Doctrines of Salvation. Complete Three-Volume Work [3-in-1]. Sermons & Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith.

by Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie (Editor)

A three-volume set of authoritative sermons that is a must for every LDS library. The path to salvation and happiness is explored and explained. This book provides a rich treasury of President Smith's timeless gospel insights.

Genres: Religion, Lds, Church, Mormonism, Nonfiction, Spirituality, Reference

1113 pages, Hardcover

First published July 4, 1976

About the author

Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr. was the tenth president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from 1970 until his death. He was the son of Joseph F. Smith, who was the sixth president of the LDS Church. His grandfather was Hyrum Smith, brother of LDS Church founder Joseph Smith, Jr., who was Joseph Fielding's great-uncle.

Reviews

[Lowell · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was on my "to read" list for 20 years. Finally obtained a copy. It's good, yet not required reading.

Soapbox musings:
1) I have personal thoughts from my own scripture study which I've never shared nor heard others convey... until here. I enjoyed thinking, "Cool, Joseph Fielding and I came to the same conclusions." That doesn't make me or him any more right, but was fun to observe.

2) More repetition than necessary for 3 volumes.

3) A more accurate title would simply be "Teachings of Joseph Fielding Smith." The apocalyptic name alone is likely what has caused this book's legacy to spread over 65 years (and counting). Nothing in the text merits multi-generational perpetuation. Anything said in here that can be considered such doctrine can be found elsewhere.

[Adam · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Carolyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of my favorite reference books. I wouldn't ever be without it.

[Ernie Dawson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pretty in-depth book on mormon doctrine which pre-dates Elder Bruce R. McConkies Mormon Doctrine. This book is only for the very serious student of mormon doctrine.

[Celeste · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just a little bit at a time. I'm sure I'll be reading it for a looooong time.

[Jenny G · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fabulous book! Especially if you love deep doctrine.

[Matthew Fellows · Rating 1 out of 5]

There was actually a time in my life in which I read this entire thing...WHAT THE FUCK?!

[Aaron · Rating 4 out of 5]

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 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. I suspect that what JFS really intended to say was that we cannot expect to see the "face of God" (per D&C 84:22) IN HEAVEN without accepting the gospel and receiving the BLESSINGS of the priesthood (i.e., the ordinances that are necessary for salvation and can only be received from those with the proper priesthood authority). Here on earth, God can reveal himself to whomever He chooses. It is interesting to note, however, that my counterexamples all involve Jesus showing himself to mortals without the gospel or the priesthood, and D&C 84:22 states "without this [i.e., the power of godliness, the authority of the priesthood, and the ordinances of the priesthood] no man can see the face of God, even the Father," which could be interpreted as saying the gospel and the priesthood are necessary to see the FATHER's face.

This morning, I read JFS's statements that God is absolutely powerful, all-knowing, and perfect, and to believe otherwise is heretical. I agree with him 100% on that one. The scriptures cannot be clearer on this point, and I think we as Mormons too often make God less omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. 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.

This afternoon (Easter Sunday, March 31) I read that Jesus is the literal son of God the Father. JFS then states that the RLDS church falsely states that Jesus is the son of the Holy Ghost, relying on a misreading of a few verses in the New Testament and in the Book of Mormon. 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.

JFS says that, prior to the fall, God the Father communicated with Adam and Eve directly in the Garden of Eden. 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 then says that we know JS did not lie about his experience in the Sacred Grove because he says that, after introducing God the Son to JS, God the Father did not speak again; Jesus did all of the communicating and instructing from that point on in JS's vision. I wonder what JFS's views are on JS's early accounts of the 1st Vision, particularly the earliest which only mentions Jesus appearing to JS?

JFS says that, even the most cynical bible scholars of his day (first half of the 1900'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. (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." I'm struck by how pat, almost quaint, some of his statements are (for example, he says that the orderly progress of invention shows that God is in control of scientific discovery). 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 1930'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. Someone needs to write a book about the tensions between the LDS and RLDS church in the late 1800's and early 1900's. 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. 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. JFS explains that this was because OC was "Second President" -- an office that was no longer necessary after JS died, according to JFS. When OC was excommunicated from the Church, and OC's successors also fell away (JFS says that Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. 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 1000 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). Accordingly, I believe that, when Christ returns again, He will NOT declare the LDS Church the only true Church on the earth. 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: "Josephites" JFS does not like that term at all, or the concomitant description of the LDS, "Brighamites," because it implies that the RLDS follow Joseph Smith's teachings and that the LDS do not. 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. JFS's difficulty with the terms stems from his fundamental disagreement with (and, almost, hatred of) the RLDS church. In this chapter, he disparages the founders of the RLDS faith (not JS III, but those men who convinced JS III to be the president of the RLDS), argues against their doctrine, and vilifies the RLDS missionaries. 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. As JFS makes clear through quotes of his I read earlier in this book, he strictly believed that the Bible's creation account is literal, and that the universe is only a few thousand years old. Accordingly, although he acknowledges the science behind the speed of light and the theory of relativity (i.e., non-simultaneity of events), he refuses to acknowledge that the light from most of the stars we see is not just thousands of years old, but many millions years old.

