How do those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture explain that not everyone who remains will believe? According to pre-tribulation eschatology, after all the Christians are raptured, why do only some of those who remain believe (during the tribulation)?

It would seem that if all the Christians vanished from the earth, all the remaining people should go "Oh my!! What happened?! We should take this Christianity thing seriously!"

How do those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture explain that not everyone who remains will believe?

It is not only the failure to notice those disappearing in the rapture, other more significant events also fail to motivate people to repent.

  Revelation 16:9-11  And men were scorched with great heat, and
  blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and
  they repented not to give him glory.   And the fifth angel poured out
  his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of
  darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,   And blasphemed the
  God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not
  of their deeds.

The rapture may occur coincident with or just prior to the events described in the first part of chapter six of Revelation where one out of every four people on earth dies. The rapture might not be discerned, but even if it was we have a picture of hardened hearts that would rather try to fight against God and endure unprecedented pain out of their hatred than chose a path of repentance.

There is also the possibility that their hardened hearts were sealed such that they have no interest in repentance.

  2 Thessalonians 2:9-12  Even him, whose coming is after the working of
  Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,  And with all
  deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they
  received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.   And
  for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should
  believe a lie:   That they all might be damned who believed not the
  truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

There is an interesting line from the movie "The Maltese Falcon". Humphrey Bogart is toying with those trying to get information from him. His tactic is to exaggerate each scenario his inquisitors suggest so that they would have to kill him. He thinks that this effectively blocks their proposals. Sidney Greenstreet then urges caution, "Let's be careful because in the heat of the moment men are likely to forget in which direction their best interests lie".

While Greenstreet's warning does have truth in it, it fails to consider the obdurate. depraved, or reprobate mind. Men who have no interest in God when pressed by calamity will probably not make decisions based on even their own best interest, but simply vent their hate and frustration on others. We get a picture of this frustration when such men are not allowed to die.

  Revelation 9:6  And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not
  find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

The tribulation does an effective job of showing the heart of natural (fallen) man. We may deceive ourselves that we are evolving as a species and getting ever wiser, smarter, and more compassionate. However, unprecedented calamity and the righteous wrath of God will expose these delusions for what they are. Like Dorian Gray, we may have to face the ugliness of our real selves.


What is the biblical basis for considering gender to be not merely physical/biological? From the perspective of the tripartite nature of man--that men and women have a body, a soul, and a spirit--is there a biblical basis for the position that gender is not merely present in the body or the physical nature, but that it is also present in the soul and even a person's spirit?

A few other ways to ask the question...

Is there a biblical basis that suggests gender is not merely biological/physical?
Is there a biblical basis that suggests gender is not merely something that distinguishes a person's body type, but also a person's soul type or spirit type?
Is there a biblical basis that suggests masculinity and femininity something that distinguishes not just the the body, but also the soul and possibly the spirit as well?
Is there such a thing as a masculine or feminine soul or spirit?
Is gender identity (being male or female) temporal or eternal? Will we continue to remain as men/women  after our death, in eternity?

You seem to be asking for a definitive verse in scripture that states or implies that the soul has a gender. There is no such verse (it seems), and indexes to mentions of gender list nothing concrete. However:

God made humans, "in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:26), and this was so before the fall. This passage is used to show that human persons are male or female.

The body will rise, for "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body". This passage is used to show that the perfection of a person includes both soul and glorified body. A person is not soul, not body, but the unity of both.

A soul is a male soul in the sense of being the soul of a male person: a person with a male nature. Your hand has no gender, your blood has no gender. In that sense a soul has no gender.

The Bible's account of creation assigns gender to persons. Human persons are both body and spirit. So in that sense gender is not purely physical, because humans are not purely physical.
Souls have "types" in the sense of being the souls of female and male humans, of animals (non-eternal gendered souls), of angels (no gender), of God (no gender!, though the human nature of Christ was male (...but this merits its own question), and we have been instructed by Christ to refer to God the Father as "our Father").
Masculinity and femininity can be aspects of souls/spirit. That the perfections of the female as well as the male can be found in the perfection that is God, who is spirit and without gender, can be seen in Isa 49:14-15; 66:13; Ps 131:2-3; Hos 11:1-4; Jer 3:4-19 (CCC270). Which perfections are appropriate to male humans and which to female might merit its own question.
Are there masculine and feminine souls? Of course: the souls of human males, the souls of human females.
For similar reasons, gender is eternal. A person who has her breasts cut off, like St. Agatha, does not cease to be a female. Even a person who has his head cut off, like St. John, does not cease to be a male. Adam and Eve will rise still male and female, as they were even before sin.


What symbols have represented Christianity through the years? Today the cross is the primary icon of Christianity, but I'm aware of a few others, such as the Ichthys.  What symbols have represented the faith through the centuries?

An anchor was used by the early christians as a symbol of faith. "as an anchor of the soul, sure and firm" (Hebrews 6:19-20). There are several variations some of them can be seen in jesuswalk.com

Another very famous symbol is the chi and rho. Which was used by emperor Constantine as a heavenly divine symbol (coeleste signum dei) on the shields of his soldiers defeating Maxentius in the Battle of Milvian Bridge. For a depiction look at this brief article of Rochester University. The chi and rho are also believed to be reference to the first letters of the word Christ.

Another beatiful symbol is the lamb of god, which makes reference to the imagery of the book of revelation. The meaning of this symbol is explained by John the Baptist himself. "Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" in John 1:29. I think the most beautiful of this depictions can be seen in the wikipedia

This list does not pretend to be exhaustive.


Where is Jesus' body now? In Acts 1 we're told:

After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” Acts 1:9-11 (NIV)

It is not clear to me what the angels mean by Jesus being taken "into heaven". Some Christians believe that Jesus must still have his physcal body, and therefore is present somewhere in our universe. Others interpret "heaven" to mean the spiritual realm, and therefore Jesus in some way transitioned out of our physical realm, although that leaves the question of what happened to his body.
How does Reformed Theology understand where Jesus went when he ascended, and what is their explanation for where Jesus' physical body is now?

St. Paul anticipated questions on the resurrected body of a person, on account of which he says at 1 Cor 15: 35-49:

But someone may ask, “How will the dead be raised? What kind of bodies will they have?”  What a foolish question! When you put a seed into the ground, it doesn’t grow into a plant unless it dies first.  And what you put in the ground is not the plant that will grow, but only a bare seed of wheat or whatever you are planting.  Then God gives it the new body he wants it to have. A different plant grows from each kind of seed.  Similarly there are different kinds of flesh—one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies. The sun has one kind of glory, while the moon and stars each have another kind. And even the stars differ from each other in their glory.
It is the same way with the resurrection of the dead. Our earthly bodies are planted in the ground when we die, but they will be raised to live forever.  Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength.  They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.

If the scripture says that Jesus was taken up into heaven, He is present in heaven in body. Of course, that body is something which transcends human comprehension, just as St. Paul was  trying to explain to the Corinthians.


Can LDS women be Sunday School Presidents? From my understanding, women play a huge role in the LDS church, e.g. The Relief Society (which was established in 1842 and has about 6 million members). Even though they don't have the priesthood and as such don't serve as Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc., they still give talks and say prayers in Sacrament Meetings and are in charge of Primary, Young Women's, etc. But I don't understand why LDS women are not able to be Sunday School Presidents. They can be teachers, but not the presidents? What is the LDS doctrine behind that? Why must a Sunday School President be a priesthood holder if they are not overseeing priesthood ordinances? When anyone receives a calling in the LDS Church, they can receive inspiration for their stewards -- regardless of what their gender is, so I don't know why must a Sunday School President be a male, especially if priesthood activities are not involved. Is is mainly based on tradition? Or is their doctrine behind this?

To preface my answer, not all Church policy is shaped by doctrine. Some policies are practical.
That said, I don't know why this is the case, but the handbook does say:

12.2.2. Ward Sunday School Presidency
Members of the ward Sunday School presidency are priesthood holders.

Also, speaking of the ward Sunday School president:

He also oversees the calling and setting apart of other Sunday School workers. He may assign his counselors to call and set them apart.

This, of course, requires the priesthood to do.


Are these historical records about Jesus' appearance accurate? All says that Jesus has a blonde hair and blue eyes.

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/evidence.html

Various sites report that.

How credible it is?
Sample:

  This is a reprinting of a letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius
  Caesar describing the physical appearance of Jesus. Copies are in the
  Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.

