How well does the depiction of God and humanity inJoseph SmithS King Follett Discourse and Lorenzo SnowSfamous "coupletnfit with traditional Christian views of Christ and the Atonement- or even with thosefound in the Book of Mormon? Must Latter-day Saints choose between them?
THEOLOGY AND CHRISTOLOGY THROUGHTHE LENS OF A
By L. Rex Sears
HEN BYU RELIGION PROFESSOR STEPHEN E. and may be responding by moving the Church away from its Robinson collaborated with an evangelical King Follett heritage. Christian to write How Wide the Divide?, he de- voted his contributions to minimizing Mormon departures "THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF TRUTH from more orthodox forms of ~hristianit~.'Judging from AND OF THE GOSPEL" Robinson's position and influence, we have come a long way from our nineteenth-century heritage of glorylng in alienation N THE KING Follett Discourse he delivered shortly before from mainstream Christianity For my part, I suspect that we his death, Joseph Smith taught the Saints, as "the first have never fully appreciated how wide the divide really is-or I principle of truth and of the Gospel," that God "once was might be, if we took our founding prophet at his word. If ac- a man like one of us and that God Himself, the Father of us all, cepted, Joseph Smith's later teachings have implications, unap- once dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did preciated perhaps by the Prophet himself, which could place in the flesh and like "God Himself who sits enthroned in us even further from the biblical Christian tradition than the yonder heavens is a Man like unto one of yourselves-that is Mormon firebrands of the nineteenth century recognized. the great ~ecret!"~ Over the years, observers on both sides of the divide have According to Smith, this "great secret" is the key to under- remarked that the theology Joseph taught in the King Follett standing "the designs of God for the human race, the relation Discourse fits poorly, or not at all, with orthodox Christianity's the human family sustains with God, and why He interferes notions of humanity, deity, and their relations one with an- with the affairs of man."5 God is "a man" like us, and our des- other. But I think observers on the Mormon side, in particular, tiny as "joint-heirs with Jesus Christ" is "to inherit and enjoy have shown little awareness that King Follett teachings may the same glory, powers, and exaltation until you ascend a have decisive consequences for the central Christian doctrine throne of eternal power and arrive at the station of a God, the of Atonement as well. As I argue here, reasonable elaborations same as those who have gone bef~re.'~ of the discourse's teachings undercut certain lines of You have got to learn how to make yourselves Gods in Atonement theory and render competing lines superfluous. order to save yourselves and be kings and priests to Eugene England characterized the perfect and loving, yet God, the same as all Gods have done-by going from limited divinity of the Mormon theology he loved as the a small capacity to a great capacity, from a small de- "weeping God of ~ormonism."~I share England's taste in the- gree to another, from grace to grace, until the resur- ology, but unlike him, I am not sure we can keep our weeping rection of the dead, from exaltation to exaltation-till God and still maintain our membership in the wider Christian you are able to sit in everlasting burnings and ever- fraternity And although those in authority may not have con- lasting power and glory as those who have gone be- sciously acknowledged the tension, I think they may sense it fore, sit enthroned.' Thus Joseph Smith explains God's interest in human affairs: L. REX SEARS is an attorney practicing in Salt God has trodden the same eternal path as we; and just as his Lake City. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy from forebears have done (and we shall yet do), God desires to raise Haward University, where he wrote his disserta- up yet another generation of gods-just like generation after tion on Mormon theology. generation of human beings eagerly bear and rear offspring.
PAGE 34 APRIL 2002 SUNSTONE
I consider the parental model of divinity set forth in joseph Smith i discourse and Lorenzo Snow's couplet to be incompatible with guilty monotheistic piety that teaches us to feel hopelessly and inescapably dependent on and indebted to a mercifully condescending creator.
