How do the Mormons do it?

[Stephen168]

explain the language of reformed egyptian.

It seems to be an invention from the mind of Joseph Smith. I can only find “Reformed Egyptian” in reference to Mormonism.

 

[Naf623]

This thread is about how is it possible for Mormons to believe all the anti-factual (not based on science or history) aspects of their faith. As we have learned; they must claim the anti-factual parts of their faith are not subject to history even though it is contrary to the claims of Joseph Smith. Therefore Mormonism is a total fabrication from the mind Joseph Smith and is without defense. Because Mormons cannot defend this fabrication which claims to be true in another dimension, they must make up strawman attacks on the Catholic Church. This is why almost all discussions of Mormonism turn into a discussion of the Catholic Church. Mormons hope to come here to explain their religion without question, but it never happens. When we question them…the strawman arrives.

The “reason for this discussion of the translation of the bible” is so Mormons will not have to defend the fiction of Mormonism.

We have nothing to defend; others’ refusal to accept our beliefs, and attempts to belittle them do not diminish our faith. There is zero evidence that contradicts anything about the Book of Mormon, and so nothing to defend.
Equally I could suggest that the idea of The Trinity is a complete fabrication of those at the Council of Nicaea, as there is zero historical or scientific evidence for it (and biblical evidence to the contrary).
Or the contradictory concepts that an unchangeable God changed into a man, and then died while being immortal…?

 

[Naf623]

Juan Pablo Bonet

Believe it or not, I do know what sign language is. I’m studying it at present, thanks.
Hardly oral though is it? I only brought it in in response to people’s semantics about people reading the word for themselves,when the meaning that these things just needed to be available to them in a manner they could comprehend the original text was clear and has been clearly stated multiple times.

 

[Telstar]

From around the 3rd century or so, yes.

Wrong.

An interesting concept. Wrong. But interesting.
The scriptural context for this?

Do you have a Bible reference that proves that we all existed in Heaven before we were born? I didn’t think so.

They have been, but clearly by the fact you believe they exist, not every mention of them is used as this similie…

I never said it was, but sometimes you have to depend on 2000 years of teaching and Tradition to understand it, or you’ll probably end up totally confused.

Wrong again.

Then, where are the angels in the preexistence, and what was Lucifer? As far as I understand the LDS teaching, he was the brother of Jesus and all the rest of the ‘children of god’ in the ‘preexistence’, at least according to Joseph Smith. All ‘angels’ were destined to become human beings at some point in time. Even Moroni was once a man living on the earth, who somehow turned back into an ‘angel’ when he died. Right? Unless you can provide something from LDS scripture or doctrine to say otherwise, I rest my case.

It is a term sometimes used to indicate Jesus Christ, but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and it simply refers to what it says; God’s Gospel teachings.

No, it is a fact that Jesus has always been the Word of God that was promised to bring salvation to the world. The writings of the Bible are usually referred to as the ‘word of God’, without capitalization. If ‘Word’ is capitalized, it always refers to Jesus Christ.

If it only referred to apostasy of a few, then those seeking it would find it elsewhere. The scripture says that even those dilligently seeking it do not find it. The only reason could be that it is not on the earth, and therefore this must be after the time of Christ as the Law of Moses was still in force when Jesus came to fulfill it. Either this has not happened yet, and so all churches, Catholic included will fail (or already have - more likely if your church never changes as you say); or it has already happened and so no church claiming perfect mortal apostolic succession can possibly be true.

Well, I was actually just speculating. I think we’ve had this same conversation about that passage, before. It has nothing to do with any ‘apostasy’ of the Church. I went back and reread it to remember what it was actually about. I believe it refers to the desolation of Israel, and their being separated and abandoned by the Word of God, when they rejected Jesus as the true Messiah.[2] And he said: What seest thou, Amos? And I said: A hook to draw down fruit. And the Lord said to me: The end is come upon my people Israel: I will not again pass by them any more. [3] And the hinges of the temple shall screak in that day, saith the Lord God: many shall die: silence shall be cast in every place.

I have not suggested intentional changes of doctrine or wrong teachings/translation by the priests. Rather that without an officially sanctioned translation, any translation would be spur of the moment, and even translations of the same scripture by the same priest would likely vary slightly depending on circumstance.
Translation and interpretation are two different things entirely.

