THE GREAT APOSTASY Chapt. 8 - INTERNAL CAUSES, CONTINUED.

1. As one of the effective causes leading to the apostasy of the Primitive Church we have specified: Unauthorized additions to the ceremonies of the church, and the introduction of vital changes in essential ordinances.

2. The ridicule heaped upon the early Church by the pagans on account of the simplicity of Christian worship has already received mention. This cause of reproach was none the less emphasized by Judaistic critics, to whom ritual and ceremony, formalism and prescribed rites, figured as essentials of religion. Very early in its history, the Church manifested a tendency to supplant the pristine simplicity of its worship by elaborate ceremonies, patterned after Judaistic ritual and heathen idolatries.

3. As to such innovations, Mosheim writes as follows, with reference to conditions existing in the second century: "There is no institution so pure and excellent which the corruption and folly of man will not in time alter for the worse, and load with additions foreign to its nature and original design. Such in a particular manner was the fate of Christianity. In this century many unnecessary rites and ceremonies were added to the Christian worship, the introduction of which was extremely offensive to wise and good men. These changes, while they destroyed the beautiful simplicity of the gospel, were naturally pleasing to the gross multitude, who are more delighted with the pomp and splendor of external institutions than with the native charms of rational and solid piety, and who generally give little attention to any objects but those which strike their outward senses."* The author just cited explains that the bishops of that day increased the ceremonies and sought to give them splendor "by way of accommodation to the infirmities and prejudices of both Jews and heathen."**

4. To more effectually reconcile the gospel requirements with Jewish prejudice, which still clung to the letter of the Mosaic law, the officers of the Church in the first and second centuries took to themselves the ancient titles; thus, bishops styled themselves chief priests, and deacons, Levites. "In like manner," says Mosheim, "the comparison of the Christian oblation with the Jewish victim and sacrifice, produced a multitude of unnecessary rites, and was the occasion of introducing that erroneous notion of the eucharist, which represents it as a real sacrifice, and not merely as a commemoration of that great offering that was once made upon the cross for the sins of mortals."*

5. In the fourth century we find the Church still more hopelessly committed to formalism and superstition. The decent respect with which the remains of the early martyrs had been honored degenerated or grew into a superstitious reverence amounting to worship. This practice was allowed in deference to the heathen adoration paid to deified heroes. Pilgrimages to the tombs of martyrs became common as an outward form of religious devotion; and the ashes of martyrs as well as dust and earth brought from places said to have been made holy by some uncommon occurrences were sold as sovereign remedies against disease and as means of protection against the assaults of malignant spirits.

6. The form of public worship was so changed during the second and third centuries as to bear little resemblance to the simplicity and earnestness of that of the early congregations. Philosophic discourses took the place of fervent testimony bearing, and the arts of the rhetorician and controversial debater supplanted the true eloquence of religious conviction. Applause was allowed and expected as evidence of the preacher's popularity. The burning of incense, at first abhorred by Christian assemblies because of its pagan origin and heathen significance, had become common in the Church before the end of the third century.

7. In the fourth century the adoration of images, pictures, and effigies, had been given a place in the so-called Christian worship; and the practice became general in the century following. An effort to check the abuses arising from this idolatrous practice in the eighth century, actually led to civil war.*

8. In considering such evidences of pagan ceremonial and superstitious rites taking the place of the simple procedure incident to genuine worship characteristic of the Church in the days of its integrity, who can question the solemn and awful fact of actual apostasy?* But more important yet, more significant still than mere additions to the ritualistic ceremonial, are the perversions and changes introduced into the most sacred and essential ordinances of Christ's Church. As it is common with ecclesiastical authorities to consider the most essential ordinances of the gospel originally established by Christ and maintained by His apostles, as comprising baptism and the sacrament of the Lord's supper, we shall examine into these alone as examples of the unauthorized alterations now under consideration. In this restriction of our illustrative examples we do not admit that baptism and the sacrament named were the only ordinances characterizing the Church; indeed, there is abundant proof to the contrary. Thus, the authoritative imposition of hands for the bestowal of the Holy Ghost in the case of baptized believers was equally essential with baptism itself,** and was assuredly regarded as a vital ordinance from the first.*** Furthermore, ordination in the priesthood, whereby men were commissioned by divine authority, was indispensable to the maintenance of an organized Church. The examples selected, however, will be sufficient for the purposes of our present inquiry.

