Doctrines of Salvation - Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith Volume II

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

Volume 2 of 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.

Genres: Religion, Church, Mormonism, Nonfiction, Lds, Theology

366 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1955

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

[Joe Krakovsky · Rating 5 out of 5]

DOCTRINES OF SALVATION Vol. II explains two questions that theologians have argued about over the centuries: where we came from and why are we here?

God the Father created us, or organized the spiritual us, in the premortal existence. In order for us to obtain an immortal body as He has, He presented a plan to all his spirit children. The Plan called for his First Born to come to earth and teach us how to obey the will of our Heavenly Father and thereby prove ourselves. The First Born said, more or less, "Thy will be done and all glory and praise be Thine." Lucifer, the Son of the Morning, said that the Father should send him, and he would force everyone to obey so that not a single one should be lost, but that he wanted the praise and glory for himself. The War in Heaven followed in which Michael and his fellow angels were victorious. Lucifer and a third of the Host of Heaven were cast out of God's presence.

Michael, the Ancient of Days, was given a body created by God, in His image, to dwell in. He was named Adam. Eve, his wife, was created to be his helpmate. Adam and Eve walked with God in the Garden and they were taught holy things because all who come down to inhabit a body forget their premortal existence as they pass through the Veil. In time Adam learned of the Plan and what he had to do. When Eve offered him the apple he knew that he had to partake, so that they would be together, and death thus entered the world. So they were driven out of the Garden to till the earth by the sweat of their brow and bear children in pain.

They had many sons and daughters and lived hundreds of years due to their perfect bodies. Some of their descendants were good while others were evil. Cain slew Abel because he loved Satan more than God. He was driven away and a mark was put on him so that all would know him on sight.
Centuries went by and prophets came and went as they taught the following generations to remember their God. A Savior was foretold in the prophecies that would break the bands of death that was brought into the world by that act of disobedience in the Garden. In the Meridian of Time the Savior was born in Bethlehem. Jesus lived a humble life obedient to his God and parents until it was time for him to begin his ministry. For about three years he gathered and taught his disciples until the time came for his trial and crucifixion. By this act of giving up his life voluntarily he broke the bands of death and thereby assuring that every single human being, no matter how good or bad, would one day rise again with a perfect body.

Not all the dearly departed rose after that glorious moment, for most of us will still have to suffer in the spirit prison until we pay for our sins for not truly repenting and acknowledge Jesus as the Christ. Most will eventually find comfort in that spirit world and therefore be in paradise. Then when the time comes, all the righteous will rise from the dead. They will live with Christ on the earth for a thousand years as sacred ordinances are performed for all while Satan and his followers are chained. After that thousand years the rest of mankind will rise from the grave and Satan will be loosening again for a while. Then the final Judgement will come and those who are worthy will inherit their station which will be their inheritance forever. Although it will be joyful, they will know that they are damned in not being able to progress further, nor enjoy a family unit, whereas the exalted ones will. Those with immortal bodies who were the worst will share the fate of Satan, whatever that will be.

One more thing, those who never heard the gospel during their lives through no fault of their own will be given a chance to accept it in the spirit world. Consideration will also be given by a just God for those mentally deficient. Children under the age of eight, the age of accountability, who die are the ones worthy enough to go straight to Heaven, for they were among the most valiant ones in the war in Heaven.

[Daniel Evensen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Of the three volumes in Joseph Fielding Smith's Doctrines of Salvation series, this one (Volume II) is the only one that deals exclusively with the topic of salvation. Smith goes into great detail here on doctrinal topics such as the necessity for an atonement after the fall of Adam, the differences between the three degrees of glory, the difference between exaltation and salvation, the necessity of celestial marriage and so forth.

Many of the ideas expressed here reflect the traditional and orthodox doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Smith, along with compiler Bruce R. McConkie, supports his statements and claims with a wealth of scriptures, demonstrating a level of mastery of the LDS Standard Works that is quite impressive. If nothing else, this series is essential for those looking for the scriptural logic behind orthodox LDS beliefs.