You still fail to understand the extent of the education of all Catholic Priests in regards to everything concerning the Catholic Faith. They have always been very highly educated in the Bible and Church Doctrine, as well as any doctor is educated in practicing medicine. They did not make stupid mistakes in ‘translation’, nor in teaching Doctrine. They knew very well what the Catholic Church had taught them, and expected them to teach to the faithful from the pulpit. So, your argument really doesn’t hold water, at all. “There’s a hole in the bucket, dear Liza.”

Thanks for that haha
still getting used to this iPad keyboard…

I couldn’t resist the giggle factor.

Someone had suggested that The Catholic church doesn’t use written texts in their missionary attempts. I was merely pointing out hat this dozn’t fit with the claim that you do everything the same as the early church did, as they encouraged people to read the scriptures and the words and letters of the prophets and apostles.

No one here has ever suggested any such thing. Your lack of understanding comes from what you’ve been taught about Catholics by the LDS church. The Church uses a variety of books, including the Bible, the Catechism and other teaching manuals to teach the Faith to Catechumens. Like I’ve said before, we don’t usually knock on anyone’s doors. People usually come knocking on our Rectories because they already know who we are. Our missionaries that go to other countries are more concerned with serving the needs of the poor. They never force anyone to learn anything about the Faith in order to qualify for any of their help. It’s given freely, with no strings attached. It’s more of a mission of pure charity, and not necessarily for proselytizing. Catholics have always known that actions speak much louder than words in teaching others about Jesus Christ.

 

[Telstar]

This thread is about how is it possible for Mormons to believe all the anti-factual (not based on science or history) aspects of their faith. As we have learned; they must claim the anti-factual parts of their faith are not subject to history even though it is contrary to the claims of Joseph Smith. Therefore Mormonism is a total fabrication from the mind Joseph Smith and is without defense. Because Mormons cannot defend this fabrication which claims to be true in another dimension, they must make up strawman attacks on the Catholic Church. This is why almost all discussions of Mormonism turn into a discussion of the Catholic Church. Mormons hope to come here to explain their religion without question, but it never happens. When we question them…the strawman arrives.

The “reason for this discussion of the translation of the bible” is so Mormons will not have to defend the fiction of Mormonism.

Amen.

 

[Jay53]

Clearly? I’m aware he told his Apostles that He would send it to them (explaining that they had no need of it while He was present, and if He did not go then it would not come), and that it would testify of truth, bring things to their rememberance, tell them what they should teach. I’m not aware He said that the Spirit would stay with any one church.

There WAS only ONE church that Jesus founded - obviously He meant His Spirit would stay with THAT church. You simply choose not to believe that.

 

[CopticChristian]

So your response to the discussion is to get snarky and off-topic?

 

[CopticChristian]

But it isn’t another gospel, it is another testament of Jesus Christ. Just like Matthew, Mark, Like and John are; separate writings, but teaching the same gospel and written for the purpose of showing Christ to all the world.

The gospel of the endowment Ceremony, and the Christ of the book of Mormon as taught is not the same gospel and is not the same Christ, but you know that. You may want to visit another post, if I can find it, where these beliefs have been outlined. Why beat around the bush?

 

[CopticChristian]

Really? By the same logic there ought to be OT scriptures naming all 12 apostles ad well as Saul/Paul and Stephen. Where are these?
As pointed out, there is clear NT scripture in Revelaion about the necessity of bringing the gospel back to the earth, combined with Amos it is clear that this is necessary because it was nowhere to be found true and complete on th earth. Bend and twist the interpretation all you like; it’s very clear to me and the Holy Spirit…
Jesus Christ spoke very plainly in His teachings such that all could understand, why assume that His disciples would not?

To this sentence you add “according to Joseph Smith and taught to me”…

 

[Telstar]

We have nothing to defend; others’ refusal to accept our beliefs, and attempts to belittle them do not diminish our faith. There is zero evidence that contradicts anything about the Book of Mormon, and so nothing to defend.
Equally I could suggest that the idea of The Trinity is a complete fabrication of those at the Council of Nicaea, as there is zero historical or scientific evidence for it (and biblical evidence to the contrary).
Or the contradictory concepts that an unchangeable God changed into a man, and then died while being immortal…?

We are not required to accept ‘another gospel’, in fact we have been strongly admonished against doing that, for very good reason. Apparently, that admonition was a prophecy that was unrecognized as such, at the time it was given, but it is quite obvious to us, now, in light of the creation of Joseph Smith’s BoM, “Another Testament of Jesus Christ”. There is only one “Testament” of Jesus Christ, and that’s the New Testament of the Bible. Sorry, but that’s just another fact that we completely disagree on.

