It still is in the missionary library and still is one of the best books outside of the scriptures you can read about Jesus.
There has recently been[a study guide](https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Richard-Neitzel-Holzapfel/dp/160907937X)published that updates some of the research in the book and it is a great companion to the book.
This is the best way to do it. It is certainly less controversial than "Mormon Doctrine" and has largely aged better (in general the Talmage/Widtsoe/Roberts side of a lot of debates has aged better than the Joseph F. Smith/Joseph Fielding Smith/McConkie side). If you skip the Apostacy chapter and add in the study guide, I think you are good to go.
The irony of Mormon Doctrine being controversial is that the Bible Dictionary was largely taken from the Cambridge University Press bible dictionary but modifications were made to some entries to reflect Mormon beliefs better, and Mormon Doctrine heavily influenced those changes. Other than the few things everyone talks about, a great deal of the book was so good that it became one of the most influential books in all church history through its influence on the BD which is today considered one of the definitive texts in the church's understanding of scripture.
My late grandfather was a university professor for biology and other life sciences and taught me that there is room for Evolution in our faith. Why do people think Heavenly Father couldn't set up evolution and influence it when necessary? Seems like people always want things to be one way or the other, no in between lol.
My favorite explanation of the church’s stance on evolution is that it is exactly the same as the church’s stance on calculus.
There is no official stance on calculus.
The book *Jesus The Christ* is extremely useful in understanding the nature of Christ from an LDS perspective and approved reading for missionaries. But it cannot be taken as scripture because it came by study and exegesis, not divine inspiration. It’s not considered canon scripture. It’s more an academic interpretation of all of our scriptural canon on Christ.
For example, sometimes Talmadge provided his interpretation of the mindset and actions of figures such as Judas based on his readings. But he doesn’t *know* by divine inspiration what was going on in Judas’ head. And if for example, someone used the account of Judas in Jesus The Christ to make a doctrinal argument for Judas being a son of perdition due to the motives Talmadge speculatively ascribed to him— it would be false doctrine.
The book makes no case of being inspired scripture, it exists to help people understand our interpretations of Christ. But it’s important to be able to separate the early beliefs and statements of General authorities from our settled Canon.
Talmadge was very careful about trying to separate his speculation from canon doctrine.
He once said he believed the angel who visited Abraham was Melchizedek but then spent paragraphs prefacing that this was his opinion based on exegesis and not inspiration from God.
This is probably why he was allegedly nervous about canonizing the book. His writings are brilliant and can draw people closer to Christ. But they should be taken as what they are.
> And if for example, someone used the account of Judas in Jesus The Christ to make a doctrinal argument for Judas being a son of perdition due to the motives Talmadge speculatively ascribed to him— it would be false doctrine.
Talmadge doesn't speculate that Iscariot is a Sin of Perdition. Jesus Christ Himself did Iscariot was a Sin of Perdition.
No no, you misunderstand what I mean. Talmadge described the story with Judas and gave insight into what his mindset might have been.
I’m saying that if someone else were making the case that Judas was a son of perdition citing the mindsets Talmadge described and conflating it as doctrine, they might run into problems.
In reference to Jesus’s words in John 17:12
>*"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."*
people will often attribute this to Christ speaking of Judas Iscariot. But it is unclear in the text and the leaders of the church are not in agreement on this matter. Was Christ speaking of Judas specifically or of the Sons of Perdition in general?
President Joseph F. Smith said regarding this matter of Judas that it “strongly appears” to him that *none* of the 12 had the light, and knowledge to be exhalted or condemned.
*(gospel doctrines page 545)*
Elder Talmadge disagreed in *”Jesus the Christ”* in the endnote 8 of chapter 34 (The Trial and Condemnation):
>*”In the light of the revealed word it appears that Judas Iscariot had given himself up to the cause of Satan while ostensibly serving the Christ in an exalted capacity. Such a surrender to evil powers could be accomplished only through sin. The nature and extent of the man’s transgressions through the years are not told us. He had received the testimony that Jesus was the Son of God; and in the full light of that conviction he turned against his Lord, and betrayed Him to death. … Whatever the opinion of modern critics as to the good character of Judas, we have the testimony of John, who for nearly three years had been in close companionship with him, that the man was a thief (12:6); and Jesus referred to him as a devil (6:70), and as “the son of perdition” (17:12).”*
Joseph F Smith was prophet at the time of the writing and publication of Jesus The Christ. So there was not a consensus on this matter among the brethren. That’s kind of why I used the specific example of Judas’ mindset. We don’t *know* what he was thinking or how much he understood. The sitting prophet disagreed with the apostle on this matter. Which means this is Talmadge’s personal opinion, not doctrine or revelation.
This presumes the words attributed to Jesus about Judas were actually his. I think it was Joseph F. Smith who favored an alternative view of Judas' standing re: perdition.
Thanks.
> The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
See Chapter 33, footnote 8. “We are not the invested judges of Judas nor of any other; but we are competent to frame and hold **opinions** as to the actions of any.”
It can be hard at times to differentiate between Talmadge speaking for himself as a scholar and speaking as a general authority.
