Which manuscript was the LDS Book of Moses translated from?

This is from an article in the Church Magazine The Ensign published January 1986

  The material constituting the eight chapters of the book of Moses is an extract from Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible. More precisely, chapter one of Moses is an account of a revelation given to the Prophet Joseph just prior to, or at the commencement of, the translation, while Moses chapters two through eight constitute his translation of Genesis from chapter one through chapter six, verse thirteen. [Moses 1, 2–8; Gen. 1–6:13] The Joseph Smith translation of the Bible (hereafter identified as JST) began with Genesis and continued through the entire Bible to the book of Revelation. The initial draft of his Bible translation was made between June 1830 and July 1833. However, the short excerpt that we recognize as the book of Moses, being the early part of Genesis, was completed in its first draft by February 1831. 1

LDS.org "How We Got the Book of Moses"

BYU "History of the Book of Moses"

BYU-Idaho "The Book of Moses"

Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible

Bible Dictionary

  A revision or translation of the King James Version of the Bible begun by the Prophet Joseph Smith in June 1830. He was divinely commissioned to make the translation and regarded it as “a branch of his calling” as a prophet.

BYU

  Joseph Smith often used the words "translated" and "translation," not in the narrow sense alone of rendering a text from one language into another, but in the wider senses of "transmission," having reference to copying, editing, adding to, taking from, rephrasing, and interpreting. This is substantially beyond the usual meaning of "translation." When he said the Bible was not translated correctly, he not only was referring to the difficulties of rendering the Bible into another language but he was also observing that the manuscripts containing the text of the Bible have suffered at the hands of editors, copyists, and revisionists through centuries of transmission. Thus, the available texts of the Bible are neither as complete nor as accurate as when first written.

Bible Dictionary

  Although not the official Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the JST offers many interesting insights and is an invaluable aid to biblical interpretation and understanding. It is a most fruitful source of useful information for the student of the scriptures. It is likewise a witness for the divine calling and ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Bible Dictionary "Joseph Smith Translation"

BYU "Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST)


John the Baptist was baptizing in repentance of sin:

  1 In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea,
  2 "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."  3
  For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight.'"  - Matthew 3:3
  - Matthew 3:1-3 ESV

And

  Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. - Matthew 3:8 ESV

And

  "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. - Matthew 3:11 ESV

But Jesus was without sin, and not in need of repentance, a point that John himself observes:

  13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.
  14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" - Matthew 3:13-14 ESV

But Jesus tells him that:

  15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented.
  16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;
  17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." - Matthew 3:15-17 ESV

This then, is a fufillment of prophecy from Isaiah:

  3 A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
  4 Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain.
  5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."  - Isaiah 40:3-5 ESV

So John was baptizing people in a symbolic ceremony of repentance before the lord.  Jesus was baptized in a symbolic ceremony of the fufillment of prophecy and ordination from the Father, through John.  In doing so, it establishes Jesus authority and ministry.

Secondarily, and like all of Jesus' actions, it gives us a model for what we should be doing on Earth.

  18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
  19 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,
  20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." - Matthew 28:18-20 ESV

Most Protestant churches baptize today in a symbolic ceremony of the sins that are washed away through faith in Christ and as an outward public proclamation of the transformation happening inside the believer.


What is the Mormon position on keeping weapons and on war?

If you read a bit further on, you see that this particular group of Nephites--known as the Ammonites after Ammon, who converted them to the Gospel--was exceptional. The Ammonites made this covenant to bury their weapons and never take them up again as part of their repentance for past sins before they accepted the gospel, and the rest of the Nephite nation was a lot more pragmatic on the subject of weapons, warfare, and self-defense.

The Ammonites were given land to settle on in an area that was well behind the border, where Nephite armies could protect them in the case of another war, and because the covenant that they had made kept them from contributing men to the army, they received additional taxes instead.  And when the next war finally did break out several years later, and things were going very badly for the Nephites, it got to the point where many of the Ammonites were very seriously considering the possibility of taking up arms to defend themselves.  They were urged not to by their spiritual leaders, though, and instead a few thousand of their sons, who had never made the oath to never take up arms due to being either too young or not alive yet when it happened, ended up enlisting instead, and nobody seemed to think that this constituted "breaking the rules" in some way.

Having said that, the law given to Latter-Day Saints in the Doctrine & Covenants regarding war is that it is justifiable to fight in self-defense, but more blessed to choose not to.  It can be found in Section 98, verses 23-48.  It's fairly long, so I won't quote the whole thing here, but the gist of it is:

It is always justified to fight back in self-defense, but if "ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded," particularly in the case of multiple offenses.
If a person attacks you, but then sincerely repents and seeks forgiveness, they are to be forgiven, always.
Neither a person nor a nation is justified in going out to battle against their enemy (offensively, not defensively) except on a direct command by the Lord, and if an enemy comes upon your nation to battle, you should offer peace first, and only go to war when it becomes clear that they are not looking for a peaceful resolution.
Even when you are in the process of making war upon them, if an enemy repents of their sins against you and seeks peace, you are to forgive them and accept their offer of peace.

As for the personal ownership of weapons, this is a highly contentious political issue in the United States and various other places in the world.  As far as I know, the LDS church does not have any doctrine on the subject either way.


A similar question What denominations don't believe in fasting? And Why? mentions the following under the heading Who fasts and who doesn't?:

Both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches have required fasting periods for their members, as shown by the links.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are encouraged to fast for the first Sunday of every month, which they call their fast and testimony meeting. Instead of speakers, members come up to the microphone and bear their testimony about the truthfulness of their experiences in the Gospel [per Gilbert LeBlanc]

(italics added for identification)
For a scriptural viewpoint, the Jehovah's Witnesses article What Does the Bible Say About Fasting? under the heading Is fasting required for Christians? supplies the following:

No. God required the Israelites to fast on Atonement Day, but he eliminated that observance after Jesus permanently atoned for the sins of repentant people. (Hebrews 9:24-26; 1 Peter 3:18) Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, of which Atonement Day was a part. (Romans 10:4; Colossians 2:13, 14) Therefore, each Christian may decide for himself whether to fast.—Romans 14:1-4.
Christians recognize that fasting is not the focus of their worship. The Bible never associates fasting with happiness. In contrast, true Christian worship is marked by joy, reflecting the personality of Jehovah, “the happy God.”—1 Timothy 1:11; Ecclesiastes 3:12, 13; Galatians 5:22.

Going by what Romans 14:1-4 says, the decision would be up to the individual whether to fast or not. The article does give additional information on fasting that you may consider.
On a personal note, I have fasted both for dietary and spiritual reasons. As for the spiritual, I fasted during the anniversary of Christ's death to focus more on the spiritual than the physical.


What's the difference between predestination and predeterminism?

From wikipedia (great source, I know):

Predestination

  Predestination, in theology, is the doctrine that all events have been
  willed by God.

Predeterminism

  Predeterminism is the idea that all events are determined in advance.
  Predeterminism is the philosophy that all events of history, past,
  present and future, have been already decided or are already known (by
  God, fate, or some other force), including human actions.

Determination (=Determinism, Predetermination)

  Determinism is the philosophical position that for every event,
  including human action, there exist conditions that could cause no
  other event. "There are many determinisms, depending upon what
  pre-conditions are considered to be determinative of an event."
  Deterministic theories throughout the history of philosophy have
  sprung from diverse and sometimes overlapping motives and
  considerations. Some forms of determinism can be empirically tested
  with ideas from physics and the philosophy of physics. The opposite of
  determinism is some kind of indeterminism (otherwise called
  nondeterminism). Determinism is often contrasted with free will.

  Determinism often is taken to mean causal determinism, which in
  physics is known as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that events
  within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any
  state (of an object or event) is completely determined by prior
  states. This meaning can be distinguished from other varieties of
  determinism mentioned below. [..] Determinism rarely requires that perfect prediction be practically possible.

Theological determination

  Theological determinism is a form of determinism which states that all
  events that happen are pre-ordained, or predestined to happen, by a
  monotheistic deity, or that they are destined to occur given its
  omniscience.
  [..]
  Two forms of theological determinism exist, here referenced as strong
  and weak theological determinism.

  The first one, strong theological determinism, is based on the concept
  of a creator deity dictating all events in history: "everything that
  happens has been predestined to happen by an omniscient, omnipotent
  divinity". The second form, weak theological determinism, is based
  on the concept of divine foreknowledge - "because God's omniscience is
  perfect, what God knows about the future will inevitably happen, which
  means, consequently, that the future is already fixed".

It's a difficult subject, and there exist many variants, some include free will and some don't. In general, I'd classify as follows:

Predestination = strong theological determinism
Predestination implies Predeterminism, but not the other way around.
Weak theological determinism implies Predeterminism as well, but not the other way around (because Predeterminism is more general).
Determinism is also a very broad term and encompasses many things, but as causal determinism, it is, in my opinion, independent of the other terms. Determinism works together with all above forms, in that God could just have created the "right" starting conditions at the beginning of the universe. Nondeterminism also works, then God can be seen to also influence a lot while the Universe is "running", so to say.


Has the matter of salvation - whether it is by works or by faith alone - ever been considered on any councils of the Catholic and Orthodox churches?