There are a few controversial sections. Smith's level of orthodox belief in scripture might make a few contemporary LDS scholars feel uncomfortable - particularly his insistence on the literal accuracy of a worldwide flood. Those who disagree with him will be quick to dismiss this book as the mere opinions of a man, noting that it was published by Bookcraft and not Desert Book. Hopefully others will approach this work with a more open mind and will ask themselves why Smith so strongly believed the things he believed.

The passage of over 65 years has not made this book irrelevant in any sense. It is just as relevant today as when it was first published, if not more. Highly recommended for anybody interested in an orthodox approach to LDS doctrine.

[Daniel Rose · Rating 4 out of 5]

Finishing this was nice. I agreed with the majority of what he said. Very interesting book with some great explanation of many doctrines and principles.

[David Barney · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding

[Lynne · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really have enjoyed these books. Some of the topics covered in this volume are salvation, the degrees of glory, exaltation, eternal marriage, the resurrection, baptism, and the Sacrament.

[Aaron · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am actually reading the edition of Doctrines of Salvation that is the 3-in-1 single book, but I ran out of available characters in my running review of the big volume. Accordingly, I am going to continue with my review in this new entry for "Volume II." I just finished the first volume last night, and I have to comment on the last few pages, even though they were not a part of this, the second volume, of the book.

JFS said that the scriptures are the best source of determining whether something is true. He said that when examining books that are not scripture (and I couldn't help but think of Doctrines of Salvation) the best way to determine whether those books are true is to compare them with the scriptures. I agree with that statement, but with three very significant caveats. First, God always has the power to announce (via his living prophets) a change to a principle or teaching contained in the scriptures (I'm looking at you, D&C 132 and OD 2). Second, the scriptures don't reveal all truth, and thus, it is possible for a truth to be asserted in a book that is not also contained in the scriptures. Third, I don't believe the scriptures are 100% inerrant. There are things in them (in particular, the Bible) that are outdated, inapplicable, or just plain wrong. Those things are very rare, but they do exist. For example, Paul's teachings that women shouldn't pray without covering their heads in 1 Corinthians 11 or that women should be silent in church in 1 Corinthians 14 are obviously either outdated or simply wrong. Additionally, in my opinion, the 7-day account of the creation in Genesis (even with the "translation" gloss provided by Joseph Smith in the Book of Moses) should not be taken literally (nor should the account of Noah and the Flood). Accordingly, I don't think a book about geology or evolution should be rejected simply because the scriptures say that the earth was created in 6 days about 7,000 years ago.

In talking about the basic principles of the gospel, JFS said that Heavenly Father never intended for us to sin. I'm grappling with what JFS meant by this. Of course Heavenly Father doesn't want us to sin, but he knew that we would sin. That was why he sent his son to suffer, die, and be resurrected for us. Perhaps it speaks to the fundamental role that Satan plays in Father's plan for us. God never tempts us to sin, but Satan does, which brings up the difficult dichotomy between Satan's centrality to God's plan and Satan's rebellion against and ultimate punishment by God. I have a hard time reconciling Satan's importance in God's test of us in this life with Satan's ultimate destiny in the life to come.

I have to be honest, so I will come right out and say that I'm having a hard time with JFS's chapter on exaltation. Not only is it repetitive (BRM includes several articles/talks JFS gave on the same subject which cover much of the same ground, including quoting the very same scripture over and over again -- "joint heirs with Christ," "all that the Father hath," etc.), but it also asserts consistently that we must keep all of the commandments if we want to become exalted. I agree with that statement, but JFS repeatedly fails to recognize the role Christ's atonement plays in our efforts to keep the commandments. Did JFS honestly believe that it is possible to keep every single commandment in this life without the need to repent? His comments sure make me think that he did. I know that it is impossible for me (or any other fallible, mortal human) to keep all of the commandments all of the time. I also know that the progress I've made in my life in learning self control and reaching out to love and assist others is possible only as a result of the strength I receive from my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I have to admit that I am troubled by JFS's apparent belief that we exalt ourselves through our own efforts alone. He even uses the phrase "gospel of merit" several times (I thought it was the gospel of Jesus Christ; it's definitely not "good news" to me that I can only get into heaven based on my own merit -- I kind of suck at keeping all of the commandments). I had a similar problem with his chapter on salvation, but that one, at the end, acknowledged that, if we mess up, we need to repent, thereby acknowledging in an implied way the need for our Savior.