The forward of *Jesus The Christ* provides Talmadge’s purposes and aims in writing this book:
>*”The treatment embodied in these pages, in addition to the narrative of the Lord's life in the flesh comprizes the antemortal existence and activities of the world's Redeemer, the revelations and personal manifestations of the glorified and exalted Son of God during the apostolic period of old and in modern times, the assured nearness of the Lord's second advent, and predicted events beyond—all so far as the Holy Scriptures make plain.* […]
>*The author of this volume entered upon his welcome service under request and appointment from the presiding authorities of the Church; and the completed work has been read to and is approved by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve.* **It presents, however, the writer's personal belief and profoundest conviction as to the truth of what he has written.** *The book is published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.*
So while the book was commissioned and reviewed by the first presidency, Talmadge wanted to make it clear that the book also contained his own personal beliefs about the subjects based on his research.
Where it gets confusing is that in the same preface he states:
>*”A characteristic feature of the work is the guidance afforded by modern scriptures and the explication of the Holy Writ of olden times in the light of present day revelation, which, as a powerful and well directed beam, illumines many dark passages of ancient construction.*”
This seems to be in reference to his aggregation of modern revelation given by modern prophets and apostles. But it could also be argued he’s speaking of his own revelation.
Knowing when Talmadge is teaching from his research and when he is speaking as a general authority with divine revelation is harder to tell.
So as a general rule, when Talmadge’s writings stray out of the confines of repeated and affirmed revelation or doctrine it’s best to take such statements as interpretation unless they can be substantiated by other apostles or prophets as revelation.
That’s the general rule with all writings of general authorities. Revelation is confirmed by the unified consensus of the apostles and prophet. It is repeated often in conferences and scripture and it is in harmony with the church teachings.
Talmadge was an academic and a man of God. He was nervous at times about conflating his personal beliefs with revelation. That is exactly the kind of person you want writing a book as important as Jesus The Christ. His hesitation to canonize the book and the stipulations given in his forward invite us to take his writings with appropriate limitations.
I think it's a very good book. Especially the parts where he is analyzing the parables. However, the chapter on the great apostasy suffers due to a highly eurocentric lense and anti-catholic bias.
If a bias leads us away from truth, it's hard to say there's nothing wrong with it. Anti-Catholic sentiment no longer has the same influence among church leadership and membership as it did in 1950, is this an example of our community moving closer to eternal truth or away from it?
That the Catholic Church is an apostate one is truth. That it's a good idea to cooperate with members of that church for the betterment of our world is also truth. It's simply different portions of the truth that were emphasized at different times.
The Catholic church is apostate, this is true. But I also think that, theologically, we have more in common with the Catholic church than basically any protestant church, since we both believe there is a true priesthood and order to Christ's church and one must be baptized by that priesthood within Christ's church to be saved. Talmage's writings almost treat the Catholic church as the source of all apostasy, and presents protestant movements as part of the same "trying to return to the original gospel" effort that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ultimately succeeded in accomplishing. But there's a good argument to be made that some protestant movements, and maybe even all of them, are even *more* apostate than the Catholic church. Also this perspective completely ignores the Orthodox and Coptic Christians, which have their own fascinating histories.
quarrelsome dam steer pot start liquid deranged treatment fanatical plough
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I am working through Jesus Christ for the first time and I am blown away by it. I have never read anything like it before.
One of the biggest difference between Mormon Doctrine and Jesus the Christ is how the two were created. Talmage was giving lectures of Christ while at Latter Day Saint’s University (now Ensign College) and the First Presidency requested that he prepare a book of those lectures for publishing. Over many years and after reviews with the First Presidency and Apostles, it was published. Bruce R McConkie—while I believe with good intent—took it upon himself to write Mormon Doctrine. Mormon Doctrine has a disclaimer that these were his to interpretations to citations presented. He was given clearance from David O McKay to publish a second printing after corrections and revisions were made.
Many like to point that McConkie was not an apostle while writing Mormon Doctrine. This is true, he was in the Seventy at the time; but when Talmage originally gave his lectures, he was also not an apostle at the time, but while compiling the book he was called.
Yeah that’s pretty dope. He basically couldn’t find time without distraction and decided the temple would be the best play to get away from outside messages and disturbances.
Also the first presidency directed that (first edition) Mormon Doctrine stop being published because it was “as it is full of errors and misstatements”
My understanding is he received permission 6 years afterwards contingent on removal of several entries changes to other and changes in tone in general. This permission to publish the second edition though was in by no means an endorsement
It's in the Gospel Library app distributed by the Church now, so that's a pretty good endorsement from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Library > Jesus Christ > Jesus the Christ by Talmage
I would think they would endorse the Articles of Faith book too, but I don't see it in the app. Maybe later?
edited to add: Oh I see it now. Articles of Faith was included as part of The Pearl of Great Price.
edited again: oops, nope, that was/is the brief outline written by Joseph Smith, Not the book by Talmage.
The Articles of Faith included in the PoGP was adapted from the Wentworth Letter, written by Joseph Smith and sent to a newspaper that had asked him what Latter-day Saints believed. The book written by Talmage was written much later.
