise thee evermore… Salvation purchased on that tree for all who seek thy face."137 "Leaving thy Father's throne, on earth to live, thy work to do alone, thy life to give… Bruised, broken, torn for us on Calvary's hill—thy suffering borne for us lives with us still."138 "…praise and honor give to him who bled on Calvary's hill and died that we might live… The bread and water represent His sacrifice for sin; ye Saints, partake and testify ye do remember him."139 "When thy self thou gavest an offering, dying for the sinner's sake."140 Vilate Raile wrote: "Upon the cross of Calvary they crucified our Lord and sealed with blood the sacrifice that sanctified his word. Upon the cross he meekly died for all mankind to see that death unlocks the passageway into eternity. Upon the cross our Savior died, but, dying, brought new birth through resurrection's miracle to all the sons of earth."141 "Again we meet around the board of Jesus, our redeeming Lord, with faith in his atoning blood, our only access unto God. He left his Father's courts on high, with man to live, for man to die… Help us, O God, to realize the great atoning sacrifice, the gift of thy beloved Son, the Prince of Life, the Holy One." Additional verses included: "Jesus, the great facsimile of the Eternal Deity, has stooped to conquer, died to save from sin and sorrow and the grave."142 "Thyself the Lamb forever slain… View thee bleeding on the tree: My Lord, my God, who dies for me."143 "Our Savior, in Gethsemane, shrank not to drink the bitter cup, and then, for us, on Calvary, upon the cross was lifted up. We reverence with the broken bread, together with the cup we take, the body bruised, the lifeblood shed, a sinless ransom for our sake."144 "…sent the Savior from above to suffer, bleed, and die! His precious blood he freely spilt, his life he freely gave, a sinless sacrifice for guilt, a dying world to save."145 "O Savior…upon the cross they nail thee to die, O King of all. No creature is so lowly, no sinner so depraved, but feels thy presence holy and thru thy love is saved. Tho craven friends betray thee, they feel thy love's embrace; the very foes who slay thee have access to thy grace. Thy sacrifice transcended the mortal law's demand, thy mercy is extended to every time and land… What praises can be offer to thank thee, Lord most high? In our place thou didst suffer; in our place thou didst die, by heaven's plan appointed, to ransom us, our King. O Jesus, the anointed, to thee our love we bring."146

Clearly, there is much in the hymns that the Latter-day Saints sing regularly which teaches that the Savior, Jesus Christ, came to earth for the specific purpose of "being lifted up upon the cross" to save the world. Through the sacrifice of His life, the spilling of His blood, he has redeemed all mortals who will come to Him. Back To Gethsemane

McKeever and Johnson correctly indicate, nevertheless, that the LDS do place a good deal of emphasis on the Lord's experience in the Garden of Gethsemane. Gethsemane does present some interesting problems. McKeever and Johnson reject it in part because it is only mentioned twice in the New Testament (Matthew 26:36 and Mark 14:32). While this may be so, the events that transpired there are mentioned also in the other two gospels. In other words, all four gospel writers felt it important enough to include it in their 'memoirs.' In John 18:1 it is reported that Christ and His disciples "often resorted thither." Luke 22:39 tells us that He went there, "as he was wont" (compare Luke 19:29 and 21:37, the latter of which says He spent the 'nights' on Mount Olive). This was apparently a special place for them to seek solitude, a private place to seek their Father in prayer. It is evident from the commentaries written on the various gospels that the exact purpose of the experience is not well understood. We don't need to go into the events verse by verse, but there are some things that need to be noted. Despite the importance the Lord places on prayer in general, there are only a few places where He is actually depicted as doing so; this prayer in Gethsemane is one of them147. Furthermore, there are few places in the New Testament where He is depicted as being 'strengthened' by an angel (Matthew 4:11). The experience in the Garden is one of them (Luke 22.43, an angel to strengthen him during His prayer). There are others who have also commented on the singularity of this experience, and attributed it, at least in part, to the atonement.

Christian theologian Leon Morris is quoted frequently by McKeever and Johnson. It is not without significance, therefore, that Morris quotes Lesslie Newbigin as follows:

The Son of God, the Word of God made flesh, kneels in the garden of Gethsemane. He wrestles in prayer. His sweat falls like great drops of blood. He cries out in an agony: "not my will, but thine be done." That is what it costs God to deal with man's sin. To create the heavens and the earth costs Him no labor, no anguish; to take away the sin of the world costs Him His own life-blood.148

Elsewhere, Leon Morris himself admits that, at least for Matthew, "what took place in the Garden was very important."149

In a recent commentary, Donald A. Hagner of Fuller Theological Seminary writes:

The thought of what he will have to undergo in the near future fills Jesus with dread and anguish. A real struggle within the soul of Jesus takes place in Gethsemane, and he craves the support of those who have been closest to him during his ministry. The mystery of the agony of God's unique Son cannot be fully penetrated. That it has to do with bearing the penalty of sin for the world to make salvation possible seems clear.150

In a commentary on Matthew 26, first published in 1864, German scholar John Peter Lange refers to several interpretations offered by earlier commentators. He quotes a scholar named Ebrard: "His trembling in Gethsemane was not dread of His sufferings, but was part of His passion itself; it was not a transcendental and external assumption of a foreign guilt, but a concrete experience of the full and concentrated power of the world's sin."151 At the same place Lange refers to the reformer Melanchthon as teaching that in the Garden Christ "suffered the wrath of God in our stead and our behalf."