The first big controversy on this topic emerged with the teachings of Pelagius. His doctrine (about salvation from deeds and about Adam and Christ only "giving example") were condemned on local councils of Diopolis and Carthage and on the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. Search the web for the term 'pelagianism' to learn more.


What is the basis for Systematic Expository Preaching?

In a nutshell, systematic expository preaching ensures that the Word is preached, the whole Word is preached, and that the pastor has less of an opportunity to rehash his own opinion or stick to a "canon within the canon."
Bryan Chapell, author of Christ-Centered Preaching (which is probably the best preaching text since John Broaddus), says:

The thing that I think is most advantageous in an expository method is not only are we being bound to the message of scripture, but the preacher then has the authority of God's Word with which to challenge or encourage people. That one says: "this is not me as a preacher talking. This is what God says to you based upon what this text means." So the chief advantage, I think, is the preacher is allowed to operate with the authority of what God says.
There are other advantages: if one is dealing in an expository approach -- main points, subpoints coming from the text -- I think you create an informed listener. People who listen to expository preaching over time learn to see how scriptures develop, and therefore their own interpretative skills grow. There is the advantage that the preacher is not bound to his own thoughts and opinions. Particularly if he moves consecutively through a text, he is forced to deal with subjects that might not normally appear to his own mind.
The advantage of that additionally is he can address subjects that, had he thought them up, might appear to have been too pointed with perhaps sensitive issues in the congregation. If he is simply moving through the text, he might be able to deal with the subject of gossip where, if he had simply brought that up as the theme for the week and it had no connections to previous weeks he might seem to be responding to his own hurt -- that somebody gossiped about him and so he was just going to get them back in the sermon this week. So expository preaching has the advantage of authority, has the advantage of teaching, has the advantage of pushing us beyond our own opinions and enabling us to touch sensitive subjects without appearing to pick on people.

By preaching systematically, the preacher also has the added benefit of an economy of scale when it comes to preparation. For any text, one needs to really be conversant wit the whole book, before picking out a pericope. If, however, you stay in the same book for several sermons in a row, you're already immersed in what the single writer is saying.
One cannot stay in a single book forever, though, because to do so will deprive listeners of the rest of the Scripture (hence the advantage of a lectionary, which is not systematic!).


What do the Amish believe with respect to Creationism?

I'm Amish -- sort of.* You are correct that there is a lot of variation within the Amish tradition (and even more if you include Mennonites, another branch of the Anabaptist heritage), so I can't speak for all. However, I think I'd be fairly safe to say that many, if not most, of us believe generally in a young earth and a literal six-day creation.

Historically, the issue was not a major focus, especially since Amish and conservative Mennonite involvement in higher education was (and still is) fairly limited. However, even the Amish and Mennonites have been influenced by fundamentalism, with its insistence on Biblical literalism and rejection of "modernism." Organizations like Answers in Genesis have had a large influence on many conservative Anabaptists.

...

*
I'm a member of the Beachy Amish-Mennonites, an offshoot of the Amish.  There is quite a bit of variation within the "Beachys" as well, but we all have cars and electricity and phones. Many of us utilize the internet regularly and live fairly normal American lives, while still maintaining some degree of distinctive dress and lifestyle. (The Mennonite Encyclopedia Online has more about our history and name, while this very unofficial but fairly informative site has some pictures, FAQs, and more.


According to Emanuel Swedenborg, will a good person who rejects Jesus go to heaven?

From a Swedenborgian perspective, this is a trick question.

Technically, according to Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), anyone who rejects Jesus ("the Lord," as Swedenborg refers to him) cannot go to heaven.

However, Swedenborg's definition of "rejecting the Lord" is quite different from the usual Christian definitions.

By the usual Christian definitions of "rejecting Jesus," yes, according to Swedenborg someone who has rejected and even mocked Jesus can go to heaven.

That's why it's a trick question (but a good one!): because it all depends on your definition of "rejecting Jesus."

Let me explain.

1. Swedenborg rejected the Trinity of Persons.

First, it is necessary to understand that Swedenborg utterly rejected the doctrine of a Trinity of Persons in God--which is the foundational doctrine of most of the rest of Christianity.

He said, instead, that there is one God, and that Jesus Christ is that God. So although Swedenborg does state that there is a Trinity in God, he says that that Trinity is in a single Person of God, and that Jesus Christ is that one Person. For more on this, see my article, "Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?"

Therefore, in Swedenborg's view, anyone who believes in God is, in fact, believing in the Lord, or Jesus Christ, because there is no other God to believe in. Here is how he puts it in Divine Providence #330:5:

  Someone could point out that they [non-Christians] do not know the
  Lord, and that apart from the Lord there is no salvation. But no one
  is saved because of knowing about the Lord. We are saved because we
  live by his commandments. Further, the Lord is known to everyone who
  believes in God because the Lord is the God of heaven and earth, as he
  tells us in Matthew 28:18 and elsewhere. (link added)

So from Swedenborg's perspective, Muslims who believe in Allah are believing in Jesus Christ even if they do not call Allah "Jesus Christ" because Jesus Christ is the one God of heaven and earth. This means that for a Muslim, rejecting Jesus--or "the Lord" in Swedenborg's terminology--would mean rejecting Allah. And Muslims who reject Allah cannot go to heaven (according to Islam and Swedenborg) because they are rejecting God as they know God.

Muslims, Swedenborg says, can go to heaven if they believe in God (Allah, as they call God) and live a good life according to the teachings of their religion. To repeat a quote from the same section of Divine Providence given in the answer linked in the question:

  It is an insane heresy to believe that only those born in the church
  are saved. People born outside the church are just as human as people
  born within it. They come from the same heavenly source. They are
  equally living and immortal souls. They have religions as well,
  religions that enable them to believe that God exists and that they
  should lead good lives; and all of them who do believe in God and lead
  good lives become spiritual on their own level and are saved. (Divine
  Providence #330.5)

2. Swedenborg rejected the Satisfaction and Penal Substitution theories of Atonement.

Second, it is necessary to understand that Swedenborg's view of Atonement and salvation departs fundamentally from Catholic and Protestant views.

It has only been for the last thousand years of Christianity, since Anselm, that some Christians (primarily Roman Catholics) have believed that Christ somehow stood in as a substitute for us in satisfying God's need for honor and justice.

And it has only been for the last five hundred years of Christianity, since the Protestant Reformation, that any significant number of Christians (mostly Protestants) have believed that Jesus paid the penalty for our sin on the cross--something that the Bible never actually says.

Swedenborg rejected both of those theories of atonement as false and non-biblical. His view was much closer to the Christus Victor view of salvation that was the primary theory of atonement for the first thousand years of Christianity. (Unfortunately, the Wikipedia articles on Penal Substitution and Christus Victor are not very good. The Penal Substitution article is particularly weak on the history of that doctrine.)

In Swedenborg's view, Jesus Christ made salvation available to all people everywhere by conquering the power of evil, the Devil, and hell and bringing them under his personal control. Without this, all people would have been spiritually destroyed by the mounting power of evil, which had reached its peak at the time of the Incarnation.

Because of Jesus' battles against and complete victory over evil and hell, God (AKA Jesus Christ) was able to restore the balance between good and evil, so that every human being everywhere on earth now has the freedom to choose God and goodness over hell and evil. And all who do so, according to Swedenborg, are saved.

This would not have been possible without the spiritual work Jesus Christ accomplished by his life, death, and resurrection. The Crucifixion was not salvation. Rather, it was only the final battle, by which Christ achieved final victory over the Devil, or hell.

Because of this view of salvation and atonement, from the perspective of Swedenborgian theology there is no need for non-Christians to believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins. The fact that Jesus did die for our sins is sufficient to secure our salvation, without the need for human belief in it. Rather, it is necessary for humans to believe in God and live according to God's commandments--which, as the next item points out, is one and the same thing in Swedenborg's view.

I realize this may raise many more questions. I am simplifying Swedenborg's doctrine on these subjects in the interest of time. For Swedenborg's own full presentation of these doctrines, please see the first volume of True Christianity.

3. Swedenborg defined "faith" as "the beliefs you live by."

Third, it is necessary to understand that Swedenborg defines "faith," or "belief," quite differently than many traditional Christian definitions of faith.

In Swedenborg's view, faith is inseparable from charity, meaning action.

Another way to put it is that for Swedenborg, "faith" is not a mere intellectual belief or assurance that something is true. Rather, faith is the belief that we live by. In this, he is very much in line with the Apostle James's views on faith:

  What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have
  faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or
  a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to
  them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about
  their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by
  itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. (James 2:14–17)

From Swedenborg's perspective, having faith in Jesus necessarily includes living by what Jesus teaches, because what we really believe is what we live by.

By the same token, rejecting Jesus means not living by what Jesus teaches. And although believing explicitly in Jesus is one of the things Jesus, and the New Testament generally, teaches, this, from a Swedenborgian perspective, is primarily for the purpose of inducing Christian believers to live according to Jesus' teachings.

The most important teaching of Jesus, and therefore of Christianity, is expressed in Matthew 22:35-40:

  One of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher,
  which commandment in the law is the greatest?"

  He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your
  heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the
  greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall
  love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all
  the law and the prophets."

