Alvin Dyer on the Great and Limitless Potential of All People in Mortality to Progress

While he did, unfortunately, hold to the popular view of the time that black people and others born into less fortunate circumstances were of less faithfulness in the pre-existence, Alvin Dyer did write the following, showing that he believed that, regardless of one’s socio-economic and cultural background, everyone had the ability to progress without limitation:

Every spirit born to a natural body is an individual character. It brings to that body, prepared for its tenancy, a nature all its own, fashioned and made ready by its degree of advancement in the pre-earth life existence called by the Lord, the “first estate” (Abraham 3:26). Since man is an individual and an agent unto himself, he will, as he did in his spirit form before mortal birth, aspire to and attain greatness, mediocrity, or a lowliness so far as the absorption of intelligence or light and truth is concerned, thus causing the limitless variations of mankind. The principle of agency makes possible the expansion of tendencies, likes and dislikes. In fact, the nature and character of the spirit can be improved in the course of mortal life (D&C 130:18-19). The Prophet Amulek refers to the probation of mortality as a time to improve the status of our place over that with which we entered earth-life existence (Alma 34:33). (Alvin R. Dyer, Who Am I? [Salt Lake City Deseret Book Company, 1966], 540)

Alvin Dyer, "Foreknowledge with Covenants and Sealings Not Compulsive"

Commenting on how being “foreordained” (whether in the pre-existence or mortality) and/or being sealed is not infallible and that it can be thwarted by the free-will actions of man, Alvin Dyer wrote:

Foreknowledge with Covenants and Sealings Not Compulsive

A man may be foreordained to a work or calling in this life. He may, also, with covenant and promise, be foreordained while in mortality and be sealed up to a work or calling, and condition of lofty existence in immortality. But, such covenants, promises, and sealings as they are invoked, and not final in earth’s state of existence. They simply indicate what can become a reality, if the laws which are covenanted upon are obeyed. The Lord seals them upon man, invoking complete assurance of the effects of the irrevocable laws of heaven when adhered to. Concerning this great and important principle, there are securely fasted the law of agency; the announcement to become; the pledge, or covenant and promise to seek and live for; but, which in and of the principle alone, are not compulsive or pre-destined. They provide the motivation as the most sure way for inner determined action to achieve the lofty reality south for. The application of this divine principle is made clear to man in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, in 1832:

For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift. And again, verily I saw unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified y the same. That which breaketh a law, and abideth no by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still. (D&C 88:33-35)

Ignorance and thoughtlessness should not lead us into the error of assuming that foreordination of many by covenant and promise in his first estate unto the second estate, nor in his second estate unto immortality, in the progress that our Heavenly Father desires for man, even though man may be sealed unto such progress, automatically accomplishes the task. Rather, it is in obedience to these laws of righteousness, invoked by the divine and artful method of instruction through covenants, promises and symbols of that which can be and finally the seal of personal approval by the Lord of the righteous endeavor undertaken by man, that leads to exaltation and eternal life. (Alvin R. Dyer, Who Am I? [Salt Lake City Deseret Book Company, 1966], 383-84)

Alvin Dyer on Satan's Rebellion and Fall

Some critics of Latter-day Saint theology argue that there are no real differences between Jesus and Satan as we believe they, and everyone else, are sons and daughters of God (for more, see the section “The "Mormon Jesus" being a "Spirit Brother" of Satan--what the Bible really says” in Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism"). Alvin Dyer (1903-1977), an LDS apostle, wrote the following about Satan’s rebellion in heaven, which should show that there are no meaningful similarities between Jesus and Satan in LDS theology:

The Assumption of Lucifer

In his effort to gain ascendency among the Gods, Lucifer evidenced no love for the subjects who would come under his power. His aim was for position without respect for the rights of the individual his plan violated. In this effort he disobeyed at least three eternal principles of progression. First, he rebelled against God; secondly, he sought to destroy agency so that his advocated doctrine of compulsion could function; and thirdly, he sought to make himself equal with God on the premise that the plan he advocated was of such noteworthy quality, that he was entitled to singular recognition as its author (Moses 4:1, 3, 4). His plan was rejected and he and his followers were cast out of the realm of that existence, suited to that of non-regenerative type of personages, is made ready for them (D&C 76:44-48).

