Why did John Wycliffe oppose papal authority in the 14th century? He's been called the "Eosphoros of the Reformation", but how did he come to believe that the Bible opposes the idea that papal authority is above government authority?

There are whole books to be written on the subject of John Wycliffe's early Reformations, and even the Wikipedia article on the conflict is pretty substantial.  As such, this is just a brief summary of three influences (in chronological order) that should be understood:

Duns Scotus first helped to diminish the idea of "universals". Universals - the hallmark of scholasticism - were concepts that had real essence in and of themselves. As Scholasticism declined, philosophers less willing to study the "ideal notion" of a thing and look more at the specifics of an individual.  Its an overstatement to say that a scholastic didn't care about "the Pope" and only thought of "the Papacy," but Duns Scotus helped the idea that one could separate the individual from the instution.
William of Occam and his writings against papal authority.
William of Occam was a philosopher who championed the idea that "Universals should not be propogated needlessly" or more simply "The simplest explanation is usually the best," probably the most succint way of describing Scotus...  Occam also began to write about the abuses of power in general, and the need for a separation of church and state in particular.  Later the concilliar movement would take these ideas as the bedrock of liberal democracy in general.
Wycliffe's own mendicacy
Wycliffe himself, like St. Francis of Assisi before him, more or less rejected wealth and power, and therefore became increasingly vocal in his dislike of the papacy.  It should also be noted that by the time of Wycliffe's death, there were two people claiming to be Pope, one in Rome, the other in Avignon, and would soon be a third in Pisa.  This enabled one to remain in the church and write a little more openly. Even the modern Roman Catholic Church admits this was a real low point in the Papacy, and abuses were rife.  Simony and Indulgences, and all the things Protestants still think of as "Catholic" were fairly normative at this time, and it wasn't until the 1540s that these abuses would be rectified.

This doesn't mean Wycliffe's own writings escaped the notice of the 15th Century Popes, however.  In 1415, Wycliffe's remains were exhumed and burned, and he was excommunicated.  Still, the relative disorder of the period gave Wycliffe space to write.


What does "...bring them here and kill them in front of me" in Luke 19:27 mean? What does the verse mean? Is it a misconception that Jesus only taught peace, such as saying 'turn the other cheek'?

  But those mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither and slay them before me.’”  Luke 19:27

The verse is part of a parable that Jesus taught.  The parable seems intended to teach about the judgment of God at this point.  It does not suggest that human governance should even follow this example.  He merely uses what could and often did happen to illustrate a point of God's supreme governance.

11 As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. 12 He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. 13 Calling ten of his servants, he gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’
15 When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. 16 The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant![c] Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ 18 And the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made five minas.’ 19 And he said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ 20 Then another came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; 21 for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’
22 He said to him, ‘I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’ 24 And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ 25 And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’ 26 ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”  Luke 19:11-27 ESV

Thus, this verse has nothing to do with an individual turning the other cheek, nor does it speak to the idea of human governance at all.  What it does teach is that all mankind will one day face the judgment of God.  Those who have hated and rejected God will be punished.


Do Catholics view atheism as a sin? Are there any passages in the Holy Bible or any Catholic doctrine saying that it is a sin to be an atheist?

Please, don't refer to me any Biblical assertion where it is stated that you should follow God, but one that addresses people who don't follow any religion.

Yes
Catholicism states quite clearly that atheism is a sin.  Disbelieving God means that you are rebelling against God's commands and therefore sinning.
Bible
Atheism, throughout the Bible, is considered "disbelief".  The idea is either that you believe in God, or you don't.  If you don't believe in the one true God (such as atheism), it's categorized as "disbelief".
Here, we can see the results of not believing in God:

Revelations 21:8 (NIV)Emphasis added
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

Disbelief being a sin can also be seen in the Old Testament:

Numbers 14:11
The LORD said to Moses, “How long will these people treat me with contempt? How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs I have performed among them?"

More: Mark 16:16, John 3:18, John 3:36, Romans 14:23b
Catholicism
Catholicism also shows that atheism is a sin:

2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."
CCC 2125

It uses this bible passage for support of this doctrine:

Romans 1:18 (NIV)
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

Summary
Atheism is one of the gravest sins.  It is all throughout the Bible and Catholic church dedicated a section entirely to dealing with the subject (CCC 2123-2126).  It is undeniably a sin.


Lutheranism: "Pastor" or "Priest"? I have noticed that some Lutheran churches refer to their ministers as "priests" while others refer to their ministers as "pastors."

When did some Lutheran churches cease using "priest" in favor of "pastor"?

What is the foremost reason for this change in terminology?

Conversely, why did some Lutheran churches continue using the word "priest"?

While there are a few exceptions specifically within the Lutheran Circle - Pastor - is used to show the role as a shepherd however it is an exact replacement/translation depending if used in another language other than English for the word Priest.

It is important however to understand that Lutherans for the most part do believe that each Christian has the authority to preach and teach, read and interpret the Bible, and confess their own sins directly to Jesus. (Universal Priesthood)

Is Universal Priesthood Biblical?

The Bible teaches that all believers have priesthood authority (1 Peter 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

Even in the Old Testament, the nation of Israel was to be a kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:5-6).  However, Jesus is the unique High Priest (Heb. 7:23-8:13).

Lutherans hold this to be true - that each believer has the authority to preach the Gospel.  Of course Lutherans still have professional clergy and therefore most often are called Pastors.

If you were to visit http://arc.episcopalchurch.org/ministry/oepp/oepp.html
you would see that the Episcopal church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America see both as the same as they now have agreed to allow "pastors or priests" to exchange (ie borrow from one church to be used in another) between the denominations.


Bible evidence in favour of creationism? I need this sort of information to talk about creationism with an agnostic friend of mine. I know about the passages in Genesis, naturally, but I heard there are some more in the book of Job, somewhere. Also, I believe there are some other passages about creation I certainly haven't heard about.

On Creation
The main text on the subject of creation is the Genesis account. The first few chapters are there to present how God created the world, not to present a twenty-first century scientific thesis. So God provided a simple explanation. A bit like saying that the sun rises instead of talking of the rotation of the earth around the sun.
This being said, this part of the Bible is regarded in many different lights. The first position is the literal position, which says that the heaven and earth were created by God in 6 twenty-four hour periods. This position is held by Answers in Genesis for example.
Another position is that the first few chapters of the Bible are poetry. Then you can believe anything you want on the subject of creation, because the author of Genesis uses poetry as he opens his book.
Then there are positions between the two poles described above:
The rest of the Bible and creation
The six days of creation are quoted elsewhere in the Bible:

Exodus 20:11 (ESV)
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus 31:17 (ESV)
It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

The Bible present Jesus has the author of creation in a few verses. (This make biblical sense because Jesus is the word of God, and in creation the only tool used is the word of God.)

John 1:1-4 (ESV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Colossians 1:16 (ESV)
For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

The passage in Job you mentioned is

Job 40:15-18 (ESV)
“Behold, Behemoth [The ESV study Bible comment on the Behemoth is 'A large animal, exact identity unknown'], which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. Behold, his strength in his loins, and his power in the muscles of his belly. He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like bars of iron.

Conclusion
From my reading of scripture the Bible supports a literal six-day creation. When did that happen? There are different theories about this as well.
Some argue against a six-day creation, requesting proof. There is no way to prove creationism, but the same is true for evolution. Your position is a question of faith. This being said, it does not mean that you don't ask questions about your position. The starting point of reference in your thinking system, today's science or the Bible, will greatly influence your position.
This might not help you with your discussion with your agnostic friend, but I hope that it helps you in your personal thinking on the subject. Your question is a valid one, but answering it in a few sentences is hard.


What is the origin of praying hands folded? I was taught in Sunday school to pray hands folded. On the other hand, there's no biblical mention of the practice (as far as I know). It actually doesn't seem to matter which position we pray in.

How did folding hands come to be a common practice? Is there some reasoning behind it?

Gevouwen handen by Rob van Hilten (CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Very interesting question. I did some browsing and came up with the following information.

First of all, this link has some content on the topic:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/271624.html

Here is one quote from that thread, but I recommend reading it and judging the content for yourself:

  The Talmud relates how the Babylonian Sage, Rabba (Abba ben
  Joseph, C. 280-352), used to pray with his hands folded.

So "folding hands" could have come down from the Jewish heritage of Christians. Others also distinguish between "praying hands" and "folding hands".

And for the meaning of it, I came across the following web page:

http://www.stjosephsite.com/SJS_Articles_prayinghands.htm

It mentions the following information (pasted in fragments):

  Such a prayer gesture is a symbol of obedience, submission, sincerity and repentance.

  ...