*See Note 2, end of chapter. **See Acts 8:5-8, 12, 14-17; also 19:1-7; see also 2:38; Matt. 3:11; and Mark 1:8. ***See Matt. 3:11.

9. First, then, as to baptism, -- in what did the ordinance originally consist, as to purpose and mode of administration, and what changes did it undergo in the course of progressive apostasy through which the Church passed? That baptism is essential to salvation calls for no demonstration here; this has been generally held by the Christian Church in both ancient and modern times.* The purpose of baptism was and is the obtaining of a remission of sins; compliance with the requirement has been from the first the sole means of securing admission to the Church of Christ.**

*For a concise treatment of this subject see the author's "Articles of Faith," Lecture 6:8-29. **See Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3; also Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21; and Acts 22:16. Compared 2 Nephi 31:17.

10. In the early Church, baptism was administered on profession of faith and evidence of repentance, and was performed by immersion* at the hands of one invested with the requisite authority of priesthood. There was no delay in administering the ordinance after the eligibility of the candidate had been shown. As instances we may cite the promptness with which baptism was administered to the believers on that eventful day of Pentecost;** the baptism administered by Philip to the Ethiopian convert immediately following due profession of faith;*** the undelayed baptism of devout Cornelius and his family;**** and the speedy baptism of the converted jailor by Paul, his prisoner."*****

*See Note 3, end of chapter. **Acts 2:37-41. ***Acts 8:26-39. ****Acts 10:47, 48. *****Acts 16:31-33.

11. In the second century, however, priestly mandate had restricted the baptismal ordinance to the times of the two Church festivals, Easter and Whitsuntide, the first being the anniversary of Christ's resurrection, and the second the time of Pentecostal celebration. A long and tedious course of preparation was required of the candidate before his eligibility was admitted; during this time he was known as a catechumen, or novice in training. According to some authorities a three years' course of preparation was required in all but exceptional cases.*

12. During the second century the baptismal symbolism of a new birth was emphasized by many additions to the ordinance; thus the newly baptized were treated as infants and were fed milk and honey in token of their immaturity. As baptism was construed to be a ceremony of liberation from the slavery of Satan, certain formulas used in the freeing of slaves were added. Anointing with oil was also made a part of the ceremony. In the third century the simple ordinance of baptism was further encumbered and perverted by the ministrations of an exorcist. This official indulged in "menacing and formidable shouts and declamation" whereby the demons or evil spirits with which the candidate was supposed to be afflicted were to be driven away. "The driving out this demon was now considered as an essential preparation for baptism, after the administration of which the candidates returned home, adorned with crowns, and arrayed in white garments, as sacred emblems, -- the former of their victory over sin and the world; the latter of their inward purity and innocence."* It is not difficult to see in this superstitious ceremony the evidence of pagan adulteration of the Christian religion. In the fourth century it became the practice to place salt in the mouth of the newly baptized member, as a symbol of purification, and the actual baptism was both preceded and followed by an anointing with oil.

13. The form or mode of baptism also underwent a radical change during the first half of the third century, -- a change whereby its essential symbolism was destroyed. Immersion,* typifying death followed by resurrection, was no longer deemed an essential feature, and sprinkling with water was allowed in place thereof. No less an authority than Cyprian, the learned bishop of Carthage, advocated the propriety of sprinkling in lieu of immersion in cases of physical weakness; and the practice thus started, later became general. The first instance of record is that of Novatus, a heretic who requested baptism when he thought death was near.**

*See Note 3, end of chapter. **As to the scriptural doctrine of baptism, the mode of its administration and the symbolism thereof, see the author's "Articles of Faith," Lecture 7.

14. Not only was the form of the baptismal rite radically changed, but the application of the ordinance was perverted. The practice of administering baptism to infants was recognized as orthodox in the third century and was doubtless of earlier origin. In a prolonged disputation as to whether it was safe to postpone the baptism of infants until the eighth day after birth -- in deference to the Jewish custom of performing circumcision on that day -- it was gravely decided that such delay would be dangerous, as jeopardizing the future well-being of the child should it die before attaining the age of eight days, and that baptism ought to be administered as soon after birth as possible.* A more infamous doctrine than that of the condemnation of un- baptized infants can scarcely be imagined, and a stronger proof of the heresies that had invaded and corrupted the early Church need not be sought. Such a doctrine is foreign to the gospel and to the Church of Christ, and its adoption as an essential tenet is proof of apostasy.**

*See Milner, "Church History," Cent. 3; ch. 13. **For a discussion of infant baptism, see the author's "Articles of Faith," Lecture 6. See Note 4, end of chapter.