Based on this teaching of Jesus, Swedenborg says that those who believe in God and love God, and who love their neighbor as themselves, are saved and go to heaven no matter what their religion. These people, Swedenborg says, truly believe in the Lord (Jesus Christ) because they are living according to the central and most important teaching of Jesus Christ.

4. Rejecting Christianity does not necessarily mean rejecting Jesus.

Fourth, it's necessary to understand that according to Swedenborg, many non-Christians, including Muslims and Jews, reject Christianity and Jesus for two basic reasons:

They see Christians living evil lives, which gives Christ a bad name.
They view Christianity as polytheistic because of the (false, in Swedenborg's view) doctrine of three persons in God.

Swedenborg believed that it was necessary for Christianity to be completely renovated, and to reject the fundamental falsity (as he saw it) of a Trinity of Persons in God before it would become acceptable to many believers in firmly monotheistic religions such as Judaism and Islam.

And Swedenborg believed that it was necessary for Christians to live by their religion instead of merely giving it lip service while living evil and self-centered lives, and thus giving Christianity a bad name.

So Swedenborg considered the rejection of Jesus among Muslims and Jews to be excusable because Christianity itself had become corrupt, and had presented to people of other religions a false picture of Jesus.

He looked forward to the day when a renewed and restored Christianity would present a true and belief-worthy picture of Jesus Christ as the one God of heaven and earth, who loves and saves all people, of every religion, who believe in God and live lives of love and service to their fellow human beings according to the teachings of their own religion.

This form of Christianity, he believed, would in time draw all nations to the beauty and power of the Christian faith, and to the belief that Jesus Christ is indeed the God and Savior of all.

For more on this, see my article "Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?" linked above, and also:

Is Jesus Christ the Only Way to Heaven?
If there’s One God, Why All the Different Religions?


If Israel is the vine that prefigures Jesus, the "true" vine, isn't Israel's purpose fulfilled?

Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. [Acts 13:45,46 KJV.]

Paul made it very clear in Antioch (in Pisidia) that salvation is by the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that if anyone (Jew or Gentile) rejects that gospel in unbelief, if they 'put it from them' then they have deemed themselves 'unworthy of eternal life'.
So saying, he shook off the dust from his feet (Acts 13:51) when he and Barnabus were expelled from the coasts of that place by the persecution of the Jews.
Again, at Corinth, when the Jews opposed themselves and blasphemed, Paul shook his raiment, and said :

Your blood be upon your own heads ; I am clean. From henceforth I go unto the Gentiles.
[Acts 18:6]

This is hardly the behaviour of a man who expected the Jewish people to be gathered in, at some future event, as Jews, in some separate kind of in-gathering other than the repentance and faith set forth in the gospel.

What was demonstrated in Israel, in the wilderness and in the temple, was an everlasting testament, (Hebrews 13:20) and that everlasting testament was inaugurated with the blood of Jesus Christ.
Once the everlasting testament, in reality, was founded in the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ, then all that was old - passed away (2 Corinthians 5:17).
If any man be in Christ, says the apostle, he is a new creation.
The individual Jew, who believes in Jesus Christ, is become a new creation.
But if anyone, Jew or gentile, rejects this gospel, they have rejected eternal life.
The fulfilment of all that was set forth in Israel, is the redemption that is in Jesus Christ.
If the fulfilment be rejected, then the whole purpose of the setting forth is nullified.
It becomes pointless. That is to say, it is nullified and pointless in regard to the one who rejects it.

If I pay an architect to make a model of the building I want to be built, then once the building is built, I dispose of the model, for the reality stands before me and the reality was the point of the whole exercise.
I don't pay the architect the agreed fee and then attempt to live in the model.
But if the architect is agreeable then she may marry me and we can share the new building together. And we can keep the model in a cupboard, just as a fond memory of our introduction.


If we want to know what the Bible says about an issue, what methods can help us to find all the relevant scriptures?

The following tools are good for determining what the bible says about a matter.  Take, for example, this question about pets going to heaven.  If you wanted to know the answer, you should consult:
1. A Concordance
The first tool that just about any pastor is going to use to answer a question such as this is a concordance. A concordance is nothing more than an index of words in Scripture, arranged in dictionary form.  The best concordance, of course, is the one in our heads.  The next best one is one in a book.
The classic work here is Strong's Concordance, which originally indexed the KJV bible. Other editions look at the Greek and Hebrew words underneath, or use other tricks to better index the words. Using google, by the way, is another easy way to find verses you sort of know, but don't know where they are.
Searching for 'pets' you will find nothing.  Searching for 'dogs,' you will find that it is usually an insult to a person, not anything about the animal. (Clearly, the writers misguided cat-o-philes, I suppose. ) Regardless, the point is that if you look up any of the words you might think are useful, you just won't find anything.
One word of warning: It is tempting to think a concordance can answer everything. It can't. And, references always need to be read in context.  But, it is a good place to start.
2. A Topical Dictionary of the Bible
Sometimes, a word might not appear in Scripture, but an idea does.  The word 'Trinity' for example, appears nowhere in Scripture - BUT the idea certainly permeates the whole.  For concepts, a topical dictionary like Nave's or one of these are useful.
In these dictionaries, key words will be explored, and centuries of Christian knowledge will be summarized, as a useful starting point for where you are heading.  Again, you need to read what they write in context, but it will show you where to focus your study.
Nave's lists Pestilence (hey some people keep spiders as pets!), Peter, and Pethiah - so, yeah, maybe not.
3. A Systematic Theology
Finally, for larger topics, one should consult a systematic theology.  Several (if not most!) theologians will write books that seek to put a propositional order to everything in Scripture.  Typically, this means they will start with questions like "The Nature of God," "The Nature of Man," "The Nature of the Bible," etc...  If you know what transubstation or predestination ante praevisa merita is, you jump straight there and learn a lot - but more likely, you need to be exposed to the terms and directed as to why these things are important.  That's what a systematic theology would do for you.
In this case, looking at the nature of the soul, the curse of the law, and the need for redemption only when there is transgression, one could begin to formulate questions around whether or not animals have souls, whether or not the "image of God" is a necessity for heaven, and the like.  But that takes work!
And, that ultimately, is where all of the tools need to be placed in perspective. Each of these tools is a map to a microscope.  If you don't have an overall picture, these tools won't provide a lot of light. But, with regular reading, the overall map takes shape and you will be able to find these answers.


Where does the Catholic church procure most of its Bibles?

Catholic Bibles do not come from just one publisher. They contract with hundreds of publishers to produce Catholic Bibles and other works. Although the Vatican does have a printing office it seems to only be used for Anthologies and other more recent publications.

Here are a few examples

http://www.catholicbookpublishing.com/about.php

http://www.firesidecatholic.com/Churches/

http://www.baroniuspress.com/

http://www.catholic.org/bible/

To sum up the church uses large and small publishers to fill their needs throughout the world. It appears that the publishers are selected by region so they can meet the needs of the local Churches quickly and reduce cost on shipping and storage. Which of these publishers is the largest would be almost impossible to determine as I doubt the Catholic church publishes that information. But I hope this helps in some way.


Does Exodus 3:14 explain who God is to everyone regardless of time and culture?

I think that the best answer to this question is "Yes...and no."

Yes

God does not say "I have always been" or "I will always be" or "I am coming". He says "I am." This verse is often used as part of the common Christian understanding that God exists above and outside of the human understanding of time.

This verse as a summary of God's universal, achronological reality is applicable to all people regardless of time and culture. God's existence applies identically to all people. No matter your original culture, no matter what era you live in, it is an aspect of Christianity to regard God as a single, powerful, timeless entity*.

No

Personally, I do not favor attempts to fine stand-alone verses to explain concepts, especially important theological points. While verses in isolation can still carry very important messages, local context (nearby verses) and absolute context (whole Bible) are critical.

The nature of God is a very fundamental piece of Christianity (and most religions, for that matter). While I think that Exodus 3:14 is a very good member of the list of verses that help describe God, I do not consider it sufficient as a stand-alone verse. It does not address:

God's desire for justice
God's desire for mercy
God's triune nature
God's relationship with mankind.
God's role as Creator.

As a person raised in the church, it's difficult to guess at other perspectives, but I think that hearing Exodus 3:14 without any other introduction to God would confuse me more than it educated me.

Note

I still think it's a very important verse, I think it's valuable to include in an exposition into who God is. But if it were sufficient on its own, the Bible would be a lot shorter.

*I hope that was phrased loosely enough to account for most majors Christian views, I know there are differences on the specifics of this point, please correct me if I am wrong.


What is the Biblical basis for 'term eldership'?

Some people in the Bible who had leadership roles held those roles for life. For example, the Old Testament kings and the New Testament apostles apparently held leadership roles for life. Others held temporary posts, like the Judges. I don't recall any place in the Bible where someone held an office for a fixed amount of time, as is common today. But as Flimzy says, nothing in the Bible says that any office must be for life or for a specific term. (Well, except "husband" and "wife", if you think of those as offices.) At least, I can't think of any.


What is the Catholic response to the Eastern Orthodox view that the Immaculate Conception remove Jesus' ability to redeem all of humanity?

There seems to be a thin line of differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy on the doctrine of Immaculate conception and seems to be in relation to the interpretation of doctrine of Original sin as seen here.  I though find hardly any difference between these two views, after reading this article. Here this work however  indicate that Eastern  Orthodoxy did have same views as Roman Catholic Church on this issue.