  Nathan Ausubel, in his book "Book of Jewish Knowledge said that this prayer gesture is not exclusive to Christians alone. He said the Jews even before the time of Jesus Christ, practiced it: "It has also been commonly assumed that folding the hands in prayer is exclusively a Christian custom. This is not the historical fact at all. As early as the post-Exilic period, when Jews prayed, they folded their hands, and they observed this custom for several centuries even after it had been adopted by Christians."

  Jesus, being a Jew, also prayed with clasped hands. You must have seen pictures or images of Him in the garden of Gethsemani in this prayer gesture. In other art works, you can also see the Virgin Mary and angels with their hands clasped as well.

  ...

  The Pope mentioned the custom during feudal times of placing one's joined hands into the hands of his ruling lord as a sign of his fidelity and loyalty. So when we fold our hands in prayer, we are symbolically pledging to God our fidelity and loyalty and placing our hands in His.

And another viewpoint here:

http://www.trivia-library.com/a/why-does-a-person-join-his-hands-when-praying.htm

  The joining of hands "leads back to men's early desire to subjugate each other and developed out of the shackling of hands of prisoners!

  "Though the handcuffs eventually disappeared, the joining of hands remained as a symbol of man's servitude and submission and his inability (or even lack of inclination) to grasp a weapon."

  Christianity adopted "the gesture representing shackled hands as a sign of man's total obedience to divine power."

Another reference (and a selective quote from it):

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/421928

  "Religious historians trace the gesture back to the act of shackling a prisoner’s hands with vine or rope: joined hands came to symbolize submission. In ancient Rome, a captured soldier could avoid immediate death by joining the hands together. Just as waving a white flag today, the message was clear. “I surrender.”
  Centuries later, subjects demonstrated their loyalty and paid homage to their rulers by joining their hands. In time, clasping the hands together communicated both an acknowledgement of another’s authority and one’s own submission to that authority."

Books by Nathan Ausubel:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Nathan%20Ausubel


How do you answer the unanswerable questions? How do you respond to the "trivia" or "only God knows" type questions which cannot be answered from the Bible or science (yet)?  This is more of a general question, such as do you blow them off or provide a generic "Only God can truly know the answer to that, and I have faith that he does" type answer?

For example (you don't have to answer these ;) ):

What was there before God created the universe?
Can God make a rock He can't move?

My general response is to redirect the questioner to what their real issue is - most often, these questions are asked as a way of attacking fringe aspects of Christianity, and the real issue the questioner has is at his heart: he's not yet saved, and is scared that God's not happy with him, so to make himself feel better, he posts strawman and fringe-topic questions to make the Christian he is speaking with look like an idiot.


Papal Infallibility and teaching heresy? I had a question that I hoped the Catholics on the board could help me out with.  My understanding of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility is that speaking in his official capacity as the "Vicar of Christ" and the Spiritual leader of the Christian Church, the Pope is considered infallible by the Catholic Church.

This is a purely hypothetical example, because in the real world, I imagine a cardinal or bishop would be anathemized (sp) before he could ascend to the level of Pope, but what would happen if the Pope taught a heresy such as Modalism or Docetism, speaking in his capacity as the church, from the chair of Peter?  Would Catholics be compelled to agree with the same heresies former councils had violently condemned in the past?  If the heresy was damnable enough, would it be possible to revoke the doctrine or reformulate it, just as it was initially put in place and formulated by the Church?  Or would the tradition of the Church, which it has maintained since Apostolic times, overrule the Pope's proclamation?

This is not completely hypothetical.

In the mid-300s, Pope Liberius may have signed a statement supporting what later became known as Arian heresy. That he did so in exile and possibly under torture is mitigation, and the story is complex, but it is a more concrete version of this question. In any event, there was clear pressure from the Emperor that came into play.

A similar situation occurred in the 600s with the anathemazation of Pope Honorious I in regards to Christ's nature and monothelitism. There were questions about whether or not the letter was spoken ex cathedra, and ultimately, this became a big discussion point when the dogma of papal infallability was promulgated.

The answer in both cases is basically that the church, having later repudiated his position, went to great lengths to say that the statement was not made under a condition in which papal infallibility is present. This article by Carroll explains the exact nuances of Liberius.  Vatcan I in the 1870's, formulating the doctrine of papal infallability said that Honorious never spoke ex cathedra.

This basically would suggest that a mitigated sedevacantism is a logical possibility, but that it is ultimately a “nuclear weapon” option that must be avoided at all costs.

Most likely, any other such heresy later pronounced by the Magisterium would need to prove a similar circumstance.


Where does the LDS section heading for 1 Corinthians 7 come from? In the chapter heading to 1 Corinthians 7 in the official LDS scriptures, it states:

  Paul answers special questions about marriage among those called on missions—Paul praises self-discipline.

Where does this come from?  How did the author(s) know that Paul was speaking about those called on missions?  Do they claim revelation as the source, research, or is it just opinion?

The short answer: revelation to Joseph Smith.
The long answer:
The LDS edition of the King James Version (KJV plus references) was authored in 1979 under the direction of the Apostles:

In 1979 and 1981, following a historic effort led by Elders Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer, and Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published its own edition of the King James Version of the Bible.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/about-the-scriptures/history

This edition includes footnotes with excepts from the Joseph Smith Translation (selected Biblical translations by Joseph Smith circa 1830).

But I speak unto you who are called unto the ministry. For this I say, brethren, the time that remaineth is but short, that ye shall be sent forth unto the ministry. Even they who have wives, shall be as though they had none; for ye are called and chosen to do the Lord’s work.
JST, 1 Corinthians 7:29

For comparison, the plain KJV:

But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
KJV, 1 Corinthians 7:29

Note the JST was an inspired rather than conventional translation; there's no claim that extant Greek texts have this content.

The Lord inspired the Prophet Joseph Smith to restore truths to the King James Bible text that had become lost or changed since the original words were written. These restored truths clarified doctrine and improved scriptural understanding.
Because the Lord revealed to Joseph certain truths that the original authors had once recorded...the word translation is used in a broader and different way than usual, for Joseph’s translation was more revelation than literal translation from one language into another.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/jst/introduction

This interpretation is doctrinally consistent with the otherwise pro-marriage instructions throughout the scriptures. (Genesis 1, Matthew 19, even Paul himself in 1 Timothy 4:3.)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints follows Paul's instruction, in that the vast majority of its full-time missionaries are required to be single. As Paul said, those responsibilities are incompatible with marriage. (But following that full-time service they would marry and raise children.)


"Felix culpa" - is it correct? The Easter hymn Exultet speaks about felix culpa ("happy fault"):

O felix culpa,
quæ talem ac tantum méruit habére Redemptórem!
 O happy fault
that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer!

Does it mean that the first sin was good for something?

In context, the hymn is saying the 'fortunate fault' brought about the greater good, salvation from Jesus.

It traces its idea back to Augustine, who wrote:

  For God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist. (Enchiridion 8)


Why the difference in depiction of the cross between Catholics and Protestants? As I understand it, Roman Catholic crosses have Jesus hanging on them, but Protestant crosses do not. I understood that Protestant crosses do not because they want to focus on the Resurrection, not the death of Jesus.

Is that correct? Why the difference?

There is a pretty clear distinction between Catholics and Protestants in that regard, though there may be Protestant denominations that do use the crucifix rather than the cross.

It seems that the main issue that Protestants today have with the crucifix is that it is specifically an image of Jesus, the Son of God.  Such an image is believed to be strictly forbidden in Scripture.

  You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of
  anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
  that is in the water under the earth.  Exodus 20:4 ESV

Throughout the Old Testament, the Israelites were distinguished from other nations by the fact that they had no idols to represent God.  God gives the reason for this commandment in Isaiah, where He indicates that He is righteously jealous for His own glory and will not share it with an idol.

  I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my
  praise to carved idols.  Isaiah 42:8 ESV

So, Protestant churches are most often decorated with only an empty Cross that is not an object of worship, but merely a symbol of remembrance.  No Protestant I know of ever prays to a cross or cares whether or not there is a cross in front of them when they pray or worship.  It is wholly decorative.

In contrast, Catholic churches do often have crucifixes, which have an image of Jesus, the Son of God.  Additionally, there is often an image of Mary as well.  These may or may not be objects of worship, but for most Protestants, these are unacceptable due to the aforementioned commandments.

Orthodox churches are often quite replete with images of Jesus, Mary, and many of the saints.  Again, I'm not sure these are used as objects of worship or not, but Protestants generally reject the use of these as they are viewed as idols--or at least could be confused as such.

As a footnote, the listing of the 10 Commandments is different between Catholic and most Protestant traditions.  In the Catholic listing, idolatry is not present, but is considered as part of the first commandment, and have two commandments that mention covetousness.  Protestants list the prohibition against idolatry as the second commandment and only list one commandment regarding covetousness.