To Tiberius Caesar:

  A young man appeared in Galilee preaching with humble unction, a new law in the Name of the God that had sent Him. At first I was
  apprehensive that His design was to stir up the people against the
  Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke
  rather as a friend of the Romans than of the Jews. One day I observed
  in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning against
  a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This
  I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him
  and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard
  gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30
  years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance.
  What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards
  and tawny complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I
  continued my walk but signified to my secretary to join the group and
  listen. Later, my secretary reported that never had he seen in the
  works of all the philosophers anything that compared to the teachings
  of Jesus. He told me that Jesus was neither seditious nor rebellious,
  so we extended to Him our protection. He was at liberty to act, to
  speak, to assemble and to address the people. This unlimited freedom
  provoked the Jews -- not the poor but the rich and powerful.

Later, I wrote to Jesus requesting an interview with Him at the Praetorium. He came. When the Nazarene made His appearance I was

  having my morning walk and as I faced Him my feet seemed fastened with
  an iron hand to the marble pavement and I trembled in every limb as a
  guilty culprit, though he was calm. For some time I stood admiring
  this extraordinary Man. There was nothing in Him that was repelling,
  nor in His character, yet I felt awed in His presence. I told Him that
  there was a magnetic simplicity about Him and His personality that
  elevated Him far above the philosophers and teachers of His day.

Now, Noble Sovereign, these are the facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth and I have taken the time to write you in detail concerning

  these matters. I say that such a man who could convert water into
  wine, change death into life, disease into health; calm the stormy
  seas, is not guilty of any criminal offense and as others have said,
  we must agree -- truly this is the Son of God!

Your most obedient servant,
Pontius Pilate

Note: I am looking for answers along, how credible gospel of Pilate is, etc.

These sorts of records are dubious to say the least.

For the first case Josephus would never have claimed Jesus to be the Messiah, as he seems to have here:

  Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.( Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1987). The works of Josephus: Complete and unabridged. Peabody: Hendrickson.)

In fact Josephus seems to deliberately not refer to Jesus at all accept in a very minimalistic way. I can’t remember but I think only 2-3 times does Josephus refer at all to Jesus or events at that time. This would be more believable and understandable as Josephus was a historian that was opposed to Christianity. Jesus would have been a black eye to his valued history and pride of his treasured nation, which he himself fought as a soldier to defend. It is therefore nearly unanimously understood by Christians that Josephus’s text was exaggerated or otherwise corrupted by a monk/scribe or who have you.

Many think there was an original smaller reference by Josephus, but trying to decipher what it may have been is impossible. One good theory is found in a tenth-century Arabic copy but even this seems (to me) to have words that are too kind for what Josephus would have thought about Jesus:

  At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. Many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.( Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker Reference Library (254). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
  )

The other quotes that make Jesus seem like a European with ‘blue eyes’ and ‘blonde hair’ is clearly corruptions and falsifications of historical documents. Whether they are entire fabrications or just corruptions of earlier records are somewhat beside the point. It is simple outrageous nonsense. The Bible says that there was nothing about Jesus that attracted men to him. If he was walking around like a European runway model it would fly right against the few biblical descriptions of his appearance. Not only so but it would have attracted so many comments about such strange look for a Jew. Our only expectation of his physical appearance is that he looked like an ordinary Jew. That means he would have most likely had olive skin and dark hair.

  For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (Is 53:2–3).

If there are a few Jews that have blonde hair and blue eyes then I suppose it is a possibility but very doubtful. Also his hair was probably short. He was not a hippie like many movies make him out to be. It was considered shameful for men to have long hair by Jews in biblical times unless under a Nazarene vow like Samson, which Jesus was not under.


Theologians who thought Christ incarnated primarily to reveal the doctrine of the Trinity? Are there any theologians (Doctors or Fathers of the Church) who thought that, regardless whether Adam had sinned, Christ still would have incarnated, primarily to reveal the doctrine of the Trinity?

Hugon, O.P., summarizes

Alexandr. Halens,, Sum. Theol. [Summa fratris Alexandri], dist. 3, q. iii, mem. 13

in Tractatus Dogmatici (vol. 2) pp. 310-11, de Incarnationis motivo:

Alexander Hales proves the Incarnation, even excluding the motive of the redemption, to be still most fitting, because God the supreme good maximally diffuses himself* and blesses the entire man—namely, both his intellectual and sensory parts.Alexander Halensis id solum evincit Incarnationem, etiam secluso motivo redemptionis, esse adhuc convenientissimam ut Deus summum bonum se maxime diffundat et totam humanam, partem nempe et intellectivam et sensitivam, beatificet.

*cf. Scholastic axiom 3.10: "Bonum est diffusivum sui." ("The good is self-diffusive."), from St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I q. 27 a. 5 arg. 2 (major premise); source
Thus, Hales believed that the Incarnation contributed to maximally blessing man's intellect.
It would be interesting to see if Hales cites John 18:37 ("for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth") or John 17:3, which alludes to the Trinity ("Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."), since the Trinity is a truth necessary to believe for salvation.


Did Neanderthals have a soul? From when do people exists/have soul? Does the church agree with some kind of Darwin evolution and big bang theory? If so, from when does human exists? If we think of human as we have soul, did Neanderthals had one? Was it like this individual does not have soul yet but from now, his children do have a soul and are the first people that could go to heaven?

Did Neanderthals have a soul? From when do people exists/have soul?
Do animals have souls like human beings?
The Catholic Church teaches that animals may have mortal souls whereas modern man (after Adam and his descendants) has an immortal soul!
Do animals have souls? Do plants have plant souls? Although not a defined dogma, it is permitted for Catholics to believe Neanderthals may have possessed an animal, yet mortal soul only.
The soul is the principle of life. Since animals and plants are living things, they have souls, but not in the sense in which human beings have souls. Our souls are rational–theirs aren’t–and ours are rational because they’re spiritual, not material.
Animals and plants can’t do anything which transcends the limitations of matter. Although some animals seem clever, they don’t actually possess conceptional intelligence. They can’t, for instance, conceive of the abstract notion of justice.

Most people have experienced the sadness of witnessing an animal die, usually a beloved pet who brought great joy throughout their short lifespan. During the grieving period, it’s common for parents to tell children that there’s a special place for all the animals who have departed from their world – like a pet heaven.
This image of a pet no longer in pain and experiencing paradise can certainly alleviate the worry of a young child wondering where their favourite animal has gone to, but is there any truth to the claim?
The Church has no official teaching on the matter of pets entering heaven, but there are theological principles that can direct us to what answer is most probable.
Catholics believe that all living things have souls, and this includes not only humans, but also plants and animals. When a living thing dies, the soul separates from its body or organic makeup. In the case of animals, the soul goes out of existence. However, the souls of human beings are radically different from the souls of other living things. Whereas the souls of animals are contingent upon their material makeup, human souls remain in existence after death because it is immaterial.
This means that that human souls can’t be destroyed, and so are immortal.
Reasonable
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said in a sermon in 2008, that when an animal dies, it “just means the end of existence on earth”. It’s reasonable to believe then that all animals that die before the Second Coming and the creation of the “new heaven and new earth” will cease to exist.
This, however, doesn’t necessarily mean that there won’t be any animals after the Second Coming.
Some theologians argue that animals flourished in the Garden of Eden, before sin entered the world, and so there’s no inherent or theological contradiction in positing that God could create more animals.Animals were present when the fullness of grace abounded. However, others argue that there will be no need for animals to exist in the new creation, which pertains to ultimately knowing and loving God. Of course, this is all just speculative, and we will only really ever find out the answer at the end of time.

“The souls of human beings are radically different from the souls of other living things”

Do animals go to heaven?

Ultimately, this question should deal with the prospect of whether or not the Neanderthals had the intellectual ability to worship God. In other words were the Neanderthals more animal like or human like?
For those who believe in evolution, the Catholic Church allows the faithful to believe in this theory. The Church equally makes some qualitative point that are to be observe in this domain.
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated:

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

In other words, either Adam and Eve were created as the Scriptures literally tells us or Adam and Eve somehow evolved from some preexisting humanoid form such as the Neanderthals. Only Adam and Eve along with their descendants were infused with the gift of an immortal and rational soul. Thus Neanderthals would not have possessed an immortal soul! They simply possessed a mortal soul like that of any other animal lower in dignity than man.

Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels: thou hast crowned him with glory and honour, and hast set him over the works of thy hands. - Hebrews 2:7

The human lineage of  Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.
Although they say nothing is written in stone, with the exemption of the Ten Commandments written by God, there is lots of room for debate on this issue of human evolution. This is just one perspective.
Just today the news made headlines:

Remains of nine Neanderthals found in cave south of Rome May 8, 2021.