In bold: God did not ‘change’ in order to become a man. Jesus was always God the Son, from the very beginning. Even while living on the earth as a man, He was still fully God, with all of His powers intact. The Incarnation was the action of His taking on human flesh in order to become humble and live the same way as we do, in order to teach us the way that we should follow Him while we are here, on earth. His human flesh died, but He never ‘died’ as God. He rose from death, just as He Ascended into Heaven, under His Own power as the Eternal God, the Son.

If there is no Trinity, what about The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? They are clearly distinguished in the New Testament and are all ‘parts’ of the same God. Like I said, your lack of understanding doesn’t change the Truth about God, as sad as that is for you. We won’t be judged on what we choose to believe, but by the Truth that God has revealed to us through Jesus Christ.

 

[truthsave]

Extreme danger of following the word of God?

It’s got nothing to do with accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet. Although of you do refuse to (particularly by refusing to even sustain and investigate the possibility) then you will never come to a full knowledge of the truth, may not be following correct principles and will in all probability not have all of the necessary saving ordinances performed.

We do our best to be worthy to live in the Celestial Kingdom with our family for eternity, yes.

How so? Your worst is the same as ours, but our best is much much better than yours.

OF course it is you that say it is the word of God. If you think so, I am not here to tell you the contrary. Of course the word of God for you is what came out from the mouth of Joseph Smith, since you recognize him as a prophet.
For the rest of your answer I have to admit you must have really a full knowledge of truth since doesn’t make any sense to me.
But you still didn’t answer to my question.
I just would like to know:

1- if a Catholic is wrong in not recognizing Joseph Smith as a real prophet and just believe in his “wrong” or partial truth and believing in Jesus and behaving as an average traditional christian which (mormon) kindom would be his damnation?
I can make misake since not a mormon but I guess should be the terrestrial kindom. A not bad place.

2- If an LDS is wrong and Joseph Smith is a phaulse prophet what would be their reward position? Since they should be responsable for having believe in a phaulse prophet. Of course if he is a faulse prophet.
I can make a mistake but should be… outer darkness since all the teaching, temple crerimony, eternal marriage, priesthood and everything would be not just faulse but an absolute abomination.

My one is an hypothetical question.
You could give me just an hypothetical answer.

And of course for me, I think in any case whatever I think or whoever think doesn’t matter since fortunately we were not put in the position to judge. The Lord will do it. And He knows our weakness and our heart .

It is just hypothetical.

 

[CopticChristian]

We have nothing to defend; others’ refusal to accept our beliefs, and attempts to belittle them do not diminish our faith. There is zero evidence that contradicts anything about the Book of Mormon, and so nothing to defend.
Equally I could suggest that the idea of The Trinity is a complete fabrication of those at the Council of Nicaea, as there is zero historical or scientific evidence for it (and biblical evidence to the contrary).
Or the contradictory concepts that an unchangeable God changed into a man, and then died while being immortal…?

Where is the scientific evidence for God the Father having a body in the Joe Smith vision or that God the Father walked the earth to meet and join with Mary and produce Jesus?

 

[mwok]

Really? By the same logic there ought to be OT scriptures naming all 12 apostles ad well as Saul/Paul and Stephen. Where are these?
As pointed out, there is clear NT scripture in Revelaion about the necessity of bringing the gospel back to the earth, combined with Amos it is clear that this is necessary because it was nowhere to be found true and complete on th earth. Bend and twist the interpretation all you like; it’s very clear to me and the Holy Spirit…
Jesus Christ spoke very plainly in His teachings such that all could understand, why assume that His disciples would not?

You have not pointed out the clear referrences in Revelations that you allude to. Nowhere in the entire book of Revelations does it say what you claim it says. For one you take it entirely too literal. Secondly, the book of Revelations goes more with the book of Daniel than the book of Amos. If you read Daniel you will see a lot of the same imagery that is found in Revelations. Plus, did you notice how John uses angels as a way to describe a responsible party for a specific church in a specific region? Are you saying that there were invisible entities directing the people in that region that John had to give a message either congatulating or berating them depending on their faith?

 

[mwok]

Also Naf, I am having a hard time finding a reference to Joseph in Revelations.

