Overthrowing the church of God

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

But the "overwhelming numbers" are still against the Church, yet it is allowed to exist.  

I get that Christ's atonement was still in affect.  But if that is all that is important, then why establish a Church today that only has what .02% of the worlds population in it?  What are you expecting that small group of people on earth to do that can't be done by God without them?  Seems like the world got along fine without the Church for almost 2000 years.  

This answer isn't really new to me.  I remember hearing this line of thought since I was a kid.  But now, I am trying to make some sense in what was being taught. 

 

Yes, the Church exists even to bless the numbers against it, and I refute that there are "overwhelming numbers" against it. I took your original comment to refer to the overwhelming numbers that lived on earth without a dispensation of the Gospel and the organization(s) associated with each dispensation, which there are. So, "against" it seems a bit harsh as opposed to "without," "unaware," or otherwise lacking knowledge of or access to the kingdom of heaven on earth due to sheer circumstance. I'm not addressing how unpopular the Church is in your mind.

Why are you still trying to make sense of what you were taught as a child? What did it have to do with your claim that 99.98% of very sensical people are "against" it?

A relatively small group of people are enjoying the Church that God has provided. These will realize that eventual connection between the kingdoms in heaven and on earth. A lot is being done on the other side of the veil as well, so there are probably much, much larger group than meets the eye. The notion that God blesses all His children without inviting or organizing them into His way of life, which involves organization (i.e. a church), doesn't make sense.

Perhaps a review of what constitutes His way of life is in order, and I recommend connecting up with the Church to do that.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

This is a complicated question because there are many things to be considered in God’s overall plan, such as respecting man’s agency, the general feasibility of perpetuating a church on the earth given the political circumstances and many other factors, and the over all plan that God has for recovering his people, which includes preaching the gospel to those in the spirit world and temple ordinances on behalf of the dead.

But wouldn't part of respecting man's agency be allowing man to join His Church while on earth?  Allowing His Church to be completely wiped off the face of the earth for 1700 years kinda eliminates that option don't you think?  And hasn't there always be people who seek God wanting to know His will?  Or is your understanding that there was absolutely no one in those 1700+ years that were seeking to find His Church, only to be told that none existed.  Just trying to figure out what agency means to you in this context.

I missed this part of your post somehow (it wasn't intentional, I must have been in a hurry)...

As I implied above, it isn't important to God's plan that every person have every detail about his teachings made available to them all at once in every period of time.  God gives mankind what they can handle according to their circumstances at the time, and the circumstances of those people's lives in that day and age weren't very accommodating to being open to further truths.  The truths that they had during the time of the apostasy were sufficient to bring many sincere people to Christ and spread some of the Christian teachings throughout the world in preparation for further teachings that would come later on.  But at the same time there were those who took advantage of the circumstances to put forth false doctrines to confine and control the people.

And yes, there have always been people who sincerely would seek God wanting to know his will, and I believe God directed many people in that way during the period of the apostasy, but it just was not the time and place for a full restoration, that had to come later on when the environment was right.

And again, "allowing His Church to be completely wiped off the face of the earth for 1700 years" doesn't really eliminate the options for the people during that period of time given the preaching of the gospel to those in the spirit world and the temple work that is going for those people now and throughout the Millennium.  It isn't a problem to God's plan and the individual agency of those people given the big picture.

[telnetd]

On 3/18/2025 at 11:53 AM, InCognitus said:

See Ensign, August 1993, "What did Jesus mean when he said to Peter, as recorded in Matthew 16:18, that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against [my church]”?"

The Ensign article said, "Some Latter-day Saints may wonder how to respond to people of other 
Christian faiths who find support in Matthew 16:18 for their belief that there would 
never be a general apostasy".

I'm not sure how broad the term 'general apostasy' really is, but we do know that Paul 
mentioned apostasy beginning to take shape.

"In these instances the 'church' is not so much an institution as it is a group of 
individuals who repent, come unto Christ through the ordinances of the gospel, and 
endure in faith to the end. Upon them the adversary has no claim".

Enduring to the end is tied to exaltation (2 Nephi 31:16,20; 2 Nephi 33:4; 3 Nephi 15:9), 
so the adversary makes some claim on those who don't make it. They are referred to as 
the 'damned'.

[telnetd]

On 3/18/2025 at 4:49 PM, InCognitus said:

Now some questions for you....