Lucifer and his disobedient and arrogant angels in the pre-mortal realm, proved themselves unsuited for and incapable of progression. Consequently, they are denied the experience of embodiment with element in mortality, with its promise and purpose of eternal progress in the subsequent estates of immortality . . .

. . .

Conditions of Lucifer’s Request

We have already suggested the various reason Lucifer’s rebellion which won for him the support of a third part of the hosts of the pre-existence. There are other revelations from God which tell of Lucifer’s final bid for ascendancy and of his rejection and expulsion. There can be no doubt that Lucifer occupied a very high position in the pre-mortal existence. Some have called him “the” son of the morning, but the revelation from God simply identifies him as “a” son of the morning (D&C 76:25-27). Still, he was recognized, and had a plan by which he proposed that the earth be peopled and the inhabitants redeemed. The Prophet Job declares that Lucifer presented his plan after having been upon the earth which had been organized for man’s occupancy (Job 1:6, 7) prior to Adam and Eve.

The fact that Lucifer had traveled to the earth through space and, having surveyed it, returned to present his plan before the council of Gods, is probably the reason for his having earned the title which the Prophet declared him to be called by—the prince of the power of air.

The answer to the council of God’s to Lucifer’s plan is summarized in this declaration of God the Father to Moses:

Wherefore because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; y the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. (Moses 4:3, 4)

This rebellion of Lucifer and his angels is spoken of further in a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon:

And this we saw also, and hear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down for the presence of God and the Son, and was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning. (D&C 76:25, 26)

It is fully established that Lucifer’s downfall, together with those who followed him, came about for two basic reasons which are convincingly stated in the revelation to the prophet Moses. First, he sought to destroy the agency of man, and second, he sought unwarranted ascendancy over the God’s of the great premortal council (Moses 1:19). (Alvin R. Dyer, Who Am I? [Salt Lake City Deseret Book Company, 1966], 144-45, 230-32)

On the use of “Lucifer” for Satan, see the informative article by Benjamin McGuire, Lucifer and Satan

David Kemball-Cook on the Trinity and the Prayers of Jesus

Commenting on the problems Jesus’ prayers, both during his mortal life and on-going prayers for his people in heaven, and how they are problematic for Trinitarian theology, David Kemball-Cook, a “Biblical Unitarian” (i.e., a proponent of Socinian Christology) wrote:

The Trinity cannot explain Jesus’ prayer

The Trinity doctrine has several problems with the prayer of Jesus.

1. The doctrine requires Jesus’ prayer to be to the First Person of the Trinity, ‘the Father’, However Jesus’ prayer was to God, not a ‘First Person’.

2. The Trinity requires Jesus to be both God and man, a ‘God-man’, who had the personality of the ‘God the Son’, yet also, because he was a man, could pray validly. But if Jesus had the personality and memory of a ‘God the Son’ there is no way that his prayer could be anything more than pretence.

3. The Bible shows Jesus continuing in prayer after the Ascension and therefore still human, contrary to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Dealing first with the object of Jesus prayer, note that Jesus prayed to God as a man does. He addressed God as ‘my God’ . .. Jesus uses the terms ‘God,’ ‘my God’, ‘Father’, ‘The Father’, ‘my Father’ quite interchangeably when he talks about God. There is no distinction between these terms. All refer to God. Jesus never talks as a ‘God the Son’ addressing a ‘God the Father’. When Jesus talks about ‘the Father’ and ‘my father’, he is referring to God himself, not to a First Person of a Trinity. For instance compare:

I came forth from God . . . (John 8:42)

I came forth from my Father . . . (John 16:28)

I ascend unto my Father, and your Father: and to my God, and your God (John 20:17)

The trinitarian account of Jesus’ prayer therefore falls at the first hurdle. If god were a Trinity, Jesus’ prayer would have to have been to the whole Trinity, not just to the First Person.

Secondly, if Jesus were the Second Person, his prayers would have to have been from the Second Person to the whole Triune God, including himself. In other words, Jesus would have been praying to a triuinity that included himself. Such ‘prayer’, if it can be called prayer, could not be authentic prayer. Authentic prayer is from man to God, from a human to a divine object outside himself. If Jesus had the consciousness that he was ‘God the Son’, even with powers temporarily laid aside, his prayer could not be authentic. Prayer cannot be between two Persons in the Godhead, even if one of them is temporarily in the body of a man.

