The Demand of Eternal Intelligences for Justice. A novel and interesting theory was introduced by Cleon Skousen. As Skousen expresses it, all material reality consists of intelligences that act as they do because of their trust in God. God’s power and glory depend upon the faith and trust that the intelligences place in God. If they did not honor and trust God, then “God would cease to be God.” (See Alma 42: 13, 22; Mormon 9:19) The fact that we have sinned and not been punished for it calls into question God’s governance and justice. The intelligences demand justice. If the intelligences are not satisfied, then they will rebel against God’s governance and God will cease to be God. The intelligences demand that someone must suffer for the wrongs that have been committed. To satisfy the demand for justice, God sends his own Son because the intelligences respect and trust the Son as much as they do God. However, when they see the suffering of a person who is entirely innocent and without sin whom they love, they are revolted by their own demand for justice. They see, in effect, that their demand for justice is itself a form of injustice and refusal to forgive. Their demand for justice is thus appeased and replaced with a change of heart that leads the intelligences to be merciful.
There is a lot to like in this theory. It goes a ways toward answering some of the questions that form the basis of a theory of atonement. There is no eternal law that prevents God from forgiving us from sin. He could just forgive us. However, there is an unjust demand from subjects of the kingdom that requires that someone must pay the price for sin by suffering. There is a reason why the suffering must be done by Christ or at least someone like him: the intelligences must respect and love the victim of the unjust crucifixion. Further, the extent of the suffering must be so excessive and unjust that it shocks the conscious and awakens feelings of outrage and reconsideration of one’s own unjust demands and refusal to forgive without someone giving a pound of flesh. The suffering is related to forgiveness because it occasions a decision to let go of unjust demands for retribution and thus leads to forgiveness and repentance. This theory exposes our own unjust demands for justice and refusal to forgive others. It exposes our own unjust refusal to let go of demands for retribution. All of this is very enlightening.
However, the theory doesn’t account for the scriptural data that must be explained by a theory of atonement. It doesn’t connect with the scriptural sense in which Christ actually bears our sins. According to scripture, the pain that Christ suffers arises from taking our sins upon himself and indeed into his own person. (See 1 Peter 2:21-24) My sins don’t seem to be involved in anything that Christ does because the intelligences were persuaded to give up their unjust demands 2,000 years ago. What I do in the here and now seems totally disconnected from this explanation for atonement. Perhaps it could be said that Christ bears the brunt of an unjust demand for retribution and in this sense bears the sins of the intelligences. However, our sins are not limited to just making unjust demands for retribution. Moreover, the atonement functions by God giving in to unjust demands and thus entails that God in fact is complicit in unjustly requiring his son to suffer to appease these unjust demands. Moreover, the biggest question it raises for me is: why doesn’t the Father himself undergo the punishment to assuage the unjust demands? This view seems to entail that the Father is both unjust and a coward. Wouldn’t the intelligences lose faith and trust in the Father for failing to take accountability for the solution? Perhaps it could be argued that it was tougher for the Father to stand on the sidelines and watch his son suffer. But that merely underscores that the Father had every reason to undergo the unjust suffering himself.
Moreover, is God’s status as God really that precarious? If the intelligences simply fail to honor him, God ceases to be God. If that is so, why would such a god inspire us at all – let alone be in a position to command our total allegiance as he is wont to do throughout all scriptural texts? Moreover, the scriptural warrant for this view is obviously questionable. Alma’s discussion of the “demands of justice” in Alma 34 and 42 rather clearly has nothing to do with the demands of intelligences for someone to pay the price of violation of the law.
Source: Blake Ostler, Atonement in Mormon Thought