Given that the word "hell" in Matthew 16:18 is translated from the Greek word hades, which is defined as "the place (state) of departed souls:—grave, hell", what do you suppose that Jesus had in mind when he said that the "gates of hades" (the grave, the place of departed souls) would not prevail against his church?  What are the "gates of hades" (the grave), and what do those gates have to do with prevailing against the departed dead?

Hell (Hades) can have multiple meanings. In this context, I believe the 'gates of hell' 
symbolize its domain. The righteous souls are not suffering in hell but are in the grave. 
The wicked souls, on the other hand, could be seen as suffering in hell while also being 
in the grave.

The August 1993 Ensign article you referenced doesn't focus only on departed souls in 
its interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19. It also mentions living individuals who have 
faith in Christ and repent, as seen in the phrase 'his sons and daughters—now and 
throughout eternity'.

The Ensign article continues ...

"The parable teaches, among other things, that communication between paradise and hell, 
or spirit prison, is restricted because there is 'a great gulf fixed' between the two 
places".

In this case, hell doesn't refer to Hades (the grave) for the righteous.

The idea of restricted communication doesn't seem to fit.

Luke 16:26 suggests that people in paradise and spirit prison can communicate across 
the great gulf, though they can't cross it. The verse says, "And beside all this, 
between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from 
hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence".

However, Doctrine and Covenants 138 shows both groups communicating and even crossing 
the gulf between the two places through evangelism and conversion. There appears to be 
no restriction on either communication or travel.
 

On 3/18/2025 at 4:49 PM, InCognitus said:

And given the definitions above, can you explain why you apparently see Mosiah 27:13 (and 2 Thessalonians 2:3), verses referring to the transgressions or apostasy of the people from the church, as being in contradiction to what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18?

I'm unclear on how you think transgression can overthrow the church. The Ensign article 
defines 'church' as 'a group of individuals who repent, come unto Christ through the 
ordinances of the gospel, and endure in faith to the end. Upon them, the adversary has 
no claim.'

The 'transgression' mentioned refers to those who don't come unto Christ and fail to 
endure to the end. It seems that, according to the Ensign's definition of 'church,' 
these individuals can overthrows those who do endure to the end"
 

On 3/18/2025 at 4:49 PM, InCognitus said:

And given that Jesus told Peter in Matthew 16:16-18, that the truth about Christ was revealed to him from heaven by God the Father, and told him that it was on that rock that he would build his church, why would there be any reason to doubt that God could not reestablish his church using revelation at any point in time?

Re-establishing Christ's church implies that the church—whether as a group of people or 
as an organizational structure—was destroyed or ceased to exist.

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Hell (Hades) can have multiple meanings. In this context, I believe the 'gates of hell' 
symbolize its domain. The righteous souls are not suffering in hell but are in the grave. 
The wicked souls, on the other hand, could be seen as suffering in hell while also being 
in the grave.

The August 1993 Ensign article you referenced doesn't focus only on departed souls in 
its interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19. It also mentions living individuals who have 
faith in Christ and repent, as seen in the phrase 'his sons and daughters—now and 
throughout eternity'.

The Ensign article continues ...

"The parable teaches, among other things, that communication between paradise and hell, 
or spirit prison, is restricted because there is 'a great gulf fixed' between the two 
places".

In this case, hell doesn't refer to Hades (the grave) for the righteous.

The idea of restricted communication doesn't seem to fit.

Luke 16:26 suggests that people in paradise and spirit prison can communicate across 
the great gulf, though they can't cross it. The verse says, "And beside all this, 
between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from 
hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence".

However, Doctrine and Covenants 138 shows both groups communicating and even crossing 
the gulf between the two places through evangelism and conversion. There appears to be 
no restriction on either communication or travel.
 

I'm unclear on how you think transgression can overthrow the church. The Ensign article 
defines 'church' as 'a group of individuals who repent, come unto Christ through the 
ordinances of the gospel, and endure in faith to the end. Upon them, the adversary has 
no claim.'

The 'transgression' mentioned refers to those who don't come unto Christ and fail to 
endure to the end. It seems that, according to the Ensign's definition of 'church,' 
these individuals can overthrows those who do endure to the end"
 

Re-establishing Christ's church implies that the church—whether as a group of people or 
as an organizational structure—was destroyed or ceased to exist.