The third problem is that Jesus continues to be a man after the Ascension. If Jesus had been the ‘God the Son’ incarnate, then upon his Ascension he would have resumed his rightful place at the right hand of the ‘God the father’, and taken his glory back again. If so, then he would not then be able to pray to ‘the Father’, because a Second Person cannot pray to a First Person. Yet Jesus talks about praying to God after the Ascension. Jesus said:

I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Comforter (John 14:16)

The reference is clearly to the future, after the Ascension. Jesus will be interceding to humanity to God after he is glorified, as scripture indicates.

It is Christ . . . who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us (Romans 8:34)

But this man, because he continueth for ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:24f)

But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God (Hebrews 10:12)

According to the Trinity doctrine, the Second Person upon the Ascension puts aside his humanity, takes back his divine privileges and resumes his seat at the right hand of the First Person. This is completely foreign to what the Bible describes. Note that the last verse quoted puts Jesus at the right hand of God himself, not a ‘First Person’. Furthermore a trinitarian ‘Second Person’ in heaven could not be the human high priest interceding at the right hand of God. (David Kemball-Cook, Is God a Trinity [2006], 113-14, italics in original)

Some of the objections Cook has to the divinity of Jesus and the preservation of his humanity, while problematic for many Trinitarian formulations of Christology, are not problems for Latter-day Saint theology—indeed, LDS theology helps answers rather satisfactorily many of these. For more on this, as well as the biblical foundations of LDS theology, see:

The Christological Necessity of Universal Pre-Existence

Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus

Marinus De Jonge on “High Christology” being Early

When early Christians like Paul proclaimed the message concerning Jesus Christ, they had to remind their non-Jewish hearers that they had to turn “to God from idols, to serve a living and true God” before they could put their hope in “his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath that is coming” (1 Thess. 1:9-10; cf. Acts 14:15-17; 17:24-31). So also in 1 Cor. 8:6, “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist,” echoes (among other things) the fundamental Jewish conviction in the Shema’ Yisrael in Deut 6:4 and many other passages in the Old Testament. Yet the formula continues in the same breath “and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” As in Col. 1:15-20, Jesus Christ is mentioned as the agent, the mediator, of creation as well as the agent of redemption. This implies a central role for him not only in the present and in the future, but also in the very beginning. He is thought to have been with God the creator and to have played a role at the creation. (Marinus De Jonge, God’s Final Envoy: Early Christology and Jesus’ Own View of His Mission [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998], 135)

The Authenticity and Antiquity of John 21

The Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 28:6) and the Doctrine and Covenants (section 7) assumes the historicity and authenticity of John 21:20-24. Some (not all) scholars of the Gospel of John believe that ch. 21 was added later to the Gospel, and this has lead some critics of the Book of Mormon to use this as evidence against LDS Scriptures. However, as Stephen Smalley wrote about John 21:

[T]there is no textual evidence to show that John’s Gospel ever existed without John 21; and despite some admittedly untypical features in the chapter, this section of John is markedly Johannine in many respects. Notice, for example, the distinctive use of ‘Tiberias’ in verse 1; the occurrence of verse 2 of the characteristic names Simon Peter, Thomas the Twin and Nathanael of Cana; the appearance of the beloved disciple at verse 7 and 20ff.; and the double αμην in verse 18 introducing a saying of Jesus.

It is clear, then, that we cannot write off chapter 21 as a mere postscript to John’s Gospel, and one which has no real connection with it. Even if John 21 appears to stand further away from the Gospels than John 1, which (as we have seen) is closely related to it, there is no real reason to regard John’s epilogue in chapter 1 as non-Johannine or unconnected with the Fourth Gospel. Its general flavour is characteristically Johannine . . . the Johannine epilogue came to birth (using, as it does, Galilee rather than Jerusalem traditions), and whenever it became part of the work as we now have it . . .John21 is very much involved in the composition and final arrangement of the Fourth Gospel. (Stephen Smalley, John: Evangelist and Interpreter [London: The Paternoster Press, 1978], 96)