My personal dilemma is whether the Sasquatch (Bigfoot) a living relic of the Neanderthal???


Can indirection bring us closer to Christ? Peter's excellent blog posting pointed to a movement I'd never heard of before: Militia of the Immaculata (MI).  In the process of figuring out what it might be, I read this important qualification:

  Marian consecration is a formal act of self-giving that does not stop at Mary, but is Christ-directed. It is really consecration to Jesus. The MI's mission is "To Lead Every Individual With Mary to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus."

To the computer science side of me, this sounds like indirection:

Consecration to Mary points to
The Most Sacred Heart points to
Jesus.

In programming, indirection can be incredibly useful since it:

Hides irrelevant details
Increases flexibility
Can be efficient from a CPU performance perspective.

Of these, only #1 makes any sense as a use for indirection in the Christian faith, but that can't be a justification as there are usually many more symbols added to the mix in these sorts of movements.  Given that there's something important in the chain of symbols, what's the right way to think of this sort of indirection?

Since we speak at least one common language, perhaps this illustration will shed some light on what Catholics gain by Marian consecration.

Encapsulation

Mary is not the head of the Catholic Church, she is however, the superclass from which all Christians descend.  In my Marian consecration, each day I promise to devote all my prayers, actions and sacrifices to her to further the work of her Divine Son. My public methods, my private methods and my protected methods all should point to Christ.  I do all these things poorly, in imitation of she who did these things well and was blessed by God for her faith and purity of heart.

Polymorphism

Marian consecration takes on many, many forms.  The form you mentioned, the form I did 9 years ago at one of the lowest spiritual points in my personal life, is the consecration of St. Maximilian Kolbe who spread devotion to the Miraculous Medal given to St. Catherine Laborre at Rue De Bac (in the middle of Paris).  He took the message from Poland to Nagasaki and finally died in a concentration camp in Auschwitz, but his particular devotion of starting "Marytowns" spread all the way to Libertyville, Illinois.  Marian consecration really goes back to St. Louis De Montfort in the 18th century.  Devotion to the Heart of Mary comes straight out of the Bible, who Simeon foretold a sword would pierce.  Is the Heart of Mary, Jesus is that passage even referring to Mary?  Who can know such things.  Fortunately, through the grace of polymorphism, we can overload the devotion with as much as we want and never find it failing to point to Christ.

Inheritance

Mary's ancestors, as well as Josephs were through the Davidic line. If we take her into our home, if we esteem her like Solomon esteemed his mother then we do what we can to help our cause to become coheirs to the kingdom.  However, the abstraction fails, we're not gnostics, we don't gain access to Christ's protected methods (those hidden outside of revelation).  But we can meditate on them.

Abstraction

I think this hits your observation about indirection.  When we conform ourselves to Christ,  we want to take on His attributes.  You want to be in Him?  You want Him to be in you?  Learn from the one who took Him not only into her home, but in to her body.  Mary is the Church, the Church is the bride of Christ, the Church is the Body of Christ.  There's no way to understand these mysteries, except through a mirror abstractly.

I hope that helps, it was fun to write but probably exceptionally useless in the long run.


What is the name of the Eternal Father worshipped by Latter Day Saints? I understand that Latter Day Saints believe all human beings, male and female, are the spirit children of heavenly parents – a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.  Those spirit children progress by being born to earthly parents.   While doing some research, I found this article on the Godhead:

Godhead: The Mormon view of the members of the Godhead corresponds in a number of ways with the views of others in the Christian world, but with significant differences. Latter-day Saints pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. They acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship, the Son as Lord and Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the messenger and revealer of the Father and the Son. But where Latter-day Saints differ from other Christian religions is in their belief that God and Jesus Christ are glorified, physical beings and that each member of the Godhead is a separate being.  Source: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/godhead?lang=eng
The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. (D&C 130:22)
Heavenly Father had a glorified physical body from the before the world was created. Jesus Christ, however, did not have a physical body until his mortal ministry (Ether 3:16). Now, as a resurrected being, He has a glorified physical body like Heavenly Father's.  (emphasis mine)

Christians believe that the eternal and uncreated Word of God (Logos) came to earth to be born of a woman and is Christ Jesus, the Son of God.  It’s the part about God being a glorified, physical being – that God was once a man – that confuses me, and probably all other Christians.  We understand that God the Father is not the same person as God the Son.  But this question is about the Latter Day Saints understanding of God the Father, not God the Son.  To be more specific, I’m trying to establish if God the Father is the same deity as Eternal Father.
What I’m trying to find out is whether Latter Day Saints worship a god that was once a man, a Heavenly Father who begat spirit children, including Jehovah who came to earth as Jesus and Michael who came to earth as Adam or whether the Eternal Father is different to Heavenly Father.
What is the name of the Eternal Father worshipped by Latter Day Saints?
EDIT: Please note – I am NOT asking about the Trinity or the LDS view of the Trinity.  I am asking about the LDS Eternal Father, or Heavenly Father, or Elohim, whom they worship.  I am not asking about spirit sons and daughters that came to earth in order to progress to godhood.  I am not asking about Jesus, or Michael or Adam or any other spirit son that was born as a man. The material from which I quoted is simply to establish my understanding of the LDS view of God.
Is the God worshipped by Latter Day Saints the Creator of ALL life or was he himself begotten of some heavenly father and some heavenly mother?  I know they say at one point in time he had to be born as a man in order to attain to godhood, but I am trying to get to BEFORE that point.  Surely the Eternal, the Uncreated and Supreme God of all Creation had no need to be born of a woman that he himself had created in order to become “a god”?  Is Elohim just the god over this planet, or is he the uncreated God over all Creation?
Please help me out here because I’m struggling to grasp the LDS view of the Almighty God, the God of the Bible.  Since Latter Day Saints believe the Bible (as far as it agrees with the Book of Mormon) then it is not unreasonable to ask for biblical quotes, which quotes would obviously agree with the Book of Mormon.  Is Elohim, whom they worship, the uncreated God over ALL creation?

whether Latter Day Saints worship a god that was once a man

Yes

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man....He was once a man like us;1

Heavenly Father who begat spirit children, including Jehovah who came to earth as Jesus and Michael who came to earth as Adam or whether the Eternal Father is different to Heavenly Father.
“Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body”2
We are all literally children of God, spiritually begotten in the premortal life.3

What is the name of the Eternal Father worshiped by Latter Day Saints?

His name is Elohim4 though he is usually referred to as Heavenly Father3.

Answering the Edited Question

Is the God worshipped by Latter Day Saints the Creator of ALL life or was he himself begotten of some heavenly father and some heavenly mother? Surely the Eternal, the Uncreated and Supreme God of all Creation had no need to be born of a woman that he himself had created in order to become “a god”? Is Elohim just the god over this planet, or is he the uncreated God over all Creation?

God may have been begotten by some Heavenly Father as he was once man, however there is no doctrine on His creation as it doesn't matter to one's salvation. [The LDS] acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship.5 To members of the Church of Jesus Christ there is no one else higher then Heavenly Father (Elohim).

God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things.3

Is Elohim, whom they worship, the uncreated God over ALL creation?

There isn't any real scriptural basis or doctrine on how God was created or uncreated (OP word), but he is the God over All creation as we know it.
Hebrews 1:2

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Moses 2:1

1 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.

Alma 30:44

44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

See also
Genesis 1
1 King Follett Discourse, by Joseph Smith
2 Spirit Children of Heavenly Father
3 God the Father, see also Acts 17:29
4 Bible Dictionary: God the Father, Elohim, see also Encyclopedia of Mormonism and BYU Religious Studies Center
5 Godhead


What translations differ (and where) in regards to whether a text is a direct quotation of Jesus? Previously: Controversy over which Gospel passages to color "red" in "red letter editions"?

Some editions of the Bible print the words of Jesus in red.  Some limit this to the words He spoke prior to His ascension, while others extend it to post-ascension sayings such as those in the book of Revelation.

What I am wondering is whether there are any significant disagreements over which passages in the Gospels to color red (in "red letter edition" Bibles)?

The manuscripts aren't color-coded and don't contain punctuation such as quotation marks, so I'm curious if there are any instances where some translators attribute a passage to Jesus while other translators consider it commentary from the author, for example.

To curb the hasty close-votes, I'm simply looking for a "yes or no" answer with some evidence to back it up.