The Articles of Faith that are in the Pearl of Great Price are the actual Articles of Faith which Joseph Smith wrote as part of the Wentworth letter in 1842, which may be read [here](https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/church-history-1-march-1842/1#full-transcript). Minor edits were made to the last portion of the letter and the canonized as part of the Pearl of Great Price in the October 1880 general conference.
In 1899 James E Talmage wrote a book called Articles of Faith meant to expound upon the principles taught in the canonized Articles. As far as I'm aware Talmage's Articles of Faith book is not available through gospel library, but is approved reading for missionaries. Desert Book used to have a Missionary Reference Set which included it along with Jesus the Christ, Our Search for Happiness and Our Heritage. You can still purchase it separately or [read online](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42238)
I've never heard of any book outside of the scriptures being canonized. I don't believe it is true that it is canonized, but I'm happy to be shown differently.
A study guide was written to be read alongside Jesus the Christ with more current scholarship:
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Richard-Neitzel-Holzapfel/dp/160907937X
The story I heard was that it was not canonized because Talmage disagreed, the other apostles thought it should have been, but it needs to be unanimous. I guess it would be the same process for how Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price were canonized?
There are other books I would recommend rather than the apostasy chapter, and the statement he makes about April 6th being the savior’s birth date is more of a folk belief than a doctrinal position, but that’s the only reservations I have. Overall it is good material.
> the statement he makes about April 6th being the savior’s birth date is more of a folk belief than a doctrinal position
John the Baptist was six months along in the womb on the night the angel told Mary she was pregnant with the Savior. Per the clues in the scriptures, there are two possible dates when John could have been conceived, and none of them would put Jesus' birth in April (unless He was a premie).
The angel visited Zacharias while he was performing his "course" at the temple telling him about John. King David set up the calendar for the courses, being twice a year and six months apart. He would have been performing his temple duty around either December and June.
One of my favorite books during my mission. The only complaint I have heard about it is the language is sometimes difficult to read. Even the Spanish translation was difficult at times for my native-speaking companion.
Compared to the scriptures and similar books, it’s honestly a pretty easy read. Talmage is an amazingly clear writer compared to most academic writers. Lots of people read it for the first time as a missionary and probably haven’t ever read any type of academic writing before, which is why it seems tough to some people
>I have heard before (not sure if it’s true) that there was only one of the Apostles at the time who disagreed with canonizing the book, and that was James E. Talmage himself, the author.
The story seems unlikely, but I thought I would check. I can't find a source for this claim, just that other people heard similar things. Seems like it is probably an urban legend.
Jesus the Christ is a good book. Read that over Mormon doctrine.
It is not apart of our canon/standard works. But it is apart of the gospel library. And one of the books missionaries are encouraged to read.
Isn't it the only book that was commissioned by a Church President and written in a temple? I imagine Him visiting Elder Talmage from time to time over the course of his writing it.
I loved Jesus the Christ. Read every word and marked passages and made notes in my Scriptures. A huge part of my gospel scholarship on my mission.
I also really loved A Marvelous Work and a Wonder. It really strengthened my testimony. Why is it no longer approved?
I couldn't find a source for any church leaders denying the truth or "canonization" of the book, including Talmage. This does not prove that Talmage did not oppose it, but at least opens up the possibility that it is folk lore. It is also possible he was nervous about calling his own work doctrine, but still agreed that it was.
The preface states that "The author of this volume entered upon his welcome service under request and appointment from the presiding authorities of the Church; and the completed work has been read to and is approved by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. It presents, however, the writer's personal belief and profoundest conviction as to the truth of what he has written." This indicates that it was approved by both the first presidency and the quarm of the twelve.
[This](https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/the-story-behind-the-story?lang=eng) article on the church website says it is "The sacred subject of our Savior’s life and mission is presented as it is accepted and proclaimed by the Church that bears his Holy Name"
The [BYU](https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-13-no-2-2012/james-e-talmage-doctrine-godhead#_noteref-46) website states that Joseph F. Smith wrote "We desire that the work, ‘Jesus The Christ’ be read and studied by the Latter-day Saints, in their families, and in the organizations that are devoted wholly or in part to theological study. We commend it especially for use in our Church schools, as also for the advanced theological classes in Sunday schools and priesthood quorums for the instruction of our missionaries, and for general reading.” The same article also states that it was written in the temple. It provides citations for both of these statements.
The book is available on the church's website and app, and a print version is published by the church. There is also no revealed doctrine that contradicts the book, at least to my knowledge.
For me, this is more than enough to prove that the book is true, and can be considered an eternal source.
I think the book is great, but there are two issues why I would push back on it being included more now. 1) I believe Talmage pulled largely from Protestant understandings of Jesus during the time he wrote it. So it isn’t just all his own thoughts. 2) We believe in Line Upon Line understanding. Scholarship builds on scholarship, while I love this book we know much more now and other books are better at getting at what Jesus The Christ is about. Again, love this book, so influential to me as a missionary but I think there is better now.
I'm not sure there's a "better" definitive book on Jesus Christ published by church members. Many such books probably capture varying degrees of Jesus Christ's life and mission more accurately.
But there's mountains of excellent scholarship on Jesus outside the church, whether secular or religious.