JFS talks about an analogy -- an analogy that he says is false -- that I find intriguing, although I agree that the analogy is not a good one. Apparently some members of the church taught that those in the Celestial, Terrestial, and Telestial Kingdom progress like wheels on a train -- those in the lower kingdoms advancing to where those in the Celestial Kingdom used to be. JFS rejects this analogy by using his own train analogy: those in the different kingdoms are on different tracks and can never arrive where those in upper kingdoms have progressed. In other words, after this life, we will all continue to learn and progress, no matter what kingdom we are in, but we will never be able to "catch up" or be like those in higher kingdoms. This may have something to do with JFS's teaching that the resurrected bodies of those in different kingdoms will be different from one another, and therefore, have different functions and capabilities.

Several pages of the chapter titled "Exaltation" have discussed the "damnable doctrine" that children are tainted with sin when they are born. JFS has repeated the phrase "damnable doctrine" several times. He hasn't used this phrase about any other teaching that the LDS church disagrees with. What is it about children's innocence that is so important that, if you don't believe it, you are damned (assuming that that is what he means by damnable doctrine)? Of course, if you reject the efficacy and scope of Christ's atonement, you are damned in the sense that you have rejected the one and only way to heaven, but there are many aspects to the atonement that one can reject and thus be damned. Why does JFS single out the rejection of the innocence of children for repeated condemnation? This is something I will have to continue to think about. I also find it noteworthy that JFS says that, it doesn't matter where a baby is born or what its skin color is, that baby is innocent. Because BRM included this lengthy discussion of the innocence of children in the chapter on exaltation (and not in the one on salvation) does that mean that JFS (and BRM) believed that, despite the restriction on the priesthood that was in place at the time those things were written, babies from Africa who died before the age of eight could obtain the Melchizedek Priesthood after they died and ascend to the highest levels of the Celestial Kingdom?

In the chapter about eternal marriage, JFS says that Mormon men who do not marry a woman in the temple will not attain the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. He does not note any exceptions or give any caveats. A few pages later, he says that Mormon women who are never asked to be married, but are worthy of an eternal temple marriage, will be worthy of the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. I'm having a hard time meshing the two ideas into a cohesive, consistent conclusion. I believe JFS's statements are based on the principle that, if you are able to marry someone in the temple but choose not to, then you will not be able to make up for that after you die. The D&C clearly states that those who had an opportunity to accept saving ordinances in this life do not have a second chance in the life to come. JFS states that, at least during his lifetime, social mores effectively prohibited a woman from asking a man to marry her, and thus, it is not necessarily a woman's fault for not ever being asked to be married, although I can imagine scenarios in which a woman could be at least partially blamed for never receiving a marriage proposal. Similarly, I can imagine situations in which a worthy man never haves the opportunity to ask someone to marry him. I think this all comes down to intent. The final few pages of the chapter were a jaw-dropping shock to me. JFS stated that, when a man marries a woman whose prior husband, to whom she was sealed in the temple, dies, he cannot expect to be sealed to the children born in his marriage to that woman because those children "belong" to the woman's first, now deceased, husband. BRM's citation for that statement was "personal correspondence," however, and I believe that, if JFS wasn't comfortable putting a statement in print or stating it in public, then we need to take that statement with a very large grain of salt.

Another teaching that the church no longer believes: birth control is bad. In fact, according to JFS (who is relying on quotes from Brigham Young and JFS's father, Joseph F. Smith) birth control is one of the greatest sins a married couple can commit (and, based on the context of his statement, he's not just talking about abortion). He says that birth control (and also adultery at another point) is the root of the downfall of civilizations, including the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and even the Nephites. It's too bad he doesn't go into detail about how he concluded this, because I would love to see the argument that the Nephites died out because of birth control and/or adultery.