There is certainly disagreement over whether certain passages are direct quotes of Jesus. For example in John 3, some commentators believes that Jesus speaks the whole of the passage from verse 10 to verse 21, but other believe that Jesus' quote ends after verse 15 and the remainder is commentary written by John. There is also disagreement over whether his next quote ends at verse 30 or verse 36. Because of the absence of punctuation in the original languages there is no way to be definitive about it. The footnoes of the New International Version give some more details. (The choice has little theological significance and doesn't lessen the authority of the passages)


Location of the tabernacle in Catholic churches? This is not just a church architecture question but also a theology question. I've noticed that the tabernacle where the consecrated hosts are stored is often located in the center of the older Catholic churches, behind the altar, so when you enter the church, it is a focal point. But in more contemporary churches, the tabernacle is somewhere else and instead when you enter the church you see chairs where the priests sit.
I would like to understand why this change occurred. Was there a change in theology? The message the newer layout sends compared to the old is that the priest has displaced the tabernacle. Surely that can't be the intended effect?

Location of the tabernacle in Catholic churches?
To understand why many churches have their tabernacle in places other than over the classical position of behind the main altar we will have to take a walk down memory lane and then try to understand the present situation from an historical perspective.
We must acknowledge that we are living in a very modern society and as such the Church must do all in her power to promote reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament, as well as putting safeguards in place To avoid any irreverence being done towards the Blessed Sacrament.
Now, I am going to let Fr. George Saunders do a little explaining on the subject, as his explanation is quite balanced and has a good historical background also.

To approach this question fairly and adequately, we need to understand some of the liturgical laws through history surrounding tabernacles. Actually the first norms governing tabernacles were promulgated in the Middle Ages. Until this time, no uniform custom regarding where tabernacles were located in churches existed.
The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) decreed that the Blessed Sacrament be kept in a secure receptacle and placed in a clean, conspicuous place. The Synods of Cologne (1281) and Munster (1279) stipulated that the Blessed Sacrament be kept above the altar, sometimes in tabernacles shaped like doves and suspended by chains. (An example of this type of tabernacle is on exhibit in the medieval collection of the National Gallery of Art.)
Overall, during these times, the Blessed Sacrament was reserved in four possible ways: in a locked cabinet in the sacristy, a custom originating in the early Church; in a cabinet in the wall of the choir area, or in a cabinet called the "Sacrament House," which was constructed like a tower and attached to a wall near the altar; in a "dove" receptacle suspended from the baldachino above the altar; and in a tabernacle on the altar itself or in the reredos of the altar.
In the sixteenth century, the Blessed Sacrament became customarily reserved in a tabernacle that was placed on the altar or part of the reredos. However, only in 1863 did the Sacred Congregation of Rites prohibit the use of suspended doves and sacrament houses.
The liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council prompted a "rethinking" of the location of the tabernacle in the church. Two important points must always be kept in mind: First, reverence for the holy Eucharist must be preserved and promoted. The "Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy" reminded us that the holy Eucharist is "a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace and a pledge of future glory is given to us" (No. 46).
Second, the significance of the offering of the Mass itself, where the holy Eucharist is confected, must be preserved and promoted. The "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" asserted, "Taking part in the Eucharistic sacrifice, the source and summit of the Christian life, they offer the divine victim to God and themselves along with it" (No.11).
Accordingly, the "Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery" (1967 issued regulations (later incorporated into the new "Code of Canon Law") concerning tabernacles (cf. No. 52-57 and Canons 934 944): The holy Eucharist may be reserved only on one altar or one place in any church, and a vigil lamp must bum at all times to indicate and honor the presence of our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. This tabernacle must be immovable, made of solid and opaque material, and locked to prevent theft or desecration of the Blessed Sacrament. The tabernacle "should be placed in a part of the Church that is prominent, conspicuous, beautifully decorated, and suitable for prayer" (Canon 938).
Here is where some confusion emerges. To promote prayer and devotion, the "Instruction" stated "It is therefore recommended that, as far as possible, the tabernacle be placed in a chapel distinct from the middle or central part of the church, above all in those churches where marriages and funerals take place frequently, and in places which are much visited for their artistic or historical treasures" (No. 53).
For example, at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City, which has a constant flow of tourists, the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in Our Lady's Chapel located behind the main altar, this beautiful chapel provides a quiet place for the faithful to pray without the distraction of the comings and goings of people. A similar situation exists at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington.
However, this recommendation does not necessitate the interiors of "old" churches be destroyed to move the tabernacle. The "Instruction" stated, "In adapting churches, care will be taken not to destroy treasures of sacred art" (No. 24). Moreover, any renovation should be done with "prudence."
Moreover, the "Instruction" recommendation does not prohibit having the tabernacle in the center of the church, stating, "the Blessed Sacrament should be reserved in a solid, inviolable tabernacle in the middle of the main altar or on a side altar, but in a truly prominent place" (No. 54). The tabernacle can be located in the "center of the church," perhaps on an elevated area behind the altar so as not to diminish the attention to the Eucharistic sacrifice. Actually, I think the visual alignment of the tabernacle and altar emphasizes best both reverence for the Holy Eucharist and the significance of the sacrifice of the Mass.
From a purely educational perspective, the goodness of having the tabernacle in the body of the church either in the center, or at least to the side, is that it fosters devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. For instance, people genuflect in reverence to the Blessed Sacrament. Since the one day most parishioners visit their church is on Sunday, having the tabernacle visible in a prominent and conspicuous location makes them aware of the Eucharistic presence of our Lord. The people are more mindful that church itself is the "House of God" and a sacred space, not just a meeting house. In an age of doubt and disbelief, we need to do all we can to promote and foster devotion to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. - Placing the Tabernacle

For those visiting St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, you will notice that the tabernacle is not over the main altar, but in a small side chapel in order to promote more reverence to the Blessed Sacrament. The amount of tourists that the Basilica has every day, makes this a viable solution for maintaining proper reverence in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.

The Sacred Congregation of Rites, 21 August, 1863, forbade the use of these Sacrament-Houses. Thus they disappeared, or ceased to be used.
The legislation of the Gode on the tabernacle is contained in the three canons 1268, 1269, and 1271. The first speaks of the place where the Blessed Sacrament should be reserved, or where the tabernacle should be placed; the second, of the tabernacle itself, of its position, of its construction and its ornamentation; and the third, of the lamp before the tabernacle.
The three paragraphs of canon 1268 that bear on the subject, read as follows:

The Blessed Sacrament cannot be reserved continually or regularly on more than one altar in the same church.

The Blessed Sacrament is to be reserved in the most prominent place of honor, and therefore, generally on the main altar, unless there is one more conveniently located and better suited for the veneration and worship of this august Sacrament. The rules regarding the last three days of Holy Week, however, must be observed.

In cathedral, collegiate, and conventual churches, in which choir functions are held at the main altar, the Blessed Sacrament is, as a rule, to be reserved in another chapel or on another than the high altar, in order not to interfere with the services. - The Tabernacle: Its History, Structure and Custody


What's the difference, if any, between the Swedenborgian and Oneness Pentecostal doctrines of God? Both Oneness Pentecostals and Swedenborgians could, it seems to me, be described as "modalist" in contrast with "trinitarian." Obviously there are plenty of general differences between the two church families. But are there differences between their respective brands/flavors of modalism (if that's even what it is)?

tl;dr

Emanuel Swedenborg  (1688-1772) agrees with Oneness Pentecostals and other modalists in affirming the full divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while denying that they are three persons.

This has led to the common error of labeling Swedenborg and Swedenborgians "modalist."

However, Swedenborg rejects the essential, defining modalist doctrine: that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or manifestations of God to human beings.

Swedenborg, and Swedenborgians, are therefore not modalist in their doctrines and beliefs.

Now for a fuller answer to the question.

First, we need to define God from the modalist, Oneness Pentecostal, and Swedenborgian perspectives.

The Sabellian or Modalist doctrine of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

As defined in the Wikipedia article linked in the question, this is the Sabellian or modalist conception of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:

  Sabellianism in the Eastern church or Patripassianism in the Western church (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian or anti-trinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead--that there are no real or substantial differences among the three, such that there is no substantial identity for the Spirit or the Son.

The Oneness Pentecostal doctrine of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

As defined in the Wikipedia article linked in the question, this is the Oneness Pentecostal conception of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:

  The Oneness doctrine . . . states that there is one God, a singular divine Spirit, who manifests himself in many ways, including as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (a.k.a. Holy Spirit).

The Our Beliefs page of the website of the United Pentecostal Church International, which is the largest Oneness Pentecostal denomination, expresses its basic beliefs about God in this way:

  There is one God, who has revealed Himself as our Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, and as the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is God manifested in flesh. He is both God and man.