What are the basis and larger connotations of the term “untimely born“ as St. Paul refers to himself in 1 Corinthians? We read in 1Cor 15:7-9, how St. Paul appraises himself with reference to Jesus' post-resurrection appearance to him:

Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.  Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

One wonders as to why Paul compares himself to an untimely born child, in that he would prove himself to be no lesser in zeal and energy vis-a-vis the other Apostles in spreading the Good News. Is his statement based on some traditions of the Jews in relation to treating of an untimely born babe? Does the metaphor have larger connotations? My question therefore is: What according to the Catholic Church, are the basis and larger connotations of the term “untimely born” as St Paul refers to himself in 1st Corinthians?

Remember that St. Paul said this in the context of listing eyewitnesses to Jesus's resurrection in which he was the last one to whom Jesus appeared, in contrast with the other apostles. St. Thomas Aquinas provided a natural reading of 3 ways of St. Paul's comparing himself to the other apostles as 3 aspects of a fetus untimely born:

outside the proper time (born after the coming of the Holy Spirit)
with violence (coercion at Damascus), and
lacking quantity (consider himself less virtuous, see v. 9)

From St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on 1 Cor 15 (I added emphasis and formatting):

Last of all. Here the Apostle recalls the appearance made to him alone. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows the order of the appearances; secondly, he assigns its reason (v. 9).
He says, therefore: I have said that Christ was manifested to all, but last of all, i.e., finally and after the resurrection he appeared to me as to one untimely born, and therefore as the latest. He says, as one untimely born for three reasons. One, untimely born refers to a fetus, because it is born outside the proper time or because it is brought forth with violence or because it is not born with due quantity; and because the Apostle saw these three things in himself, he says: as one untimely born.

For, first of all, all he was reborn outside the time of the other apostles. For the other apostles were reborn in Christ before the coming of the Holy Spirit, but Paul after.

Secondly, because the other apostles were converted to Christ spontaneously, but Paul by coercion: “He fell to the ground and heard a voice” (Ac 9:4). And this is of great value against heretics, who say that no one should be forced to the faith, because Paul was forced. And as Augustine says: Paul made more progress in the faith, although he was forcibly converted, than many who came spontaneously.

Thirdly, because he regards himself as less than the others and that he had not arrived to the virtue of the other apostles.


What were the reformers' views of biblical inerrancy? I have never researched but am very curious what views of Biblical Inerrancy did the reformers generally hold, such as Luther and Calvin?

I found these description about different kinds of views:

Detailed Inerrantists

claim that a commitment to Scripture's inspiration demands that the original copies of the Bible be considered without error, factual or otherwise.

Irenic Inerrantists

agree that the Bible is without error, but believe Scripture itself must determine according to its intent the scope of that inerrancy.

Complete Infallibilists

reject "inerrancy" as a helpful term for describing the total trustworthiness of the Biblical writers' witness, substituting the word "infallible" in its place.

Partial Infallibilists

believe that the authors' intended message is in error at points, but their witness to the gospel is trustworthy and authoritative.

I wonder where among these the Reformers stood, or under a different class altogether? I suspect somewhere between ① and ② but am not sure?  If someone can provide references direct from the reformers writings it would be highly valuable to a good answer. The more detail the better, feel free to post a long answer If you have one. I will read it.

Sometimes it is best to see a theologian in action to determine their view and attitude about inerrancy. There is a classical error in most of our Bibles in Matthew 27:9 where Matthew means to quote Zechariah 11:13 concerning the 'thirty pieces of silver' but it says ‘Jeremiah’.  I have glanced at a few modern explanations about this and it seems sufficiently resolved under several theories, one of which the original did not have the prophets name and the error creped in by a copyist mistake. The Syriac version, for example reads only, It was spoken by the prophet, not naming any.

Alright but how would Calvin and Luther approach this when maybe this kind of explanation was not readily available?

Here is what Calvin said:

  How the name of Jeremiah crept in, I confess that I do not know nor do I give myself much trouble to inquire. The passage itself plainly shows that the name of Jeremiah has been put down by mistake, instead of Zechariah, ( 11:13 ;) for in Jeremiah we find nothing of this sort, nor any thing that even approaches to it.Calvin's Commentaries, Vol. 33: Matthew, Mark and Luke

This is what Luther said:

  Jerome brings up the question why the evangelist Matthew cited this testimony as being from Jeremiah when it never appears in Jeremiah but in this prophet, Zechariah. Briefly, I have this to answer: the evangelists do not generally cite testimonies from the prophets word for word. They merely bring out the sense. This is what Matthew also does in the passage we mentioned above in chapter 9:9, where the prophet said: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion. Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem.” Matthew cites this as follows (Matt. 21:5): “As it is written, tell the daughter of Zion, Behold, your King is coming to you, etc.” Here, clearly, the words are different. Yet nothing of the sense has been changed. Then, too, Matthew added (Matt. 27:9) “by the children of Israel,” which does not occur in the prophet This Matthew obviously did to explain that buying and selling and to warn that the children of Isarel were responsible for it. As to the fact that He cites the testimony as coming from Jeremiah, I have nothing else to respond than this common answer, that the prophet perhaps had two names or that in the custom of other evangelists, too, Matthew was quoting generally, without any concern for the name of the prophet. Augustine (q. v.) discusses this passage carefully, would not readily believe that the names of the books of the prophets were exchanged because of changed tittles. Then, too, there undoubtedly were with Matthew saintly and learned men, filled with the Spirit, who advised him that the Scripture which he cited was in Zechariah, not in Jeremiah. Admonished by their advice, he could have corrected that slight error, had he wished or had he thought it important. But there is no reason for us to bother ourselves with these and similar difficulties. After all, the life and sum of our faith do not lie in them. Those people who labor over nonessential matters of this sort are more than mad. Yet this is one thing which the prophets of our day try to do when they read Scriptures for the purpose of searching out texts like this which they can use as the handle and material of debate and controversy. In the meantime, they neglect the lifeblood of religion, when they ought to be performing this one duty especially—teaching a ruling Christ, This is something all the apostles do with unanimous agreement.

Conclusion: The reformers certainly believed in the inerrancy of scripture (as they usually make effort to resolve apparent contradictions) but they did not feel the need to resolve every little minute detail and fact and actually did not seem overly bothered if a small fact, unrelated to anything, was wrong.  They seemed less obsessed about small unrelated facts compared to us.  They did not seem to put their hands over the ears like Edward Much's famous painting 'scream' and think, ‘If we allow one mistake then who is to say that all is not a mistake, Oh boy, worry me, the sky is falling, what shall we ever do?’  I am not saying there are any mistakes in the original text, but I do wonder at times whether it matters. I think we could learn from the attitude of the reformers a bit on this one.


What is the biblical basis for valuing virginity, but dispensing with levirate marriage? Throughout scripture, marriage practices were a very complicated system. Because women did not have many rights and were unable to own property. As a result, levirate marriage established a system in which women's social security as they aged was protected by ensuring that they had heirs to which to pass their estate and children to care for them in their old age.

Under this system, typically, it was the responsibility of a widow's brother-in-law to marry the widow in the event of her husband's passing before leaving her with an heir as outlined in Deuteronomy 25:5-6. This is seen in the story of Judah and Tamar and complications arising from this tradition are seen in the story of Ruth.

Similarly, the bride-price or dowry was intended to compensate a family and a father for the loss of a worker in agragarian society as well as ensure that in the event of a divorce, a woman would have some recompense upon rejoining her family. This-bride price also had a ripple effect within the familial-social system by allowing a family to use the bride-price received from marrying off a daughter in order to allow a son to find a bride.

One component of this was the virginity of the bride-to-be. Exodus 22:16–17 and Deuteronomy 22:28–29 indicate that if a woman loses her virginity before marriage, she may no longer be able to fetch the bride-price as a result and these verses provide for economic recompense in these situations.