Another recent commentary quotes favorably a statement to the effect that Matthew 26:37 ("And he took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy") indicates that "at this point the Passion, in its full sense, began."152

J.M. Ford writes, "the theological importance, however, is that for Luke the blood that redeems humankind begins to flow in the garden."153 Popular evangelical scholar Thomas C. Oden paraphrases Catherine of Siena this way:

[Christ] was not externally compelled to be baptized with the baptism of sinners, to set his face steadfastly toward Jerusalem or go to Gethsemane, or drink the cup of suffering. Rather he received and drank that cup not because he liked to suffer—the very thought cause him to sweat profusely—but rather because it was an intrinsic part of the purpose of his mission to humanity.154

B.H. Roberts quotes the following from the International Commentary on Matthew:

This conflict presents our Lord in the reality of His manhood, in weakness and humiliation, but it is impossible to account for it unless we admit His Divine nature. Had He been a mere man, His knowledge of the sufferings before Him could not have been sufficient to cause such sorrow. The human fear of death will not explain it. As a real man, He was capable of such a conflict. But it took place after the serenity of the Last Supper and sacerdotal prayers, and before the sublime submission in the palace and judgment hall. The conflict, therefore, was a specific agony of itself. He felt the whole burden and mystery of the world's sin, and encountered the fiercest assaults of Satan. Otherwise, in this hour this Person, so powerful, so holy, seems to fall below the heroism of martyrs in His own cause. His sorrow did not spring from His own life, His memory of His fears, but from the vicarious nature of the conflict. The agony was a bearing of the weight and sorrow of our sins, in loneliness, in anguish of soul threatening to crush His body, yet borne triumphantly, because in submission to His Father's will. Three times our Lord appeals to that will, as purposing His anguish; that purpose of God in regard to the loveliest, best of men, can be reconciled with justice and goodness in God in but one way; that it was necessary for our redemption. Mercy forced its way through justice to the sinner. Our Lord suffered anguish of soul for sin, that it might never rest on us. To deny this is in effect not only to charge our Lord with undue weakness, but to charge God with needless cruelty. "Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows…. He was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed" [Isaiah 53.4-5]"155

David B. Haight, of the Quorum of the Twelve, quotes the following from the Reverend Frederic Farrar:

They then rose from the table, united their voices in a hymn, and left the room together to walk to the Garden of Gethsemane and all that awaited them there "The awful hour of His deepest [suffering] had arrived…. Nothing remained…but the torture of physical pain and the poignancy of mental anguish…. He…[calmed] His spirit by prayer and solitude to meet that hour in which all that is evil in the Power of [Satan] should wreak its worst upon the Innocent and Holy [One]. And He must face that hour alone…. 'My soul,' He said, 'is full of anguish, even unto death.'" It was not the anguish and fear of pain and death but 'the burden…of the world's sin which lay heavy on His heart.156

Evangelical scholar Klaas Runia has recently drawn our attention to a prayer which was formerly read at the beginning of the Lord's Supper service in the Reformed Churches in Holland. The prayer said in part: "We remember that all the time he lived on earth he was burdened by our sin and God's judgment upon it; that in his agony in the garden he sweated drops of blood under the weight of our sins."157

Alfred Edersheim referred to the Garden as "the other Eden, in which the Second Adam, the Lord from heaven, bore the penalty of the first, and in obeying gained life.'"158 Adam Clarke is quoted as having once said that "Jesus paid more in the Garden than on the Cross."159 S. Lewis Johnson, from whose article these previous two quotations derive, concluded, "Gethsemane sets forth for us the passion of our Lord for the souls of men. The voice of Gethsemane sounds forth, 'I am willing,' while the voice from Calvary cries, 'It is finished.' Both illustrate how much He cared."160

This is the one thing which seemingly all commentators, LDS or otherwise, agree: He loved us and He manifested that love by His life and by His death. As the above quotations indicate, there is a fair amount of non-LDS support for the idea that the experience of our Savior in the Garden of Gethsemane is also related to the atoning sacrifice which He made for us. There is also enough material by non-LDS scholars to indicate that the exact mechanics of the Atonement are not known; and therefore to state that "this position" (i.e., my position) is the only correct interpretation, and that "that position" (i.e., your position) is false, is rushing to judgment. Historical Christianity and the Atonement