 

[CopticChristian]

We have nothing to defend; others’ refusal to accept our beliefs, and attempts to belittle them do not diminish our faith. There is zero evidence that contradicts anything about the Book of Mormon, and so nothing to defend.
Equally I could suggest that the idea of The Trinity is a complete fabrication of those at the Council of Nicaea, as there is zero historical or scientific evidence for it (and biblical evidence to the contrary).
Or the contradictory concepts that an unchangeable God changed into a man, and then died while being immortal…?

Ok. Lets start with basics. Do you agree with the following:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints preaches a belief central to most religions: one must know the true nature of God. “It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God” (Teachings of Joseph Smith, 345ff).

Do you agree with the following or diagree.

1. In an early book of “Scripture” brought forth by Joseph Smith, the creation account consistently refers to the singular when speaking of God and creation: "I, God, caused . . . I, God, created . . . I, God, saw. . . . " The singular is used 50 times in the second and third chapters of the Book of Moses (1831).

1. In another of Smith’s earlier works, the Book of Mormon (1830), there are no references to a plurality of gods. At best, there is a confusion, at times, between the Father and the Son, leading at times to the extreme of modalism (one divine person who reveals himself sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son) or the other extreme of “binitarianism,” belief in two persons in God. The Book of Mormon also makes a strong point for God’s spiritual and eternal unity (see Alma 11:44 and 22:10-11, which proclaims that God is the “Great Spirit”).

1. Another early work of Smith is the Lectures on Faith (1834-35). There is continual evidence that the first Mormon leader taught a form of bitheism: the Father and the Son are separate gods. The Holy Spirit is merely the “mind” of the two.

1. At about the same time, we begin to see a doctrinal shift. Smith had acquired some mummies and Egyptian papyri. He proclaimed the writings to be those of the patriarch, Abraham, in his own hand, and set out to translate the text. His Book of Abraham records in chapters four and five that “the gods called . . . the gods ordered . . . the gods prepared” some 45 times. Smith thus introduces the notion of a plurality of gods.

1. The clearest exposition of this departure from traditional Christian doctrine is seen in Smith’s tale of a “vision” he had as a boy of 14. Both the Father and the Son appeared to him, he wrote; they were two separate “personages.” This story of two gods was not authorized and distributed by the church until 1838, after his Book of Abraham had paved the way for polytheism.

1. The Father is said to have appeared, along with his resurrected Son. In his final doctrinal message, Smith showed how this was possible.

In the King Follett Discourse (a funeral talk he gave in 1844), Joseph Smith left his church with the clearest statement to date on the nature of God:

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens.] That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man. The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, ‘As the Father hath power to himself, even so hath the Son power’—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it.”

As the Mormon church has taught since that time, God the Father was once a man who was created by his God, was born and lived on another earth, learned and lived the “Mormon gospel,” died, and was eventually resurrected and made God over this universe. As such, he retains forever his flesh-and-bones body.

Polythiesim is another gospel.

Eternal Progression is another gospel.

Do you disagree with this?

 

[Naf623]

Do you have a Bible reference that proves that we all existed in Heaven before we were born? I didn’t think so.

Given that we do not believe in a closed canon and accept continuing revelation from God through His appointed prophets, we don’t really need one, do we.
On the other hand my question to you still stands, because you believe in closed canon, you must have Biblical precedent for your beliefs.

Then, where are the angels in the preexistence, and what was Lucifer? As far as I understand the LDS teaching, he was the brother of Jesus and all the rest of the ‘children of god’ in the ‘preexistence’, at least according to Joseph Smith. All ‘angels’ were destined to become human beings at some point in time. Even Moroni was once a man living on the earth, who somehow turned back into an ‘angel’ when he died. Right? Unless you can provide something from LDS scripture or doctrine to say otherwise, I rest my case.