In modern Western culture, we no longer maintain these practices or arranged marriages and purchasing of virginity as they are considered barbaric. Since women are no longer treated as property and have equal rights to men, this is considered a barbaric relic. Despite dispensing with all of the other components of the levirate marriage complex, one component that remains in western culture is the idea that sex before marriage is still un-Biblical today, while the other components of levirate marriage do not enjoy an equal status or treatment. This belief may be more influenced by the virtuization of the virginity of Mary, but what is the Biblical basis for dispensing with Levirate Marriage Customs but not the interlocking requirement of virginity before marriage in Western culture

An evangelical perspective on this issue:
Q: What is the biblical basis for valuing virginity, but dispensing with levirate marriage?
A1: Applying the ruling of the council of Jerusalem upholds the former but does not enjoin the latter.
In discussing what provisions of the law gentile converts to Christianity must adhere to, the early church decided:

[they] are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality... - Acts 15:29 NIV

But released them from following any other particulars of the Mosaic law. The traditional understanding of sexual immorality is that it includes any kind of extra-marital sex, whereas levirate marriage would come under the "other particulars" that are no longer required.
A2: The same basic reasons that Jesus gives for "dispensing" with Mosaic divorce laws, but maintaining prohibitions against adultery:

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Matthew 19:3-12 NIV, Emphases added)

The social security aspect of levirate marriage laws were only necessary in the context of hardened hearts that failed to see that the commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" (cf. Leviticus 19:18) has such a broad application that fulfilling it, also fulfills all other laws governing human-to-human interactions. After the Holy Spirit was poured out, the believers (with regenerated soft hearts, full of the love of God) in the early church looked after the widows amongst them as a loving community superceding the necessity of the welfare provisions of Levirate marriage (cf. Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-35; 6:1-7; James 1:27).
The value of virginity is also changed in the context of the new covenant - it should no longer be seen as merely valuable in the sense of property rights, shame, societal norms etc. (as those with hardened hearts may have done), but in terms of a refocusing on the original design of God's sacred covenant for marriage which is undermined by any act of fornication or adultery. As Andy Stanley puts it, "sex is not just a physical", but it is integral to the sacred joining that occurs in the God-designed one-flesh union and should not be profaned, but reserved for that purpose (cf. Hebrews 13:4; Ephesians 5:21-33); and in the context of a new paradigm of paramount focus on the Kingdom of God that looks beyond the (still legitimate, but subsidiary and, for those "to whom it has been given", deniable) needs of human companionship and sexuality (cf. Matthew 19:12; 1 Corinthians 7:1-9; 25-40; Revelation 14:4). In these particular contexts, the value of virginity is broadened (unmistakeably including men, not just women) and sacralized.


In LDS canon, is the Final Judgement before or after the resurrection? I've always understood the Final Judgment to occur just before the resurrection because the judgement determines which glory you are resurrected to. The Gospel Principles lesson on the Final Judgement seems to imply that also. It makes sense because we are to be resurrected to a glory, but that glory is dependent on the outcome of our judgement.

However I was reading in 2 Nephi 9 this morning where it says that the resurrection comes before judgment.

  13 O how great the plan of our God! For on the other hand, the
  paradise of God must deliver up the spirits of the righteous, and the
  grave deliver up the body of the righteous; and the spirit and the
  body is restored to itself again, and all men become incorruptible,
  and immortal....

  15 And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from
  this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal,
  they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel;
  and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according
  to the holy judgment of God.

There in verse 13 it says that the spirit and body are reunited (resurrection) and so we become immortal. Then in verse 15 it says that after we become immortal (resurrected) we will be judged.

So which is it? Does the judgment occur before or after the resurrection?

In Alma 40, it also states:

  21 But whether it be at his [Christ's] resurrection or after, I do not say; but
  this much I say, that there is a space between death and the
  resurrection of the body, and a state of the soul in happiness or in
  misery until the time which is appointed of God that the dead shall
  come forth, and be reunited, both soul and body, and be brought to
  stand before God, and be judged according to their works.

Which means, the final judgement is after the resurrection.

But remember also that the resurrection of the unjust is later than the resurrection of the just:

Doctrine and Covenants 76:63-65 (speaking of celestial glory)

  63 These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in
  the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people.

  64 These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection.

  65 These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the
  just.

Doctrine and Covenants 76:85 (speaking of telestial glory)

  85 These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the
  last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have
  finished his work.

So, yes, we are judged after we have been resurrected, and how that judgement is going to turn out determines when it happens (along with the resurrection of that individual). That makes perfect sense given the divine mercy, since that way the individual gets as much time as possible to repent, up until the appointed time of the Final Judgement.

So, both things you said are true (judgement determines how and when we are resurrected, but resurrection happens before the judgement), but as an event, resurrection happens before the judgement. Maybe the confusion clears if we settle with the following formulation: Our actions (and motives etc. and not forgetting this is only possible due to divine grace) determine when we are resurrected, how we are resurrected, and what the outcome of the judgement will be.


How were women to serve the church according to the Apostolic Fathers? Did the Apostolic Church Fathers write about the capacity in which women were to serve in the early church, or expand the capacity in which they served the church? In other words, what were they responsible for as far as the Apostolic Church Fathers were concerned? As the church grew did their responsibilities grow as well?

The woman Grapte referred to in I.2.IV of the Shepherd of Hermas is understood to have been a deaconess.  The duties of deaconesses, however, are not understood to be equivalent to those of deacons, but involved, rather, ministering to widows and orphans, and perhaps helping to prepare and baptize women.  The above passage is an example:

  You will write therefore two books, and you will send the one to
  Clemens and the other to Grapte. And Clemens will send his to foreign
  countries, for permission has been granted to him to do so. And Grapte
  will admonish the widows and the orphans.

The Apostolic Constitutions, which may have been published long after the Apostolic Fathers, but is thought by many to represent the teachings of both them and the Apostles, provides additional details about the roles of deaconesses:

  For let the bishop preside over you as one honoured with the authority
  of God, which he is to exercise over the clergy, and by which he is to
  govern all the people. But let the deacon minister to him, as Christ
  does to His Father; and let him serve him unblameably in all things,
  as Christ does nothing of Himself, but does always those things that
  please His Father. Let also the deaconess be honoured by you in the
  place of the Holy Ghost, and not do or say anything without the deacon

  In the next place, let the presbyters one by one, not all together,
  exhort the people, and the bishop in the last place, as being the
  commander. Let the porters stand at the entries of the men, and
  observe them. Let the deaconesses also stand at those of the women,
  like shipmen. For the same description and pattern was both in the
  tabernacle of the testimony and in the temple of God

  Ordain also a deaconess who is faithful and holy, for the
  ministrations towards women. For sometimes he cannot send a deacon,
  who is a man, to the women, on account of unbelievers. Thou shalt
  therefore send a woman, a deaconess, on account of the imaginations of
  the bad. For we stand in need of a woman, a deaconess, for many
  necessities; and first in the baptism of women, the deacon shall
  anoint only their forehead with the holy oil, and after him the
  deaconess shall anoint them

There also appears to be a prohibition against women baptizing:

  Now, as to women’s baptizing, we let you know that there is no small
  peril to those that undertake it. Therefore we do not advise you to
  it; for it is dangerous, or rather wicked and impious. For if the “man
  be the head of the woman,” and he be originally ordained for the
  priesthood, it is not just to abrogate the order of the creation, and
  leave the principal to come to the extreme part of the body. For the
  woman is the body of the man, taken from his side, and subject to him,
  from whom she was separated for the procreation of children. For says
  He, “He shall rule over thee"


Why does God desire glorification? If my interpretation of the ultimate purpose of human existence according to the Bible is correct, humanity exists to glorify the existence of God. In Isaiah 43:7, it is stated "everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” This outlines humanity's purpose as a device to glorify God.

But if God is a perfect being, why does he desire to be glorified? Normally, this characteristic would be associated with a being that is insecure or narcissistic, which are not to my understanding perfect traits.

Surely this  is a pretty fundamental attribute of God for which Christianity surely has a doctrine. In there a specific theological term used for this topic? And what do different Christian theological traditions teach about this issue? Is there there a general explanation that is broadly agreed on explaining this attribute of God or are there different explanations?

Starting from God requesting us to glorify Him is starting from the end of the order of things.
First and foremost, God deserves to be praised. Hence His request for it from us. That is the correct order of things. Not to glorify God for us is equivalent to not understanding our place in the world, and our relation to God. We are His creatures. Everything was created by God (by the Father through the Son of God, Jesus). Or do you think human beings are good and powerful enough to compare with God? The creature more than the Creator? (Ideas developed more here).
Hence, from our position as creatures, it follows that we must glorify Him. In fact, it is a basic movement of the heart in Christians (as so beautifully expressed by so many hymns and writings of Saints) to praise God for the marvelous gifts received (including life itself, nature, etc). For instance, St Paul writes to the Romans (11:33-36):

How rich are the depths of God – how deep his wisdom and knowledge – and how impossible to penetrate his motives or understand his methods! Who could ever know the mind of the Lord? Who could ever be his counsellor? Who could ever give him anything or lend him anything? All that exists comes from him; all is by him and for him. To him be glory for ever! Amen.

If God would not ask us to glorify Him, God would be lying to us. Jesus Himself said (John 13:13):

You call me Master, and Lord; and you say well, for so I am.

This is, saying the truth is saying well. Hence, worshiping God is doing well too. If God would not asks us to glorify Him, we would not be doing well. Hence God's call for us to worship Him as what he truly is, God our Creator.
The entry on Glory in the Catholic Encyclopedia also mention this acknowledgment:

... glory is equivalent to praise rendered to God in acknowledgment of His majesty and perfections manifested objectively in the world, or through supernatural revelation.