For Joseph Smith, then, the reason for God's participation in great creator. As the objects of such condescending mercy, we human affairs is captured in Lorenzo Snow's couplet: "As man can only assume toward our god a position analogous to is, God once was. As God is, man may become." supine prostration. King Benjamin espouses something like In a newspaper interview a few years ago, President this in his famous sermon: Hinckley publicly dismissed Snow's teaching as "a little cou- And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and plet," "more of a couplet than anything else," that "gets into granted unto you your lives, for which ye are in- some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much debted unto him. And secondly, he doth require that about."' Personally, I do not think the theology involved is all ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if that deep-if by deep, we mean obscure or difficult; the doc- ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore trine is certainly profound but not deep in that other sense. he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, In a more recent interview, President Hinckley gave the and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of same treatment to another ideological derelict from our past. what have ye to boast? (Mosiah 2:23-25) He attributed to Brigham Young the statement that "If you I wonder if, at some level, those who are uncomfortable went to Heaven and saw God it would be Adam and Eve," and with Joseph Smith's later teachings might regard accepting this commented, "I don't know what he meant by that."9 In both sense of worthlessness as a form of payment for the aid of the cases, rather than acknowledge that earlier prophets taught supreme being McMumn talks about, the one who holds the what they appeared to teach, President Hinckley concludes whole world in his hands. Based upon my own development, that their statements are difficult or obscure and cannot be ac- I suspect that some people have an unarticulated fear that this cepted at face value.'' I think that the similarity of President being might abandon them if they do not exhibit and preach Hinckley's treatment of the little couplet and Adam-God bodes such guilty monotheistic piety ill for the future of the couplet. But I do not think this piety fits with the model of divinity President Hinckley followed his remarks about the couplet espoused by Joseph Smith. If we take the Prophet's model seri- with a tempered endorsement of the idea that we can become ously, we must modify or abandon some of our more self-dep- as God is, which suggests that his reservations center primarily recating religious notions. on the first teaching of the couplet, that God was once as we are now l1 Several decades earlier, influential Apostle Anthon TO SHARE KNOWLEDGE, POWER, AND GLORY H. Lund had similarly confided to his journal that he did not "like to think of a time when there was no ~od."'~Sterling M. OSEPH SMITH TEACHES us to understand our relation- McMunin suggested one possible explanation for the discom- ship with God through the lens of earthly parenting. fort evident in Lund's reaction to this teaching when he noted J Healthy parenting of mortal children is about many noble that worshippers want the object of their worship to "have the things, but it is not about mercy or condescension in anything whole world in his hand," because they "do not propose to like the sense described above. Like most parents, I have a take their problems to a God who has problems of his own."13 deep and abiding love for my son that can drive me to make Maybe Lund disliked the notion that God once was not a god great sacrifices for his sake. But I did not become and I do not because that idea threatened his comforting belief in a god remain Christian's father because I feel sony for him. I am with no limits. simply thrilled to be a part of his life, to have the opportunity King Follett theology poses another, less obvious but re- to share in his upbringing, and to help and watch him grow. lated threat to certain religious sensibilities. Traditional Like the heavenly father Joseph Smith describes, I am Christian theologies present God's participation in human af- raising my son to share in whatever "knowledge, power and fairs as the incomprehensible condescension of a being insu- glory" I have achieved or may achieve. Sadly, this means an im- perably superior to us. In such theologies, the creation and portant part of what I want for Christian is independence from subsequent Atonement of humanity is solely motivated by the me. Like any teacher's, my success is measured by the extent to unmerited mercy of the supreme being for lesser creatures which my child becomes able to meet tasks and challenges who are and must ever remain pitiable by comparison to their without my help. If Christian is not developing the abilities
APRIL 2002 PAGE 35 SUNSTONE