15. The sacrament of the Lord's Supper has been regarded as an essential ordinance from the time of its establishment in the Church by Jesus Christ. Yet in spite of its sanctity it has undergone radical alteration both as to its symbolism and its accepted purpose. The sacrament, as instituted by the Savior and as administered during the days of the apostolic ministry, was as simple as it was sacred and solemn. Accompanied by the true spirit of the gospel its simplicity was sanctifying; as interpreted by the spirit of apostasy its simplicity became a reproach. Hence we find that in the third century, long sacramental prayers were prescribed, and much pomp was introduced. Vessels of gold and silver were used by such congregations as could afford them, and this with ostentatious display. Non-members and members "who were in a penitential state" were excluded from the sacramental service -- in imitation of the exclusiveness accompanying heathen mysteries. Disputation and dissension arose as to the proper time of administering the sacrament -- morning, noon, or evening; and as to the frequency with which the ordinance should be celebrated.*

16. At a later date the doctrine of Transubstantiation was established as an essential tenet of the Roman Church. This briefly summarized, is to the effect that the species, i.e., the bread and wine used in the sacrament, lose their character as mere bread and wine, and become in fact the flesh and blood of the crucified Christ. The transmutation is assumed to take place in such a mystical way as to delude the senses; and so, though actual flesh and actual blood, the elements still appear to be bread and wine. This view, so strongly defended and earnestly reverenced by orthodox members of the Roman Church, is vehemently denounced by others as "an absurd tenet,"* and a "monstrous and unnatural doctrine."**

17. There has been much discussion as to the origin of this doctrine,* the Roman Catholics claiming for it a great antiquity, while their opponents insist that it was an innovation of the eighth or ninth century.** According to Milner it was openly taught in the ninth century was formally established as a dogma of the Church by the Council of Placentia AD 1095,*** and was made an essential article of creed, belief in which was required of all, by action of the Roman ecclesiastical court about 1160. An official edict of the pope, Innocent III, confirmed the dogma as a binding tenet and requirement of the Church in 1215**** and it remains practically in force in the Roman Catholic Church today. The doctrine was adopted by the Greek Church in the seventeenth century.*****

*See Note 6, end of chapter. **Milner, "Church History," Cent. 9, ch. 1. ***The same, Cent 13, ch. 1. ****Mosheim, "Eccl. Hist.," Cent. 13, Part 2, ch. 3:2. *****The same, Cent. 17, Part 2, ch. 2:3.

18. The consecrated emblems, or "host," being regarded as the actual flesh and blood of Christ, were adored as of themselves divine. Thus, "a very pernicious practice of idolatry was connected with the reception of this doctrine. Men fell down before the consecrated host, and worshiped it as God; and the novelty, absurdity, and impiety of this abomination very much struck the minds of all men who were not dead to a sense of true religion."* The "elevation of the host," i.e., the presentation of the consecrated emblems before the congregation for adoration, is a feature of the present day ritual of worship in the Roman Catholic Church. The celebration of the mass is taught to be an actual though mystic sacrifice, in which the Son of God is daily offered up anew as a constantly recurring atonement for the present sins of the assembled worshipers. A further perversion of the sacrament occurred in the administration of bread alone, instead of both bread and wine as originally required.

19. Thus was the plain purpose and assured efficacy of the sacrament hidden beneath a cloud of mystery and ceremonial display. Contrast such with the solemn simplicity of the ordinance as instituted by our Lord -- He took bread and wine, blessed them and gave to His disciples and said, "This do in remembrance of me."* Of the bread He said, "This is my body;" of the wine, "This is my blood;" yet at that time His body was unpierced, His blood was unshed. The disciples ate bread, not flesh of a living man, and drank wine, not blood; and this they were commanded to do in remembrance of Christ.** The perversion of the sacrament is evidence of departure from the spirit of the gospel of Christ, and when made an essential dogma of a church is proof of the apostate condition of that church.

*Luke 22:19, 20; compare Matt. 26:27, 28. **For a general treatment of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, see the author's "Articles of Faith," Lecture 9.