Notwithstanding these two views, the doctrine of Immaculate Conception still hold good because a Son who is Divine in nature cannot come in a womb of a woman who is defiled (whichever view one takes, whether it is the source of man's fallen nature or transmitted mortality) by the very nature as human beings.

God at the instance of conception in St Anna’s womb, Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved free from all stain of Original Sin. This was done by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits (Divinity) of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race “.

In Luke 1:47, Mary proclaims:

  "My spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour."

This is referred to as Mary's pre-redemption by Christ.

Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin (Whether it is the source of man's fallen nature or transmitted mortality). But by special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way ---by anticipation.

The Immaculate Conception does not imply that Mary did not need redemption through her Most Holy Son, Jesus Christ.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son". The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".


How do evangelical universalists reconcile their position with the designation for Judas that it would be better if he had never been born?

I identify as an evangelical universalist. I don't know if you'll find this worthwhile, but here's my take.

It sounds an awful lot like a figure of speech to me. If it is, it's best not to draw too many conclusions based on it. (Bart Ehrman left the faith because the mustard seed isn't really the smallest of all seeds.)

In support of the figure of speech reading, I'd point first to a general pattern in Christ (I assume we don't need a list to agree that Jesus used fos's quite a lot), and I'd point second to the fact that we don't even have to go outside the Bible to see a similar occasion of language predating Christ's usage here. It's in Ecclesiastes:

  Eccl. 6:3 A man may have a hundred children and live many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he cannot enjoy his prosperity and does not receive proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he (my emphasis).

Here we see language similar to Christ's ("a stillborn child is better off") to describe someone who "cannot enjoy his prosperity." This last seems a particularly interesting piece of language when applied to Judas, whose prosperity was the field in which he died.

It gets even more interesting after that:

  4 [the stillborn baby] comes without meaning, it departs in darkness, and in darkness its name is shrouded.
  5 Though it never saw the sun or knew anything, it has more rest than does that man—

So verse 5 indicates in what way it's better not to be born--"it has more rest."

Then comes v. 6:

  6 even if he [the man who can't enjoy his prosperity] lives a thousand years twice over but fails to enjoy his prosperity.

And then comes the end of v. 6, where, especially if this passage is Jesus's referent (as it seems to be) things get intensely interesting. I kind of want a drumroll for this, so play one in your mind before you read:

  "Do not all go to the same place?"

That's the end of v. 6. Interesting, huh? :)


What does the Bible say about vegetarian diets?

There are a number of verses that talk about what you should or can eat and a few of them do concern vegetarian eating. There are a number of Christian sects that even have a "health message," where they prescribe a vegetarian diet. I think the most notable one is Seventh Day Adventists, but note that the diet is a suggestion in their mind, not Biblical law.

Starting from the beginning, there is a development of what God gives mankind to eat. In the garden, God first gives the fruit of the trees and any seed bearing plant (fruits).

  Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
  Genesis 1:29-30 (NIV)

When Creation was completed, God gave Adam any fruit he wanted as his food, and to all the other creatures, He gave any green plant. In Genesis 2:16-17 God gives Adam every tree in the Garden and forbids that Adam should eat from the Tree of Knowledge, but that is a theological/obedience issue rather than a practical, dietary issue.

During God's pronouncements of punishments for eating the forbidden fruit, Adam is told that his food will be plants in Genesis 3:18. It's a bit ambiguous, but we can assume that it means all plants, like the animals were first given.

After the fall we see an interesting development. The people became farmers and kept flocks.

  Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.
  Genesis 4:2 (NIV)

It also seems to have been permitted as well, that they should keep flocks, and, we assume, eat their meat, but that may be too hasty.

After Noah and his family survive the Flood, we see God allow animal flesh eating with only two prohibitions:

  Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
  Genesis 9:3-4 (NIV)

Now God has given everything to eat, except blood and other people (that is in following verses and I left it out because you don't usually need to convince people that cannibalism is wrong).

This leaves a few questions about the previous verses. The first is did they (the righteous) actually eat meat before the Flood? We know they tended flocks, but they also sacrificed. It is possible that they only tended flocks for the sacrifice. The second question is when exactly did God give them the green plants? The earliest hint at this is after the fall in Genesis 3:18 and Genesis 4:2. God says plants will be your food, then Cain worked the soil later, which we assume means farming fruit and vegetables.

Some sects use the following verses and logic to support that vegetarian eating is better for you. Though that may be true, I think you would be hard pressed to say that the Bible commands a vegetarian diet, and I have never heard of a group that says it does, though, I do know that the SDA say it is encouraged.

There is another interesting story concerning food and vegetarian diets. Daniel 1 details a story where Daniel, a young man, was taken captive because he was intelligent, young, and handsome, and was given food from the royal table. Daniel saw this as an abomination, likely because the meat of that table included animals sacrificed to idols and might also have included blood. So Daniel asks his overlord to give him and the other servants only vegetables and water for 10 days and see if they are not healthier than the others.

  At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food.
  Daniel 1:15 (NIV)

Some groups, like the SDA, point to this as factual and Biblical evidence that a vegetarian diet is better for you. Others say that it was the power of God that made them healthier because they wanted to avoid the royal table because it was defiled, not simply because it had meat on it; the objection was against meat that either had blood in it or was sacrificed to idol or both. They then develop ideas like a "Daniel fast," where you eat only vegetables and water for 10 days in an effort to increase your faith and the also tend to quote Mark 7:18-19, stating that no food can defile you. It's a bit of a red herring because Christians with the health message would agree.

Whatever any Christian decides, there is one verse that cannot be more clear on this subject:

  So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
  1 Corinthians 10:31 (NIV)


What are the primary differences between these Lutheran denominations?

This is a quick rundown, keeping in mind that not every individual parish fully subscribes to everything their parent organization does (don't judge a book by its cover, but be aware of the connotations each cover generally carries):

Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

The Bible is inspired and inerrant, the Confessions are a clear and accurate articulation of biblical truth.
Salvation is by Jesus Christ alone, given to us as a gift by grace through faith in Him. Universalism is rejected.
Women cannot vote in congregational meetings nor serve in public ministry (no authority over men in any way in the church).
Functional view of ministry (no pastoral "office" per say—all members are ministers of Christ, pastors are men called to the specific vocation of preaching/teaching and administering the Sacraments). All forms of ministry are divine calls.
Close Communion (only baptized believers who share their distinctly Lutheran confession of faith in all points of doctrine may commune).
Marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. Homosexual behavior is sin.

Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS)

The Bible is inspired and inerrant, Confessions are a true and binding exposition of all scripture and serve as authoritative texts.
Salvation is by Jesus Christ alone, given to us as a gift by grace through faith in Him. Universalism is rejected.
Women are free to vote in congregational matters, and may serve publicly in humanly established offices as long as those offices do not include any of the distinctive functions of the pastoral office.
Believe in a pastoral "office" of ministry, pastor has received a divine call from God, and no one is to preach, teach, or administer the sacraments without a regular call. Only the pastoral office is divinely established, while all other church offices are human institutions. Only men may be called to the pastoral office.
Close Communion (only baptized believers who share their distinctly Lutheran understanding of the Lord's Supper may commune; agreement in all doctrinal matters is not necessary).
Marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. Homosexual behavior is sin.

Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC)

The LCMC is intentionally placed here in between the LCMS and the NALC. They are similar to the LCMS on their view of scripture, salvation, communion, and marriage and homosexuality. They are closer to WELS concerning their view on ordained ministry (functional view), however they affirm the call of women to ordained pastoral ministry.

North American Lutheran Church (NALC)

The Bible is inspired, Confessions are valid interpretations of the faith of the Church and true witnesses to the Gospel.
Salvation is by Jesus Christ alone, given to us as a gift by grace through faith in Him. Universalism is rejected.
Women and men are free to serve in all aspects of congregational life and ministry.
Believe in a pastoral "office" of ministry, pastor has received a divine call from God and includes qualified men and women.
Open Communion (all baptized believers are welcome to commune).
Marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. Homosexual behavior is sin.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)

The Bible is inspired, the Confessions are valid interpretations of the faith of the Church and true witnesses to the Gospel.
Salvation is universal. What God has done in Christ is done for all in the world; God's act in Christ is the way that all come to God. Universalism is accepted.
Women and men are free to serve in all aspects of congregational life and ministry.
Functional view of ministry (no pastoral "office" per say - we are all ministers of Christ, pastors are men or women called to the specific vocation or "rostered ministry" of preaching/teaching and administering the Sacraments).
Open Communion (all baptized persons are welcome to commune). In practice, all are welcome to commune, sometimes including non-human partakers (pets).
Accepts and supports monogamous, same-gender relationships. Allows non‐celibate gays and lesbians to serve as clergy. The individual church may choose to call or not call gay or lesbian clergy.

Yes, I posted this question as an opportunity for self-answering it. I originally wrote this for an online Lutheran forum in January 2012 and recently wanted to find it. However, much to my chagrin, a Google search turned up no results no matter how carefully I searched. I decided that this post needs to be here on Stack Exchange where others can find it (including me!).


How were the authors of the four gospels literate?