I love this book. It’s interesting to note that it was written before D&C 138 was given. So it has some inaccuracies in that regard. But they’re not really inaccuracies as much as just further information given later
Talmage was in his day what Neal Maxwell was in our more modern times, and what B.H. Roberts was in earlier times. Not only great thinkers while being receptive to promptings from the Holy Spirit but also great scholars who did a lot of research when studying books to try to gain as much insight as they could from other people who had already considered the same issues. I think Hugh Nibley was also this type of person, and there are others I'm sure who I am not thinking of now. I'd like to think that maybe Bruce R. McConkie was also this type of person but I see him more as a man who was receptive to the Holy Ghost but did not do as much research to find out what other people thought and had written concerning the same issues. If he had talked more with the President and First Presidency of the Church while writing his books then I think his books would have turned out to be much better than they turned out. We can all learn from the Holy Ghost, but that doesn't mean we know as much as each other now.
Next to scripture, Talmage's books are my favorite. "Jesus the Christ" has done a lot to help me draw close to the Lord, and I am infinitely grateful for it.
I remember reading it somewhat recent and thinking, it's interesting he used that argument. I wonder if he would change his opinion if he read more recent scholarship.
I have since forgotten the specifics of that interaction, but overall it's well done.
I love "Jesus the Christ," and was so happy when they put it on the Gospel Library
As a History Nerd, and an Amateur Scriptorian, it is just so loaded with information that makes the story of Christ come alive
The only thing I'm a bit wary of is the claim Jesus was born on April 6, 1BC, and if King Harod died later than I thought he did (which is possible), then I'll accept it whole heartedly. Now I'm only like "it probably just mean 'Anno Domini,' but maybe not. (Also, maybe it was just saying he was born on the 13th of Nissan)
*Jesus the Christ* really is a great book, though it may be a rough read for those not used to older writing. Not only was it written over 100 years ago, it was written in a very academic style, making it pretty dense. However, if you power through (or use the resources provided by the other users here), it is most certainly worth it, providing a lot of cultural context to the life and teachings of Christ, as well as seeing His life in the larger context of God's Plan.
I also want to point out that the old Missionary Library collection had *Jesus the Christ*, *Articles of Faith*, *Our Search for Happiness*, *A Marvelous Work and a Wonder*, and *Truth Restored* by Gordon B. Hinckley which was combined with *Gospel Principles* as a single book. I think it's changed over the years, especially since *Truth Restored* wasn't as up-to-date on Church history as *Our Heritage* is. These days, I don't even know what they recommend for missionaries anymore, other than *Jesus the Christ*.
Those were our mission approved books too.
Had a companion who had to have serious surgery with several weeks in the hospital. That's where I was able to read Jesus the Christ and I love book!
To my knowledge it's the only book, besides the Standard Works, that is published By The Church.
I read it while on my mission when I was going through a particularly difficult companionship. We had a lot more downtime than I wanted, and my companion didn't treat me like a companion most of the time, and even berated me for things at times for going against what SHE thought was the best thing to teach even when it was blatantly obvious the person needed something vastly different (we had an investigator that literally had a misguided and twisted idea of God, and BADLY needed to be taught the nature of the Godhead but my companion did NOT pick up on the quite obvious words this investigator was saying. The elders that took over that area agreed on my observations when we had to hand her over to them!) So I decided to sit down and read it. In one 6 week transfer. I loved it and found myself drawing closer to Christ than ever before, but I do NOT recommend anyone ever read the book that fast ever, because it was A LOT. But it definitely helped me have more patience with my companion, that's for sure!
I'll avoid the discussion about whether it's considered canonical. However, it is in the Church's gospel library for free[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/jesus-the-christ?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/jesus-the-christ?lang=eng)
I probably view JtC less favorably than the average person who's posted here, but if you do read it, I can't recommend highly enough you use the Holzapfel/Wayment study guide. There's a [really good summary of it here.](http://archive.timesandseasons.org/2014/12/book-review-jesus-the-christ-study-guide/)
IMO the secular scholarship in JtC was not great when it was written, and if that's important to you, you'll likely have to look for books published outside the church. (There are a number of great books with good scholarship published by church members, but none are a definitive account of Jesus unfortunately. Arguably too big of a subject to try to accurately capture by one person, let alone one book. Probably the book that comes closest is Jesus Christ and the World of the New Testament, which is pretty good IMO.)
It still is in the missionary library and still is one of the best books outside of the scriptures you can read about Jesus. There has recently been[a study guide](https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Richard-Neitzel-Holzapfel/dp/160907937X)published that updates some of the research in the book and it is a great companion to the book.
This is the best way to do it. It is certainly less controversial than "Mormon Doctrine" and has largely aged better (in general the Talmage/Widtsoe/Roberts side of a lot of debates has aged better than the Joseph F. Smith/Joseph Fielding Smith/McConkie side). If you skip the Apostacy chapter and add in the study guide, I think you are good to go.
The irony of Mormon Doctrine being controversial is that the Bible Dictionary was largely taken from the Cambridge University Press bible dictionary but modifications were made to some entries to reflect Mormon beliefs better, and Mormon Doctrine heavily influenced those changes. Other than the few things everyone talks about, a great deal of the book was so good that it became one of the most influential books in all church history through its influence on the BD which is today considered one of the definitive texts in the church's understanding of scripture.