What is the concern with Mosiah 27:13 (see also Mosiah 26:15-39; 3 Nephi 11:39; and 3 Nephi 27), that God established a church more than once in Zarahemla, that He established one in Jerusalem around the same time as the later one in Zarahemla, or that the transgression of His people overthrew one or more of these?

[Stargazer]

On 3/18/2025 at 3:30 PM, JVW said:

I think this is a good question. My initial thought is to rephrase it like "the choices of the devil and his angels can't overthrow it, but the choices of the saints can." ...? Maybe? I've never thought about this question before.

That's exactly what happened in what we call The Great Apostasy.

Nothing new here.

But in a sense, the church was never overthrown. John the Revelator was promised that he could tarry until the Lord came. And so were the Three Nephites. John, being eventually the senior apostle, led the Church of Jesus Christ from the moment Peter was crucified. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

But the "overwhelming numbers" are still against the Church, yet it is allowed to exist.  

I get that Christ's atonement was still in affect.  But if that is all that is important, then why establish a Church today that only has what .02% of the worlds population in it?  What are you expecting that small group of people on earth to do that can't be done by God without them?  Seems like the world got along fine without the Church for almost 2000 years.  

This answer isn't really new to me.  I remember hearing this line of thought since I was a kid.  But now, I am trying to make some sense in what was being taught. 

 

In their foreknowledge our Heavenly Parents understood that the vast majority of their children would be saved through vicarious work done for them. Ponder this interesting verse from Doctrine and Covenants 128:12

  "Herein is glory and honor, and immortality and eternal life—The ordinance of baptism by water, to be immersed therein in order to answer to the likeness of the dead, that one principle might accord with the other; to be immersed in the water and come forth out of the water is in the likeness of the resurrection of the dead in coming forth out of their graves; hence, this ordinance [baptism] was instituted to form a relationship with the ordinance of baptism for the dead, being in likeness of the dead."

** So, to answer your question about what important work this small group of people is doing:

The work for the dead in the Houses of the Lord. **

Edited March 20, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[california boy]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, the Church exists even to bless the numbers against it, and I refute that there are "overwhelming numbers" against it. I took your original comment to refer to the overwhelming numbers that lived on earth without a dispensation of the Gospel and the organization(s) associated with each dispensation, which there are. So, "against" it seems a bit harsh as opposed to "without," "unaware," or otherwise lacking knowledge of or access to the kingdom of heaven on earth due to sheer circumstance. I'm not addressing how unpopular the Church is in your mind.

Why are you still trying to make sense of what you were taught as a child? What did it have to do with your claim that 99.98% of very sensical people are "against" it?

A relatively small group of people are enjoying the Church that God has provided. These will realize that eventual connection between the kingdoms in heaven and on earth. A lot is being done on the other side of the veil as well, so there are probably much, much larger group than meets the eye. The notion that God blesses all His children without inviting or organizing them into His way of life, which involves organization (i.e. a church), doesn't make sense.

Perhaps a review of what constitutes His way of life is in order, and I recommend connecting up with the Church to do that.

Against the Church is probably the wrong word.  I mean 99.98% of the world is not a part of the Church.  

What kind of work are you referring to that is happening on the other side of the veil? Are you talking about teaching people in spiritual prison?  That still doesn't explain why God took His Church on the earth for nearly 2,000 years.  Or why it is important to be a member of such a small group while here on earth when 99.8% of the teaching happens after death.

 

 

[california boy]

6 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I missed this part of your post somehow (it wasn't intentional, I must have been in a hurry)...

As I implied above, it isn't important to God's plan that every person have every detail about his teachings made available to them all at once in every period of time.  God gives mankind what they can handle according to their circumstances at the time, and the circumstances of those people's lives in that day and age weren't very accommodating to being open to further truths.  The truths that they had during the time of the apostasy were sufficient to bring many sincere people to Christ and spread some of the Christian teachings throughout the world in preparation for further teachings that would come later on.  But at the same time there were those who took advantage of the circumstances to put forth false doctrines to confine and control the people.

And yes, there have always been people who sincerely would seek God wanting to know his will, and I believe God directed many people in that way during the period of the apostasy, but it just was not the time and place for a full restoration, that had to come later on when the environment was right.

And again, "allowing His Church to be completely wiped off the face of the earth for 1700 years" doesn't really eliminate the options for the people during that period of time given the preaching of the gospel to those in the spirit world and the temple work that is going for those people now and throughout the Millennium.  It isn't a problem to God's plan and the individual agency of those people given the big picture.