I think you've cross wired your history a little bit. The lower overall literacy rate at the time doesn't mean nobody was literate. It certainly doesn't follow that a hand picked set of men must be illiterate because a lower percentage of the population was educated. Not everybody was a fisherman, ond even those that were often had other backgrounds and experiences. In fact most of the NT was written by folks with more formal education than yourself (and I say that expecting it to be true even if you turn out to have a P.h.D or something like that). Paul was about as educated as you could get at the time. And while he might have been baffled by a cell phone, it would be a mistake to assume that that his literacy was inferior to yours.

Back to the gospel authors that you asked about.

Luke was a medical doctor turned historian, not a fisherman. 'Nuf said.
John wrote John. That may sound rhetorical in a sense but while there are some strange linguistic features to the books he wrote, it would be hard to make an argument for him being illiterate based on the works he produced. Did he come from high blood and start his education early? No probably not—in fact he was likely quite young when he started with Jesus. In any event his writing shows evidence of both having been an eyewitness to Jesus like as well as being familiar with the literature of his times, the Hebrew scriptures, and of being articulate.
Matthew wasn't a fisherman either. He was a tax collector, and that meant being literate in at least two languages. Possible more. In any event his education would have been enough to get employment in a field that required a working knowledge of both his own country's laws and those of the occupying empire.
Mark is the biggest unknown on this list and his writing suggests he might have been less well educated as some of his compatriots. His work is likely the earliest written and he seems to almost fall over his own words telling some of the stories. It's likely he didn't have a lot of upper level education. On the other hand his lack of command over the finner points of grammar are more than made up for by his first hand accounts. And yes, he was literate.

The issue of actually dealing with a pen and paper was somewhat more complex than it is now (Ever tried to write with hand made implements on hand made substrates?) and it's possible that some or all the books were dictated. While this could have helped an illiterate person get a written record of their experiences, there is no particular reason to believe that was the case with any of the NT authors. It's more likely that if anything was dictated it was more a matter of pragmatics.


What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about evolution?

I'll try to summarize some of the infos we can find in the JW.org site (wol.jw.org)

First, have a look at their Awake! 9/06 magazine, pages 9-10, the article titled "Did God Use Evolution to Create Life?"

As a summary, it says that the Bible’s account of the creation of the first man, Adam, is to be taken literally. It also says that Jesus (and his disciples) took it as a true story.

Also this other article from their 1/1 2008 Watchtower magazine, titled "Is evolution compatible with the Bible ?", should interest you.


What is the Catholic doctrine on how to humble oneself before the Lord?

The Rule of St Benedict of Nursia lists 12 degrees of humility. Although his rule was written for monks of the sixth century, there are many insights of great value for practicing humility for the average Catholic.

From the Holy Rule of St. Benedict, chapter VII. On Humility

  The first degree of humility, then, is that a person keep the fear of God before his eyes and beware of ever forgetting it. Let him be ever mindful of all that God has commanded; let his thoughts constantly recur to the hell-fire which will burn for their sins those who despise God, and to the life everlasting which is prepared for those who fear him. […] Let a man consider that God is always look at him from heaven, that his actions are everywhere visible to the divine eyes and are constantly being reported to God by the Angels.

  The second degree of humility is that a person love not his own will nor take pleasure in satisfying his desires, but model his actions on the saying of the Lord, I have come not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.

  The third degree of humility is that a person for love of God submit himself to his Superior in all obedience, imitating the Lord, of whom the Apostle says, He became obedient even unto death.

  The fourth degree of humility is that he hold fast to patience with a silent mind when in this obedience he meets with difficulties and contradictions and even any kind of injustice, enduring all without growing weary or running away.

  The fifth degree of humility is that he hid from his Abbot none of the evil thoughts that enter his heart or the sins committed in secret, but that he humbly confess them.

  The sixth degree of humility is that a monk be content with the poorest and worst of everything, and that in every occupation assigned him, he consider himself a bad and worthless workman.

  The seventh degree of humility is that he consider himself lower and of less account than anyone else, and this not only in verbal protestation but also with the most heartfelt inner conviction.

  The eighth degree of humility is that a monk do nothing except what is commended by the common Rule of the monastery and the example of the elders.

  The ninth degree of humility is that a monk restrain his tongue and keep silence, not speaking until he is questioned.

  The tenth degree of humility is that he be not ready and quick to laugh.

  The eleventh degree of humility is that when a monk speaks he do so gently and without laughter, humbly and seriously, in few and sensible words, and the he be not noisy in his speech.

  The twelfth degree of humility is that a monk not only have humility in his heart but also by his very appearance make it always manifest to those who see him. That is to say that whether he is at the Work of God, in the oratory, in the monastery, in the garden, on the road, in the fields or anywhere else, and whether sitting, walking or standing, he should always have his head bowed and his eyes toward the ground.

St Thomas Aquinas also writes about the 12 degrees of humility, but in the reverse order.

  It would seem that the twelve degrees of humility that are set down in the Rule of the Blessed Benedict [St. Thomas gives these degrees in the reverse order to that followed by St. Benedict] are unfittingly distinguished. The first is to be "humble not only in heart, but also to show it in one's very person, one's eyes fixed on the ground"; the second is "to speak few and sensible words, and not to be loud of voice"; the third is "not to be easily moved, and disposed to laughter"; the fourth is "to maintain silence until one is asked"; the fifth is "to do nothing but to what one is exhorted by the common rule of the monastery"; the sixth is "to believe and acknowledge oneself viler than all"; the seventh is "to think oneself worthless and unprofitable for all purposes"; the eighth is "to confess one's sin"; the ninth is "to embrace patience by obeying under difficult and contrary circumstances"; the tenth is "to subject oneself to a superior"; the eleventh is "not to delight in fulfilling one's own desires"; the twelfth is "to fear God and to be always mindful of everything that God has commanded." For among these there are some things pertaining to the other virtues, such as obedience and patience. Again there are some that seem to involve a false opinion--and this is inconsistent with any virtue--namely to declare oneself more despicable than all men, and to confess and believe oneself to be in all ways worthless and unprofitable. Therefore these are unfittingly placed among the degrees of humility.

Let us not forget that those who desire to live a life of humility should also pray for this virtue. The following Litany of Humility was composed by Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val (1865-1930),Secretary of State for Pope Saint Pius X:

  O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, Hear me.
   From the desire of being esteemed,
   Deliver me, Jesus.

  From the desire of being loved...
   From the desire of being extolled ...
   From the desire of being honored ...
   From the desire of being praised ...
   From the desire of being preferred to others...
   From the desire of being consulted ...
   From the desire of being approved ...
   From the fear of being humiliated ...
   From the fear of being despised...
   From the fear of suffering rebukes ...
   From the fear of being calumniated ...
   From the fear of being forgotten ...
   From the fear of being ridiculed ...
   From the fear of being wronged ...
   From the fear of being suspected

  That others may be loved more than I,
   Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.

  That others may be esteemed more than I ...
   That, in the opinion of the world,
   others may increase and I may decrease ...
   That others may be chosen and I set aside ...
   That others may be praised and I unnoticed ...
   That others may be preferred to me in everything...
   That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should…


How does one become an Apostle in the LDS Church?

24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of
  all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

  25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which
  Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

  26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias;
  and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:24-26)

When Judas Iscariot died in Christ's time, he left a vacancy in the Quorum of the twelve in the ancient Church. When choosing a replacement for Judas Iscariot in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the remaining Apostles understood the importance of the man being a witness, with the others, of Jesus’s ministry, from His baptism through His Resurrection (see Acts 1:22). The importance of this eyewitness testimony is a major theme in the early Church and the early chapters of Acts (see Acts 2:32; 3:15; 4:20; 5:32).

Anciently, casting lots was a means of making a decision. Among the Jews it was generally believed that the hand of God would direct the outcome:

  33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is
  of the Lord. (Proverbs 16:33).

Though the exact method of casting lots in this instance is not known, one ancient method involved each voter writing a name on a broken piece of pottery and then putting it forth to be read or counted.

The Apostles sought to know whom the Lord had chosen. A similar process is followed in the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.1

Following the calling and sustaining of Elder Robert D. Hales as an Apostle, President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910–2008) explained how an Apostle is called today:

  “Under the Lord’s plan, those who have responsibility to select
  officers are governed by one overriding question: ‘Whom would the Lord
  have?’ There is quiet and thoughtful deliberation. And there is much
  of prayer to receive the confirmation of the Holy Spirit that the
  choice is correct.

  “… In filling that vacancy, each member of the First Presidency and
  the Quorum of the Twelve was at liberty to make suggestions. I am
  confident that in every case, there was solemn and earnest prayer. A
  choice was then made by the First Presidency, again after solemn and
  serious prayer. This choice was sustained by the Council of the
  Twelve. Today, the membership of the Church in conference assembled
  has sustained that choice.

  “I give you my testimony … that the impression to call Brother Hales
  to this high and sacred office came by the Holy Spirit, by the spirit
  of prophecy and revelation. Brother Hales did not suggest his own
  name. His name was suggested by the Spirit” (“God Is at the Helm,”
  Ensign, May 1994, 53–54).