and confidence to do more and more things on his own, I am things that I saw my Father do when worlds came failing. I aspire to continue growing throughout my life, which rolling into existence." Saw the Father do what? "I saw might always keep me one step ahead of my son in at least the Father work out His kingdom with fear and trem- some respects and might ensure that I always have something bling and I am doing the same, too. . . . So that Jesus to teach him. But a day will come when Christian must stand treads in His tracks as He had gone before and then on his own, when he will surpass me in certain respects, and inherits what God did before.16 when, in an important sense, he and I must relate as equals. For Joseph Smith, as for Roberts, Jesus demonstrates not Since I am raising a future equal, I cannot consider only God's humanity but also humanity's glorious prospects Christian to be forever inferior or indebted to me, nor do I ex- and potential: pect or even want him to think of our relationship in those How consoling to the mourners . . . . to contemplate terms. For now, I do require him to accept a certain level of the saylng that [their departed loved ones] will be asymmetry in our relationship and thus to treat me with some heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. What is measure of respect; I am his father first and his buddy second. it? To inherit and enjoy the same glory, powers, and I do not see how I could be an effective parent, how I could exaltation until you ascend a throne of eternal power properly discharge the heavy responsibility I share with his and arrive at the station of a God, the same as those mother of guiding and directing his development here on who have gone before . . .17 earth, otherwise. But the goals I have for my son likewise re- and the same as Jesus. quire that I afford him a certain measure of respect, and that I In familial terms, the Jesus of King Follett is our brother, cultivate his own respect for himself, both what he already is rather than father or object of our worship. You, me, and Jesus and what he may become. were all among the spirits in whose midst God the Father I strive to parent so as to facilitate a successful maturity for found himself, when our common father-not Jesus-"took my son, and I hope and expect that if I do so, Christian will in hand to save the world of spirits."18Jesus grew faster than always have a sense of gratitude for my contributions. But the the rest of us, becoming our elder brother, showing us the path successful maturity I want for my son is inextricably bound to our shared destiny. But for Jesus to serve as premise and ar- up with independence from me-unburdened by any feeling gument that shows us we can become like Father, for Jesus to that he owes me something. Thus I consider the parental be our elder brother. he must be like us. model of divinity set forth in Joseph Smith's discourse and Lorenzo Snow's couplet to be incompatible with guilty THE ATONING COUPLET monotheistic piety that teaches us to feel hopelessly and in- escapably dependent on and indebted to a mercifully conde- S EUGENE ENGLAND has observed, "The question scending creator. 'Why is man's salvation dependent on Christ and the A events surrounding his death?' is the most central and "WHAT DID JESUS SAY?" the most difficult question in Christian theology."1g From its inception, Mormonism as taught by its leaders has recited alle- MONG THE BEST defenses of King Follett theology is giance to the central Christian tenet of the Atonement. But B. H. Roberts's The Mormon Doctrine of Deity. In that with few exceptions, the body of authoritative Mormon teach- A work, Roberts characterizes Jesus as "both premise ings and scripture has offered little by way of Atonement and argument" for the conclusion that God is a man, complete theory. Most notable among those exceptions is the eclectic with body, parts, and passions. Oversimplifymg, Robens ar- collection of explanations found in the Book of Mormon, the gues that because Jesus is both man and God, God is a man volume of distinctively Mormon scripture from which King and men may become gods. l4 Follett theology is most wholly absent. Roberts's argument has its roots in the King Follett 1 do not find that coincidence fonuitous, for I think the Discourse. Immediately after announcing as "the first principle doctrine so plainly taught by Joseph Smith in the King Follett of truth and of the Gospel" that God "once was a man like one Discourse eliminates the problems that certain theories say the of us and . . . dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ . . . Atonement solves, while creating additional challenges for and like us," Joseph Smith set out to "show it from the ~ible."'~ other Atonement theories. It bears mention here that while The Prophet argued as follows: Jesus figures prominently in the reasoning of both the King What did Jesus say?-As the Father has power in Follett Discourse and the Roberts book that defends it, neither Himself, even so has the Son power in hirnse2f. To do work so much as mentions the Atonement, Gethsemane, what? Why, what the Father did. That answer is ob- Calvary, or the cross. Jesus figures into King Follett theology vious; even in a manner to lay down His body and not as the great sacrifice for sin, but as premise and argument, take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? "To illustrating the family ties that bind eanh to heaven, demon- lay down my life as my Father laid down His body strating God's humanity and our own nascent divinity. that I might take it up again." Do you believe it? If you A sermon delivered by Book of Mormon prophet Amulek don't believe it, you don't believe the Bible. . . . provides a helpful foundation for more complete articulation What did Jesus Christ do? "Why I do the same of the tension I perceive:
PAGE 36 APRIL 2002 SUNSTONE
It might be possible to reconcile the little couplet and the Atonement, but I am not hopeful. The tension between King Follett theology and the Christian doctrine of Atonement may run too deep.
Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own cording to what I see as Amulek's payment model of the blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if Atonement, Christ's ability to atone for our sins depends on his a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, being fundamentally diferent from us. Unlike us, and appar- take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay But ently unlike Heavenly Father, the atoning savior condescends the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; from his already exalted state to be born among humans-all therefore there can be nothing which is short of an in- the while remaining an "infinite" being. The atoning Christ of finite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the Nephi and Amulek, who condescends to be born among us, world. (Alma 34: 11-12) who continues to be different from us throughout, is not truly While others advocate different inter pet at ion^,^' I think and fully our brother; therefore he cannot serve as premise and Amulek is reasoning that an infinite sacrifice can accomplish argument for our own divine potential. what a merely human sacrifice cannot: pay for another's sins. The reasoning above poses the greatest challenges for And whether or not payment is the proper metaphor, Amulek Atonement theories which postulate that Christ's innocent suf- expressly characterizes the Atonement as an infinite sacrijce: fering satisfied a penal debt of some sort. Those "penal substi- "For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacri- tution" theories have been roundly criticized on other grounds fice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any and have been rejected by many in favor of one form or an- manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it other of what are generically called "moral influence" theories. must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice" (Alma 34:lO). But King Follett theology and Christology pose problems for Amulek teaches that the Atonement is a sacrifice that, because those, as well. it is infinite, can satisfy the law that otherwise requires the sin- Lorin K. Hansen's proposal helpfully illustrates the general ner's life and will accept no substitutes. problem. Hansen "distinguish[es] the various Christian inter- We need not quibble about what Amulek meant by "infi- pretations of the Atonement . . . by whether they describe the nite": at a minimum, he meant a sacrifice that could not be mechanism of the Atonement as a God-oriented, objective made by a mere human such as you or me. Atonement re- event or as a humanity-oriented, subjective process."23 Using quires an infinite sacrifice, and thus an infinite being to per- these distinctions "to characterize Mormon sources," Hansen form that sacrifice. The Atonement is not "a human sacrifice," finds Mormonism committed to both.24 Responding to this thus the atoning Christ, in contrast to the Jesus of the King dual commitment and drawing on other sources, Hansen the- Follett Discourse, must not be human. He might have taken orizes that in Gethsemane, Christ reconciles his abhorrence of on a human body, but as Nephi recognized, that was an act of sin with his love of individuals; and that this objective event condescension on his part (1 Nephi 11: 1~18).~' enables in each of us a subjective process by which we accom- By contrast, the Heavenly Father described by the King plish the same reconciliation, or at-~ne-ment.~~ Follett Discourse achieved his exaltation "the same as all Gods In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith taught that "a have done," "the same as those who have gone before," and the sinner has his own mind and his own mind damns him. He is same as we must do: "by going from a small capacity to a great damned by mortification and is his own condemner and tor- capacity, from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, menter."26 By emphasizing the need for some sort of release until the resurrection ofthe dead, from exaltation to exaltation," from our own self-damnation before we can be exalted, this until at last he was "able to sit in everlasting burnings and ever- passage certainly provides grist for the moral Atonement mill. lasting power and glory"22 But not so the Savior: the Christ But immediately prior to this statement, Joseph taught: "So who offers himself as an atoning sacrifice was exalted before he long as a man will not give consent and heed to the command- was even born. He is so unlike us-and so unlike our ments he must abide without salvation. When he consents to Father-that he did not even need a physical body to become obey the Gospel, whether alive or dead, he is saved."27 Focusing a god. Indeed, in order for him to be the infinite sacrifice, mat- just on what the discourse says, we might be able to'free our- ters could not have been otherwise: had he come here a mere selves from self-mortification by simply "giv[ing] consent and human on his way to resurrection and subsequent exaltation, heed[ing] . . . the commandments," with no need for an his suffering and death would have been inadequate to pay the ~tonement.28 price. But even if we do need some help to free ourselves from In God the Father, who once lived on an earth and who be- what Eugene England characterized as the "the immobilizing came a god the same as we must and the same as all of the burden" of self-inflicted judgment and guilt,29King Follett the- gods who came before, we can see our future selves. But ac- ology, as summarized in Lorenzo Snow's couplet, has its own
APRIL 2002 PAGE 37 SUNSTONE