20. Behold, "they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant."*

1. CEREMONIES ADDED AS A COMPROMISE. "Both Jews and heathens were accustomed to a vast variety of pompous and magnificent ceremonies in their religious service. And as they considered these rites as an essential part of religion, it was but natural that they should behold with indifference, and even with contempt, the simplicity of the Christian worship, which was destitute of those idle ceremonies that rendered their service so specious and striking. To remove then, in some measure, this prejudice against Christianity, the bishops thought it necessary to increase the number of rites and ceremonies, and thus to render the public worship more striking to the outward senses. This addition of external rites was also designed to remove the opprobrious calumnies which the Jewish and pagan priests cast upon the Christians on account of the simplicity of their worship, esteeming them little better than atheists, because they had no temples, altars, victims, priests, nor anything of that external pomp in which the vulgar are so prone to place the essence of religion. The rulers of the Church adopted, therefore, certain external ceremonies, that thus they might captivate the senses of the vulgar, and be able to refute the reproaches of their adversaries." (Mosheim, "Ecclesiastical History," Cent. 2, Part 2, Ch. 4:2,3.)

A note appended to the foregoing excerpt by the translator, Dr. Archibald Maclaine, reads as follows:

"A remarkable passage in the life of Gregory, surnamed Thaumaturgus, i.e., the wonder worker, will illustrate this point in the clearest manner. The passage is as follows: `When Gregory perceived that the ignorant multitude persisted in their idolatry, on account of the pleasures and sensual gratifications which they enjoyed at the pagan festivals, he granted them a permission to indulge themselves in the like pleasures, in celebrating the memory of the holy martyrs, hoping that in process of time, they would return of their own accord to a more virtuous and regular course of life.' There is no sort of doubt, but that by this permission, Gregory allowed the Christians to dance, sport, and feast at the tombs of the martyrs upon their respective festivals, and to do everything which the pagans were accustomed to do in their temples during the feasts celebrated in honor of their gods."

The Gregory referred to in the note last quoted flourished about the middle of the third century. He acquired the title Thaumaturgus from his fame as a worker of miracles, the genuineness of which achievements is disputed by many authorities. He was bishop of New Caesarea, and a man of great influence in the Church. His sanction of ceremonies, patterned after pagan rites, was doubtless of far -- reaching effect.

2. CHURCH CEREMONIAL IN THE FIFTH CENTURY. "The sublime and simple theology of the primitive Christians was gradually corrupted, and the Monarchy of heaven, already clouded by metaphysical subtleties, was degraded by the introduction of a popular mythology, which tended to restore the reign of polytheism. As the objects of religion were gradually reduced to the standard of the imagination, the rites and ceremonies were introduced that seemed most powerfully to affect the senses of the vulgar. If, in the beginning of the fifth century, Tertullian or Lactantius had been suddenly raised from the dead, to assist at the festival of some popular saint or martyr, they would have gazed with astonishment and indignation on the profane spectacle, which had succeeded to the pure and spiritual worship of a Christian congregation. As soon as the doors of the Church were thrown open they must have been offended by the smoke of incense, the perfume of flowers, and the glare of lamps and tapers, which diffused, at noonday, a gaudy, superfluous, and, in their opinion a sacrilegious light. If they approached the balustrade of the altar, they made their way through the prostrate crowd, consisting for the most part, of strangers and pilgrims, who resorted to the city on the vigil of the feast; and who already felt the strong intoxication of fanaticism, and perhaps of wine. Their devout kisses were imprinted on the walls and pavements of the sacred edifice; and their fervent prayers were directed, whatever might be the language of their church, to the bones, the blood, or the ashes of the saints, which were usually concealed by a linen or silken veil from the eyes of the vulgar. The Christians frequented the tombs of the martyrs, in the hope of obtaining, from their powerful intercession, every sort of spiritual, but more especially of temporal blessings. ... The same uniform original spirit of superstition might suggest, in the most distant ages and countries, the same methods of deceiving the credulity, and of affecting the services, of mankind; but it must ingeniously be confessed that the ministers of the Catholic Church imitated the profane model which they were impatient to destroy. The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstitions of Paganism, if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity. The religion of Constantine achieved, in less than a century, the final conquest of the Roman empire; but the victors themselves were insensibly subdued by the arts of their vanquished rivals." (Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Ch. 28.)

3. EARLY FORM OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. History furnishes ample proof that in the first century after the death of Christ, baptism was administered solely by immersion. Tertullian thus refers to the immersion ceremony common in his day: "There is no difference whether one is washed in a sea or in a pool, in a river or in a fountain, in a lake or in a channel; nor is there any difference between those whom John dipped in Jordan, and those whom Peter dipped in the Tiber. ... We are immersed in the water."

