From what I recall in history...working from memory here...I would probably agree with what you've said above. With that said, do you believe that the "abomination that maketh desolate" of Daniel 11:31 and "the abomination that maketh desolate" of Daniel 12:11 are the same event?
Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) How could the armies that compassed Jerusalem fit into the holy place; how could all of them stand in the holy place? By scriptural definition, the "holy place" is... 1. At least...it's the temple. 2. At most...it is the holiest place; in which, the blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat. I would assert that Luke is referring to the desolation of the city...not the abomination of desolation. While I can somewhat understand your explanation concerning "when you see", we do live in a day and age; in which, modern technology can broadcast a specific incident (located at one place in the world) to the rest of the world so that they can see it. It's more than plausible that the Antichrist will use this technology to broadcast the proclamation that he is god...in the holy place...so the whole world will "see" it. Mark 13:14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: Again, in Mark we have a little more information. What is the one place where people were forbidden to enter? No one could enter the "holy place" other than the High Priest, and he could only enter it once a year. Someone is going to do "something" in a "place" where they shouldn't be. I would assert that the "something" is one specific act (hence the use of the word "it" in Mark 13:14), and that "something" is the abomination of desolation; whereas, the Antichrist proclaims himself to be god. He will do this in the "place" where "he ought not" enter...the holy place. To my knowledge, no such incident took place in 70 AD. I know this has been discussed before, but notice what comes after Mark 13:14...specifically verse 19... Mark 13:14-19 14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: 15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: 16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. 17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. 19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. Was what happened to the Jews in 70 AD their worst affliction that has ever happened or will happen? I would say no. I know that some horrendous things happened as a result of 70 AD, but some would assert that Hitler imposed a worse affliction. Above that, we only know history (to a point). We have no idea (other than what God's word reveals) as to the affliction that the Jews will suffer in the future.
The church of the Laodiceans was aptly named according to its description given in Revelation 3, and its name also aptly describes the state of the church today... Laodiceans: Λαοδικεύς Laodikeus (lah-od-ik-yooce') n/g. 1. a Laodicean, i.e. inhabitant of Laodicia [from G2993] G2993 Λαοδίκεια Laodikeia (lah-od-ik'-ei-ah) n/l. 1. Laodicia, a place in Asia Minor [from a compound of G2992 and G1349] G2992 λαός laos (lah-os') n. 1. a people G1349 δίκη dike (dee'-kay) n. 1. right (as self-evident) 2. justice (the principle, a decision, or its execution) So, Laodiceans is a compound word meaning... A people's right/justice. Doesn't that aptly describe what is going on in mainstream "Christianity" today! Rather than the church standing solid on God's word, they are more concerned with pleasing people and standing up for people's rights/justice. The rights of sin and sinners take precedence over God's word.
I don't know if the Primitive Baptist churches around here do or not John...but I do know that there are some small Southern Baptist churches around here that have foot washings. My grandmother belonged to a Primitive Baptist church, but I don't recall her ever having mentioned foot-washings. She was really big into Sacred Harp Singings...some people call it fa-so-la singing. It's where instead of using a musical instrument, the people will sing the notes prior to singing the words.
Well, I certainly can't speak for all IFBs, but I view the prophecy as what I personally call a "progressive prophecy"...in other words, though all of it was future when the Lord spoke those words, some elements of the prophecy would happen at different times. What started the prophecy was the disciples admiration of the temple, and the Lord told them that not one stone would be left on top of another. That happened in 70 AD, as did other portions. However, there are parts of the prophecy that didn't happen in 70 AD; therefore, it (the entire prophecy) can't be attributed to 70 AD. When taking the prophecy as a whole (along with the other accounts of the prophecy in Matthew and Mark), the events recorded lead to the culmination of the Lord's return at the end of the great tribulation. I would agree that the verse in question referred to the events of 70 AD, but I don't attribute 70 AD as being the fulfillment of everything recorded in the entire prophecy.