atoning power and provides its own remedy God our Father the atoning Christ. So as the "Mormon Church" gives way to has trodden the same sinful path as we yet achieved exaltation, "The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints," there may thereby accomplishing the painful reconciliation described by be no room left for robust King Follett theology Hansen as the objective Atonement that enables our subjective at-one-ment. More generally, any cognitive or emotive assis- "FATHER, THE GLORY BE THINE FOREVER." tance we need to reconcile our sinful and divine natures can come from our knowledge of the Prophet's "first principle of RIGHAM YOUNG NOTORIOUSLY taught that the truth and of the Gospel," that the being who is now God "once proper object of our worship is as near to us as father was a man like one of us."30 B Adam. While I do not regard Joseph Smith as the In sum, it seems to me that payment theories of Atonement source of this teaching, I do see Young's Adam-God thesis as a require us to recognize a fundamental gulf between ourselves natural development of the central King Follett tenet that we and Jesus, thereby undercutting King Follett's message that be- and God are fundamentally alike. James E. Talmage's Jesus the cause Jesus was both god and man, God was once a man like Christ and related First Presidency statements consolidated the us and we can become gods. Moral influence theories, mean- shift away from Adam-God and placed the Church on its cur- while, presuppose the need to bridge a gulf that King Follett rent theological trajectory, which increasingly emphasizes theology bridges with the teaching that God our Father was Christ as the object of our worship. Might we be losing some- once as we now are. Speaking more generally, King Follett the- thing valuable by shifting the emphasis of our worship away ology and Christology pose a twofold challenge for theories of from a Father who was once just as we are now, to a Christ for Atonement: such theories must keep Jesus enough like us to whom coming down among us could only be an act of conde- serve as premise and argument for the Father's humanity and scension? our own divine potential, while finding something for the Joseph Smith delivered the King Follett Discourse as a fu- Atonement to do that is not already accomplished through our neral oration for the Mormon stonemason from whom the dis- understanding of God and ourselves as captured by Lorenzo course draws its name, and he offered his teachings as consola- Snow's little couplet.31 tion for the deceased's family and friends: "How consoling to It might be possible to reconcile the little couplet and the the mourners . . . to contemplate the saylng that they will be Atonement, but I am not hopeful. The tension between King heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To Follett theology and the Christian doctrine of Atonement may inherit and enjoy the same glory, powers, and exaltation until run too deep. Christianity's central doctrine of an atoning you ascend a throne of eternal power and arrive at the station of savior is interwoven, perhaps inseparably, with the guilty a God, the same as those who have gone before."32 The little monotheistic piety disallowed by the King Follett parental couplet is itself good tidings not to be lightly cast aside to ac- model of divinity This interrelation finds clear expression in commodate some other gospel. standard evangelical Christian ministerial practice: the first Ironically, the Christological trajectory of Mormonism over task of an orthodox evangelical preacher is to convict her the past century places Jesus in the position that he disowned flock, to make them feel the need for a redeemer by making and that Lucifer coveted in the great council in heaven. them feel guilty, ashamed, and powerless either to better them- Lucifer, recall, demanded the honor of our Father, but Jesus selves or to make amends. King Benjamin was just exempli- said "Father, the glory be thine forever" (Moses 4:2). As Elder fylng a fundamental directive of orthodox Christian preaching Bruce R. McConkie reminds us in an Improvement Era article when, to teach his listeners to revere the Christian God, he written to eliminate confusions surrounding the premortal taught them first to abhor themselves. I think the more stable council in heaven, Jesus has been consistent in representing solutions to the dilemma articulated above accept one or the himself as but an agent for Father, to whom all of the praise other of its horns, discarding either the Atonement or the ideas and honor should properly redound.33 And, as I believe inherent in the couplet. Lowell Bennion said, Jesus in the New Testament taught us to And I think our Church has already chosen. Most explana- join him in worshipping our Father who is in heaven. tions I have heard of President Hinckley's comments about the But whatever the costs, identifying and emphasizing the little couplet, whether from apologetic Church members or atoning Christ as an object of our worship may be the in- suspicious non-Mormons, charge our current prophet with evitable result of focusing our Christology on the Atonement. dissembling. Latter-day Saints generally say that he was ped- After all, if Father cannot save us without Christ's help, then dling milk for an audience not yet ready for meat, or some- we also depend on the latter for our salvation. And to the ex- thing along those lines; and the suspicious non-Mormons tent that we worship Father because of his salvific intervention think he was trylng to obscure the truth about Mormon teach- in our existence, it seems only proper to worship Christ, too. ings to obtain greater acceptance for the Mormon community Indeed by ascribing so prominent a role to Chri'st in all of the and the rest of the Mormon message. I am not convinced of ei- events transpiring after the council in heaven, the Christology ther, and I am inclined to believe President Hinckley's obvious of Jesus the Christ suggests that Heavenly Father has already reluctance to accept the couplet was genuine. done his part for our salvation, and from here on out, we are The little couplet fits poorly not only with the pious sensi- dependent exclusively on Christ. That makes Christ our more bilities explored earlier on, but also with worship centered on prospectively relevant object of worship.