JFS says that one of the goals of exaltation is to learn every thing -- to become all-knowing. Is it bad that that aspect of exaltation is one of the most appealing to me (perhaps second only to being with my wife for eternity)? I just really, really like to know things.

While teaching about the importance of missionary work, JFS said that we have an obligation to teach the gospel to a "wicked and perverse world." He then immediately says (I'm paraphrasing) "Those aren't my words; they are the Lord's. So don't complain about me calling the world wicked and perverse." He then cites several scriptures where the God does in fact call the world wicked. A few pages earlier, JFS said that God loves everyone, but he loves the righteous more than the wicked, and again, JFS cited several scriptures to back up his point. As I've reflected on this, I've thought about how offensive it sometimes seems when someone calls the people of the world wicked or when someone says that God loves a certain class of people more than he loves another class. The truth is that, despite the offense that I feel, there are wicked people in the world and God probably does love some people more than others (although I still feel quite strongly that God loves everyone). I think the source of my "offended" feelings is something other than the truth underlying those true statements. Embedded in those statements is the potential for pride: God calls the world wicked, and I am not of the world, and therefore, I am not wicked. God loves the righteous more than he loves sinners, and I am righteous, and therefore, God loves me more than he loves others. I think it is okay to be uncomfortable with those statements to the extent that they are used as justification for thinking you are better than the rest of God's children. The full truth is that I am wicked, you are wicked, we all are wicked, and we will all remain so until we have a change of heart, try to live the Gospel, and accept the atoning power of the Savior in our lives. It is also true that God may love me more than he loves others, but that is no justification for trying to determine who God loves less. In fact, I've been blessed with quite a bit. Not just talents and material blessings, but also with spiritual knowledge and ordinances, and thus, God expects more from me than he does from someone without those additional blessings. Who's to say that God loves me less than someone outside the church who is living a comparatively better live than I am, when tested against the gifts God has given to them.

JFS said that one of the greatest sins is leading someone into apostasy. This agrees with the theory that Alma did not teach that the sin of adultery is second only to murder in seriousness, but that "spiritual murder" is akin to physical murder. In other words, Corianton's more serious sin was leading people astray as a result of his sleeping with Isabel. (Alma 39)

[Tyler · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the best books I have ever read at expounding various points of doctrine and the principles of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. President Smith obviously had an incredible understanding of the scriptures and deep knowledge of the history of the church. His style of writing and speaking is very clear, direct, and thoroughly grounded in the scriptures. His testimony is powerful and his warning voice is clear and unmistakable. I wish every member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would study this book carefully. It was an invaluable addition to my personal education in the gospel. I learned a lot of great truths about priesthood, justice, the sealing power, the mission of Elijah, the redemption of the dead, and many other topics.

I can't recommend this book enough. I would classify it among a short list of the best books I have ever read. It is an invaluable resource for one who is serious about deepening their understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is not light or casual reading. You will need to read it slowly and gradually to grasp the rich, meaty truths that are compiled in this work. Studying this work has really enhanced my perspective and understanding of the gospel in a deep and meaningful way. I highly recommend it.

[Jeff Wright · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent foundation for the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[Rhiannon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Liked it, but not in a couldn’t put it down sort of way.

[Rachael · Rating 5 out of 5]

This one took a long time but I am so glad that I read it! I learned so much. It is not light reading but it is well worth the time and effort. I loved it!

[David Cook · Rating 3 out of 5]

BOOK REVIEW - Doctrines of Salvation (3 vols), by Joseph Fielding Smith, edited by Bruce R. McConkie (2004)

Doctrines of Salvation was one of the most influential—and debated—doctrinal works in the LDS tradition. Compiled by Elder Bruce R. McConkie from the sermons and writings of Joseph Fielding Smith, his father in law. The set captures the force, personality, and certitude of a man who shaped mid-20th-century Church thought more than almost any other figure.