Justin Martyr describes the ceremony as practiced by himself. First describing the preparatory examination of the candidate, he proceeds: "After that they are led by us to where there is water, and are born again in that kind of new birth by which we ourselves were born again. For in the name of God, the Father and Lord of all, and of Jesus Christ, our Savior, and of the Holy Spirit, the immersion in water is performed; because the Christ hath also said, `Except a man be born again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.'"

Bishop Bennet says concerning the practices of the early Christians: "They led them into the water and laid them down in the water as a man is laid in a grave; and then they said those words, `I baptize (or wash) thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost;' then they raised them up again, and clean garments were put on them; from whence came the phrases of being baptized into Christ's death, of being buried with Him by baptism into death, of our being risen with Christ, and of our putting on the Lord Jesus Christ, of putting off the old man, and putting on the new."

"That the apostles immersed whom they baptized there is no doubt. ... And that the ancient church followed their example is very clearly evinced by innumerable testimonies of the fathers." (Vossius.)

"Burying as it were the person baptized in the Water, and raising him out again, without question was anciently the more usual method." (Archbishop Secker.)

"`Immersion' Was the usual method in which baptism was administered in the early Church. ... Immersion was undoubtedly a common mode of administering baptism, and was not discontinued when infant baptism prevailed. ... Sprinkling gradually took the place of immersion without any formal renunciation of the latter." (Canon Farrar.)

4. HISTORICAL NOTES ON INFANT BAPTISM. "The baptism of infants, in the first two centuries after Christ, was altogether unknown. ... The custom of baptizing infants did not begin before the third age after Christ was born. In the former ages no trace of it appears; and it was introduced without the command of Christ." (Curcullaeus.)

"It is certain that Christ did not ordain infant baptism. ... We cannot prove that the apostles ordained infant baptism. From those places where baptism of a whole family is mentioned (as in Acts 16:33; I Cor. 1:16) we can draw no such conclusion, because the inquiry is still to be made, whether there were any children in the families of such an age that they were not capable of any intelligent reception of Christianity; for this is the only point on which the case turns. ... As baptism was closely united with a conscious entrance on Christian communion, faith and baptism were always connected with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable that baptism was performed only in instances where both could meet together, and that the practice of infant baptism was unknown at this (the apostolic) period. ... That not till so late a period as (at least certainly not earlier than) Irenaeus, a trace of infant baptism appears; and that it first became recognized as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostolic origin." (Johann Neander, a German theologian who flourished in the first half of the nineteenth century.)

"Let them therefore come when they are grown up -- when they can understand - - when they are taught whither they are to come. Let them become Christians when they can know Christ." (Tertullian, one of the Latin "Christian Fathers"; he lived from 150 to 220 AD) Tertullian's almost violent opposition to the practice of pedobaptism is cited by Neander as "a proof that it was then not usually considered an apostolic ordinance; for in that case he would hardly have ventured to speak so strongly against it."

Martin Luther, writing in the early part of the sixteenth century, declared: "It cannot be proven by the sacred scriptures that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles."

"By tekna the Apostle understands, not infants, but posterity; in which signification the word occurs in many places of the New Testament (see among others John 8:39); whence it appears that the argument which is very commonly taken from this passage for the baptism of infants, is of no force, and good for nothing." (Limborch, a native of Holland, and a theologian of repute; he lived 1633-1712.)

5. SUMMARY OR CHANGES IN THE SACRAMENT AS AN ORDINANCE. "Errors concerning the sacrament, and its signification, and the manner of administering it, grew rapidly in the professed Christian churches during the early centuries of the Christian era. As soon as the power of the priesthood had departed, much disputation arose in matters of ordinance, and the observance of the sacrament became distorted. Theological teachers strove to foster the idea that there was much mystery attending this naturally simple and most impressive ordinance; that all who were not in full communion with the Church should be excluded, nut only from participation in the ordinance, which was justifiable, but from the privilege of witnessing the service, lest they profane the mystic rite by their unhallowed presence. Then arose the heresy of transubstantiation, -- which held that the sacramental emblems by the ceremony of consecration lost their natural character of simple bread and Wine, and became in reality flesh and blood, -- actually parts of the crucified body of Christ. Arguments against such dogmas is useless. Then followed the veneration of the emblems by the people, the bread and wine -- regarded as part of Christ's tabernacle, being elevated in the mass for the adoration of the people; and later, the custom of suppressing half of the sacrament was introduced. By the innovation last mentioned, only the bread was administered, the dogmatic assertion being that both the body and the blood were represented in some mystical way in one of the "elements." Certain it is, that Christ required his disciples to both eat and drink in remembrance of Him." (The Author, "Articles of Faith," Lecture 9, Note 4.)