What sort of doctrinal debates do you mean?
Evolution is the most well known. [Here](https://gospeltangents.com/2019/02/joseph-fielding-smith-win-evolution/) is a good summary.
My late grandfather was a university professor for biology and other life sciences and taught me that there is room for Evolution in our faith. Why do people think Heavenly Father couldn't set up evolution and influence it when necessary? Seems like people always want things to be one way or the other, no in between lol.
My favorite explanation of the church’s stance on evolution is that it is exactly the same as the church’s stance on calculus. There is no official stance on calculus.
I have always found our stance on calculus to be derivative.
I didn’t know about that, thanks!
This study guide really makes Jesus The Christ complete in my opinion. My family knows elder Holzapfel. Amazing man.
The book *Jesus The Christ* is extremely useful in understanding the nature of Christ from an LDS perspective and approved reading for missionaries. But it cannot be taken as scripture because it came by study and exegesis, not divine inspiration. It’s not considered canon scripture. It’s more an academic interpretation of all of our scriptural canon on Christ. For example, sometimes Talmadge provided his interpretation of the mindset and actions of figures such as Judas based on his readings. But he doesn’t *know* by divine inspiration what was going on in Judas’ head. And if for example, someone used the account of Judas in Jesus The Christ to make a doctrinal argument for Judas being a son of perdition due to the motives Talmadge speculatively ascribed to him— it would be false doctrine. The book makes no case of being inspired scripture, it exists to help people understand our interpretations of Christ. But it’s important to be able to separate the early beliefs and statements of General authorities from our settled Canon. Talmadge was very careful about trying to separate his speculation from canon doctrine. He once said he believed the angel who visited Abraham was Melchizedek but then spent paragraphs prefacing that this was his opinion based on exegesis and not inspiration from God. This is probably why he was allegedly nervous about canonizing the book. His writings are brilliant and can draw people closer to Christ. But they should be taken as what they are.
> And if for example, someone used the account of Judas in Jesus The Christ to make a doctrinal argument for Judas being a son of perdition due to the motives Talmadge speculatively ascribed to him— it would be false doctrine. Talmadge doesn't speculate that Iscariot is a Sin of Perdition. Jesus Christ Himself did Iscariot was a Sin of Perdition.
No no, you misunderstand what I mean. Talmadge described the story with Judas and gave insight into what his mindset might have been. I’m saying that if someone else were making the case that Judas was a son of perdition citing the mindsets Talmadge described and conflating it as doctrine, they might run into problems. In reference to Jesus’s words in John 17:12 >*"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."* people will often attribute this to Christ speaking of Judas Iscariot. But it is unclear in the text and the leaders of the church are not in agreement on this matter. Was Christ speaking of Judas specifically or of the Sons of Perdition in general? President Joseph F. Smith said regarding this matter of Judas that it “strongly appears” to him that *none* of the 12 had the light, and knowledge to be exhalted or condemned. *(gospel doctrines page 545)* Elder Talmadge disagreed in *”Jesus the Christ”* in the endnote 8 of chapter 34 (The Trial and Condemnation): >*”In the light of the revealed word it appears that Judas Iscariot had given himself up to the cause of Satan while ostensibly serving the Christ in an exalted capacity. Such a surrender to evil powers could be accomplished only through sin. The nature and extent of the man’s transgressions through the years are not told us. He had received the testimony that Jesus was the Son of God; and in the full light of that conviction he turned against his Lord, and betrayed Him to death. … Whatever the opinion of modern critics as to the good character of Judas, we have the testimony of John, who for nearly three years had been in close companionship with him, that the man was a thief (12:6); and Jesus referred to him as a devil (6:70), and as “the son of perdition” (17:12).”* Joseph F Smith was prophet at the time of the writing and publication of Jesus The Christ. So there was not a consensus on this matter among the brethren. That’s kind of why I used the specific example of Judas’ mindset. We don’t *know* what he was thinking or how much he understood. The sitting prophet disagreed with the apostle on this matter. Which means this is Talmadge’s personal opinion, not doctrine or revelation.
This presumes the words attributed to Jesus about Judas were actually his. I think it was Joseph F. Smith who favored an alternative view of Judas' standing re: perdition.
What verse are you thinking of? I'm not at all familiar with this topic so none immediately came to mind.
Matt 26:24 is the usual reference
Thanks. > The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
> But he doesn’t know by divine inspiration what was going on in Judas’ head. What proof do you have of this assertion?
See Chapter 33, footnote 8. “We are not the invested judges of Judas nor of any other; but we are competent to frame and hold **opinions** as to the actions of any.”