On the old Mormon Dialogue forums (no longer available online, but I saved the discussion for future reference), one LDS commentator, D. Charles Pyle, offered the following in favour of the authenticity of ch. 21 of the Gospel of John:

1. Every manuscript I have seen that contains at least portions of chapter 20 also have attached to them at least portions of chapter 21. We do not see the kinds of omissions that can be seen in John 7:53-8:11 in the earliest manuscript tradition. I do believe that the pericope of the adulteress likely was not original to the gospel. Chapter 21, however, is attested in the oldest manuscript of the gospel of John, and in versions of the same or close age, which are translations of texts that predate our oldest Greek texts in some instances.

2. Two of the most liberal translators I know of, Moffett and Schonfield, both attest the content of chapter 21 to the same author of chapter 20. Moffett does so in his lack of brackets that he uses to mark interpolations, and there is no shuffling of text as is his practice for other portions of John and other books. Schonfield flatly states in the notes where he separates authors and chapter 21 is in the same partition of the same author where chapter 20 is located. Schonfield is not afraid to claim two authors for John and the section containing chapters 20-21 are both in the style of one author. I agree with that assessment.

3. John uses the word meta with tauta to start new units of thought and narrative a lot. Matthew and authentic Mark do not appear to use it at all. Luke uses it very infrequently, only two times starting a new unit of thought. John uses it to begin a new unit of thought and narrative frequently and it would appear to be part of the normal style of the gospel of John. It appears in chapter 21 as well, used the same way it is in other portions of John. It appears no less than seven times in that sense in John (nine times if we count all occurrences).

4. The latter part of chapter 20 forms a chiastic structure with chapter 21, the structure of which is broken if non-authenticity of chapter 21 is assumed.

CODEA. (20:30f). "Conclusion"/Inclusion: Many signs.

  B. 21:1-14. The Beloved Disciple and Peter: the Beloved Disciple recognizes Jesus

    C. 21:15-19a: Peter and Jesus: "Do you love me?"

  B.’ 21:19b-24: The Beloved Disciple and Peter: the Beloved Disciple (as the author) witnesses to Jesus

A.’ (21:25) Conclusion: the overwhelming number of signs of Jesus.

Similar chiasms can be seen throughout the gospel of John.

5. The style of John 21 is said by some scholars to have differences from the rest of the gospel but in reality there are those chapters in the same gospel that seem to follow the same kind of style, apparently ignored by the same scholars.

6. The style of having a prologue, with an apparent ending followed by another ending in an epilogue appears not only in the gospel of John but in 1 John as well, marking this as a possible marker of Johannine style and intent.

Prologue: 1 John 1:1-4

"Conclusion"/Inclusion: 1 John 5:13

Epilogue: 1 John 5:14-21

I am inclined to believe that this structure is integral to both 1 John and the Gospel, as I am to believe that John 21 is authored by the author of chapter 20 for various reasons, not all of which I share here.

The appearance of traditions from John 21 in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants is not problematic at all. 

Stephen Smalley on the Gospel of John and Evidence Supporting its Accuracy

In his work on the Gospel of John, Stephen Smalley wrote the following about typographical evidence supporting the historicity of the Fourth Gospel:

[R]ecent archaeological excavation has confirmed the existence of a number of places mentioned by John which might otherwise be attributed to his inventive genius. If John’s accuracy is therefore indicated on the occasions when it can be tested, we have less reason to doubt his topographical reliability when it cannot be established.

Two of the most important sites in Jerusalem to have been excavated recently are the pool of Bethesda (Jn 5:2) and the Pavement (19:13). Until excavations began in 1878 on the Bethesda site, near what is today called St Stephen’s Gate in the old city of Jerusalem, no knowledge of this pool existed outside the Fourth Gospel. The fact that it had ‘five porticoes’, moreover, could have meant that John was using allegory or symbolism freely, and that he simply invented the name Bethesda to provide a setting for his sign. But the excavations have put a different light on the matter. The first stage, completed in 1931-2, uncovered two tank-like pools, separated by a wall of rock; these are now to be seen very close to the Crusader church of St Anne. It was thought at first that here was the Bethesda pool itself; and this impression was confirmed by the fact that a Byzantine church was built on the site, partly over the tanks (supported by eight columns which still stand more or less intact) and partly on the solid ground. Fresh discoveries, however, have convinced the White Fathers in charge of the excavations that the site of the healing of the sick man in John 5 was located in shallower pools adjacent to the tanks, and was once associated with the pagan cult of the healing presided over by the god Aesculapius. The inference is, in fact, that a pagan sanctuary and probably an Aesculapian temple stood on this site originally.

