I remember eagerly purchasing and reading from them quite a few years back. It was delightful to find the truths of the gospel expressed and expounded upon so clearly and beautifully and misunderstandings so nicely corrected. This series of works by Joseph Fielding Smith seemed to be rather confusing and did not line up with the truths of historic Judeo-Christian faith.
The teaching that man can become god's, that the God was once a man, of eternal progression, etc. This book is excellent. My husband and I have enjoyed reading sections at night and using it for talks and sunday school lessons. It has been a great book to add to our libray, as it's never on the shelf. It has helped me learn more about the Gospel and made it easier to share it with others. Discourses of Brigham Young. Teachings of the Prophet Jo The Articles of Faith. A Marvelous Work and a Wonder. A New Witness for the Artic Doctrines of Salvation, Vols.
- Full text of "Doctrines of Salvation Volume - Joseph Fielding Smith"?
- Item Preview.
- How the Clownfish Got its Name!
- Doctrines of Salvation, Vols. 1-3: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith.
- Campsite Guide CROATIA (100+ Campsites with GPS Data).
They are not compatible with Kindle or other e-reader devices. Digital items cannot be gifted. Add To Cart Cancel. Enjoy eBooks and audiobooks on your smartphone or tablet with our free app , Deseret Bookshelf.
Doctrines of Salvation Volume 1-3 - Joseph Fielding Smith
Domestic and International Shipping Options. Product Details Pages If you want to understand the gospel of Jesus Christ, these are excellent books. You Might Also Like. Gospel Doctrine Joseph F. Discourses of Brigham Young John A.
Product Description
Lectures on Faith Joseph Smith, Jr. Is a personal testimony necessary? See 1 question about Doctrines of Salvation. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. I read this book in Spanish and found it very informative. A lot of topics that are discussed from time to time are answered in this book. Jan 02, Matthew Fellows rated it did not like it. There was actually a time in my life in which I read this entire thing Oct 08, Ernie Dawson rated it it was amazing.
Pretty in-depth book on mormon doctrine which pre-dates Elder Bruce R. This book is only for the very serious student of mormon doctrine. This is one of my favorite reference books. I wouldn't ever be without it. Oct 02, Jenny Galbraith rated it it was amazing Shelves: Especially if you love deep doctrine. Mar 25, Aaron rated it really liked it Shelves: I'm writing a running commentary as I read this book. I read yesterday evening Joseph Fielding Smith's statement that God will not reveal himself to anyone who does not have the gospel and the priesthood.
He recognized that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the Sacred Grove before he had either the gospel or the priesthood, but JFS explained that instance as a limited exception to the rule he had just stated. Because the gospel and the priesthood were not on the earth when Jose I'm writing a running commentary as I read this book.
Because the gospel and the priesthood were not on the earth when Joseph had his experience in the Sacred Grove, it was necessary for God to appear to Joseph first to set in motion the restoration of the gospel and the priesthood. But what about Paul who saw God on the road to Damascus? Paul did not have either the gospel or the priesthood at that time. What about Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" who saw Jesus shortly after his resurrection on their way to tell the apostles about the message from the angels at the garden tomb?
Neither of them had the priesthood. Here on earth, God can reveal himself to whomever He chooses. This morning, I read JFS's statements that God is absolutely powerful, all-knowing, and perfect, and to believe otherwise is heretical. The scriptures cannot be clearer on this point, and I think we as Mormons too often make God less omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.
- The Mind of Donald Davidson (Grazer Philosophische Studien);
- ?
- See a Problem?.
We "de-deify" Him when we focus too much on the first part of Lorenzo Snow's couplet: As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become. The point of President Snow's teaching is that we can progress and become "joint heirs" with Christ. I believe that the "God" identified in the first part of the couplet is Jesus Christ, not God the Father. Jesus was once "as man now is" when he came to earth and lived a mortal life, suffering the hunger, thirst, fatigue, illness, and other things we suffer as mortal humans in imperfect bodies.
Jesus Christ is now a perfect immortal being prior to His birth, he was a perfect spirit being and we can eventually become like Him we are "joint heirs" with Him, after all and become perfect and immortal ourselves, all as a result of His atonement for us. He then quotes and ridicules a former president of the RLDS church who said that they did not know if God the Father was also the literal father of Jesus. I liked the discussion about who was Christ's father; I did not like the ridicule of the president of another faith.