Concerning the vacancy left by Elder Perry: the remaining Apostles will gather, and inspired by the spirit, they will put forth names of men they feel should fill the vacancy-typically they look at those men who are currently serving as a Seventy, but their prior callings are less important than their worthiness. The Apostles will then fast and pray, and discover whom the LORD has chosen. When the Apostles are in unanimous agreement that they have learned whom the Lord would have to fill the vacancy in the Twelve, and it has been confirmed by the Holy Ghost, they will then extend the call to that man, and his name will be put forth before the church at the next General Conference for their sustaining vote.

After he has been sustained, he will be ordained as an Apostle of the Lord by the laying on of hands by all of the other apostles, and serve in that calling for the rest of his life.

1 Chapter 29: Acts 1–2. New Testament Student Manual, 2014


According to the Catholic Church, does God punish sinners?

In the RCC, Purgatory is only a place where people eventually destined for heaven go. It is a place of purification and not punishment, before heading into eventual bliss with the all pure God. Unrepentant sinners who do not accept the salvation of Christ are destined for Hell, and will receive punishment for their sins.


What is the biblical basis to claim that masturbation is a sin?

The root of the matter is lust.

  Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with
  lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

I would say that the act itself is not the sin, it's the intent of the act.


According to the Catholic Church, was Mary's Magnificat a spontaneous utterance?

Mary knew Holy Scriptures very well, and her Magnificat canticle was inspired by the Holy Ghost.
During her Visitation with St. Elizabeth,

Mary, too, was inspired by the Holy Spirit. She improvised the poem known to us as the Magnificat,27 from the opening word of its Latin version. It is charged with reminiscences of the psalms and other writings of the Old Testament, showing that Mary's mind was steeped in Holy Writ. In the first strophe (Lk. 1:46-50), she meditates with restrained enthusiasm upon the mercy, power, and holiness of God, who had chosen her for so great a dignity. She explains in the second strophe (vv. 51-53) that God is wont to exalt the weak and depose the proud. In the third strophe (vv. 54-55), she praises God's fidelity in fulfilling through His Son the promises made to Abraham and his posterity.

source: Fr. Michael J. Gruenthaner, S.J., "Mary in the New Testament", pp. 89-90 of Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M, Mariology (vol. 1), 1955.
Magnificat (Lk. 1) / Hannah (1 Sam.)  parallels
Lk. 1:46: My soul doth magnify the Lord.
1 Sam. 2:1: My heart hath rejoiced in the Lord, and my horn is exalted in my God: my mouth is enlarged over my enemies: because I have joyed in thy salvation.
Lk. 1:48: he hath regarded the humility (ταπείνωσιν, humilitatem) of his handmaid
1 Sam. 1:11: thou wilt behold the affliction (ταπείνωσιν, afflictionem) of thy servant
(DRC doesn't have "affliction".)
Lk. 1:52: He hath put down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble.(cf. Ps. 109:1: "…make thy enemies thy footstool.")
1 Sam. 2:6: The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to hell, and bringeth back again.
Lk. 1:53: He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.
1 Sam. 2:7: The Lord maketh poor and maketh rich, he humbleth and he exalteth:
courtesy: The Biblical Doctrine of Virginity by Lucien Legrand, M.E.P., p. 124
From the article on 1 & 2 Kings (1 & 2 Samuel) by H. McKay, O.F.M., in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (ref:68.5):

§ f 2:1–10 Anna’s Hymn of Thankgiving—This is sometimes called ‘the Magnificat of the OT’. Both Mary’s song and Anna’s canticle are poetry and prophecy. St Luke’s narrative (Lk 1:46–55) shows how deeply Anna’s words had affected our Lady’s mind. But when they pass through her soul, they catch something of the fragrance of her personality and are clothed with her own quiet restraint and selfless humility. In the present context, the leading idea seems to be the praise of Yahweh who has given deliverance to Anna. The proud and boastful must be silent before him, for he weighs all their thoughts and actions. In his sovereign government of the world he can reverse the positions of weak and strong, mighty and lowly. This great moral principle of his rule will receive its complete fulfilment in the judgement of the world and the exaltation of Yahweh’s anointed King.

Our Lady, being very knowledgeable of Holy Scripture, certainly was thinking of Hannah's barrenness / misery and how happy she was conceiving a child, Samuel.


Is there a dogmatic or theological (yet not dogmatic) justification for kneeling before a statue/icon of the Virgin Mary?

Short Answer

Theological & Dogmatic reference:(Summary)

  Lumen Gentium 66
  CCC966
  Archangel Greetings bowing to Mary's Divine Motherhood. (Luke1:28)

  4.The 4th Dogma of the Assumption

  Other testimonies & revelation;
  i. Pre-Assumption Apparition, Ven. Mary of Agreda refer to Mary as "Queen of
    the Church.
  ii. St.James the Greater saw Mary "beheld by a great light" on a pedestal.
  iii. St. Therese of Liseaux said Mary is truly Queen of Heaven & Earth.
  Biblical Reference (Revelation12:1)

Church Father teaching Mary is the First Tabernacle & the New Ark of the
Covenant.

Explanation :

The simple answer is the people in the Old Testament know the customary greetings to a King and Queen.

Human showing highest respect for the King & Queen of this world show it by physical gestures of bowing and kneeling.

We are not talking of ordinary King & Queen here.

Mary is the Mother of the King of Kings.

The Catholic Church acknowledge Mary as Sovereign Queen of Angels, Queen of Heaven & Earth.CCC966

  966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

The key word is Mary is "exalted". How high is Mary's exaltation?

  “Placed by the grace of God, as God’s Mother, next to her Son, and exalted above all angels and men, Mary intervened in the mysteries of Christ and is justly honored by a special cult in the Church.” (LG, 66).

An Archangel who belong to Choir of Cherubim who knows the "secrets of God" showed us how to greet a Queen Mother in Luke1:28.

  Douay-Rheims Bible

  And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Archangel Gabriel was sent to deliver a message only to the Theotokos. The greetings of HAIL! Full of Grace reveals that Angel Gabriel saw the state of soul of Mary and by virtue of understanding the message of God in fullness, Angel Gabriel knows the meaning of Mary becoming the Mother of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, had to acknowledged the awesome majesty of the Queen Mother and had to bowed down.

In this Mary was troubled, She doesn't know that the state of Her soul was "full of grace" only an angel can see that. But the greatest mystery is, there's one fallen angel who is also a Cherub seeing his fellow Archangel bowed down realized he must bowed down too.
Genesis3:15 comes again to satan's mind and fear engulfs his very being.

Genesis 3:15 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

  "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

Mary became the First Tabernacle of God. Her Most Pure Womb in the Book of Kings exclaimed "The highest heavens cannot contain of God whom you carried in your womb".

Would you kneel before the Tabernacle of God, the New Ark of the Covenant?

The 4th Dogma of Assumption, the Catholic Church proclaims Mary as the Sovereign Queen of all. Sovereign Queen of Heaven & Earth.

Mary's "Pre-Assumption Apparition" the first Marian Apparition acknowledge by the Church to St.James the Greater in year 40AD while still living showed Mary already is exalted in a glorified form. The Woman is now standing on a pedestal a jasper column higher than all men and sorrounded by angels.

St James narration is an apparition and not a bilocation. Why? A bilocation is attributed to the saints who appears in their usual physical form. But Mary appeared in a "ghost like" form ,in the words of Ven.Mary of Agreda "beheld by a great light" . St.James the Greater saw Jesus "resurrected body" so he can attest the similarities of Mary's appearance to Jesus.

For full story of "Our Lady of the Pillar Apparition"

  Venerable Maria of Agreda who was shown the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary in detail, writes in her Mystical City of God that St. James, brother of St. John, whom Our Lord called “Sons of Thunder”, had a special devotion to the Blessed Mother.
  Becoming the apostle of what today is Spain, Saint James was having a hard time evangelizing the northern region of Zaragoza. One night, as he prayed asking help for his plight, he suddenly beheld a great light in the midst of which he saw Our Lady surrounded by a multitude of angels.

  The interesting thing is that Mary was still living in Jerusalem at the time. But as queen of the Church, she was given to see all that concerned her Son’s work, and being shown the prayer of her devotee, had obtained from Jesus to help him in a special way.

On learning of their lady’s wishes, the angels in her retinue promptly built a throne of luminous clouds on which they sat their queen, and swiftly carried her across the Mediterranean, serenading her all the way.

  So now, the Blessed Mother consoled her son James, and assured him help for his endeavors. She asked him to build a shrine on the spot she appeared, and as a token of her help to the region, left a marble column or pillar topped by a small statue of herself holding her Infant Son.

  By the pillar, she left an angel to ensure the safety of the holy image until the end of time. According to ancient Spanish tradition, this apparition occurred on January 2nd, 40AD. - The Marvelous Story Of Our Lady of the Pillar

Now this is only here on earth, noticed the wordings Ven.Agreda she called the Blessed Virgin Mary "Queen of the Church".

And the Church teaches that Mary is the Woman in the Revelation12:1

  "* A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman* clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars."

Mary is the Sovereign Queen of Heaven & Earth.

Now, knowing how the Old Testament people give reverence to the earthly King and Queen and by no less than an Archangel bowing to the Blessed Virgin Mary.Would it be fitting to bow and kneel before the Sovereign Queen the Mother of our Saviour, the King of Kings?