This makes considerably more sense of the situation. It would have been easier to immerse invalids in a shallow pool than a deep tank; and once the sign mentioned in John 5 had taken place, the holy place would naturally be preserved by building a church over it as an effective reminder that Christ the healer had appeared. Here is impressive support for the historicity of the tradition in John 5.

The other site of interest for our purposes is the place where Jesus was tried and condemned by Pilate. John tells us that this was at a place called the Pavement (Lithostrotos), in Hebrew (Aramaic) Gabbatha (Jn 19:13). The debate about the exact location of this site continues. Pére Benoit still favours Herod’s palace, on the western side of Jerusalem, partly on the grounds that according to Josephus this was the headquarters of a successor to Pilate, the barbarous Gessius Florus. But nothing like a ‘pavement’ has been discovered there. On the other hand, beneath the Antonia fortress in the north-west corner of the temple area, the excavations of Fr L.H. Vincent have revealed a paved court made up of massive blocks of stone which may well have been the Roman governor’s temporary praetorium, and a suitable place for its location. The real problem in this case is whether the excavated pavement formed part of the Atonia in the time of Jesus. But in any case John’s unique reference to this site is evidently historical, and even if we still cannot be sure where Gabbatha was to be found, we can be fairly certain that the fourth evangelist was in touch with early tradition when he referred to it.

Before we leave the evidence of John’s topography, it will be instructive to consider for a moment the appearance of actual place-names in the Fourth Gospel, quite apart from the support given to the existence of these places by archaeology.

John uses several place-names (such as Jerusalem, Bethany, Jordan and Galilee) which are common to all the Gospels. His Gospel also contains names which he alone uses. In addition to those already mentioned (the pool of Siloam, the Kidron valley, Bethany beyond the Jordan, Solomon’s portico, Aenon near Salim, Bethesda and Gabbatha), there are Cana, Tiberias (and the Sea of Tiberias), Sychar and Ephraim. With Luke only he shares Samaria. From this evidence C.H. Dodd concludes that the setting of John’s basic tradition was not only Palestinian, and therefore (we may add) close to the origins of the Jesus story, but also located in Jerusalem and the south rather than in Galilee and the north (Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 244f). For, as Dodd points out (Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 245), Cana in Galilee is the only place in northern Palestine known to John but not the other evangelists, and a large range of northern place-names present in the synoptic Gospels (such as Decapolis, Caesarea Philippi and the territory of Tyre and Sidon) cannot be found in the Fourth Gospel. Similarly, although John’s Gospel lacks the Judean names Bethphage, Gethsemane and (in Luke only) Emmaus, it includes no less than nine southern place-names unknown to the other Gospel writers. (Stephen Smalley, John: Evangelist and Interpreter [London: The Paternoster Press, 1978], 35-37)

Smalley has the following interesting note about the use of personal names in the Gospel of John:

John’s use of personal names is as interesting as his use of place-names, and relates equally to the independent and historical character of the tradition beneath the Fourth Gospel. He uses (i) synoptic names in a synoptic context (e.g. Andrew and Philip in Jn 6:5-9, and Peter in 18:10); (ii) synoptic names in a Johannine context (e.g. Philip in Jn 14:8f.; and perhaps also Judas in 14:22); (iii) Johannine names in a synoptic context (Malchus in Jn 18:10); (iv) Johannine names in a Johannine context (Nicodemus, Jn 3; 19:39; and Lazarus, Jn 11; 12:1f.). If John knew the other Gospels, the main reason for adding or dropping or re-locating names would presumably have been literary and theological. Yet these motives alone cannot account for the personal any more than the geographical references that are unique to the Fourth Gospel. (Ibid., 37, n. 102)

For further reading in favour of the historical reliability of the Gospel of John, see:

Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues and Commentary

Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (2d ed.)