They never state it explicitly, but McKeever and Johnson seem to assume that the LDS position is a "ransom" theory of atonement, and that the mainstream Christian interpretation is one of sacrificial death on the cross. They quote some statements from Latter-day Saint leaders emphasizing the Garden of Gethsemane as being the place of the atonement (which has been dealt with above). They write, "Christians have long maintained that this glorious act of sacrifice took place on Golgotha Hill… It was here that God Himself was subject to the humiliating death of a common criminal."161 They conclude this chapter by writing that "Christians realize that salvation is a result of what Jesus did for them on the cross… To even insinuate that this took place in the Garden of Gethsemane is a foreign concept to the Christian."162

The Church of Jesus Christ has often been maligned for rejecting "historical Christianity" and therefore it is important that we determine exactly what the historical position of the Christian church has been regarding the atonement of Jesus Christ. This would not be an easy task for McKeever and Johnson, for until the twelfth century there was no explicit study of the theory of the atonement; there was no single predominating theory of redemption. Michael Winter has recently written that "there is a consensus among [modern writers], which is something of a paradox in the context of this study, as they all agree that the New Testament does not tell us how the atonement was effected."163 Leon Morris, so frequently quoted by McKeever and Johnson, writes that "the New Testament does not put forward a theory of atonement." Morris goes on to write that "there are several indications of the principle on which atonement is effected" and refers to sacrifice, redemption, new covenant, victory, propitiation, reconciliation. "But however [salvation] is viewed, Christ has taken our place, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves. Our part is simply to respond in repentance, faith, and selfless living."164 J.N.D. Kelly wrote (in a book McKeever and Johnson claim to have read):

The development of the Church's ideas about the saving effects of the incarnation was a slow, long drawn-out process. Indeed, while the conviction of redemption through Christ has always been the motive force of Christian faith, no final and universally accepted definition of the manner of its achievement has been formulated to this day.165

Lutheran scholar Robert Jenson recently wrote, "it is one of the more remarkable and remarked-upon aspects of theological history that no theory of atonement has ever been universally accepted."166 Later, Kelly writes that

The student who seeks to understand the soteriology of the fourth and early fifth centuries will be sharply disappointed if he expects to find anything…elaborately worked out…[because] the redemption did not become a battle-ground for rival schools until the twelfth century.167

This should not be too much of a surprise to our friends McKeever and Johnson. Leon Morris has written that there is a "problem confronting anyone who would write a theology of the New Testament…namely, a widespread recognition that there are considerable differences among the writers of the various New Testament books." Although such recognition does not mean that there are "irreconcilable contradictions" between the various authors, it should help to understand why no strict theory regarding the atonement developed during the first twelve hundred years of Christian history.168

Things don't get better after the closing of the canon, either. In his study of the Atonement Morris writes that "through more than nineteen centuries the church has been working at that problem and it still has not come up with an agreed solution."169 The point of all this of course is to indicate that, rather than a single theory acceptable to all Christians, there were presented over the centuries several theories regarding the atonement. Reformed scholar Shirlie Guthrie indicates there were four basic images used by the New Testament writers, all of which contain weaknesses; therefore they must be used in conjunction with each other to provide a consistent theory. "The biblical doctrine of the atonement teaches that it is God who initiates and fulfills the reconciliation between sinful humanity and God."170 Beyond that statement we cannot be dogmatic. Further, we are told that William Tyndale "does not appear to have had a clear doctrine of the atonement."171 The same is true for John Wesley. W.R. Cannon has written that "there is in all of Wesley's writings no single work on the atonement, and there is no reason whatever for us to believe that he had any clear, well-thought-out theory of the meaning of Christ's death."172 Crawford Knox has recently contrasted the early Christian view with that of the modern West, on various theological themes. With reference to the atonement, he points out that it was Anselm, who died in 1109, "who is seen as the theologian who first crystallised the main Western view of the Atonement, the sacrifice of Jesus as a man on the cross had to be made on behalf of all morally sinful and guilty men to God." By contrast, "in the earlier tradition, Christ is seen as overcoming sin and death in a series of sequential steps which lead through his life on earth, his death and resurrection to his ascension. His death is one crucial step in this process but it is not all-important."173

Perhaps the indecisiveness of both the New Testament specifically and Christian history in general will provide a better backdrop for the discussion of the atonement as taught in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It will certainly be a more correct version of what that church teaches, than the image McKeever and Johnson have provided their readers. Certainly the suggestions made by Knox would seem to coincide more closely with the position taken in this paper: that the Latter-day Saints are more closely aligned with the early Church, than with the modern West.