But in my posted comment I said, if you knew "who Mary is" in the eyes of God She deserves more than kneeling. She deserves our deepest gratitude and love acknowledging Her role as our "spiritual Mother"

Why? Jesus gave Mary to us as a gift, Jesus agonizing At the Foot of the Cross experience the great love & sacrifices of the Blessed Mother "from womb to tomb".Mary "still standing" did not abandon his beloved son in the greatest hour of sufferings. Mary had experience the greatest sorrows no earthly Mother can endure seeing His beloved son immolated.

Jesus precious last words to us pointed that more than kneeling to the Sovereign Queen, we must all BEHOLD Mary as our spiritual Mother. Jesus wants us to welcome Mary in our homes and especially into our hearts.

  "Son Behold you Mother"(John19:27)

  CCC969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."512

"Mary is more Mother than Queen"

  “It is true that Our Lady is Queen of Heaven and earth,
  but at the same time she is more Mother than Queen.” – St. Therese of Lisieux

It was also attested by the Patristic Fathers in the 1st Century Mary's two important title of inscription " Theotokos & Boetheia "

Patristic origins

  There are two inscriptions of the first centuries of Christianity in Greek related to the Virgin Mary: : θεοτοκος (Teotokos, Theotokos, Mother of God) and βοηθεια (Boetheia, the Helper). The Fathers of the Church referred to Mary as "βοηθεια". John Chrysostom used the title in a homily of 345, Proclus in 476 and Sebas of Caesarea in 532. After the Patristic period (5th century), other persons used it like Romanos the Melodist in 518, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius in 560, John of Damascus in 749 and German of Constantinople in 733.

  In the view of Fr. Johann G. Roten, SM, the invocation of Mary as Help of Christians is part of the oldest prayer addressed directly to Mary, the Sub tuum praesidium, which was found on a papyrus dating, at the latest, from the end of the 3rd century. Praesidium is translated as "an assistance given in time of war by fresh troops in a strong manner." - Mary Help of Christians (Wikipedia)

I like to focus on the Greek word Boetheia,the Helper.

  Boēthos is a noun made up of two words which mean (i) “cry out” and (ii) “run”. The related verb boētheō means “come to the rescue” or “supply urgently needed help”. (From HELPS word-studies.) Perschbacher gives the meaning of boētheō as “to run to the aid of those who cry out for help . . . “[2]

  The following is every verse in the New Testament where boēthos and its cognates appear[3]:

  In Matthew 15:25 and Mark 9:22-24, boēth– words are used where people were crying out to Jesus for help.

  In Acts 16:9, 21:28, 27:17 and Revelation 12:16, boēth– words are used where strong help and support were required.

  In 2 Corinthians 6:2, Hebrews 2:18, 4:16 and 13:6, boēth– words are used in the context of receiving divine help. - “A Suitable Helper” (in the Septuagint)

Apostolic and Patristic recognition in the first century of Christianity gave Mary the title Mary Help of Christians.

Now if you knew that Mary is the "Helper" the one who will run to your aid when you cry out for help, is kneeling enough?

As St. Peter run to Mary when he was caught in deep despair, and St.James the Greater called unto Mary too when caught in desolation.If we knew Mary is our Helper what gestures is appropriate, a physical gesture only? or will it involves our very heart acknowledging our deepest gratitude to Her as our Spiritual Mother.

St. Lukes had painted a Miraculous Image of Mary in the first century too the title of the paint attributed to Mary is the "Advocata Nostra".

From Apostolic to Church Father acknowledged Mary as our Helper,Theotokos and Advocate not to mentioned Her numerous titles.

Are we going to wait for the Fifth Dogma to be proclaim before we gave Mary the proper veneration and gratitude She rightfully deserves here on earth?

The Catholic Church like Mary is a humble church, it will wait for God's timing in bestowing Her a title that will be bind in Heaven. As we all know God's timing is always perfect.

Mary is our Co-Redemtrix, Advocate and Mediatrix.

We must not only express our deepest gratitude in physical gestures but most especially our reverence must come too, deeply in our hearts.


Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John write anything other than the Gospels?

With respect to the traditional attributions, here's the simple list:

Matthew: None
Mark: None
Luke: Acts
John: 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation

Modern scholarship, which typically rejects the traditionally attributed authors of these books, still generally attributes Luke and Acts to the same author.  There is less agreement on the authorship of the other books attributed to John, however.

Finally, there are some apocryphal works that are attributed to these authors, but they are not part of the canon:

Apocryphon of John (2nd century)
Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (7th century)
Secret Gospel of Mark (claimed by some to be a late forgery)


What are the requirements for each of the three levels of Glory?

The three degrees of glory are the telestial, terrestrial, and celestial. Each kingdom is on the order of the law it represents: Telestial law is the law of the world, effectively lawlessness (in the scriptures, this is compared to the glory of the stars), Terrestrial law is a "middle" law (compared to the glory of the moon), and the Celestial law is God's law (compared to the glory of the sun).

There's not exactly a checklist of requirements to pass off before inheriting a higher kingdom.

In the Book of Mormon, Alma teaches that individuals are resurrected with (he uses the term "restored to") a physical body comparable to the law they lived. In other words, individuals who live a telestial law will be raised to a telestial body and thus will inherit that kingdom.

A revelation to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon opened up the windows of heaven to them, which is detailed in Doctrine and Covenants 76, and it explains the status of those in each kingdom.

Evidently, those in the telestial kingdom will have not chosen to receive a testimony of Jesus, they rejected the gospel, and are "thrust down to hell" (see this question to learn more how this phrase is interpreted), yet they did not deny the Holy Ghost (in other words, they did not come out in open rebellion against God). They will be resurrected last.

Those in the terrestrial kingdom will have received the Spirit and gospel (since LDS theology teaches that everyone will have the opportunity to receive it at some point, either in this life or the next), but did not receive its fulness, by their choice.

Those who inherit the celestial kingdom have faithfully accepted the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, having: entered into baptism by immersion for the remission of sins and received the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those in authority. Within the celestial kingdom are all those who are pure and holy, and even those who have achieved exaltation, God's greatest and eternal blessing to His children, that they become like Him. These souls will be resurrected first.

Now, your question about "hell," being the temporary spirit prison or the eternal darkness. In LDS theology, after death, there is a "spirit paradise" and a "spirit prison." Often it's taught in Sunday schools that they are separate places, like two buildings across the street, but the more I study it, the more I'm realizing that it's two states of being.

Spirit prison is a state for those who already chose not to accept the gospel or would reject it when it is preached to them. Spirit paradise is a state inherited by they who lived the gospel, or at least its teachings, whether or not they received it. Those who did receive it, though, preach to those who did not. Peter mentions this work in 1 Peter 3:18-20. D&C 138 also talks about this work in detail. These spiritual states are only temporary, while the resurrection is awaited. To "escape" that hell, I suppose one would have to accept the gospel, implying repentance and some payment for sins...

Finally, the eternal sense of the word hell is reserved for those who reject God, refuse the gospel, and deny the Holy Ghost. It's understood that these will be relatively few in number, but the sons of perdition, having departed in a sense the family of God, will not receive any glory.

Some people use terms I've used in my answer a little differently in some contexts, but the differences are minute.


How do young Catholics remember a set of prayers in order to pray the rosary? Do they have to memorize everything by rote, or do they get some help with mnemonics?

Rosary is a combination of many prayers like Apostles' Creed, Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory to the Father.., twenty mysteries divided into four sets,  Hail holy Queen, Litany of Mary etc. All these individual prayers are therefore memorised so that one can say them fluently at the time of their recital. All these prayers are mandatory (to be learnt by heart) before the members are made eligible for Sacraments like First Communion, Confirmation etc.

  Should they pray in Latin or in the vernacular?

All these prayers are said in vernacular languages. In my place the Litany sometimes is still recited in Latin, but that is by a few exceptional groups of people who are of older generation.

  Is there a bit of wiggle room if someone is a little amnesic so that they don't have to remember a set of prayers?

I am not very sure but for such members only the basic prayers like  Apostles creed, Our Father, Hail Mary  are made to remember  so that they become eligible for requisite Sacraments.

  Would just reading the prayers suffice instead of actually memorizing, or is memorizing a form of pious behavior for young people who are taught to become faithful practicing Catholics?

It is necessary and mandatory that all these prayers are memorised and this is usually done at home as well as in the Sunday catechism classes. There are about seven text books that children have to learn and pass during the catechism classes. During these classes they are taught these prayers as well as other tenets of Roman Catholicism/Christianity. But mostly the memorising is done at home. Then they have to answer exams of sort in the catechism classes and pass them. The Sacrament of First Communion is given for those who have learnt and passed first two text books. And those who have completed all the seven would be selected for the Sacrament of Confirmation.


1 John 3:20 what does it mean "He knows everything" according to Calvinist Single Predestination?

The traditional Calvinistic understanding of the relationship between God's knowledge and God's decree relies on an important distinction, which I'll briefly explain, then present to you how Historically Reformed Confessions articulate the relationship.

When we are talking about "time" before creation, we must understand that "time" in any traditional understanding doesn't make much sense. We cannot say that God went from a state of not knowing all things to a state of knowing all things, nor can we say that there is any meaningful sense in which God had not yet decreed all things, then went on to decree all things.