For me. this still doesn't explain why the Church was not needed for almost 2,000 years.  It seems like during that time, many could have benefited from having the Church on earth.  Even if some were not ready for it, I believe there has always been those who would have accepted the Gospel.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

In their foreknowledge our Heavenly Parents understood that the vast majority of their children would be saved through vicarious work done for them. Ponder this interesting verse from Doctrine and Covenants 128:12

  "Herein is glory and honor, and immortality and eternal life—The ordinance of baptism by water, to be immersed therein in order to answer to the likeness of the dead, that one principle might accord with the other; to be immersed in the water and come forth out of the water is in the likeness of the resurrection of the dead in coming forth out of their graves; hence, this ordinance [baptism] was instituted to form a relationship with the ordinance of baptism for the dead, being in likeness of the dead."

** So, to answer your question about what important work this small group of people is doing:

The work for the dead in the Houses of the Lord. **

Would you mind explaining to me why a very important part of that plan requires a physical baptism at all and why it has to be done on earth?  Is there no water in heaven? And if baptism is so important, why can't baptisms take place after the resurrection in heaven?  Why require it to be an earthly ordinance knowing that billions of the children of God would not even have the chance to be baptized while on earth.  

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Would you mind explaining to me why a very important part of that plan requires a physical baptism at all and why it has to be done on earth?  Is there no water in heaven? And if baptism is so important, why can't baptisms take place after the resurrection in heaven?  Why require it to be an earthly ordinance knowing that billions of the children of God would not even have the chance to be baptized while on earth.  

Because, according to whatever laws govern the Plan of Exaltation, baptisms must be performed in the mortal dimension.

 

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, telnetd said:

The Ensign article said, "Some Latter-day Saints may wonder how to respond to people of other 
Christian faiths who find support in Matthew 16:18 for their belief that there would 
never be a general apostasy".

I'm not sure how broad the term 'general apostasy' really is, but we do know that Paul 
mentioned apostasy beginning to take shape.

There was individual apostasy and schisms from the church starting from the beginning.  

There were those who would "walk no more" with Jesus (John 6:66), the early schisms of those of "Apollos" or "Cephas" (etc., 1 Cor 1:11-13), those after Hymenaeus (1 Tim 1:20, 2 Tim 2:17), those after Alexander (1 Tim 1:20), those after Phygellus and Hermogenes (2 Tim 1:15), those after Philetus (2 Tim 2:17), those after Diotrephes (3 John 1:9), and then the Nicolaitans (Rev 2:6, Rev 2:15).  

Consequently, when Paul wrote to the saints at Thessalonica and told them to “be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled… that the day of Christ is at hand” because there must come an apostasy first, it would do little to calm his troubled readers if he was only talking about the same kind of apostasy that they already saw all around them.  He obviously had a general apostasy in mind of a lasting duration, or it would make no sense for him to point out that the impending apostasy was one of the main reasons that the second coming of Christ would not come “soon”.

And yes, Paul taught that the general apostasy was already beginning (2 Thessalonians 2:7).  It was also around this same time period when Paul told the bishops at Ephesus that “after [his] departing” grievous wolves would enter into the church “not sparing the flock”, and the bishops themselves would become corrupt and draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:28-31).  Paul knew the apostasy was coming and that it would be a general apostasy.

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, telnetd said:

Hell (Hades) can have multiple meanings. In this context, I believe the 'gates of hell' 
symbolize its domain. The righteous souls are not suffering in hell but are in the grave. 
The wicked souls, on the other hand, could be seen as suffering in hell while also being 
in the grave.

Right, Hades is for both the wicked and the righteous.  It is the place of the dead.  Even “paradise” is described as part of the realm of Hades:  “the part of Hades which was thought by the later Jews to be the abode of the souls of pious until the resurrection: but some understand this to be a heavenly paradise”

7 hours ago, telnetd said:

The August 1993 Ensign article you referenced doesn't focus only on departed souls in 
its interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19. It also mentions living individuals who have 
faith in Christ and repent, as seen in the phrase 'his sons and daughters—now and 
throughout eternity'.

The part of the article you quote above is included in the definition of what is the “church”, not the part that discusses Hades and the gates of Hades. 

