Here's the next article from the Dialogue archive, Eugene England's essay "That They Might Not Suffer: The Gift of the Atonement," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 1 No. 2 (1966): 141-55. After discussing key LDS scriptures that discuss the atonement and reviewing the primary theories of atonement that have emerged within Christian theology over the course of two millennia (the ransom theory, the satisfaction theory, the moral influence theory), England gives his opinion that the LDS concept of atonement is "close to Abelard's [moral influence theory], with the important addition of an understanding of why the atonement is absolutely necessary." This is something of a minority position within LDS thought: most LDS commentators align the LDS view of the atonement nearer the satisfaction theory, a substitutionary theory of the atonement. [There is no "official" LDS endorsement of a detailed theory of the atonement; LDS scriptural discussions permit broad readings.]
The Atonement is a necessary, but not sufficient, factor in men's salvation from sin — necessary because no one else can fully motivate the process in the free agent, man, and insufficient because man must respond and complete the process. There is no reason to imagine God being unable to forgive. The question is what effect will the forgiveness have; the forgiveness is meaningless unless it leads to repentance. The forgiveness extended in the dramatic events of the Atonement is that kind of forgiveness uniquely capable of bringing "means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance." In other words, the forgiveness must be accepted in order to be efficacious: "For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he received not the gift" (Doctrine and Covenants 88:33).