You seem to have things a little confused with regards our beliefs here.
While we agree with you that angels are messengers from heaven, they are not some different species or different type of entity from us essentially. They are either in spirit form (prior to having attained a mortal body as we have by coming to earth; or having been to earth and died, but are not yet resurrected), or (more usually) Have bodies of flesh and bone as God and Jesus Christ have; similar to ours, but perfected and no longer susceptible to death, illness etc.
lds.org/scriptures/bd/angels?lang=eng
Prior to our birth here on earth, we existed as spirit children of God; every single person ever born is literally a son or daughter of our Heavenly Father in this literal sense. Because we could see that God has a physical body, while we were merely spirits, we wanted to become like Him, and so in His great wisdom He formulated a plan (variously known as the Plan of Salvation, Plan of Redemption, Plan of Happiness) in hich we could come to earth, receive a physical body, learn and grow and prove ourselves that we can be obedient to His laws; if we are then we can ultimately return to live with Him and our families in Heaven. When this plan was presented to us (council in heaven) we shouted for joy. One part of this plan was that all of us would inevitably sin, and therefore a Saviour was necessary to pay the price for our sins that we could not pay ourselves. Two of our older siblings put themselves forward for the mission/job/role/; Jesus and Satan. Satan’s plan was that we would all be saved automatically, regardless of anything else, and for coming up with this idea and doing the job he selfishly wanted to claim all the glory of the plan (and our worship) for himself. Jesus’ plan accepted that we would sin, and that because of free choice there may be many problems; wars, conflict etc. but that by doing it this way we would be able to learn and grow from our experiences. Jesus wished to clim no glory for himself for doing tis, but that the glory remain with God.
The argument that ensued (war in heaven) caused all the spirits to align themselves one way or the other, those who followed Satan were cast out from heaven down to the earth, without physical bodies, while the rest of us who followed Jesus Christ have been afforded the opportunity to attain our physical body (sometimes known as keeping the first estate).
when we die our spirit is once again sarated from our physical body and we go to the spirit world. Here those who have accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ enjoy a state of rest, while those who have not have some opportunity to do so and to learn (this is why we perform ordinances by proxy for those who have died: so all are afforded the same opportunity regardless of their position in life). After Jesus return in glory everybody will be resurrected (body and spirit rejoined and perfected: thus we all get a body of flesh and bone like God’s) and judged.
mormon.org/plan-of-happiness/

I couldn’t resist the giggle factor.

Naturally

 

[CopticChristian]

Given that we do not believe in a closed canon and accept continuing revelation from God through His appointed prophets, we don’t really need one, do we.
On the other hand my question to you still stands, because you believe in closed canon, you must have Biblical precedent for your beliefs.

You seem to have things a little confused with regards our beliefs here.
While we agree with you that angels are messengers from heaven, they are not some different species or different type of entity from us essentially. They are either in spirit form (prior to having attained a mortal body as we have by coming to earth; or having been to earth and died, but are not yet resurrected), or (more usually) Have bodies of flesh and bone as God and Jesus Christ have; similar to ours, but perfected and no longer susceptible to death, illness etc.
lds.org/scriptures/bd/angels?lang=eng
Prior to our birth here on earth, we existed as spirit children of God; every single person ever born is literally a son or daughter of our Heavenly Father in this literal sense. Because we could see that God has a physical body, while we were merely spirits, we wanted to become like Him, and so in His great wisdom He formulated a plan (variously known as the Plan of Salvation, Plan of Redemption, Plan of Happiness) in hich we could come to earth, receive a physical body, learn and grow and prove ourselves that we can be obedient to His laws; if we are then we can ultimately return to live with Him and our families in Heaven. When this plan was presented to us (council in heaven) we shouted for joy. One part of this plan was that all of us would inevitably sin, and therefore a Saviour was necessary to pay the price for our sins that we could not pay ourselves. Two of our older siblings put themselves forward for the mission/job/role/; Jesus and Satan. Satan’s plan was that we would all be saved automatically, regardless of anything else, and for coming up with this idea and doing the job he selfishly wanted to claim all the glory of the plan (and our worship) for himself. Jesus’ plan accepted that we would sin, and that because of free choice there may be many problems; wars, conflict etc. but that by doing it this way we would be able to learn and grow from our experiences. Jesus wished to clim no glory for himself for doing tis, but that the glory remain with God.
The argument that ensued (war in heaven) caused all the spirits to align themselves one way or the other, those who followed Satan were cast out from heaven down to the earth, without physical bodies, while the rest of us who followed Jesus Christ have been afforded the opportunity to attain our physical body (sometimes known as keeping the first estate).
when we die our spirit is once again sarated from our physical body and we go to the spirit world. Here those who have accepted the gospel of Jesus Christ enjoy a state of rest, while those who have not have some opportunity to do so and to learn (this is why we perform ordinances by proxy for those who have died: so all are afforded the same opportunity regardless of their position in life). After Jesus return in glory everybody will be resurrected (body and spirit rejoined and perfected: thus we all get a body of flesh and bone like God’s) and judged.
mormon.org/plan-of-happiness/

Naturally

I feel slighted. You glossed right over my post.:bighanky::sad_bye:

 

[Tony888]

Where is the scientific evidence for God the Father having a body in the Joe Smith vision or that God the Father walked the earth to meet and join with Mary and produce Jesus?