PAGE 38 APRIL 2002 SUNSTONE
"YOU SAY HONEY IS SWET AND SO DO I." 11. President Hinckley remarked: "We belleve In eternal progression. . . . We believe that the glory of God is intell~genceand whatever principle of intelligence N THE FOREGOING, I have emphasized the tension be- we attain unto in this life, ~twill rise wth us in the Resurrection." Lattin. 12. Journal of Anthon H. Lund, LDS Church Archives, 11 Dec. 1914, as re- tween a central strand of King Follett thought and notions ported in Thomas G. Alexander, "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine," most I derived from other sources, but the situation is more recently re-published in SUNSTONE22~34 (June 19991, 15-29. See espec~ally complicated than that. Because Joseph Smith (like B. H. p. 23 and accompanying notes. Roberts after him) defended the little couplet by appealing to 13. Sterling M. McMurrin, The Theological Foundations ofthe Mormon Rel~gon (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1965). 139. Jesus as premise and argument, the tensions I have tried to 14. B. H. Roberts. The Mormon Doctnne of Deity: The Roberts-Van der Donckt identify and formulate are internal to the King Follett Discussion (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1903). Discourse. The discourse defends its message of God's hu- 15. "Kmg Follett Discourse," 201. manity and our divine potential by appealing to the dual na- 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid. ture that biblical Christianity ascribes to Jesus. Yet the ascrip- 18. More fully: "God H~mselffound Himself in the midst of spirits and glory tion of divinity to Jesus before his resurrection-indeed, Because He was greater He saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest, who before his birth-marks a crucial distinction between Jesus were less in intelligence, could have a privilege to advance hke Himself and be ex- and us, undermining any inference drawn from his case to alted with Him, so that they mrght have one glory upon another in all that knowl- edge, power, and glory So He took in hand to save the world of splnts." "King ours. So if there is anything to the foregoing, it raises ques- Follett Discourse," 205. tions about the logic of the King Follett Discourse itself, in- 19. Eugene England, "That They Might Not Suffer: The Gift of Atonement." cluding: can Brother Joseph's effort to defend his theological Dialogue: AJoumal of Mormon Thought 1.3 (autumn 1966): 150. and soteriologcal theses by appeal to the biblical Christian 20. See, e.g., R. Dennis Potter, "Did Christ Pay for our Sins?" Dialogue: A Ioumal of Mormon Thought 32: 4 (winter 1999): 73-86, tradition succeed? 2 1. The condescending character of Jesus' embodiment comes through even If not, then Joseph Smith's latter-day revelation about divine more clearly In the original 1830 edit~onof the Book of Mormon, which speaks of and human nature might have to stand more squarely on its Mary as the mother of God (rather than of the Son of God) after the manner of the own merits. I consider those merits a strong foundation be- flesh. cause I share with Brother Joseph a strong appreciation for the 22. "King Follett Discourse," 201. 23. Lorin K. Hansen. "The Moral Atonement as a Mormon Interpretation," flavor of the little couplet: "This is good doctrine. It tastes good. Dialogue: AJournal of Mormon Thought 27.1 (spring 1994): 227. You say honey is sweet and so do I. I can also taste the spirit 24. Ibid. and principles of eternal life, and so can you."34 25. lbid., 222-27. But my taste in doctrine has little bearing on the future of 26. "King Follett Discourse." 205. - 27. Ibid. i' . Mormonism's little couplet. 28. Along these lines, it bears mention that John A. Widtsoe's classic Rational Theology (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997). 90, describes repentance as con- sisting entirely of "turning away from evil practices" and "act[ing] out the good." NOTES In Widtsoe's system, Jesus "atone[s] for the act of Adam and Eve" by givmg "h~s life so that mortal bodies may rise from the grave" (ibid., 53), but the Atonement 1. Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson. How Wide the Divide?: A seemingly plays no part e~therin repentance or in obtaining forgveness. In Lonn Mormon G an Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove, 111: Intervarsity Press. Hansen's terminology,-. Widtsoe's Atonement is an objective event that undoes the 1997). physical consequences of the Fall but has no other apparent role. Moreover. 2. Eugene England, "The Weeping God of Mormonism," Element: An e- Widtsoe's invocation of the Atonement IS entirely opaque: he clearly holds that Journal of Mormon Philosophy and Theology, vol. l,
APRIL 2002 PAGE 39