However, everyone ends up in “Hades” (the grave), both the wicked and the righteous, for all must die.

7 hours ago, telnetd said:

The Ensign article continues ...

"The parable teaches, among other things, that communication between paradise and hell, 
or spirit prison, is restricted because there is 'a great gulf fixed' between the two 
places".

In this case, hell doesn't refer to Hades (the grave) for the righteous.

It absolutely does refer to Hades (the grave) for the righteous.  The article is discussing the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-26 at this point.  Both Lazarus and the rich man “died”, and both are in the grave or Hades.  Lazarus was said to have been carried into “Abraham’s bosom”, and the rich man can see Lazarus and Abraham “afar off”.  They are separated, but they are both in the grave.

7 hours ago, telnetd said:

The idea of restricted communication doesn't seem to fit.

Luke 16:26 suggests that people in paradise and spirit prison can communicate across 
the great gulf, though they can't cross it. The verse says, "And beside all this, 
between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from 
hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence".

However, Doctrine and Covenants 138 shows both groups communicating and even crossing 
the gulf between the two places through evangelism and conversion. There appears to be 
no restriction on either communication or travel.

You are missing an essential part of the doctrine.  The “great gulf” was bridged by Jesus Christ only after he went and preached the gospel to the spirits in prison (as mentioned in 1 Peter 3:18-20 and 4:6) while his body was in the tomb, between the time of his death and resurrection.  He is the one that made preaching the gospel to the dead possible, and prior to that time the “gulf” could not be crossed.  And you refer to Doctrine and Covenants 138, but what you say above shows that you haven’t really read it, because it also answers your objection and explains what I said above.

Baptism for the dead and all ordinance work provided to those who have died did not exist at all prior to Christ’s death and resurrection.  He is the one that made that possible.  And the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is depicting the situation of the individuals in the story prior to Christ’s resurrection. 

7 hours ago, telnetd said:

I'm unclear on how you think transgression can overthrow the church. The Ensign article 
defines 'church' as 'a group of individuals who repent, come unto Christ through the 
ordinances of the gospel, and endure in faith to the end. Upon them, the adversary has 
no claim.'

The 'transgression' mentioned refers to those who don't come unto Christ and fail to 
endure to the end. It seems that, according to the Ensign's definition of 'church,' 
these individuals can overthrows those who do endure to the end"

The point of Mosiah 27:13 is that the church can’t be overthrown from without, it can only be broken down from within due to the corruption of the people in the church, and the Book of Mormon proves this out because that was the precise reason for the downfall of the Nephites in the end.  

And, this is exactly the way the apostle Paul described the way the apostasy of Christ’s church would occur after the departure of the apostles:  The bishops would be replaced or become corrupt themselves, leading to false doctrines.

7 hours ago, telnetd said:

Re-establishing Christ's church implies that the church—whether as a group of people or 
as an organizational structure—was destroyed or ceased to exist.

That’s exactly what Paul had in mind when he said the second coming of Christ would not come “soon” because there must be an apostasy first.

You’ll also notice that when Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2:34-44, that it’s not until the very end that God sets up “a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people”.  This implies that prior establishments that were left to another people were “destroyed” in that sense.  It is only the final establishment of God’s kingdom that shall “never be destroyed”.

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

For me. this still doesn't explain why the Church was not needed for almost 2,000 years.  It seems like during that time, many could have benefited from having the Church on earth.  Even if some were not ready for it, I believe there has always been those who would have accepted the Gospel.

I think "not needed" is a mischaracterization.  But how could the church be maintained during that period of time?  How or where would they do temple work or build temples?  How could it continue to exist given the environment that led to the apostasy to begin with? 

[ZealouslyStriving]

I think @california boy's lack of understanding comes from assigning false creedal concepts of God's omnipotence to the true Latter-day Saint system- thus he is asking "Why couldn't God just do it this way?"

Well, because there exists eternal law that our Heavenly Parents could not violate when crafting the Plan of Exaltation and apparently one of those Laws makes it so that baptism must be performed by persons in a mortal state. They can't just snap their fingers and make it different- they are constrained to obey.

 

[CV75]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

Against the Church is probably the wrong word.  I mean 99.98% of the world is not a part of the Church.  

What kind of work are you referring to that is happening on the other side of the veil? Are you talking about teaching people in spiritual prison?  That still doesn't explain why God took His Church on the earth for nearly 2,000 years.  Or why it is important to be a member of such a small group while here on earth when 99.8% of the teaching happens after death.