JFS says that if you are sealed to your spouse in the temple and then commit adultery, the only way to repent fully of that sin is to physically die for it. For support, he cites to an ambiguous verse in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants and to a few verses from Leviticus. He says that, because we no longer are living in a theocracy, we can no longer follow this principle, and he expresses concern for those who cannot be killed for the crime of adultery because they cannot fully repent. My biggest problem with these statements is that, if the punishments set forth in Leviticus are still applicable to us today (despite the fact that Christ's life and death fulfilled the law of Moses), can we repent of not keeping the Sabbath day holy only by being killed? What about dishonoring our parents? JFS clearly believes in blood atonement, and this is another doctrine that the church no longer teaches, and in fact, probably considers to be a false doctrine. Christ taught that there is only one sin for which we cannot obtain forgiveness and that is the sin of blaspheme against the Holy Ghost. The doctrine of blood atonement puts bogus restrictions on Christ's redemptive power.

Two whole chapters on Elijah. In the second one, JFS says that Elijah did not hold the keys for vicarious work for the dead while he lived because, in Elijah's day, Christ had not yet bridged the gap between the spirit paradise and spirit prison to allow preaching and conversion of those spirits who did not have the opportunity to accept Christ's gospel while alive. Elijah did have, however, the keys to seal ordinances while on the earth. Why is it then, that we associate Elijah with genealogy and work for our dead ancestors? Obviously, one of the main reasons is the passage in Malachi about the return of Elijah and the hearts of children and fathers turning to one another. But if Elijah was not even able to perform vicarious ordinance work when he was alive, why does Malachi say what he says? Why was it necessary for Elijah to give those keys to JS and OC in the Kirtland Temple in the early 1830's? JFS doesn't really answer that question, and I am going to have to give it some more thought.

Three chapters in a row about "salvation": the first, "Universal Salvation," talked mostly about salvation of the dead; the second, "Salvation for the Dead," of course talked about salvation of the dead, and the third, "Salvation for the Living," paradoxically talks about salvation for the dead. In this third chapter, JFS says that nearly all of the baptisms for the dead we perform are necessary because salvation is (nearly) universal and everyone must be baptized to be saved. In other words, I think he is saying that even those spirits who are headed for the Telestial Kingdom need to be baptized, and thus, the baptisms we do in the temple are nearly all efficacious. This belief, which is not widely publicized (I've never even heard it before), would certainly change the debate about some of the more controversial temple baptisms that have been performed over the years. We currently teach that the baptisms performed in the temple for those who have passed on to the next life are optional for the subject of that baptism. They don't have to choose to accept it if they do not want to. JFS's belief that nearly everyone must be baptized certainly adds a "nuance" to that teaching. UPDATE: Well, I guess I don't really understand what JFS was trying to say about baptisms for the dead -- a few pages after JFS said what I discussed above, he said that all ordinances performed in the temple are for exaltation, not just salvation. Hmmm.

In the chapter about record keeping, JFS says that the History of the Church is the most correct history in the world because, just like the Book of Mormon, it is inspired by God. He then allows, however, that if there are mistakes in it, "they are the mistakes of men." I wonder what he would think of the Church's abandonment of the History of the Church as a source for the historical headings in the D&C because of the numerous inaccuracies in the HotC? Interestingly, JFS teaches that a daily journal is not necessary and that we should only record in our journal the momentous occasions in our lives, leaving out the quotidian details. When I review my journal entries from long ago, I like it when I have included details about my day. Perhaps JFS is thinking our journals should be like the scriptures we have today, which have very, very little of the day-to-day routines of their writers.

JFS urges the saints to only do temple work for their own ancestors and to refrain from doing work for famous people (unless, of course, the famous person happens to be an ancestor). JFS says that this commandment has been preached since the days of Wilford Woodruff, which I think is interesting because it was WW who told the saints that the sealing ordinances were for our ancestors, not for us to be sealed to whoever we thought would make it to heaven. JFS also warns against "link men" who offer, for a flat rate, to find the "link" in your family tree to allow you to keep heading further back for your genealogical research. JFS says that almost always those "link men" are fraudsters who take your money and make up fake ancestors as a "link." I find it fascinating that, even in the early 1900's, there were con-men trying to take advantage of the overly trusting (some would say gullible) saints.