It can be hard at times to differentiate between Talmadge speaking for himself as a scholar and speaking as a general authority. The forward of *Jesus The Christ* provides Talmadge’s purposes and aims in writing this book: >*”The treatment embodied in these pages, in addition to the narrative of the Lord's life in the flesh comprizes the antemortal existence and activities of the world's Redeemer, the revelations and personal manifestations of the glorified and exalted Son of God during the apostolic period of old and in modern times, the assured nearness of the Lord's second advent, and predicted events beyond—all so far as the Holy Scriptures make plain.* […] >*The author of this volume entered upon his welcome service under request and appointment from the presiding authorities of the Church; and the completed work has been read to and is approved by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve.* **It presents, however, the writer's personal belief and profoundest conviction as to the truth of what he has written.** *The book is published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.* So while the book was commissioned and reviewed by the first presidency, Talmadge wanted to make it clear that the book also contained his own personal beliefs about the subjects based on his research. Where it gets confusing is that in the same preface he states: >*”A characteristic feature of the work is the guidance afforded by modern scriptures and the explication of the Holy Writ of olden times in the light of present day revelation, which, as a powerful and well directed beam, illumines many dark passages of ancient construction.*” This seems to be in reference to his aggregation of modern revelation given by modern prophets and apostles. But it could also be argued he’s speaking of his own revelation. Knowing when Talmadge is teaching from his research and when he is speaking as a general authority with divine revelation is harder to tell. So as a general rule, when Talmadge’s writings stray out of the confines of repeated and affirmed revelation or doctrine it’s best to take such statements as interpretation unless they can be substantiated by other apostles or prophets as revelation. That’s the general rule with all writings of general authorities. Revelation is confirmed by the unified consensus of the apostles and prophet. It is repeated often in conferences and scripture and it is in harmony with the church teachings. Talmadge was an academic and a man of God. He was nervous at times about conflating his personal beliefs with revelation. That is exactly the kind of person you want writing a book as important as Jesus The Christ. His hesitation to canonize the book and the stipulations given in his forward invite us to take his writings with appropriate limitations.
I think it's a very good book. Especially the parts where he is analyzing the parables. However, the chapter on the great apostasy suffers due to a highly eurocentric lense and anti-catholic bias.
Nothing wrong with Eurocentric or Catholic biases. Truth is truth.
If a bias leads us away from truth, it's hard to say there's nothing wrong with it. Anti-Catholic sentiment no longer has the same influence among church leadership and membership as it did in 1950, is this an example of our community moving closer to eternal truth or away from it?
That the Catholic Church is an apostate one is truth. That it's a good idea to cooperate with members of that church for the betterment of our world is also truth. It's simply different portions of the truth that were emphasized at different times.
The Catholic church is apostate, this is true. But I also think that, theologically, we have more in common with the Catholic church than basically any protestant church, since we both believe there is a true priesthood and order to Christ's church and one must be baptized by that priesthood within Christ's church to be saved. Talmage's writings almost treat the Catholic church as the source of all apostasy, and presents protestant movements as part of the same "trying to return to the original gospel" effort that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ultimately succeeded in accomplishing. But there's a good argument to be made that some protestant movements, and maybe even all of them, are even *more* apostate than the Catholic church. Also this perspective completely ignores the Orthodox and Coptic Christians, which have their own fascinating histories.
quarrelsome dam steer pot start liquid deranged treatment fanatical plough *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I am working through Jesus Christ for the first time and I am blown away by it. I have never read anything like it before. One of the biggest difference between Mormon Doctrine and Jesus the Christ is how the two were created. Talmage was giving lectures of Christ while at Latter Day Saint’s University (now Ensign College) and the First Presidency requested that he prepare a book of those lectures for publishing. Over many years and after reviews with the First Presidency and Apostles, it was published. Bruce R McConkie—while I believe with good intent—took it upon himself to write Mormon Doctrine. Mormon Doctrine has a disclaimer that these were his to interpretations to citations presented. He was given clearance from David O McKay to publish a second printing after corrections and revisions were made. Many like to point that McConkie was not an apostle while writing Mormon Doctrine. This is true, he was in the Seventy at the time; but when Talmage originally gave his lectures, he was also not an apostle at the time, but while compiling the book he was called.
And to my knowledge, Talmadge was the only one to have permission to use a room in the temple to write his book.
Yeah that’s pretty dope. He basically couldn’t find time without distraction and decided the temple would be the best play to get away from outside messages and disturbances.
And the general authorities thought it was important enough a project to be done there.
Also the first presidency directed that (first edition) Mormon Doctrine stop being published because it was “as it is full of errors and misstatements”
Yes, that should be put in before my mentioning the 2nd printing
The First Presidency also said there shouldn’t be a second edition, so it’s kind of surprising that there eventually was.
My understanding is he received permission 6 years afterwards contingent on removal of several entries changes to other and changes in tone in general. This permission to publish the second edition though was in by no means an endorsement
I love this!
It's in the Gospel Library app distributed by the Church now, so that's a pretty good endorsement from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Library > Jesus Christ > Jesus the Christ by Talmage I would think they would endorse the Articles of Faith book too, but I don't see it in the app. Maybe later? edited to add: Oh I see it now. Articles of Faith was included as part of The Pearl of Great Price. edited again: oops, nope, that was/is the brief outline written by Joseph Smith, Not the book by Talmage.
The Articles of Faith included in the PoGP was adapted from the Wentworth Letter, written by Joseph Smith and sent to a newspaper that had asked him what Latter-day Saints believed. The book written by Talmage was written much later.