After the fall, all communication with God was through Jesus Christ. I like this thought. As soon as the fall occurred, Jesus immediately was our Mediator with the Father. He was our Advocate from the very beginning, even before He came to Earth and suffered for us. JFS then says, in keeping with this princple, with very, very few exceptions JFS gives only three specific instances when God is speaking in the scriptures, it is Jesus that is talking, even if it appears as if God the Father is speaking.
JFS says that, even the most cynical bible scholars of his day first half of the 's -- and I would say this also includes most of the bible scholars today -- believe that many of Paul's letters we have in the NT are authentic. Because those letters are authentic and refer to Jesus and people who actually were with Jesus when he lived on the earth, there can be no question that Jesus actually lived.
With this thought in mind, I realized that the historical fact of a man named Jesus who started a great religious movement cannot be questioned. What each of us needs to figure out for ourselves, however, is whether Jesus was who He claimed to be. Did He come to Earth to suffer and die for us? THAT is the central question that each of us needs to answer for ourselves. I haven't added to this review in some time, although I have continued reading this massive tome.
Doctrines of Salvation, Vols. 1-3: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith
I've been too busy with work, family, and church responsibilities. I'm approximately half way through the first "book" of the volume. I went through a patch of some of JFS's more controversial teachings.
His statements about pre-mortal faithfulness and race clearly fall within the scope of the "dated" teachings warned of in the introduction to the book. His absolute refusal to allow for any inkling of evolutionary thought to be compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ I think also falls within that category although I'm sure many would disagree with me. I'm currently heading through his thought on the "Dark Ages" and the "Enlightenment. And then I started looking at the footnotes providing the sources for those statements, and I realized that most of this book comes from things JFS taught in the 's!
In other words, I should expect some of those statements to be dated. JFS was simply saying things that were consistent with the mainstream thinking of his day. There were a few more quotes bashing the "Reorganites" for moving the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum from where they were buried in Nauvoo. He says that Fredrick Smith Joseph Smith's grandson will be severely punished for allowing the bodies of those two men to be put on display. Ironically, he says that just after or BRM places the quote right after a quote in which he says that he prays for the descendants of JS, that they will find the truth and stop attacking the LDS church.
Obviously there were some very harsh feelings and major attacks occurring. I would totally buy and read such a book. JFS says that we demonstrate extreme ingratitude toward our Savior when we sin. I agree with what he is saying, but it is with a caveat. Christ suffered for our sins, so we would not have to. He took upon himself the punishment for our sins so we can become clean and return to live with Him and Our Father after we die.
Doctrines of Salvation, Vols. Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith - Deseret Book
But it is inevitable that we will sin again, even after we have fully repented. We are imperfect, fallible mortals. Accordingly, if I feel like I've been ungrateful to Christ when I sin, does that make it more or less likely that I will repent of my most recently committed sins? I think the answer to this question depends on the source of my ingratitude. If I feel ungrateful because I have burdened Christ further with additional sins, I think I would be less likely to repent.
I don't think that is the attitude we should have, and I don't think that is the "ingratitude" we are supposed to feel nor the ingratitude JFS is talking about. If, however, I feel ungrateful because Christ has done so much for me in my life, lifting me up when I am down, strengthening me when I am weak, and I am not trying my best to do what is right, then I think I have the correct attitude.
Christ's atonement is to make up what we lack, but we still have to do our part, trying our best to obey His commandments. When we don't try our best, then we do show ingratitude for all that Christ has done for us. The wonderful and amazing thing about Christ is that, despite our frequent ingratitude, He still welcomes us into His fold.
He still wants us to repent, to take advantage of His suffering for us, and to put ourselves back on the pathway that will lead us to His presence. I'm working my way through the chapter on the "Law of Witnesses" which has more pages devoted to it than any other chapter so far, including the chapters on Jesus Christ and the Atonement. One of the points JFS makes is that, during the life of JS, there were always two witnesses to important events except when there weren't -- JFS's explanation for why the "Law of Witnesses" didn't need to be complied with when JS saw God the Father and Jesus Christ in the Sacred Grove or when he obtained the golden plates from Moroni was not satisfactory.