ROFL
You are a closet athiest if you are asking for scientifc proof of God doing anything

I’ve called you on this before - it is only your fantasy that the LDS teach God had sex with Mary. Stop TROLLING on this subject

LDS have no more revelation than Catholics on the mystery of Christ’s conception through the Holy Spirit.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

I have always wondered how they can believe in their own cosmology. I believe Mormons teach that matter and energy in the universe are eternal and will last forever. But the Big Bang and the eventual Big Rip seem to imply otherwise. Since they believe God the Father was merely a man on another planet with another God and the same before that, who was the first God? It could not be an eternal regression because the universe has only been around for so long. And since Mormons believe the soul is made of matter (I think this is true?) what happens to all of our souls when all matter in the universe is eventually torn apart in the Big Rip.

Mormonism cannot explain this. Or if they can I have yet to hear the explanation.

On Morman theology, I have often thought exactly the same thing. It totally avoids the question of God and contingency. Where did the first god come from. Then there is the whole issue of the mother goddess. The existence of which is affirmed by the Mormons but kept hushed up. Google, the Mormon mother goddess. It is very interesting.

On the Mormon cosmogony, I did one time talk to an astronomer who told me that the Big Bang does not necessarily mean creation*** ex nihilo. *** The Big Bang was an explosion of a “singularity,” a point of something or other that got so dense from gravity it exploded. The pieces of that explosion then differentiated into all the atoms and then galaxies of the unverse. Some astronomers are also looking for “dark matter” which would mean that there is a greater amount of gravity in the universe than observable from the visible universe. If there is enough, the gravity will slow the expansion of the universe to zero and then pull it back to another "singularity. " The singularity will then at some point get denser and denser by the force of gravity and then explode and start the cycle again. So theoritically, the cosmos could be eternal.

It is best not to use science to prove theology. I think the Church has been burned more than once.

 

[Naf623]

Naf623;8507304:

From around the 3rd century or so, yes.

Wrong.

Could really use automated nesting quotes here.
We’re obviously going to disagree, but let me explain in a little more detail (and more politely then my previous outburst) something of why I say this.
To Latter Day Saints the gospel,is simple, there is nothing mystical, nothing intended to confuse, and nothing secret (sacred is a different matter entirely, so don’t start).
And this is the gospel as taught by Christ and spread by His apostles, simple and accessible to all. Similarly the ordinances do not hang on ceremony and mysticism, rather the important things are to follow the simple principles involved.
So when I attend a Catholic Mass (yes, I have attended many many of these), I see many things that do not fit the simple template I understand as being God’s way; I see methodology reminiscent of mystical incantation and grandeur in place of humble prayer and petition. Set prayers replace those guided by the spirit on the spot (and to some extend unrelated, I felt a bit like I was doing the ‘hokey cokey’ kids dance with all the standing, sitting, turning…). It almost felt contrived to make individuals feel small and insignificant; an excellent thing ‘for keeping common people quiet’ (Bonaparte).
Probable reasons for this, as I see it; and the reason I picked 3rd century, is that the early church was populated by ex Jews (by religion, not birth obviously ) and Pagans. Both of these employed much more elaborate, mystical and secret ordinances and services than Christianity was offering, and they maynwell have felt (understandably) disappointed that it did not seem (to their mind) like it had as much meaning as their former practises. Given this feeling, it would not be difficult for those teachers with ‘itching ears’ (and other descriptions from the Apostles of those lying in wait already within the confregations) to slowly and carefully introduce more familiar practises; making the members feel more at ease with the transition.
Another reason I pick the 3rd century is because until this point the church faced major persecution from all sides, and even much confusion within; but from around this time onward things began to get much easier, despite them continuing to practise, and still not (overall) being wholly accepted across a wide base (yes, the Romans in theory adopted it as their religion, but this made it more of a fashion to be seen to be Christian for Roman citizens particularly, and shame on anyone who wasn’t; especially as the Roman legions now marched under the emblem of the cross: the emperor Comstantine himself was not baptised until on his deathbed, remaining a catechumen his entire life). The persecutions faced by the church to me clearly indicate the work of Satan in attempt to destroy the works of God; the sudden (in historical terms) abatement of the church’s suffering suggests that Satan was comfortable with what remained as no longer wielding the power and authority of the Priesthood that he fears so much.