Emanuel Swedenborg's doctrine of God as being Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

In True Christianity #163, Swedenborg defines the Trinity of God in this way:

  There is a divine Trinity, which is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
  These three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are three essential components of one God. They are one the way our soul, our body, and the things we do are one.

(Note that although Swedenborg regularly uses the word "Trinity," by traditional Christian definitions of "trinitarian" he is non-trinitarian because he rejects the idea that the Trinity consists of three persons, but states instead that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit constitute a single divine person who is the one God.)

Swedenborg's doctrine of God is incompatible with, and denies, modalism

Swedenborg's theology agrees with Oneness Pentecostal doctrine in denying that there are three persons of God, denying that there was any "Son born from eternity," and affirming that the Son (and the Holy Spirit also) came into existence with the birth of Jesus Christ.

However, Swedenborg's theology rejects the defining characteristic of modalist doctrine, which is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes of God, or three different ways that God manifests himself to humans.

Instead, Swedenborg's theology states that:

The Father is the transcendent, unknowable soul of God, of which we
can have no direct knowledge or experience at all.
The Son is the human body or visible appearance of God--and, since the
Incarnation, is the sole avenue by which the Father is known to human
beings.
The Holy Spirit is the divine truth and power flowing out from God,
and in effect is the manifestation of God to human beings.

Swedenborg calls this a Trinity of "essential components" (Latin essentialia) of one God.

These three are not different modes or manifestations to us of some underlying divine Spirit.

In Swedenborg's system, the Father is the underlying divine being, and is not perceivable by us at all. We finite humans are incapable of grasping or comprehending the infinite divine being of God. Only through the Son can we have any knowledge of God. And the Holy Spirit is the knowledge and power of God as it flows out from the Son, enlightening us and giving us spiritual life.

So instead of being modes or manifestations of God to human beings, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are more in nature of parts or constituents of the divine being. (The Latin word essentialia that Swedenborg uses to characterize them is somewhat difficult to capture and convey in English.) They are certainly not different appearances of God, as modalism and Oneness Pentecostals hold.

In Swedenborg's theology, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are entirely distinct from one another, and cannot change into or appear as one another. Together, these three distinct but fully united "components" form a single God, in one divine Person, whom Swedenborg calls "the Divine Humanity" and "the Lord God Jesus Christ." The three together are God just as our soul, body, and actions are us. There is no other underlying divine Spirit of which they could be "modes."

Swedenborg does state that God relates to humans in various roles, such as King, Priest, Prophet, Savior, and Redeemer. However, according to Swedenborg, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as used in the Bible are not roles, and thus are not modes of God. Instead, all of God's roles come from the Father, and are expressed by the Son through the Holy Spirit.

It helps to understand that Swedenborg did not interpret "Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit" as literal terms, like our human fathers, sons, and breaths (which is the meaning of "spirit"). Instead, he saw them more as metaphors drawn from human concepts and experiences that the Bible uses to express deeper spiritual and divine realities about God.

For a fuller explanation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit from a Swedenborgian perspective, written for a popular audience, see my article, Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?

For Swedenborg's own extensive presentation on the Trinity in one Person of God, see True Christianity, volume 1. (This link leads to its page on the publisher's website, which offers free downloadable PDF and EPUB versions, in addition to print and Kindle editions for sale.)

Please note: Although Swedenborg provides an extensive biblical basis in True Christianity for his doctrine of the Trinity, I have made no attempt to present it here because it is outside the scope of the question. I respectfully request that you vote this answer up or down based on how well it answers the question asked, rather than on whether or not you think Swedenborg's doctrine is true (which is off-topic on Christiainty.SE) or on how well I have supported that doctrine (which is not the purpose of this answer). Thank you.


I have some question about joining the Catholic Church I'm 14 and plan on joining the Catholic Church once I am a adult , I plan on studying the religion tell im am a adult to know if it's right for me , I was wondering if there was any reason a priest would tell me no I can't join or can anybody sign up RCIA , also wondering if there is a age limit to join

Not being a Roman Catholic I do not know all the answers.  However, I was in my late 20s when I considered joining the Catholic church because my fiancee was (and still is) Roman Catholic.  I did not go through with it (at the time) only because we ended up not getting married.  I am certain that the Pope right down to the local priest would be more than happy to have you join their flock, as would any denomination, regardless of age.

As far as RCIA the only requirements that I am aware of is that you are presently not Roman Catholic, and you are above the age of infant baptism.


What is the biblical basis for believing in the Book of Mormon? I know that Mormons say the Bible and the Book of Mormon don't contradict. I don't know about that, but I would like to know whether there actually is a verse in the Bible that could support the belief in an exterior source such as the Book of Mormon, so highly regarded -by Mormons- as another revelation from God.

Cwallenpoole made it clear, that the Bible, as we have it today, is not complete. If one is not careful, it is easy to run into a negative evidence fallacy by supposing that simply because the Bible doesn't mention something, that something must be false. (That would be like saying "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is false because that Name is never mentioned in the Old Testament.)

Before I also attempt to answer your question, let me prelude with a disclaimer: most members of the LDS church will hesitate to show "proof" or even "evidence" of the Book of Mormon's truthfulness, for the very existence of the Book itself is evidence of what is known as the Restoration, which is the fulfillment of prophecies concerning the dispensation of the fulness of times (the days before the Second Coming in which the Lord would send prophets to the earth again after a falling away first).

Mormons will remind anyone that the only way to truly believe in the Book of Mormon, or have a testimony of its truthfulness, is not by scholarly study, but by reading it and praying to ask God if it is true, and that an answer will come by the Holy Ghost.

So with that in mind, the following verses (in addition to those I've linked to) should be instructive. Keep in mind that while many people interpret these verses in many ways, this is one way the LDS population understands them:

Ezekiel 37:15-23 (The Stick of Judah and the Stick of Joseph. The Stick of Judah is written by Jews, in other words, is the Bible. The Stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon, written by descendants of Joseph. More details about the sticks here.)
Isaiah 29:4,11-14 (A voice out of the dust. The Book of Mormon was buried for centuries until it came out of the ground and was translated. Because it is the same gospel that Christ teaches from the Bible, it is a familiar voice. Also, a vision of a sealed book taken to a learned man, and an unlearned man that could not read them. Plus the transcript of Joseph Smith's First Vision experience in 1820. These were fulfilled as recorded in JS-H 1:11-26,63-65.)
Ezekiel 17:22-23. (The highest branch of the high cedar is the royal family of Israel; the young twigs are the children, and the tender one is a man named Mulek, son of Zedekiah, who actually escaped and was led to the Americas. Lehi's group had already left Jerusalem, and later we learn that Mulek's group joined the Nephite nation.)
John 10:16. (Jesus refers to "other sheep" which would hear His voice. True, the gospel later did go to the Gentiles, but they heard the voice of His prophets and apostles, not His voice directly. These are the people of the Americas, and others. This is made clear in the Book of Mormon, where Jesus visited and ministered to them personally, established His Church on the American continent, and ordained prophets and disciples there, fulfilling all sorts of prophecies.)
Revelation 14:6-7. (An angel flying in the midst of heaven that had the everlasting gospel. This was Moroni, who buried the Book of Mormon, who later as a resurrected being, brought forth the Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith to go forth to all the earth.)
Amos 3:7. (Why would inhabitants of the American continent not have the gospel, if God loves all His children and wants them to know of His Son? So, God at least probably called prophets in America and they obviously prophesied. God's works are without end and His words never cease, so that God's canon of scripture is closed would not be logical, at best.)
Isaiah 5:26-27. (An ensign, or standard, would be lifted up to all nations to gather Israel before the Lord's coming.)

There are others. This list is not comprehensive, but I hope others will add to this as is proper.

The Bible and the Book of Mormon support each other. The Book of Mormon supports what the Bible says. All the prophets since the world began (including those in the Book of Mormon) knew there would be an apostasy of the Christian church in the New Testament and that God would set his hand a second time to recover His people. For example, see 2 Nephi, chapters: 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33, and Mormon 7:8-10 are a few, although the doctrine of Christ's mercy and Atonement is found all throughout the entire book.

Of particular interest is 1 Nephi 13 (especially the second half of the chapter) which discusses Nephi's vision of the settling of colonial America, the coming of Christians from Europe, and the introduction of the Bible ("which proceedeth forth from the mouth of a Jew") among the Native Americans, that it is holy and true, but that many plain and precious parts are actually missing.

So, I add these references to the Book of Mormon because they should help support the Bible references mentioned here that help to directly answer your question.