Notice also that a narcissist needs to be hailed e.g. to fill in self-esteem vacuums. God however needs nothing. The same entry above states beautifully:

Infinite, He possesses the plenitude of Being and Perfection; He needs nothing, and can receive no complementary increment or superfluous accession of excellence from without.

This is, our act of glorifying God does not expand God in any way. By glorifying God we are simply acknowledging the true order of things. It is just reasonable for God to asks us to recognise this true order of things.
Thus, if God is immutable to our glorification of Him, what is it's purpose? St. Aquinas touched upon this in his Summa Theologiae, Question 123:

As Augustine says on John 13:13, "You call Me Master and Lord; and you say well" (Tract. lviii in Joan.): "Self-complacency is fraught with danger of one who has to beware of pride. But He Who is above all, however much He may praise Himself, does not uplift Himself. For knowledge of God is our need, not His: nor does any man know Him unless he be taught of Him Who knows." It is therefore evident that God seeks glory, not for His own sake, but for ours. On like manner a man may rightly seek his own glory for the good of others, according to Matthew 5:16, "That they may see your good works, and glorify your Father Who is in heaven."

God created us in order to share His life with us. That was a selflessness act of Love. God, loved us first, and made us to love Him and love our brethren, and to have eternal life in Him, in perfect happiness. This is quite the opposite to the narcissist God commonly attributed to Christianity.

Notice also that the concept of glory has different meaning across Scriptures. In fact, the quote in your question refers, in my opinion, to the case of the creation of God as a sign of God's powerfulness. This sense of glory if more in line with that which is referred to in the Jesuit motto Ad majorem Dei gloriam (to the greater glory of God). This is often is explained as meaning that the glory of God is the salvation of its creatures.


What is an overview of Protestant critiques of Swedenborgianism? Swedenborgianism, or the New Church, is a religious movement based on the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772).  My understanding is that he saw a series of visions, and based on what he learned in these visions and his interpretation of the Bible, he developed a system of theology that differs on some points from traditional Christianity.

What do Protestants think of this system?  I'm most interested in points of disagreement, so, what is an overview of Protestant critiques of Swedenborgianism?

Protestant critiques of Swedenborgianism first appeared shortly after the publications of his spiritual writings in the middle of the 18th century.  Protestant theologians focused most closely on his teachings and those of his followers through the 19th century, and since then have afforded Swedenborgianism relatively little attention.1
The primary Protestant critiques of Swedenborgianism can be grouped into several categories:

The source and nature of Swedenborg's visions
Inspiration and interpretation of the Bible
The doctrines of the nature of God, salvation, and the afterlife

Swedenborg's visions
Source of the visions
The source of Swedenborg's visions is a matter of some debate within Protestantism, though they are universally scorned.  Some, beginning with Swedenborg's contemporary, John Wesley, attributed the visions to insanity: Wesley wrote in his journal that Swedenborg was "one of the most ingenious, lively, and entertaining madmen that ever set pen to paper" and that his dreams were "remote both from Scripture and common sense."2
More modern treatments, however, often attribute the visions to the occult. Walter Martin and Ravi Zacharias admit that "no one can reasonably say that Swedenborg was insane," but instead call him a "medium" and "thoroughgoing spiritist," and provide several examples of "communication with the spirit world in direct violation of the express commands of Scripture."3 John Ankerberg and John Weldon say that he "fell prey to deceiving spirits" and ignored scriptural warnings against spirit contact because he "believed 'good' spirits had taught him the truth."4
Nature of the visions
It naturally follows from the preceding that Protestants view the alleged supernatural revelation of Swedenborg as novel and false.  A. H. Strong argues that "all new communications which would contradict or supersede" Scripture, including Swedenborg's, must be tested against God's Word according to 1 John 4:1.5  He also suggests the test of miraculous signs, and finds that "all so-called new prophecy, from Montanus to Swedenborg, proves its own falsity by its lack of attesting miracles."6
A. A. Hodge likewise finds that Swedenborgianism lacks the "'signs' of a supernatural revelation."  Instead, it and other similar "pretended revelations of the Spirit," like Mormonism, "are inconsistent with Scripture truth, directly oppose the authority of Scripture and teach bad morals."7 Charles Hodge finds a striking similarity between revelation in Islam and Swedenborgianism: "as to the evidence, on which they ask us to receive their professed revelation, there is very little difference in principle."8
Bible
Canon
Swedenborg's Protestant critics attack him and his followers for what they regard as a failure to properly regard the traditional Bible.  Strong and others strenuously object to his "rejection of nearly one half the Bible (Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and the whole of the N. T. except the Gospels and the Apocalypse)."9 After examining the concept of "internal sense" promoted by Swedenborg as the basis for selection, Hodge instead argues that:

The authority of Swedenborg, capriciously exercised, is the true cause of rejecting these books. [...] The truth is, this rejection of thirty-two books is an open and arbitrary act of infidelity; and no reason can be given why we may not upon like grounds renounce the whole word of God.10

Furthermore, Hodge finds that Swedenborg's followers, for practical purposes, put Swedenborg's "writings before those of the prophets" of the Old Testament.11 Martin and Zacharias claim that "Swedenborg is consistently and energetically refuted by the epistles of Paul, particularly, the book of Romans, chapters 5 through 8, which Swedenborg detested with abject horror," and that this is the real basis for rejecting the epistles: "He began with the basic assumption that he was right, and that the apostle Paul was wrong!"12
Interpretation
Martin and Zacharias call Swedenborg's method of exegesis "a spiritual mode of interpreting Scripture."13 Church historian Philip Schaff calls his allegorizing "arbitrary and fanciful, often ingenious, often absurd," going "further than Philo and Origen in their allegorical method."14 Analyzing some examples of Swedenborg's "Science of Correspondence," Hodge finds that "every thing in scripture is figurative" and through it "the scriptures are made to mean any thing that the fancy of man can invent."15
Schaff notes that Swedenborg's "new revelation and theory of Scripture interpretation [...] exerted no influence on the regular course of historical development," and mercilessly states why:

The exegesis of Swedenborg is original, but critically and theologically worthless, and hence ignored in commentaries.14

Doctrine
In commenting generally on Swedenborg's doctrine, John Wesley calls it "quite unproved, quite precarious from beginning to end" and "in many instances [...] contradictory to Scripture, to reason, and to itself."16   Hodge calls the writings of Swedenborgianism a "labyrinth":

To the sober-minded who wish evidence before faith, who exercise their judgments, and are governed by any laws of reasoning, or rules of interpretation, we can conceive of nothing more unpleasant than an attempt to read, digest or understand the doctrine.  We have called it above "a system," but we used the term for want of a better.  It is a maze, a howling wilderness, a dreary waste of confusion and impiety.17

The most commonly cited examples of doctrinal discrepancy are in regards to the nature of God, particularly the Trinity and God's method of creation; atonement and justification; and the afterlife.
Nature of God
Louis Berkhof and John Frame, two recent systematic theologians, spare Swedenborg little notice in their summaries of the doctrine of the Trinity. Frame dismisses him as a thinker "whose thought was governed more by speculation than by Scripture,"18 and like Frame, Berkhof calls Swedenborg a Modalist:

Others followed the way pointed out by Sabellius by teaching a species of Modalism, as, for instance, Emanuel Swedenborg, who held that the eternal God-man became flesh in the Son, and operated through the Holy Spirit.19

Hodge likewise sees similarity in the views of Sabellius and Swedenborg: "There is indeed considerable variation in the language used, but the substance seems to us to be the same."20 A. H. Strong summarizes Swedenborg's view as "that God exists in the shape of a man—an anthropomorphism of which the making of idols is only a grosser and more barbarous form."21
Regarding the creation of the world, Berkhof and Strong liken Swedenborg's view to that of the Syrian Gnostics: "that the universe is of the same substance of God"22 and that "[creation] originated by emanation out of the divine substance."23 Hodge cites Swedenborg's rejection of traditional creation and finds that he instead "gathered up" the "essential principles of pantheism."24
Atonement and salvation
Charles Hodge summarizes Swedenborg's view of atonement as follows:

Christ’s redemptive work does not consist in his bearing our sins upon the tree, or in making satisfaction to the justice of God for our offences. All idea of such satisfaction Swedenborg rejects. The work of salvation is entirely subjective. Justification is pardon granted on repentance.25

Elsewhere, he writes on the same topic that "doctrines more contrary to those taught by the Apostles we may safely say have never been propagated."26   Hodge also notes that Swedenborgians do not accept the justification by faith, and argues that they "greatly misrepresented" it.  Attempting to clarify, he writes:

The Christian world does not hold that the faith, which justifies, is separate from charity, or that it alone exists in the heart [...]. Faith is not meritorious but only instrumental in justification.  If Swedenborg had half the information or discernment attributed to him by his followers, he must have known that he was misrepresenting the doctrine of the Christian world.27

Strong, Wesley, and Hodge also criticize the claim that Swedenborgianism is essential to salvation.  Strong notes that in Swedenborg's visions, members of the sects that Swedenborg disliked "were in the hells, condemned to everlasting punishment."28  Wesley writes, "and the worst is, he flatly affirms, 'None can go to heaven, who believes three persons in the Godhead.'"29
Heaven, hell, and resurrection
Swedenborg's revelation regarding heaven and hell remind many Protestants of Islam, both in its marked contrast to the revelation of the Bible and in the description itself. On the first point, Archibald Alexander writes:

It is worthy of remark, that although the Scriptures express the joys of heaven, and the miseries of hell, by the strongest figures, they do not enter much into detail, respecting the condition of men, in the future world. There is true wisdom in this silence; because it is a subject, of which we are, at present, incapable, of forming any distinct conceptions. Paul, after being caught up “to paradise, and to the third heaven,” gave no account of what he saw and heard, when he returned. How different is this from the ridiculous description of the seven heavens, by Mohammed; and from the reveries of Emmanuel Swedenborg!30

John Wesley critiqued Swedenborg's view of heaven as "low, grovelling, just suiting a Mahometan paradise" and prone "to sink our conceptions, both of the glory of heaven, and of the inhabitants of it."31  Wesley's criticism of the doctrine of hell followed similar lines:

And his account of hell leaves nothing terrible in it; for, first, he quenches the unquenchable fire.  He assures us there is no fire there [...].  And, secondly, he informs you, that all the damned enjoy their favourite pleasures.  He that delights in filth is to have his filth; yea, and his harlot too!31

Regarding Swedenborg's doctrine of resurrection, Hodge writes that "it is not a resurrection at all";32 instead, "At death the outer body is laid aside, and the soul thereafter acts through the ethereal or spiritual vestment. This is the only resurrection which Swedenborg admitted. There is no rising again of the bodies laid in the grave."25
Martin and Zacharias note that this precludes the future "resurrection of both the just and the unjust [...] in conjunction with the 'appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ'"33 that they see clearly taught in the book of Revelation.
Summary
Martin and Zacharias summarize Swedenborgianism by calling it "outside the pale of Christian theology [...] not only concerning the Canon, but concerning such doctrines as the nature of God, the holy Trinity, the atonement of Jesus Christ, and the doctrines of salvation and resurrection."34 In closing, they write:

The great tragedy of Emanuel Swedenborg is that he would not submit himself and his great mind to the discipline of the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures.  Because of this, and because of his deliberated preoccupation with spiritism and the occult, in direct disobedience to the express teachings of God, he was despoiled, even as Paul had warned [Colossians 2:8–9]. He was deceived by dreams and visions and the machinations of him whom the Scriptures describe as the "spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:2b).35

References:

Alexander, Evidences of the Christian Religion (1832)
Ankerberg and Weldon, Cult Watch (1991)
Berkhof, Systematic Theology (1938)
Frame, Systematic Theology (2013)
Hodge, A. A., Commentary on the Confession of Faith (1869)
Hodge, C., ed., Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, 1848, No. III, Art. II. (1848). This 22-page article is the most complete Protestant critique of the doctrine of Swedenborg and his followers that I've found.
Hodge, C., ed., Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, 1870, No. II, Art. II. (1870)
Hodge, C., Systematic Theology (1873)
Martin and Zacharias, Kingdom of the Cults (2003)
Schaff, Theological Propaedeutic (1892)
Strong, Systematic Theology (1886)
Wesley, Journals
Wesley, Works (v. 4)

Notes:

A. A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, Archibald Alexander, and A. H. Strong all wrote in the late 19th century or earlier.  My searches indicate that Swedenborg is notably absent from treatments like Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology (1994), H. Orton Wiley's Christian Theology (1940), J. Rodman William's Renewal Theology (1996), and Gregg R. Allison's Historical Theology (2011).  He merits extremely brief mention in John Frame's Systematic Theology (2013) and, rather surprisingly, William Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine (1863).
Wesley, Journals
Martin and Zacharias, 634
Ankerberg and Weldon,  171–72
Strong, I: 32
Strong, II: 712
Hodge, A. A., 60–61
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 349–50
Strong, I: 207
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 335–36
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 338
Martin and Zacharias, 638
Martin and Zacharias, 633
Schaff, 226–27
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 346–48
Wesley, Works, IV: 149
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 350–51
Frame, 476
Berkhof, 1.1.8.A
Hodge, C., ed. 1848: 340
Strong, I: 251
Strong, II: 383
Berkhof, 1.2.3.C.4
Hodge, C., ed., 1870: 214
Hodge, C. 3.3.8
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 341
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 342
Strong, II: 386
Wesley, Works, IV: 149.  He appears to be quoting Swedenborg's Doctrine of the Lord.  Hodge remarks similarly in 1848: 352.
Alexander, 191
Wesley, Works, IV: 149–50
Hodge, C., ed., 1848: 345
Martin and Zacharias, 640
Martin and Zacharias, 632
Martin and Zacharias, 641


What is an overview of "mysteries" in the Catholic Church? In some of my reading on Catholic doctrines, I've noticed that some teachings are clearly explained with rational or moral arguments, and others are called mysteries, that often lack such clear explanations.

What is an overview of doctrines within the Catholic Church that are "mysteries"?

From this summary of current teaching, the most commonly presented mysteries include:

The Paschal Mystery
The Mystery of the Trinity
The Mystery of the Father (The Mystery of God)
The Mystery of the Incarnate Word
The Mystery of the human person
The Mystery of Original Sin
The Mystery of Incarnation
The Mystery of the Resurrection
The Mystery of Salvation
The Mystery of the Church itself.

  The Church is a mystery in as much as in her visible reality there is
  present and active a divine spiritual reality which can only be seen
  with the eyes of faith.

The Church doesn't leave it at that, as each is explored in some depth in both the Catechism and a variety of other documents, but each is classified as a mystery for reasons best left to each topic's details.


Prior to Exodus 3:5, was it customary to take off one's shoes on sacred ground? In the King James version of the Bible, Exodus 3:5, we read,

  And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy
  feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

We are to understand that this act was a sign of respect for holy ground, but was it already customary to perform this act on holy ground?

The practice to remove shoes (and other parts of clothing) in various circumstances seems to permeate throughout ancient cultures. Even with a liberal dating of Exodus around 700 BC, that still places the practice as very old among the Jewish people. Various reasons given include respect and hygene:

  It was a custom for a person to remove their shoes as a mark of respect when approaching a Nazarene, or a place where a Nazarene lived or was buried. The practice primarily related to hygene rules.
  The Bible, The Hallowed Book of Man - Robert George Crosbie

Other sources: Why are sandals considered to be unholy? and Was removing one's shoes a special sign of respect?

To date the practice before Moses, we'd need an older Jewish instance, but they seem hard to find, including the absence in any earlier Biblical stories (both in real dating and chronology). Jews in general believe that the practice was taught to Moses and was not known (at least to them) before that time. For example:

  [T]he Jewish custom that requires mourners who at the conclusion of a funeral to remove their shoes in the graveyard as they depart the palce of burial ... undeniably echoes Jewish behavior on hallowed ground. This is a practice that God taught Moses when he warned him to "take off your shoes from your feet ..."
  When a Jew Dies - Samuel C. Heilman

However, Egyptians removed their shoes when entering their temples, and the story tells us that Moses was raised as a prince by Egyptians, so he should have had much contact with Egyptian priests.

  [Egyptian] priests wore papyrus or palm leaf sandals made so that they could be slipped on from the front or rear. Egyptian priests removed their shoes out of respect for their gods. It was also the custom to remove sandals in the presence of superior rank . Shoes were worn outside the house but never in the home.
  History of Sandals - "Egyptian Sandals"

Conclusion

This seems to me, if we believe Exodus accurately describes Moses' life, strong evidence that Moses was keenly aware of removing foot ware for many reasons, including religious ones.

Extra Information

  The burial of one's own dead in a place in effect turns that place into one's family's hallowed ground on which those who mourn must remove their shoes ... Death numinously transforms these places so that they are no longer profane and are set apart from the rest of the world. These places then serve, as we have seen, as special portals for petitions to heaven, places where the bond connecting mourners, the dead, and God are ritually reenacted and affirmed.
  When a Jew Dies - Samuel C. Heilman

While searching for sources, I found this concept of transformation of the profane into something holy, merely because something divine has happened, opened a few doors for some interesting cultural explanations that do not exist in our modern society. It would seem that the idea that a "divine touch" makes things holy, therefore makes them no longer usable in common use. God touched the ground where the burning bush was, making it holy, but had Moses' shoes then touched that ground, they would also have been made holy and it would then be a blasphemy to use them in common vulgarities.