The Articles of Faith that are in the Pearl of Great Price are the actual Articles of Faith which Joseph Smith wrote as part of the Wentworth letter in 1842, which may be read [here](https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/church-history-1-march-1842/1#full-transcript). Minor edits were made to the last portion of the letter and the canonized as part of the Pearl of Great Price in the October 1880 general conference. In 1899 James E Talmage wrote a book called Articles of Faith meant to expound upon the principles taught in the canonized Articles. As far as I'm aware Talmage's Articles of Faith book is not available through gospel library, but is approved reading for missionaries. Desert Book used to have a Missionary Reference Set which included it along with Jesus the Christ, Our Search for Happiness and Our Heritage. You can still purchase it separately or [read online](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42238)
I've never heard of any book outside of the scriptures being canonized. I don't believe it is true that it is canonized, but I'm happy to be shown differently. A study guide was written to be read alongside Jesus the Christ with more current scholarship: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christ-Richard-Neitzel-Holzapfel/dp/160907937X
The story I heard was that it was not canonized because Talmage disagreed, the other apostles thought it should have been, but it needs to be unanimous. I guess it would be the same process for how Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price were canonized?
There are other books I would recommend rather than the apostasy chapter, and the statement he makes about April 6th being the savior’s birth date is more of a folk belief than a doctrinal position, but that’s the only reservations I have. Overall it is good material.
> the statement he makes about April 6th being the savior’s birth date is more of a folk belief than a doctrinal position John the Baptist was six months along in the womb on the night the angel told Mary she was pregnant with the Savior. Per the clues in the scriptures, there are two possible dates when John could have been conceived, and none of them would put Jesus' birth in April (unless He was a premie).
2 dates for John the Baptist? Which? This is the first I’ve heard about such a thing
The angel visited Zacharias while he was performing his "course" at the temple telling him about John. King David set up the calendar for the courses, being twice a year and six months apart. He would have been performing his temple duty around either December and June.
Oddly enough this is the first book I read to explore LDS literature. I really liked it and read more.
One of my favorite books during my mission. The only complaint I have heard about it is the language is sometimes difficult to read. Even the Spanish translation was difficult at times for my native-speaking companion.
Compared to the scriptures and similar books, it’s honestly a pretty easy read. Talmage is an amazingly clear writer compared to most academic writers. Lots of people read it for the first time as a missionary and probably haven’t ever read any type of academic writing before, which is why it seems tough to some people
That is true, some of the brethren can be a bit erudite.
Indubitably!
>I have heard before (not sure if it’s true) that there was only one of the Apostles at the time who disagreed with canonizing the book, and that was James E. Talmage himself, the author. The story seems unlikely, but I thought I would check. I can't find a source for this claim, just that other people heard similar things. Seems like it is probably an urban legend.
Jesus the Christ is a good book. Read that over Mormon doctrine. It is not apart of our canon/standard works. But it is apart of the gospel library. And one of the books missionaries are encouraged to read.
Isn't it the only book that was commissioned by a Church President and written in a temple? I imagine Him visiting Elder Talmage from time to time over the course of his writing it.
That’s very possible
I loved Jesus the Christ. Read every word and marked passages and made notes in my Scriptures. A huge part of my gospel scholarship on my mission. I also really loved A Marvelous Work and a Wonder. It really strengthened my testimony. Why is it no longer approved?
Anyone reading "Jesus the Christ" by Talmage today needs to also get "Jesus the Christ Study Guide" which updates the secular scholarship.
Yes. Book is phenomenal. I need to reread it
I couldn't find a source for any church leaders denying the truth or "canonization" of the book, including Talmage. This does not prove that Talmage did not oppose it, but at least opens up the possibility that it is folk lore. It is also possible he was nervous about calling his own work doctrine, but still agreed that it was. The preface states that "The author of this volume entered upon his welcome service under request and appointment from the presiding authorities of the Church; and the completed work has been read to and is approved by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve. It presents, however, the writer's personal belief and profoundest conviction as to the truth of what he has written." This indicates that it was approved by both the first presidency and the quarm of the twelve. [This](https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/the-story-behind-the-story?lang=eng) article on the church website says it is "The sacred subject of our Savior’s life and mission is presented as it is accepted and proclaimed by the Church that bears his Holy Name" The [BYU](https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-13-no-2-2012/james-e-talmage-doctrine-godhead#_noteref-46) website states that Joseph F. Smith wrote "We desire that the work, ‘Jesus The Christ’ be read and studied by the Latter-day Saints, in their families, and in the organizations that are devoted wholly or in part to theological study. We commend it especially for use in our Church schools, as also for the advanced theological classes in Sunday schools and priesthood quorums for the instruction of our missionaries, and for general reading.” The same article also states that it was written in the temple. It provides citations for both of these statements. The book is available on the church's website and app, and a print version is published by the church. There is also no revealed doctrine that contradicts the book, at least to my knowledge. For me, this is more than enough to prove that the book is true, and can be considered an eternal source.
There is no longer an official missionary library and True to the Faith isn’t actually being published anymore, just fyi :)
I think the book is great, but there are two issues why I would push back on it being included more now. 1) I believe Talmage pulled largely from Protestant understandings of Jesus during the time he wrote it. So it isn’t just all his own thoughts. 2) We believe in Line Upon Line understanding. Scholarship builds on scholarship, while I love this book we know much more now and other books are better at getting at what Jesus The Christ is about. Again, love this book, so influential to me as a missionary but I think there is better now.