Finally, the notion of "infallibility" in scripture is misleading, because while God does inspire true scripture, imperfect but holy men write it down.

From the Title Page of the Book of Mormon (emphasis added):

  ... Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.


What does Paul mean when he says "do not go beyond what is written." In 1 Cor 4:6, Paul instructs the church in Corinth to "not think above what is written."

Did any early Christian scholars (before translation of the Bible into English) comment on this? If so, what were their conclusions?

Is there a consensus among modern Biblical hermeneutists as to what Paul meant? If so, what are their conclusions? If not, what are the varied positions?

That specific phrase is present in the New International Version:

Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.

The meaning of the part of the verse you quoted is fairly clear: God's word is sufficient. Do not invent more of it.

I'm not sure if about commentary from early scholars, but there is English commentary from several Reformation-era scholars. Of course, they often commented using the King James version:

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

Matthew Poole (17th century):

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes: by these words the apostle lets us know, that though he had said, 1 Corinthians 1:12, that some of them said, "We are of Paul, and others: We are of Apollos"; yet the names of Paul and of Apollos were but used to represent other of their teachers, which were the heads of those factions which were amongst them. In very deed there were none of them that said, "We are of Paul or of Apollos", (for those that were the disciples of Paul and Apollos were better taught), but they had other teachers amongst them as to whom they made factions, whom Paul had a mind to reprove, with their followers...
That you might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written; and that (as the apostle saith) all the church of Corinth, as well ministers as people, might learn to have humble opinions and thoughts of themselves, not to think of themselves above what, by the rules of God’s word, was written in the Old Testament they ought to think; or above what he had before writen in this Epistle, or to the Romans...
(punctuation modernized)

In other words, Paul used the hypothetical phrases "I am of Paul" and "I am of Apollos" (mentioned earlier in the epistle) to demonstrate the folly of relying on manmade words of the teacher more than than the God-made words of the scripture, and using those manmade differences as a source of pride.


How did the phenomenon of "Megachurches" come about? Megachurches are part of the landscape in a lot of Christendom and have been defined as a Protestant church where average weekend attendance exceeds 2000. How did the phenomenon of megachurches arise? Are they an effect of mass urbanisation? Are they a recent thing (as they seem to be).

Many of them seem to promote prosperity gospel-type beliefs. Is the prevalence of megachurches associated with the rise in popularity of this belief system? Alternatively is the rise of megachurches associated with the increase in attendance of popular music concerts in that they can offer worship in a similar format to a concert?

Reason #1

Mega Churches can likely be explained in part by the fact that more modern denominations, including Baptist (Even non-denominational) have integrated together with each other a lot. People are starting to realize that on a basic level, everybody is teaching the same thing; the love of Christ and desire to be like/with him.

I've asked several people (most not even from my church) and 90 percent admitted to being non-denominational or passive about where they go on Sunday as long as there is a good christian influence and a love of God. This means that in an example town, there will be one huge church and a handfull of smaller ones, rather than tons of same-size-small churches.

Of course this can't completely explain the phenomenon.

Reason #2

Mass urbanization, along with greater ease when it comes to getting places, as you said in your question, is a very likely factor into why churches of such massive sizes have sprung up. My church started in around 2000-2003 and has several thousand attending every weekend!

I'll bet that if you were to make a map of all of the 'Mega Churches' and overlay it on a political map, the churches would line up pretty closely with cities of population from 400k to around 700k.

Reason #3

Acceptance of 'Non-Believers';
Along with the increase of population at churches came the popularization of 'Christian Contemporary' music. It appeals to people who may not necessarily be christian because of its good vibes and heavy beat more closely matching that of 'Normal" music. I know several people who listen to christian pop and admit to not even believing in Jesus Christ.

Churches are also making a greater effort to have effect on their personal community, not just nations across the globe. This encourages those attending the church to reach out to their neighbors though increased fellowship with them.

My pastor said this sunday

  America has never been more spiritually minded as today.

Then he said something about it  not being christian spirituality necessarily. I've forgotten his exact words.

My point being that the idea of religion has grown in popularity, and simply, christian churches are everywhere, and open for folks to just walk in and here the message. There are a variety of different styles of churches, and people who don't like one style, may like another, so they end up joining a church rather than no church.

I don't claim to know what is happening with these Mega Churches all the way, maybe God has some really big plan for it.


What is the Roman Catholic view of Christian perfection or entire sanctification? Does the Roman Catholic Church have a view on Christian perfection or entire sanctification? If so what is it? To what degree do they believe believers can experience any amount of freedom from sin in this life?

Essentially the answer is "No, for most people the believer cannot be perfectly free from sin in this lifetime. Indeed, the case is even worse. We must constantly fight against the concupiscence (bias toward sin) we inherit through original sin. Through God's grace present in the Sacraments the believer may gain forgiveness of sins, and she must aim for perfection throughout her life, but she cannot hope to achieve it for more than a relatively short amount of time, so that she must be constantly on guard against sin." Catholicism does not admit the impossibility of perfection in this lifetime, but does point out its obvious rarity and difficulty "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." All is not lost, however, because any lack of perfection is rectified after death in purgatory. It's theologically inescapable that this must occur either before or after death because Rev 21:27 makes clear that nothing in any way imperfect or impure or sinful can be in God's presence.

"Entire sanctification" is not a phrase typically used in Catholic theology. It's a fair question, though, to ask "To what extent do Catholics believe Christians can be free from sin in this life?"

Certainly believers are called to strive for perfection:

  All the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status, are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection of charity.

(Lumen Gentium, section 40)

In Article 4 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, titled "The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation", we find a reminder:

  "You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" [1 Corinthians 6:11] One must appreciate the magnitude of the gift God has given us in the sacraments of Christian initiation in order to grasp the degree to which sin is excluded for him who has "put on Christ." But the apostle John also says: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

(Catechism, paragraph 425)

Catholics believe that the Virgin Mary was not only free from original sin, but entirely free from personal sin throughout her whole life. However, this was a special grace of God for her, not a result purely of her own effort:

  The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All–Holy” (Panagia) and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature." By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

(Catechism, paragraph 493; emphasis added)

This special grace, called the Immaculate Conception, was given only to Mary to equip her for the unique task of bearing God in her womb. It was a special appropriation of the merits of Christ obtained on the cross and applied out of the sequence of time so that Mary, too, receives salvation only through the one door to the Father, Jesus Christ. Note that we too, obtain whatever level of perfection we do in this life through grace, specifically sanctifying grace. It is not by our own merits that we are sanctified, but rather the gifts we receive from the Holy Spirit. These gifts are imparted to us through the sacraments by the Holy Spirit from the store of merits earned by Christ on Calvary. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us
  of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it
  of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace
  received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of
  sanctification:48

  Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has
  passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who
  through Christ reconciled us to himself.49

  2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural
  disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with
  God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to
  live and act in keeping with God's call, is distinguished from actual
  graces which refer to God's interventions, whether at the beginning of
  conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

Concerning purgatory, Augustine said, in The City of God, that "temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment" (21:13) thus indicating that no one stays in purgatory past the general judgement. The decision of whether a soul goes to heaven, purgatory and then heaven, or hell is made at the particular judgement where an individual's life is evaluated. From the Catechism again:

  1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly
  purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after
  death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness
  necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

  1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of
  the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the
  damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory
  especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the
  Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a
  cleansing fire:607

  As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final
  Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that
  whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned
  neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we
  understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but
  certain others in the age to come.608


What is the significance of the inverted pentagram symbols on the LDS Temple in Salt Lake City? The Temple in Salt Lake has several inverted pentagrams as decorations.  (To see a few, just google "lds temple salt lake inverted pentagrams" and click on images.  Or click here)

According to Wikipedia, the inverted pentagram symbol is used in Neo-Paganism, Satanism, and magick, as well as Freemasonry.

How exactly did it become a symbol of the LDS church?  (It seems like an odd symbol to use, given how it's used by others.)  What does it represent according to LDS teaching?

The symbol has no specific meaning within LDS theology, and there are no teachings regarding it.  According to an article found among the Wikipedia page's sources, the pentagram symbol actually has a long history in Christian and Jewish art and architecture, and only first began to be associated with Satanism and the occult in the 1850s.  By this point, the design for the Salt Lake temple had already been drafted.

The star symbolism in the temple was included, along with carved depictions of other celestial bodies, as symbolic of heavenly glory, which is described in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 76, as being similar to the brightness of the sun, the moon and the stars.