Joseph Fielding Smith taught with an unmistakable tone of finality. He believed deeply in the Restoration and spoke as though proclaiming fixed truths rather than interpretations. For many readers—missionaries, teachers, and lifelong members—this clarity was empowering and stabilizing. His explanations of the plan of salvation, resurrection, temples, and agency have influenced generations.

Yet that same certainty also generated decades of controversy. Smith frequently presented personal views as doctrinal absolutes—particularly on science, evolution, the age of the earth, race, apostasy, and the fate of the wicked. Because the volumes were compiled and edited by Elder McConkie, whose own tone tended to reinforce Smith’s, the end result sometimes reads more like a doctrinal proclamation than a collection of teachings. Modern leaders and scholars have repeatedly emphasized that many of these statements were not, and are not, official doctrine of the Church.

While controversial, Doctrines of Salvation also contains passages of deep insight and devotion. Smith’s love for the plan of salvation, family, and the Savior is evident. His scriptural mastery is remarkable, and his ability to express doctrine with simplicity and conviction has made the work enduring.

Reading the set requires both appreciation, discernment, tolerance, and charity. The reader must recognize Joseph Fielding Smith as a devoted, sincere LDS leader whose personal interpretations often carried more confidence than caution, but whose testimony and devotion remain powerful.

Quotes

“It is my opinion, based upon revelation to this Church, that there has never been a change in the order of creation. Evolution is a false and misleading doctrine. The theories of men may come and go, but the word of the Lord endures forever. Those who try to harmonize the scriptures with the speculations of science are looking beyond the mark.” (This passage reflects Smith’s unyielding certainty on matters where the Church has since taken a very different stance. It is representative of why the volumes remain controversial.) (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1)

“Our Father in heaven is far more willing to bless us than we are to seek his blessings. There is no soul beyond the reach of the redeeming power of the Son of God. Every man and woman who will humble themselves, call upon the Lord, and walk uprightly before him shall find peace in this life and eternal joy in the world to come.”
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2)

This aspect of Smith’s writing—warm, earnest, deeply Christ-centered—remains one of the enduring strengths of the collection.

[Eloise · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good reference book with a great deal of information on many gospel topics. The institute manual for Doctrine and Covenants referred to it quite a bit. I understand a little better why President Smith's teachings have been viewed as harsh by some people. He doesn't mince words. As a result, I've been somewhat reluctant to quote from the book a lot in my classes. However, there are some very clear explanations that are really useful.

[[Name Redacted] · Rating 4 out of 5]

See my remarks on Fielding Smith's Answers to Gospel Questions: The classic collection in one volume. They're even more applicable here.

[John Stevens · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very insightful commentaries on nearly every component of living the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the doctrine as described in the scriptures and a clear representation of the intended meaning. I believe it is accurate. Just getting into it.

[Jeffrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this three volume set on my mission. It is a great read about most every principle and doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Although I found some of the material to be outdated in principle I still thought it was a great future reference book and enjoyed it a lot.

[Danny · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great general resource for LDS doctrinal topics.

[Tkplant · Rating 3 out of 5]

This opened my eyes to the personality of Jospeh Fielding Smith. He really had a distain for scientists. I also recognized Prophets are called for "their" time.

[Garrett Tucker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dinosaurs didn't die before Adam per a section of this work.

[Cindy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have volume 2 and 3 of this book. I would give Volume 3 a solid 4 stars, but only 3.5 to Volume 2. Now I need to get Volume 1!

[Kathleen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This set of 3 volumes helped me understand the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ more fully, and be better able to adhere to it's teachings.

[Beth]

greatest reference around. use this as a resource manual.

[DeVonne]

Great reference books.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is very helpful to see life and the gospel as explained and seen by such a stalwart disciple as Joseph Fielding Smith.

[Jeffrey · Rating 5 out of 5]

A classic in Mormon literature. Took me quite a while to get through it all but it was well worth it. One of my overall favorite doctrinal books - one that I'd highly recommend.

[Nandagopala · Rating 5 out of 5]

Love this book. Been wanting to read it for a long time. I'm still in the first few chapters of the first volume but so far so good. Great book for those in the Mormon Church.

[Jeff Crosby · Rating 3 out of 5]

Used as a resource.

[Betty Horn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I haven't read it yet, but I expect it to be an in-depth education in gospel doctrine.