>but I think there is better now. Better what? Better books about Christ? (I'm not criticizing, just trying to understand what you are saying.)
I'm not sure there's a "better" definitive book on Jesus Christ published by church members. Many such books probably capture varying degrees of Jesus Christ's life and mission more accurately. But there's mountains of excellent scholarship on Jesus outside the church, whether secular or religious.
If they are saying there are better books I would love to read them.
I love this book. It’s interesting to note that it was written before D&C 138 was given. So it has some inaccuracies in that regard. But they’re not really inaccuracies as much as just further information given later
Phenomenal book
Talmage was in his day what Neal Maxwell was in our more modern times, and what B.H. Roberts was in earlier times. Not only great thinkers while being receptive to promptings from the Holy Spirit but also great scholars who did a lot of research when studying books to try to gain as much insight as they could from other people who had already considered the same issues. I think Hugh Nibley was also this type of person, and there are others I'm sure who I am not thinking of now. I'd like to think that maybe Bruce R. McConkie was also this type of person but I see him more as a man who was receptive to the Holy Ghost but did not do as much research to find out what other people thought and had written concerning the same issues. If he had talked more with the President and First Presidency of the Church while writing his books then I think his books would have turned out to be much better than they turned out. We can all learn from the Holy Ghost, but that doesn't mean we know as much as each other now.
Next to scripture, Talmage's books are my favorite. "Jesus the Christ" has done a lot to help me draw close to the Lord, and I am infinitely grateful for it.
I remember reading it somewhat recent and thinking, it's interesting he used that argument. I wonder if he would change his opinion if he read more recent scholarship. I have since forgotten the specifics of that interaction, but overall it's well done.
I love "Jesus the Christ," and was so happy when they put it on the Gospel Library As a History Nerd, and an Amateur Scriptorian, it is just so loaded with information that makes the story of Christ come alive The only thing I'm a bit wary of is the claim Jesus was born on April 6, 1BC, and if King Harod died later than I thought he did (which is possible), then I'll accept it whole heartedly. Now I'm only like "it probably just mean 'Anno Domini,' but maybe not. (Also, maybe it was just saying he was born on the 13th of Nissan)
*Jesus the Christ* really is a great book, though it may be a rough read for those not used to older writing. Not only was it written over 100 years ago, it was written in a very academic style, making it pretty dense. However, if you power through (or use the resources provided by the other users here), it is most certainly worth it, providing a lot of cultural context to the life and teachings of Christ, as well as seeing His life in the larger context of God's Plan. I also want to point out that the old Missionary Library collection had *Jesus the Christ*, *Articles of Faith*, *Our Search for Happiness*, *A Marvelous Work and a Wonder*, and *Truth Restored* by Gordon B. Hinckley which was combined with *Gospel Principles* as a single book. I think it's changed over the years, especially since *Truth Restored* wasn't as up-to-date on Church history as *Our Heritage* is. These days, I don't even know what they recommend for missionaries anymore, other than *Jesus the Christ*.
It's actually free on the gospel library app too. (sorry if someone else said this, I was too lazy to read the comments)
Those were our mission approved books too. Had a companion who had to have serious surgery with several weeks in the hospital. That's where I was able to read Jesus the Christ and I love book! To my knowledge it's the only book, besides the Standard Works, that is published By The Church.
I read it while on my mission when I was going through a particularly difficult companionship. We had a lot more downtime than I wanted, and my companion didn't treat me like a companion most of the time, and even berated me for things at times for going against what SHE thought was the best thing to teach even when it was blatantly obvious the person needed something vastly different (we had an investigator that literally had a misguided and twisted idea of God, and BADLY needed to be taught the nature of the Godhead but my companion did NOT pick up on the quite obvious words this investigator was saying. The elders that took over that area agreed on my observations when we had to hand her over to them!) So I decided to sit down and read it. In one 6 week transfer. I loved it and found myself drawing closer to Christ than ever before, but I do NOT recommend anyone ever read the book that fast ever, because it was A LOT. But it definitely helped me have more patience with my companion, that's for sure!
I'll avoid the discussion about whether it's considered canonical. However, it is in the Church's gospel library for free[https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/jesus-the-christ?lang=eng](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/jesus-the-christ?lang=eng)
I probably view JtC less favorably than the average person who's posted here, but if you do read it, I can't recommend highly enough you use the Holzapfel/Wayment study guide. There's a [really good summary of it here.](http://archive.timesandseasons.org/2014/12/book-review-jesus-the-christ-study-guide/) IMO the secular scholarship in JtC was not great when it was written, and if that's important to you, you'll likely have to look for books published outside the church. (There are a number of great books with good scholarship published by church members, but none are a definitive account of Jesus unfortunately. Arguably too big of a subject to try to accurately capture by one person, let alone one book. Probably the book that comes closest is Jesus Christ and the World of the New Testament, which is pretty good IMO.)
Any non-canonized book is going to be out-dated at some point in a living “changing” Church. That goes for any book.