  [I]t was common practice in many cultures to remove their shoes when walking on sacred ground lest their sandals become transformed.  Contact with hallowed ground would have made their shoes unusable for everyday living.  Priests and other individuals, who regularly were exposed to the divine, often wore special garments that were reserved for that purpose.
  Göbekli Tepe: The Burying Of An Ancient Megalithic Site - Dr. Rita Louise

The author continues, discussing a different culture but contemporary to Moses', and notes that ancient peoples feared unintentionally making things holy:

  A god, or his human counterpart, could not be touched; his possessions could not be handled.  Likewise, if he touched you or something that belonged to you, its status was instantly changed.  The rules of taboo included their home and anything in it.  If a divine agent entered someone’s home, their home became sanctified and no one else could go into it or use it.  Even the ground a divinity walked upon was deemed holy.  Their fear of unintentionally coming into contact with something sacred was so powerful that it became custom in many regions to carry the god-king upon a littler so his feet did not touch the ground.
  ibid

I can't help but reminded of the strict "no touch" rule of the Ark of the Covenant in this instance. I suspect that Moses had many ideas and images about removal of foot ware and some of them may have included ideas such as the above.


Which virtue did only Jesus teach and practice? Almost all religions teach good morals and virtues to their followers. In the case of Christianity the Lord Jesus Christ is not only the center of Christianity, but also the highest perfect model that Christians should follow.
Jesus taught and practiced many virtues that we read in the New Testament, some of which can be seen in some form in other religions that preexist Christianity. However, there are some teachings that Jesus taught and practiced which do not seem to be present in any ancient religions. Therefore, my question: Is there any virtue or teaching based on the New Testament that is unique to Jesus till today?

Through the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables, Jesus taught people to practice the same virtues that they already knew about, but with differences.

What - The same virtues, but to a greater extent. Go the extra mile. (Matthew 5:41)
Who - Show love not only to friends, but to enemies. (Matthew 5:43-48)
When - Pray without ceasing. Recall the neighbor who came at night for bread (Luke 11:5-8) and the Ten virgins, only some of whom were prepared. (Matthew 25:1-13)
Where - Both locally and to the Ends of the Earth. The Great Commission.
Why - Motive to glorify God, not self. Give in secret, pray in a closet. (Matthew 6:1-8)
How - Not by human effort, but by God's power through His indwelling spirit. (John 15:1-17)

From the reaction of the disciples, this widening and deepening of virtue appeared hardest to acccept concerning two of them: forgiveness and generosity.
Forgiveness
17 Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. 2 It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. 3 So watch yourselves.

“If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. 4 Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them.”

5 The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”

6 He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you. (Luke 17:1-6)

Generosity
18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’”

21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.

22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. 24 Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 25 Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

26 Those who heard this asked, “Who then can be saved?”

27 Jesus replied, “What is impossible with man is possible with God.” (Luke 18:18-27)

Perfection
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Matthew 5:48)
Jesus' insistence that no one will enter Heaven unless they are morally perfect was his most significant statement.


Why are Kingdom Halls sometimes built in the "quick-build" manner? Wikipedia has an article on Kingdom Halls that states:

  In many countries, a number of standard designs of construction are used that can be built in just a few days. The act of constructing a Kingdom Hall in this manner is called a quick-build, although typically the preparation work involving the structural foundation and surrounding surface may take several weeks prior to the scheduled build. For various reasons, not all Kingdom Halls are constructed as quick-builds or using the standard designs.

Seeing many issues that can go wrong with building something so quickly I figure there is some sort of theological importance in doing this, however, not all are quick-builds, so it cannot be all that important.

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses build their Kingdom Halls in three days?

Please provide quotes and links to official sources

As another answer stated, we get the building done in 3 days for convenience mostly. The whole thing is amazingly organized and thus moves quickly.

Nothing is done to be cheap. That would be disrespect to Jehovah. The main concern is to not take time away from the builders lives and to continue the preaching work. The preaching work is the #1 priority to us. Look at Acts 6:1-4. A situation arose where the Greek widows weren't getting food, but the Hebrew ones where. Instead of taking up the time of the Apostles with fixing this the twelve assigned reputable men to take care of distribution. What is their motive? Furthering and focusing on the preaching work.

Like the apostles, we too focus mainly on our ministry. We use our resources and time wisely, so as not to slow the preaching works.

I don't know why we decided on 3 days, but we do it and do it well. The level of education doesn't matter. It matters only that you are motivated to do so. If you don't know how to do anything, then chances are you are going to learn a lot. There are a lot of skilled brothers on site working on whatever section is their trade.

We get a lot of volunteers from all over the state and some out of state. Here is a video showing the building of a kingdom hall. This one actually only took 2 days. Quickbuild

Most of us tend to not have a ton of money, but that is because we work to pay bills and provide for what we need. A lot only work part time, so that they have more time to go out and preach.

When building we want 3 things Quality, safety, speed. I think we achieve those remarkably well. Safety. To attest to the quality of the building, just attend a meeting. The building is not extravagant, but also not cheap. The buildings are made to last and are well maintained.

I am currently an unbaptized publisher working towards baptism. I am prospectively looking at going to trade school for something like electrician, HVAC, etc.. sometime early 2014. I will most likely be helping with quick builds very soon :)


Is there really a Catholic "blessing for bacon?" The following appeared on my facebook feed today:

  The "what random things do we have short formulated prayers for" game is almost as funny as the "how many bizarre things do we have patron saints of" game.

  I seriously just found a blessing for bacon. Specifically for bacon.

  "Bless, O Lord, this bacon, that it may be a meritious food for Thy children, and grant that through the invocation of Thy holy name all those who eat of it may obtain prosperity, health, and preservation of their souls, through Christ our Lord. Amen. "

I realize that for Baptists, this is totally acceptable. We can pray about anything, and since potluck is a sacrament, and if you take out the "preservation of their souls," probably has been done.  We can pray about anything. And, we wing it a lot. For Catholics, however, I assume there is a little more rigour around making a prayer "official."

So, several questions came to mind in regards to this question, all centered around the legitimacy of this claim and authentication thereof.

Is this actually a thing, or is someone pulling my leg?
(Note: this link appears to substantiate it)
How would I find out?
Who within the heirarchy has the ability to declare an official "blessing for bacon?"

I really like this question.

It draws attention to an important point to be made, which is, of all the things explicitly managed by the Church, personal prayer is relatively low on the list.

As a Catholic belonging to a predominately Southern Baptist extended family (most of them consider fried chicken a sacrament in lieu of potluck), I must constantly remind myself that the Church can appear from the outside to be rather rigid.

The truth is that, although the Church explicitly defines the rituals surrounding the Sacraments and sacramentals, personal devotion and prayer is, for the most part wide open.

Can a Catholic pray a spontaneous prayer? Absolutely! – as long as it is not inappropriately interruptive. (e.g. not during functions such as weddings, funerals, Mass, etc.)

Can Catholics “wing” prayers? Sure…I know I have a time or two. My priest does all the time.

In all reality, my blessings aren't that much different than that of my ordained Baptist Brother-in-Law.

Is this “bacon prayer” an “official prayer” of the Catholic Church? No.

From what I can tell, this is, at best, a prayer of a particular localized pious tradition.
The closest “official prayer” I can find of this nature is found in the RITUALE ROMANUM,  which is a collection of the "officially approved" prayers to be used in the Church’s official rituals.

  Blessings of animals

  Lord God, King of heaven and earth, Word of the Father by whom were
  made all creatures destined for our sustenance; we beg you to look
  with favor on our lowly condition; and as you have given us assistance
  in our work and in our needs, so may you bless,   shield, and watch
  over these animals (this animal) with your mercy and heavenly care.
  And to us, your servants, be pleased to give everlasting grace
  together with creature needs, thus enabling us to praise and glorify
  and offer thanks to your holy name; through Christ our Lord. Amen.

The standard prayer for blessing soon to be eaten food (including bacon, fried chicken, and even pot-luck) is as follows:

  Bless us Oh Lord and these thy gifts which we are about to receive
  through thy bounty through Christ Our Lord, Amen.

Wherever you are in the world, this is probably the blessing prayed before all Catholic meals.

Even so…this doesn't necessarily have to be prayed over food - given the appropriate situation.

For instance - my 3 years old daughter and 5 years old son do good just to get out:

  In name of da Fater, Son, whole Spirit…tank you Jeus for dis food.
  Hayman!

We actually let the small children of the family pray the above prayer for all family functions, completely safe from canonical infraction.