 

 

There is a lot more work than teaching in the afterlife. The connection between the work there (kingdom in heaven) and the work here (kingdom on earth) is found in the temples, where the steps in the plan of salvation that can only ocurr in the flesh take place for those in both this and the afterlife. It is important for people to be on the earth to perform that work for themselves and others, and it takes relatively few on earth to do that. Moral agency is so important and fundamental to this process that the Lord responded to the human events surrounding the great apostasy (which human events began with the Fall) by withdrawing priesthood authority since the terms and conditions for choosing to use it as intended were lost, and then by restoring it when human events allowed the terms and conditions for its agents, with the standing invitation to participate, no matter how many or few choose to do that. Organization and the vehicle of organization (in this case a church) is important to carry out the plan of salvation and ensure its results. Have you ever been successful accomplishing your dreams by remaining intentionally disorganized?

[california boy]

11 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Because, according to whatever laws govern the Plan of Exaltation, baptisms must be performed in the mortal dimension.

 

So no one knows any logical or spriritual reason for this law??  That is interesting.

[california boy]

9 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I think "not needed" is a mischaracterization.  But how could the church be maintained during that period of time?  How or where would they do temple work or build temples?  How could it continue to exist given the environment that led to the apostasy to begin with? 

Are you suggesting that there was no place on earth for almost 2,000 years where it would be impossible for the Church to exist?? 

When you read about the great lengths God has protected His people in the past, like in leading the Israelites out of bondage from Egypt, I find that hard to believe.  Is it your position that God would do nothing to protect His people?  Because there are many stories where God stepped in to safeguard His people. Think of Joshua for example blowing horns to cause the walls to come down.  Or the story of David and Goliath, or Gideon.

And then there is the Catholic Church that managed to survive in the face of a lot of persecution and conflict.  How were they able to do that?  

As far as temple ordinances, we know that they don't have to be performed in an actual temple if they were unavailable.

[california boy]

9 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I think @california boy's lack of understanding comes from assigning false creedal concepts of God's omnipotence to the true Latter-day Saint system- thus he is asking "Why couldn't God just do it this way?"

Well, because there exists eternal law that our Heavenly Parents could not violate when crafting the Plan of Exaltation and apparently one of those Laws makes it so that baptism must be performed by persons in a mortal state. They can't just snap their fingers and make it different- they are constrained to obey.

 

So baptism was not something instituted by God?

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

So no one knows any logical or spriritual reason for this law??  That is interesting.

I was unaware that we have to know the how or why of eternal law in order for it to be eternal law. 

There is a lot about the physical sciences we don't know- does that disqualify it as a real thing?

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

So baptism was not something instituted by God?

Huh? Of course it was, in order to fulfill a necessary Eternal Law that informed the Plan of Exaltation.

[california boy]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Huh? Of course it was, in order to fulfill a necessary Eternal Law that informed the Plan of Exaltation.

I am trying to understand what your beliefs are.  Are you saying that God instituted baptism, but has no control over how it is done?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

So no one knows any logical or spriritual reason for this law??  That is interesting.

We are not always told the reasons for a commandment before we fulfill them.  Best not to invent reasons for it (speculation can be fun, but it should never be presented as the answer).

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I am trying to understand what your beliefs are.  Are you saying that God instituted baptism, but has no control over how it is done?

No.

Our Heavenly Parents made baptism a necessary element of the Plan of Exaltation because, according to Eternal Law which they are bound to obey, they had to.

(I believe I am being clear, I don't understand your confusion.)

[InCognitus]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Are you suggesting that there was no place on earth for almost 2,000 years where it would be impossible for the Church to exist?? 

Actually, that was my question to you.  Where in the world and what other period of time could God have set up his church to send missionaries to all the world, build temples, and be the headquarters of a world wide church?  Where could that have happened between 90 AD and 1830 and have it be preserved with same organization and teachings he intended up to the present time?  It’s an honest question. 

11 hours ago, california boy said:

When you read about the great lengths God has protected His people in the past, like in leading the Israelites out of bondage from Egypt, I find that hard to believe.  Is it your position that God would do nothing to protect His people?  Because there are many stories where God stepped in to safeguard His people. Think of Joshua for example blowing horns to cause the walls to come down.  Or the story of David and Goliath, or Gideon.