JFS began his chapter on the resurrection with a list of very interesting questions -- questions that I was sure would not all be answered. I was wrong, and the answers were awesome. EVERYONE will be resurrected. When we are resurrected our spirit and body will NEVER be separated again. ALL living things will be resurrected, including animals and plants. There will be differences between celestial resurrected bodies, terrestrial resurrected bodies, and telestial resurrected bodies -- differences that we will be able to see just by looking at the person. Also, children who die are resurrected as children and grow up in their resurrected bodies (at least, that's what JFS says).

JFS is insistent that JS wrote the Lectures on Faith. He reasons that Sidney Rigdon could not have written the Lectures because his mind did not have the reasoning and organization skills that are reflected in the Lectures. This is pretty funny because church historians now uniformly state that Sidney Rigdon wrote the Lectures on Faith, reasoning, in part, that the organization and logical reasoning set forth in the Lectures are more Sidney's style than JS's.

The last few chapters have discussed the miracles we read about in the Bible and why scientists are wrong in doubting those miracles. JFS argues that we see miracles every day in our modern world -- miracles like telephones and radios. If we have no problem accepting those miracles, why would a scientist have a problem with accepting the miracles in the Bible? In particular, JFS insists that the Flood was a global event in which water literally covered the Earth. In response to the argument that there is not enough water to cover the Earth, JFS contends that, prior to the Flood, there were no mountains or valleys, and in any event, God could have caused water to come from some other source. JFS also insists that God literally stopped the Earth from moving so the Sun stood still in the sky when Joshua asked for it so he could continue to fight for Israel, arguing that God must have done something to protect the people and the oceans from flying off the face of the Earth. At first, I was bothered by JFS's arguments. It seemed to me that he was arguing, in effect, that modern-day technological miracles should be considered the same as ancient miracles. My problem with this argument is that we have our modern-day technology because scientists do NOT accept extraordinary, supernatural events we read about in the scriptures as fact, and depend on scientific principles to discover and develop the amazing technology we have today. But as I reflected on this further, I suppose that what JFS is really getting at is the notion that God reveals all truth to man, even those truths that we consider "scientific discovery" and "technological advancement." Perhaps there is some scientific principle that would allow the sun to appear as if it had stopped moving in the sky. (Interestingly, I read somewhere that, because the planet Mercury rotates so slowly in relation to its revolution around the Sun, if you were standing on Mercury observing the movement of the Sun across the sky, the Sun would sometimes appear to slow down, stop, and even reverse course. Perhaps, when Joshua was fighting the Amorites, the Earth advanced in its orbit around the Sun at a faster than normal pace, making the Sun appear to slow down or stop in the sky.) Science continues to advance and learn new things about our universe, our planet, and physics in general. Perhaps there is some explanation for the supernatural events we read about in the Bible that simply has not yet been discovered.

In a chapter about baptism, JFS speaks for a bit about repentance and the atonement. He soundly condemns the teaching that, even after repentance, a scar remains for which we will have to suffer. He expressly denounces as "false doctrine" the teaching that repentance is like removing a nail from a block of wood because, even after the nail is removed, a hole remains. I'm glad (and heartened) to see JFS so vigorously stating that Christ's atonement is indeed a MIRACULOUS process by which we are made perfect. When we truly repent, there is no scar, no remaining emotional damage. We are a new person, through the blood of Jesus Christ. I have witnessed this in my own life, and know this is true. Repentance changes you and makes you the person that Jesus wants you to be. I've even seen Christ's atonement heal relationships.

I'm running out of space in the review here. Good thing I'm done with the second volume. In the last chapter, JFS talked about the sacrament, and in particular, sacrament meeting. He thinks they should be solemn. He doesn't like missionary farewells or concerts during sacrament meeting. One theological thing he said about the sacrament has me thinking. He said that we are not worthy to take the sacrament if we have any sin in our heart. I think he meant that we are not worthy to take the sacrament if we want to keep committing any sin. Finally, he said that non-members should not be allowed to take the sacrament, but that little children should take it.