What is significant about shaking dust from your feet? If a house or town does not receive the Gospel, you are to shake dust off of your feet:

  Matthew 10:12
  12 As you enter a house, wish it peace.
  13 If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; if not, let your peace return to you.
  14 Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet.

  Luke 10:10-11
  10 Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you, go out into the streets and say,
  11 ‘The dust of your town that clings to our feet, even that we shake off against you.’ Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand.

I understand that the roads were not paved, and that people would travel by walking, so their feet would become dirty and dusty. I also understand that this is no longer a practice in some churches, but is in others, and that this was a practice among the Jews before Christ came.

But why? And why dust in particular? Does it have to be dust from that town? Is this act symbolic, or does the dust itself have some sort of effect if not shaken off? If it is symbolic, is it supposed to communicate something to the townspeople (so you would have to do it in front of them), or should it be done in the view of God only, or both?

What is significant about shaking dust from your feet?

In short, shaking the dust of your feet is way of indicating uncleanliness.
From the Believers Bible Commentary:

R. Guelich suggests that shaking off dust from the feet, the symbolic act that Jesus’ disciples were to carry out when leaving a rejecting village (6:11), has a threefold meaning (322–3):
•  It announces the inevitability of judgment (since further contact and opportunity for repentance is symbolically cut off).
•  It declares that the missionaries have done their job and are washing their hands of further responsibility (Ezek. 3:21; 33:1–9).
•  It labels that village as pagan.
Of these three, the third is the most provocative. Jews would shake off “pagan” dust before entering the “holy land” (Str.-B, 1:115). Likewise, Jesus’ emissaries demonstrate that villages rejecting them and the one who sent them have lost their inheritance in the people of God.
A similar message is conveyed via John’s symbolic act of baptizing Jews (1:5), an act normally reserved for converts to Judaism. John is thereby symbolically reinstating Jews into the people of God, implying that without his baptism, they are outsiders to Israel. The present text about shaking off “pagan dust,” however, takes this a step further. People are invited to reinstate their membership in the people of God; those who reject God’s messengers are symbolically excluded.
Other NT references to shaking off dust include all three of the meanings suggested above, though sometimes one of them is more prominent than the others (Matt. 10:14; Luke 9:5; 10:11; Acts 13:51; 18:6). Acts 18:6 in particular seems to highlight all three aspects. As he leaves the Corinthian synagogue, Paul shakes the dust off his clothing and says, “Your blood be on your own heads [meaning 1]. I am clear of my responsibility [meaning 2]. From now on I will go to the Gentiles [meaning 3]” (NIV). With his final line, Paul reverses the usual Jewish practice of cleansing their feet before moving from Gentile to Jewish territory. Paul is moving from Jewish territory (the synagogue) to Gentile territory (the house of Titius Justus) and shaking off the dust before doing so. Believing Jews join him as he moves toward a more fruitful mission field.

And from "The New Manners and Customs of the Bible:"

For Jews to shake dust off their feet was a sign that Gentile territory was unclean. In the New Testament this action indicates that those who have rejected the gospel have made themselves as Gentiles and must face the judgment of God. (See also Acts 13:51) To sprinkle dust on the head was a sign of mourning (Joshua 7:6), and to sit in dust denotes extreme affliction (Isaiah 47:1). “Dust” is used to denote the grave (Job 7:21). To lick the dust is a sign of abject submission (Psalms 72:9); and to throw dust at someone is a sign of abhorrence (2 Samuel 16:13; Acts 22:23). To bite the dust is to suffer a defeat. It became a common expression through its use in American movies about the early west.

In particular, I find the linkage between "shaking the dust off your feet" and "biting the dust" to be interesting.


Did Jesus say to preach to Gentiles, or not? Besides Paul, who never met Christ, was Jesus' message ever meant to be told to the Gentiles?

Jesus told the disciples to preach the Gospel to all nations.

  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
  the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew
  28:19, ESV)

  But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and
  you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria,
  and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8, ESV)

Paul wasn't the first one nor the only one who preached the Gospel to the Gentiles. According to Acts, Peter was the first to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles. Peter received a vision from the Lord and received a command to preach to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius the gentile. The Gentiles were filled with the Holy Spirit and were baptized.

  While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all
  who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who
  had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit
  was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them
  speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can
  anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received
  the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized
  in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some
  days. (Acts 10:44-47, ESV)

Peter reported this to the believers in Jerusalem and they all glorified God.

  When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God,
  saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that
  leads to life.” (Acts 11:18, ESV)


What happens when one returns to faith? In the Catholic tradition, what happens to one who grew up a faithful Catholic, apostatized, and then later returned to faith? What would the process of returning to the church look like? (i.e. Would they need to be re-baptized? Would they have to go through RCIA?)

No, they would not be re-baptized (unless there was doubt about the validity of the first baptism, in which case he would need to be conditionally baptized).

In the case of a public apostate, it would be prudent for a bishop to issue a public letter making the ex-apostate's reversion known to all, so as to avoid the possibility of scandalizing those who might think he is still excommunicated. Oftentimes, the penance for a public sinner is public, so his reversion could be manifested that way as well.


According to Catholicism, what is the purpose of praying for the dead? What is the purpose of praying for the dead according to Catholicism?

Those on earth do not know with certainty whether one is in hell, purgatory, or heaven—unless the Church has canonized the faithfully departed as a saint, in which case one is certain he or she is in heaven. Thus, Catholics pray for departed souls in the case they might be in purgatory:

  …the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the Sacred Writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred Councils, and very recently in this œcumenical Synod [i.e., the Council of Trent], that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages [intercessions] of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar…

Holy Mass and the prayers of the faithful help shorten the holy souls' time and sufferings in purgatory.

Catholics' prayers are of no avail for the damned souls, as those souls are damned for all eternity and can never enjoy the Beatific Vision: "Those (the rejected) will receive a perpetual punishment with the devil." (4th Lateran Council, 1215).


Is there a hierarchy in the Trinity? It seems that there is some form of hierarchy within the Trinity.
For example, these passages seem to indicate that the Holy Spirit is subservient to the Father and Jesus:

John 14:26 (NIV)
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
John 15:26 (NIV)
When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.

Also, it seems that the Father has control over Jesus:

Matthew 26:39 (NIV)
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

My understanding is that the Trinity is three persons in one God.  Therefore, each person in the Trinity is equal to the other two.  Yet, the verses above seem to indicate that there's a hierarchy.

Is there a hierarchy (and my previous understanding flawed) or is there a deeper understanding of what's going on in those verses above?
I'm seeking a Mainstream Protestant exegesis and viewpoint on this issue.

It's a role-delineation, not a "hierarchy" (at least, not in the way it is used in common English).

God has distinct persons making up His one self - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

They have distinct roles, as revealed in the Bible (more I'm sure can be added):

Father

Creator (Genesis 1:1, Romans 1:25, etc)
Judge (Genesis 15:14, Genesis 18:25, 1 Samuel 2:10, Job 21:22, Psalm 7:8, Luke 18:7, etc)
Initiator of Covenants (Genesis 3:15, Genesis 8:21-12, Genesis 9:9-17, Genesis 12:1-3, etc)
Elector of the those who will be Saved (Luke 18:7, John 6:65, Romans 8:33, Romans 9:13, etc)

Son

Instrument of Creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, etc)
Way to the Father (John 10:9, John 14:6, 1 John 5:20, etc)
Propitiatory Sacrifice for Salvation of Man (Romans 3:25, Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:10)

Holy Spirit

Enabler of Creation (Genesis 1:2, Psalm 104:30, etc)
Comforter (John 14:16-17, John 14:26, John 15:26, John 16:7, Romans 8:26, etc)
"Component" of God who lives in the Elect (John 14:17, Philippians 2:12-13, etc)
Revealer of Truth (John 16:13, 1 Corinthians 2:14, 1 Corinthians 2:16, etc)


Why is the Old Testament included in the bible if we are no longer under those old laws? If we are no longer under old laws, why is it necessary to read the Old Testament?

Paul gives us a pretty good answer to this in his letter to the church in Rome:

  "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."  Romans 15:4 NASB

The Old Testament record reveals the character of God in many different ways.  In it we see His faithfulness, His justice, His compassion, His holiness and many other things.

We can be encouraged to go to God in prayer, knowing that He has both the power and inclination to act on our behalf--just as we see He did in the Old Testament time and time again.

Additionally, the Old Testament contains many prophecies and pictures of Christ that gives us confidence in the truthfulness of the Gospel and also lets us see the beauty of God's dealings with mankind.  Isaiah 53 is an amazing prophecy of the suffering Messiah and the Snake in the Desert beautifully demonstrates the Gospel.