So when we talk about things happening "in eternity" we must do away with chronological distinctions, and rather talk in term of "logical priority". Which is logically necessary for the other?

Now for the historically Reformed understanding, as presented in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith (it's the same in Westminster):

  3.2 Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all
  supposed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything,
  because he foresaw it as future, or as that
  which would come to pass upon such conditions.

Let's break this down. In 3.1, the confession says God decreed all things, then here the confession explains that relationship. While it affirms that God knows all things, the confession unequivocally argues that God's decree is not dependent upon that knowledge. God did not decree anything on account of his divine foreknowledge.

Therefore, we would say this "God's decree is logically prior to God's foreknowledge", or alternatively, "God knows all things because he decreed all things."

So this answer is something of a framing challenge, I do not believe you are asking the right question. Whether, as a Calvinist, you affirm Single or Double Predestination, this ought to be your view on this relationship, and it is the view shared by historical Single and Double proponents alike.


What is the distinction between Consubstantial and One in Being?

The aim of the retranslation, as I understand it, is to have the translated text more accurately represent the original text.

The Latin version of the creed says:

  Genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri

Which means "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father".  The new translation is an accurate translation of the Latin.  (In the same way, "And with your spirit" is a better translation of "et cum spiritu tuo" than "And also with you".)

"One in Being with the Father" is an interpretation of the Latin -- and a fairly modern one at that.  If you'd said to one of the early Church fathers that the Son was one in Being with the Father, they may well have called you a heretic.

"One in substance" is a more accurate translation of the Latin and -- who knows? -- may give an opportunity for some good sermons on Christology.


Where did the "theology" behind the Cherry tree carol come from?

The Cherry Tree Carol is thought to date to the 16th or 17th century.  The history of its development is murky, but it may be traced to a 15th century Coventry play1 and beyond that to the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, a 7th century apocryphal work describing the birth and childhood of Jesus.
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, which titles itself The Birth of the Blessed Mary and the Infancy of the Saviour, was "enormously successful" as a text, in the words of scholar Mary Clayton, citing its high number (135) of manuscripts.2  Old English translations of it exist, dating to the 11th century or possibly earlier.3 So we see that Pseudo-Matthew's gospel was available to early English speakers well before the appearance of the carol.
Turning now to your points, we can see the correspondence:
Joseph was an old man: In Pseudo-Matthew's gospel, Joseph is a grandfather who is selected by his peers to be the guardian of the 14-year-old Mary:

Thou hast been made blessed in thine old age, O father Joseph, seeing that God hath shown thee to be fit to receive Mary. And the priests having said to him, Take her, because of all the tribe of Judah thou alone hast been chosen by God; Joseph began bashfully to address them, saying: I am an old man, and have children; why do you hand over to me this infant, who is younger than my grandsons?

The Queen of Galilee: This exact phrase is not used in Pseudo-Matthew's gospel, but Mary's companions in Galilee derisively apply the title "queen" to her:

Since thou art the last, and humble, and younger than all, thou hast deserved to receive and obtain the purple. And thus saying, as it were in words of annoyance, they began to call her queen of virgins.

Cherry Tree: Pseudo-Matthew does not refer to cherries in his work, but he does tell of an episode very similar to the one in the song.  Joseph and Mary, with the infant Jesus, are traveling through the desert on their way to Egypt.  Mary sees not a cherry tree but a palm tree (presumably a date palm) bearing fruit:

Date palms do not grow in the English-speaking countries of the 16th century, so a different tree was needed for the song, and the resemblance between dates and cherries is perhaps not far-fetched.
Hungry, Mary says to Joseph:

I wish it were possible to get some of the fruit of this palm.

Joseph's anger: Pseudo-Matthew doesn't portray Joseph as poorly as the song, but the connection is clear.  Joseph responds to Mary, saying:

I wonder that thou sayest this, when thou seest how high the palm tree is; and that thou thinkest of eating of its fruit. I am thinking more of the want of water, because the skins are now empty, and we have none wherewith to refresh ourselves and our cattle.

So Joseph refuses her, choosing instead to focus on collecting water.  However, the infant Jesus then takes matters into his own hands:

Then the child Jesus, with a joyful countenance, reposing in the bosom of His mother, said to the palm: O tree, bend thy branches, and refresh my mother with thy fruit. And immediately at these words the palm bent its top down to the very feet of the blessed Mary; and they gathered from it fruit, with which they were all refreshed.

Wednesday: Of the things you mention, the reference to Wednesday is the most difficult to connect directly to Pseudo-Matthew.  It only appears in one of the four versions of the carol.  Perhaps it is nothing more than a mistaken reference to the "third day" (a repeated theme in Pseudo-Matthew's gospel), a reference to Ash Wednesday (since Christians make "vows" for Lent), or a reference to Holy Wednesday, on which Jesus predicted his death (Matthew 26:6–12).
Theology
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew is one of several infancy gospels that attempt to "fill in" the details of the childhood of Jesus.  It derives much of its content from two earlier works, the Gospel of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, though the source of the "flight to Egypt" portion is not known.
Pseudo-Matthew's story emphasizes the relationship between Mary and Jesus, to the relative exclusion of Joseph.  It also portrays Jesus as performing many dramatic miracles as a child, including the pacification of dragons who threaten the family in Egypt.  Not surprisingly, the story was very popular in the Middle Ages.
As far as serious theology goes, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, and, by extension, the Cherry Tree Carol, doesn't contribute much.  But its origins are most likely found in popular curiosity and speculation about the childhood of Jesus.

See The Origins of Christmas, pages 58–60 for a general treatment of the gospel, carol, and the connection between them.  Mary Clayton's The Apocryphal Gospels of Mary in Anglo-Saxon England goes into significant detail on the origins of Pseudo-Matthew's gospel, particularly into Old English.

Samuel Burdett Hemingway, English Nativity Plays, page 257.  Coventry Nativity (IV) is shown to be based on Pseudo-Matthew and find a parallel in the carol.  The text for this play is dated to 1468 (page ii).
Clayton, page 18
Clayton, page 138


What should a priest who commits a mortal sin just before Holy Mass do, if confession is not available?

The priest in question must make a perfect act of contrition as best he can and must go to confession as soon as possible. He may under some circumstances still say Mass. The Church has very clear guidelines on this subject:

  When receiving or celebrating the sacraments, the priest is subject to the same requirements of sanctity and state of grace as every other Catholic; that is, the state of grace is required for fruitful reception of all sacraments except those that actually forgive sins.

  Therefore a priest who is in a state of mortal sin should seek to confess as soon as possible and refrain from celebrating the sacraments until he has done so.

  Normally, to celebrate Mass or receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin would be to commit a sacrilege. Yet, the sacrament would be valid; that is, there would be a true consecration and a true sacrifice.

  The reason is: Christ is the principal actor of the sacraments, so they are efficacious even when performed by an unworthy minister. As St. Thomas Aquinas says: Christ may act even through a minister who is spiritually dead.

  However, a priest who has fallen into mortal sin, but who is unable to make his confession despite his desire to do so, may celebrate Mass for the benefit of the faithful without adding a further sin of sacrilege.

  Thus, as Canon 916 of the Code of Canon Law states: "A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible (see also Canon 1335)."

  Note that the code requires a grave reason in order to avail of this exception.

  One such grave reason is based on the principle of the good of souls. If a priest is required to celebrate Mass or a soul requests the sacrament of reconciliation, the anointing of the sick, or indeed any other sacrament from this priest that would have to be performed before he can avail of confession, then he may, and usually must, administer the sacrament.

  A second grave reason stems from the danger of infamy by publicly revealing the state of one's soul.

  This can occur in the case of a priest in isolated circumstances when there is no one else to perform the usual celebrations. There is no need for him to do anything that might lead people to suspect his lack of a state of grace.

  Even in the case that the priest, or any other person, has secretly committed a grave crime, which would normally lead to his or her being automatically forbidden to receive the sacraments, Church law (Canon 1352) foresees the possibility of the penalty being suspended to avoid infamy or scandal, to wit:

  "§1. If a penalty prohibits the reception of the sacraments or sacramentals, the prohibition is suspended as long as the offender is in danger of death.

  "§2. The obligation to observe an undeclared 'latae sententiae' penalty which is not notorious in the place where the offender is present, is suspended totally or partially whenever the offender cannot observe it without danger of grave scandal or infamy."

  While the possibilities of a layperson or a religious in a state of mortal sin being placed in a similar dilemma as the priest are far rarer, the same basic principles would apply should they occur.

  Furthermore, while it is nobody else's business why somebody does not approach Communion, pastors should do all that they can to avoid creating public pressures that might induce a person in a state of mortal sin — or otherwise unable to receive Communion — to receive out of an objective fear of infamy or even out of human respect.

  For example, when parish ushers move down the aisles during Communion to assure an orderly procession, it becomes very difficult for someone, especially if well known to the other parishioners and who for some hidden reason cannot receive Communion, not to go forward with the others because staying in the pew is often the equivalent of making a public self-denunciation.

  In such cases, a less organized procession at Communion allows such people to pass unnoticed. - When a Priest Is in Mortal Sin

As a side note: I have known of cases in the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass (as we now call it) where a priest had forgotten to fast in the morning before Mass and did not say Mass that day because the fast was not observed.