Oliver Cowdery was present whenever JS received keys from heavenly visitors. Williams held the same position, but I thought they were counselors in a first presidency , JS's brother Hyrum filled the position of Second President. According to JFS on one of many interesting tangents contained in this chapter , JS taught that the person holding the office of Second President was intended to be the successor to the First President when JS died. JFS then says, however, that the "Law of Witnesses" required the martyrdom of two people to "seal" the truthfulness of the restored gospel, and those two people had to be the First and Second Presidents.
Accordingly, if OC had remained in the church, he would have been with JS at Carthage Jail and would have been the second person the mob killed alongside JS. JFS then says that, once both the First and Second President's had sealed their testimonies of the gospel by dying for their beliefs, the office of Second President was no longer necessary.
In other words, according to JFS the Second President was supposed to succeed JS as leader of the church, but it was necessary for both the First and the Second Presidents to die as martyrs, and the office of Second President would go away once that was accomplished. If all of this is accurate and was openly taught by JS before he was killed, it's no wonder that the Church leaders remaining after JS and his brother were killed at Carthage were so confused about who should be president after JS died.
This morning I read about the "Kingdom of God" during the millennium. JFS says that, when Christ returns to earth for the second time to usher in the years of peace that the millennium will bring, there will be "multitudes" of people who will not be members of our Church. He says that they will still be subject to the "Kingdom" because Christ will be the political leader of the entire world and all other nations will come to an end, but, because Christ wants every one to be free to choose Him and choose to be a part of His Church, many at least initially will not choose to be baptized into our Faith.
I firmly believe that there will indeed be "multitudes" of people who will survive the calamities that will precede the coming of the Savior. There are many, many good people who do not belong to our Church I also firmly believe that there are many members of our Church who, unfortunately, will not be numbered among the righteous at Christ's Second Coming, but that's a totally different topic.
All of this makes me wonder, however, what the millennium will be like, particularly in the beginning. It also makes me question whether our view of the Savior's Second Coming is an accurate one. If Christ returned to the Earth, declaring that the LDS faith is the only true faith and that everyone must become a member of His Church to be saved, certainly those who remain on the earth after His Coming would all be baptized.
We know that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Messiah, so if everyone left at the beginning of the millennium knows that Jesus is the Anointed One -- that He is our Savior -- then they would obviously do whatever He directs them to do or even whatever He hints at. He will do this, not because the LDS Church is NOT the the only true Church, but because to declare it so, without first giving the people on the earth the opportunity to learn about the Church and decide for themselves whether they will believe, violates the most basic principles of the Gospel.
How can you develop faith -- the very first principle of the Gospel -- if you are told what is true by the ultimate source of truth and the very object of our faith, Jesus Christ Himself? I don't think you can, and thus, we, as members of the Church, will have a very great amount of missionary work to do after the Savior returns.
It will be up to us to teach people about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to instruct them about the truthfulness of LDS doctrine, and to convince them of the necessity of being baptized into the LDS church. The "multitudes" of people who do remain will be righteous because we know that the wicked will be burned before Christ returns , and thus, the missionary work we do among them will be very enjoyable and fruitful, but it will still have to be done. I can think of no other way that the principles of freedom of choice and of faith in Jesus Christ can be preserved. I'm still working my way through the seemingly endless chapter on the "Origin and Destiny of the Reorganite" church according to a footnote at the beginning of the chapter, JFS wrote at least one whole book on the topic of the RLDS church.
I'm not certain, but it may be that JFS himself coined the term "reorganite" so he would not have to use what was apparently the common term for RLDS followers back then: Based on the very little I've read on the subject, I believe it is true that the RLDS church, early in its history, claimed that some of Joseph's later teachings like vicarious ordinance work for those who have died, eternal marriage, and polygamy were the creation of Brigham Young. Of course, we now conclusively know that Joseph taught all of those things and that Brigham simply carried on with those teachings.
He then says that you can tell that the RLDS church is not the "true" church because it is so mean-spirited and derogatory in its discussions of the LDS church. That reasoning, which came at the end of a diatribe about the scurrilous nature of the RLDS church founders, certainly left me scratching my head. JFS said in a personal letter to BRM, apparently that actually understanding or learning something by revelation is a matter of being in the right place at the right time with sufficient vision.
He drew an analogy with the "scientific fact" that the light of the stars takes "thousands" of years to get to earth, and thus, the stars we see now are actually the way the stars existed "thousands" of years ago. I really like that analogy quite a bit, but it made my smirk a little.