But all the examples you provided above are from when God was recovering His people and when they were trusting in direction from Him rather than following after their own whims. 

And your example of the Israelites fits your question perfectly, because it provides us some very good examples for comparison.  God called Moses as a prophet to gather the house of Israel after they had been in bondage for over 400 years. Why the 400 years?  Why not sooner?  And Moses led them out of bondage and to Mount Sinai (essentially the temple) where God gave them a covenant, a covenant that they promptly broke, resulting in God giving them a lesser covenant more fitting to their circumstances.  God led them into their promised land and also promised them great blessings if they would keep their covenant, but he also told them they would be scattered among the nations if they broke their covenants. 

And I think you know what happened to them a few hundred years after that:  The ten northern tribes became rebellious and were scattered among the nations, and then (another few hundred years later) the remaining tribes rejected Jesus as the Messiah and they were scattered among the nations.

In Luke chapter 21, when the disciples asked Jesus about the timing of the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, Jesus prophesied of the destruction of the temple and of the scattering of the Jews and even foretold how long it would last: 

“And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.  Then let them which are in Judæa flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.  For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.  But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.  And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”  (Luke 21:20–24)

So according to Jesus, all of the Israelites would be scattered and Jerusalem would be “trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

How long has Jerusalem been trodden down by the Gentiles?  The Jewish Virtual Library website has a timeline that summarizes the history quite well:  History of Jerusalem: Timeline for the History of Jerusalem

The timeline shows that during the “Roman Period (70 – 324 CE)” that Roman forces destroyed Jerusalem and demolished the second temple in 70 CE.  And it’s not until the bottom of the summary in the “Reunification (1967-Present)” section that it says Israel captured Jerusalem’s Old City and the Eastern half and reunites the city in 1967.

From 70 AD to 1967, that’s a total of 1,897 years from the time Jerusalem was destroyed and “trodden down by the Gentiles” until it was reoccupied in 1967.  And add to that another 700+ years for the time the northern tribes of Israel were scattered among the nations. That's a very long time.  And (as Jesus prophesied) Israel would remain in that scattered state at least until Jerusalem was no longer trodden down by the Gentiles.  And Israel is being gathered again now as part of the restoration.

Now, you gave examples of God protecting his people.  But how do you explain the prophecy of Luke 21:20-24 and the roughly 1,897 years that Israel would be in apostasy and scattered among the nations before God would begin to restore them again?

I see this as a direct parallel to the roughly 1,700-year period of apostasy of Christ’s church that we have been discussing. 

So why would God leave Christ's church and the house of Israel in this fallen state for such a long period of time?  I believe it's because of the reasons I gave you before, the overall plan of salvation includes the preaching the gospel to the dead and provides a way to recover all of those individuals in all periods of time.  God looks at the big picture, and judges each individual according to the light and truth they are given in whatever period of time they live in.

11 hours ago, california boy said:

And then there is the Catholic Church that managed to survive in the face of a lot of persecution and conflict.  How were they able to do that?  

Your question above hits to the very heart of the survival problem and also at the very cause of the “captivity” that prevented freedom of belief and the pursuit of truth, because it was the same controlling governmental forces that persecuted Christianity that later adopted it as a means of perpetuating their power and control over the people. 

In 325 AD at the first Nicene Council, the Roman emperor Constantine was the one who insisted that a specific word be inserted into the creed that later redefined the oneness of God, as a way of supposedly unifying Christianity (the word is now the core of the doctrine of the Trinity, it is the word (homoousious) that defines the three persons as one substance or one being). 

And then on November 27, 380 AD, Theodosius I (the Roman emperor from 379 to 395), Gratian (the emperor of the Western Roman Empire from 367 to 383) and Valentinian II (the Roman emperor in the western part of the Roman Empire between AD 375 and 392), published the "Edict of Thessalonica", whereby they ordered that all their subjects should profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, threatening both divine punishment and imperial retribution for those who rejected the Nicene creed. 

So, the “true faith” became a matter for the state, and those who opposed it were executed.  That’s how they survived.

11 hours ago, california boy said:

As far as temple ordinances, we know that they don't have to be performed in an actual temple if they were unavailable.

Right, in the beginning and in dire times.  And that’s how it worked in early Christianity and in the early days of the restoration.  But how could that be perpetuated throughout the world in the environment I described immediately above?