All things considered, I’m afraid that what you read in your FB feed was perhaps a slight pseudo-caricature of Catholic devotion.

As for the above “bacon prayer,” I truly hope someone comes up with the origin of this prayer. It will make for a great conversation starter at my next pot-luck Knights of Columbus function.


When will the Millennial Reign prophesied about in Revelation 20 take place? I'm confused by the 20th chapter of the Book of Revelation.

Revelation 20:1-15

  Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while. Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.

I know that "of that day and hour knoweth no man" speaking to the time and day of the Rapture, but when in relation to the Rapture will the Millennial reign, or the 1,000 year rule of Jesus on earth, take place?

There are certain key events in Revelation that we can at least put in order. As you note in your question, however, no one knows the day or the hour.

The millennial reign of the righteous will take place after the first resurrection and after the "dragon" (presumably Satan) is bound, and continues through the second resurrection, at which point a new heaven and a new earth will be made and the righteous will live forever with Christ.

The First Resurrection takes place at Christ's coming and consists of the Righteous Christians only. It is this coming of Christ that "of that day and hour knoweth no man", and is generally what people mean when they say "rapture".

  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
  1 Thessalonian 4:16-17

The First and Second Resurrection and the Final Judgement of all souls is detailed further in Rev. 20.

  4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [This is who takes part in the First Resurrection. They are those that are in Christ; they are Christians; they are the righteous]
  5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. [This is the millennial reign. The righteous have been raised and rule the Earth with Christ.]

It will be 1000 years after the resurrection of the righteous that the remaining souls, the wicked, will be resurrected for Judgement.

  12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God [This is the only place that makes sense for the second resurrection, and we already know from verse 5 that it is 1000 years after the First Resurrection]; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. [After being raised they are judged]

Then Revelation 21 continues with the creation of the new heaven and new earth, then finally wraps up the whole vision.

  And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
  Rev. 21:1

These verses (the whole book, even) are very poetical, but these verses together show that the millennial kingdom will exist between the two resurrections. This is, of course, assuming that everything about Revelation is literal and not metaphorical in some sense. For metaphorical interpretations, you will have to ask different questions with specific frameworks requested (pre-, post-millennial, etc.). At which point, I suggest you acquaint yourself with various views before asking: What are the differences between the different millenialisms?

Order of events:

Second Coming of Christ.
First resurrection, wicked destroyed.
Thousand year reign with Christ on Earth.
Second resurrection, wicked cast into the Lake of Fire.
A new heaven and a new earth, and God will dwell with man.


How can Dietrich Bonhoeffer's inclusion of non-Christians be explained theologically? I remember seeing a documentary about the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. One scene that was very interesting revolved around his leading a worship service in a transport between prisons, for all the prisoners, were he made some sort of special gesture to include non-Christian prisoners as well.

Can anyone describe this event in greater detail.  And could it be said to represent

some sort of use of worship as evangelism, (perhaps analogous to a small Billy Graham crusade)
a change in his beliefs to that of universal salvation,
or a belief in the appropriateness of interfaith worship under
extreme circumstances?

A common emphasis in Bonhoeffer's works such as "The Cost of Discipleship," "Life Together," and "Ethics" is the Church as a both a witness to Christ as well as a blessing to all people.  Since the Church is the body of Christ she is called to bring his love to all people.  (Goodreads has some good quotes from "The Cost of Discipleship" at: The Cost of Discipleship Quotes.

So, in the context of welcoming non-Christian prisoners into worship, I think this would have been an act of blessing and loving them; i.e. sharing in their pain and discomfort.  Christ came to bless all people and made a particular effort to reach out to those who were considered "outsiders" by others.  The Church, as the body of Christ, is called to do the same, both as an act of witness to the reconciliation we have in Christ as well as simply to be a source of mercy and blessing, showing the love of Christ through us.

So, in the three options you propose (i.e. worship as evangelism, a belief in universal salvation, a belief in interfaith worship under extreme circumstances), I think it is the first option, although not explicitly so.  What I mean is that the Church, and particularly Lutherans (such as Bonhoeffer), trust in the Word of God to bring people to faith.  So, Lutherans do not press people to "make a decision" or decide anything.  Rather, the emphasis is on God doing the work to bring people to faith.

Bonhoeffer has, however, been criticized by some people for things such as this (because people perceive a universalist tendency in Bonhoeffer), as well as his participation in the plot to kill Hitler. (See, for example: WHO WAS DIETRICH BONHOEFFER AND WHAT DID HE BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE?)

From actually reading Bonhoeffer, I think the criticisms of him are due to misunderstandings of what he was actually saying, particularly by those who are not acquainted with Lutheran theology.

A good article that talks more about these issues is at: Bonhoeffer's Costly Theology.

A quote from the article which applies to this question is:

  In Bonhoeffer's theology, there is an intimate relationship between Jesus Christ and the church. In his letters from prison Bonhoeffer spoke of Jesus as "the man for others." And in parallel fashion he wrote that the church is truly the church only when it exists for others. Just as Jesus lived his life completely for others (even unto death on the cross), so the church is to serve God by serving the world of need.


According to LDS teaching, Does God have a God? This question discusses the LDS teaching that

“As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.” ( The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1984], 1.)

The teaching is partially motivated by the passage from John5:19,

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

Joseph Smith himself said:

As the Father hath power in Himself, so hath the Son power in Himself, to lay down His life and take it again, so He has a body of His own. The Son doeth what He hath seen the Father do: then the Father hath some day laid down His life and taken it again
-- History of the Church 5:426
I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning.
-- History of the Church 6:373

From LDS.org:

The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.”

As to this notion in the modern LDS church, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Joseph Fielding Smith said in an address in 1971:

“This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us. Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’

So, in summary:

God the Father was once a man who became exalted to Godhood, and created us in his own creation.
The man who is exalted now will be God of his own creation, as God is God of this one.
All Gods have endured this process.

My question is:
From a Mormon perspective, does God still worship the God he worshipped when he was a man on his own Earth?

We don't know the details, and it's possible we will never know in this life.
We know that (1) God was like us (a literal spiritual father-child relationship), and (2) that we can be become like him (heirs of all that he has, and joint-heirs with Christ). Beyond that, little else is known about the exaltation of God.
The notion that God had a Father does have certain symmetry to it, but it isn't discussed in the scriptures.

But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you...
And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.
Moses 1:35-36

In fact, in the very same King Follett discourse you quoted -- which is probably the most detailed description on God's exaltation -- Joseph Smith says:

When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world.


Is praying Rosary by listening considered by the Catholic Church to be as effective as reciting? Does the Catholic Church urge people to pray by reciting, and prefer this method over praying by listening to or watching others pray? Is praying rosary by listening to a recorded audio track viewed as being as effective as praying by reciting the prayer oneself?

Note: by effective I mean effective for spiritual growth or, as we know the prayer affects spiritual battles, as influential in the spiritual realm.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologia II-II q. 83 a. 12 ("Whether prayer should be vocal?") c., writes:

Prayer is twofold, common and individual. Common prayer is that which is offered to God by the ministers of the Church representing the body of the faithful: wherefore such like prayer should come to the knowledge of the whole people for whom it is offered: and this would not be possible unless it were vocal prayer. Therefore it is reasonably ordained that the ministers of the Church should say these prayers even in a loud voice, so that they may come to the knowledge of all.
On the other hand individual prayer is that which is offered by any single person, whether he pray for himself or for others; and it is not essential to such a prayer as this that it be vocal. And yet the voice is employed in such like prayers for three reasons. First, in order to excite interior devotion, whereby the mind of the person praying is raised to God, because by means of external signs, whether of words or of deeds, the human mind is moved as regards apprehension, and consequently also as regards the affections. Hence Augustine says (ad Probam. Ep. cxxx, 9) that "by means of words and other signs we arouse ourselves more effectively to an increase of holy desires." Hence then alone should we use words and such like signs when they help to excite the mind internally. But if they distract or in any way impede the mind we should abstain from them; and this happens chiefly to those whose mind is sufficiently prepared for devotion without having recourse to those signs. Wherefore the Psalmist (Ps. 26:8) said: "My heart hath said to Thee: 'My face hath sought Thee,'" and we read of Anna (1 Kgs. 1:13) that "she spoke in her heart." Secondly, the voice is used in praying as though to pay a debt, so that man may serve God with all that he has from God, that is to say, not only with his mind, but also with his body: and this applies to prayer considered especially as satisfactory. Hence it is written (Osee 14:3): "Take away all iniquity, and receive the good: and we will render the calves of our lips." Thirdly, we have recourse to vocal prayer, through a certain overflow from the soul into the body, through excess of feeling, according to Ps. 15:9, "My heart hath been glad, and my tongue hath rejoiced."