6. AS TO THE ANTIQUITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.. As stated in the text, the date of origin of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation has beeh much debated. The following summary is instructive. "Protestants combatting the Catholic idea of the real presence of the flesh and blood in the eucharist -- transubstantiation have endeavored to prove that this doctrine was not of earlier origin than the eighth century. In this, however, the evidence is against them. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, writing early in the second century says of certain supposed heretics: `They do not admit of eucharists and oblations, because they do not believe the eucharist to be the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, who suffered for our sins.' (Epistles of Ignatius to the Smyrneans.) So Justin Martyr, also writing in the first half of the second century: `We do not receive them [the bread and the wine] as ordinary food or ordinary drink, but as by the word of God, Jesus Christ, our Savior, was made flesh and took upon him both flesh and blood for our salvation, so also the food which was blessed by the prayer of the word which proceeded from him, and from which our flesh and blood, by transmutation, receive nourishment, is, we are taught, both the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.' (Justin's Apology to Emperor Antoninus.) After Justin's time the testimony of the fathers is abundant. There can be no doubt as to the antiquity of the idea of the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus in the eucharist; but that proves -- as we said of infant baptism -- not that the doctrine is true, but that soon after the apostles had passed away, the simplicity of the gospel was corrupted or else entirely departed from." (B. H. Roberts, "Outlines of Ecclesiastical History," p. 133.)

Is this supposed to be “open,” “ecumenic,” or “caucus”?

will that change the whining level or the speed in which the button is hit ?

....mmmmm

nope

for we are swine to be hosed with the glorious wisdom that is mormonism

Is this supposed to be “open,” “ecumenic,” or “caucus”?

Looks open to me.

Have at it.

Ping your pals.

If you are not a Mormon, you are an apostate.

As one of the effective causes leading to the apostasy of the Primitive Church we have specified: Unauthorized additions to the ceremonies of the church, and the introduction of vital changes in essential ordinances.

You mean like when the Mormon Church added stuff like this:

re: Posts 8 & 9.

I thought that on open threads it is those who push the abuse button who are the ones considered the disruptors. I pointed out with a couple of pictures the utter hypocrisy of the Author in criticizing the Early Church and accusing the church of apostasy for bringing in elaborate rituals and my posts were pulled.

A picture can say a thousand words. Yet there are some pictures which are not allowed even on open threads because they show what some consider to be "Sacred Temple Rites".

So it is ok to condemn the Catholic Church and the early church for some of their public rituals, but it is not OK to show the secret Mormon rituals, especially where the poster is a Mormon and the article is one which claims that the Catholic Church went into early apostasy because of some of the rituals which they supposedly added to the worship?

Is there a rule that on Open Threads, you can't post a picture of some secret ceremony? Or is it because the Mormon Temple Ritual so much resembles the Masonic Temple Ritual that it is not subject to the same rules that apply to every other religion on Free Republic?

Was the abuse button pushed, or was this an editorial decision by the Mods?

As usual, an uncomfortable issue is sidestepped. The LDS ritual is real.

****

Not really because the way those things are portrayed is by x Mormons and anti’s they who snuck into the Temple and took their own photos.

There are no cameras allowed in the temple once it is dedicated to the Lord!

No where in the Bible would you read at anytime that Lord would allow such activities to violate sneaking in and taking illigal things that don’t belong to those who did this it was a wicked act.

You don’t violate the covenant to preserve the covenant!

When Jesus was on the earth he taught those who were teachable able to receive the Purpose Jesus was here.

He also encounter anti’s in his time {just like today the LDS have to deal with them) who tried to trip him up as well as his annoited.

The anti’s today are nothing new they are always the disrupters and law breakers etc.

Not really because the way those things are portrayed is by x Mormons and anti’s they who snuck into the Temple and took their own photos.

There are no cameras allowed in the temple once it is dedicated to the Lord!

so you would have us believe that people committed a crime in order to enter a locked temple just to take a picture ?

sorry resty - I visited palmyra before it was dedicated - theres a gated 8ft fence surrounding the entire compound

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.