It should be noted that much of the Old Testament is actually not simply laws to follow, but stories of God's interaction with mankind.  The Law is contained in the Old Testament, but Genesis, Psalm, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon and the much of the prophets have little or nothing to do with instructions on the Law.


How do Mormons understand 2 Nephi 5:16 in light of 2 Nephi 5:15? In Book of Mormon, the text in 2 Nephi 5:15 says (emphasis mine):

  15 And I did teach my people to build buildings, and to work in all
  manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of
  steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in
  great abundance.

The next verse, 2 Nephi 5:16, then continues (emphasis mine):

  16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the
  manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many
  precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land,
  wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the
  manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and
  the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

So it looks like that while verse 15 states that various valuable things (gold, silver, and other precious ores) where of great abundance, verse 16 states that such things were not found upon the land.

Question:
Is this a contradiction or is there some other way to understand this?

[Update]
To the question regarding the materials used on Solomon's temple, the following materials are referred to in the various verses of 1 Kings chapter 6 and chapter 7:

Various kinds of wood (juniper, cedar, etc.)
Gold (used for overlaying the walls and ceilings, among other things)
Silver
Brass (or copper)
Stone

Because the LDS don't believe the Book of Mormon contradicts itself ("the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth", Joseph Smith), it must be referring to other materials which weren't mentioned in 2 Nephi 5:15.

Here are some examples of materials which were used in the temple of Solomon that Nephi could have been referring to, which were not mentioned in verse 15:

Materials

1 Kings 5

costly stones [v17]

1 Kings 6

olive wood [v31]

2 Chronicles 2

purple, crimson, blue [v7]
cedar, fir, algum [v8]

2 Chronicles 3

palm trees [v5]
precious stones [v6]
fine linen [v14]

See also Bible Dictionary - Temple of Solomon


What was the main reason for excluding 35 latest names from the list of recognized saints by ROC? What was the main reason for excluding 35 latest names from the list of recognized saints by the Synodal Commission of Russian Orthodox Church on Canonization?

Source: РПЦ отзывает партию святых, оказавшихся бракованными (YouTube video).

EDIT:
The author of the video claims that the reason was that some KGB archives have been made available to the public, and a lot of bad, yet true stories are revealed about those priests who have been canonized. As the author says, some of them, if not all, were cooperating with KGB and reported. ROC excluded them suddenly, with no explanations

I think it is important to understand here that the Orthodox custom of canonization is radically different from the Roman Catholic process.  Within the Orthodox Church, veneration of saints occurs spontaneously among the faithful. There is no multi-step process or requirement for a certain number of miracles to have been performed.  "Canonization" by an Orthodox Patriarchate is a process of recognizing persons as saints whom local believers are already venerating.  Thus, the removal of a saint from a calendar does not necessarily equate to the Patriarchate denying that person is a saint.

The "removal" of the names seems to have been due to a general decision taken by the Council of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate on how the memories of 20th century martyrs were to be maintained, and not due to any general conspiracy by the Russian Orthodox Church.

On February 2011, the Council adopted the document, "О мерах по сохранению памяти новомучеников, исповедников и всех невинно от богоборцев в годы гонений пострадавших" ("On measures to preserve the memory of martyrs, confessors and all innocents who suffered persecution during the godless years").  Item 9 of the document states:

  The Church urges government and public figures to support its efforts
  to explore and perpetuate the memory of the victims of persecution. In
  particular, it appeals to the heads of institutions and those in
  charge of archival documents to promote the early identification and
  complete information about the victims in the persecution. To this
  end, it is important to improve the methodology of scientific study
  and investigation of cases. It is necessary to continue the dialogue
  with the government about the possibility of legislative or
  administrative means of ensuring access of authorized representatives
  of the Church to the relevant archives, subject to compliance with
  legal requirements of non-disclosure of information about the private
  lives of citizens.

In all Orthodox Churches, a liturgical calendar is made available in all parishes at the beginning of the civil year.  These calendars include, for each day, the Epistle and Gospel readings for the day (which follow an ancient annual Lectionary), the fasting guidelines for the day, and the saints that are commemorated on that particular day.  This is an example of a calendar for a Russian Orthodox parish in the United States:

During 2013, it was noticed that 36 names that had been on the prior year's calendar were not on the 2013 calendar.  Abbot Damascene Orlovsky of the New Martyr committee explained the 2013 calendar corrections:

  In 2011 our committee assignment was to ...develop a comprehensive
  list of martyrs, each with the name, the place of his ministry, the
  place of death, and so on. It is very important for this to be done,
  because before that they were listed in our calendar only by the
  names, leaving the reader to investigate [the details] separately.

  We have prepared this list (and at the same time corrected a lot of
  mistakes in dates and names), and handed it to the Most Holy
  Patriarch. His Holiness the Patriarch reviewed this list and decided
  to submit it to the Publishing Department of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Claims that those previously considered New Martyrs were removed from the list because evidence emerged that they collaborated with the Communists are speculation.  Alexander Nevsorov (shown in the video) is a rabid secularist and atheist who was once expelled from the Moscow Theological Academy. The issue first seemed to surface when a Russian deacon, Andrei Kuraev, published the following on his livejournal page:

  The official church calendar for 2013 is very different from the
  calendar for 2012.

  The most important part of the liturgical calendar is a list of the
  saints whose memory falls on any given day.

  The canonization of a saint necessarily implies its inclusion in the
  calendar.

Although bloggers such as Durayev have speculated that the removal of the names is because they have been "decanonized", to my knowledge this has never been confirmed.  The list of names is public and one would think that in the intervening 4 years proof would have emerged that the people listed were KGB collaborators or whatever else is speculated. It may simply be as Abbot Damascene states - that when examined, key details in the various cases were found to be lacking or inconsistent and did not meet the standard set by the committee.


Whom does Jesus refer to as 'infants' at Luke 10:21? At Luke 10:21 we see :

  At that same hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."

Elsewhere, we see John addressing the faithful, so:

  My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. (1 John 2:1)

My question is: to whom was Jesus referring as infants at Luke 10:21  -- to the infants around, or to his followers of simple faith? What does  the Catholic Church teach us about the usage of 'infants' in the above-said context?

My Perspective
My view is that "infants" refers to the true disciples that Jesus had.
It is commonplace to let Scripture interpret Scripture. Ergo, I will provide a few verses to support my view.
Firstly, John says that whoever believes and accepts Jesus is given the privilege of becoming a child of God.

12Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. John 1:12-13 NIV

So we learn here that it is whoever that believes that become like a child.

16But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” Luke 18:16-17 NIV

Also, those who wish to get into the kingdom must accept the kingdom like a little child as you can see from the verse. So the servants/subjects/citizens of the kingdom are like little children. That means since the disciples of the kingdom are like little children, they could be referred to as such in metaphor. Moreover, there is one especially damning (pun not intended) evidence to the fact that the "infants" being spoken of here are the true disciples of Jesus.

42And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.”
Matthew 10:42 NIV

The context here is that Jesus is talking about the persecution that the disciples will face in their life when they preach the gospel to the nations. So he directly refers to a disciple as "one of these little ones", which sounds extremely close to "infants" (probably a result of translation differences).
Catholic Church's Perspective
So onto the second part of your question, I believe that the Catholic Church would agree with me. If not because of my reasoning and the context of the passage referring to his disciples and his ministry, then because that one of their own venerated Saints said

“Whosoever is a LITTLE ONE, let him come to me.’ (Proverbs 9:4) And so I succeeded. I felt I had found what I was looking for. But, wanting to know, O my God, what You would do to the very little one who answered Your call, I continued my search and this is what I discovered: ‘As one whom a mother caresses, so will I comfort you; you shall be carried at the breasts, and upon the knees they shall caress you.’ (Isaiah 66: 13,12) Ah! Never did words more tender and more melodious come to give joy to my soul. The elevator which must raise me to heaven is Your arms, O Jesus! And for this I had no need to grow up, but rather I had to remain little and become this more and more.” - St Therese of Lisieux

The source of that quote is found here.
Since a saint was referred to as a little one in her own words, she must have been taught or taught that a disciple/believer was to be like a little one, and therefore must have perceived the verse in Luke 10:21 as a reference to the believers and disciples of Jesus.
As of what exactly they teach on this, there is always the chance to ask Catholic priests either in person and even online! I'm sure they would agree with something along the lines of the answer given under My Perspective. Thanks for reading and I hope this answers your question!