To supplement your verses on proper/inproper boasting, see Phil 3:4,7-8 and Gal 6:13,14.
To answer your question, I first quote

  In all your ways acknowledge Him, and he shall direct thy paths
   Prov. 3:6

Especially if you honor God, (as you say "as long as we ultimately acknowledge God") it is good to praise others, or to be satisfied in someone or something, even your own accomplishments. We mustn't, however honor God with our lips while our heart is far from Him. (Isaiah 29:13)

When the Lord saw what He had created and called it good. He was proud of His creation. He called it good. Even to Satan, God says, "Have you seen my servant Job?" and in Zeph 3:17 He rejoices over His people with singing.

If you read the words of many righteous men in scriptures, they acknowledge what they have done with the Lord's help. David did no wrong in 1 Samuel 17:34-37 when he said to Saul

  Thy servant kept his father's sheep, and there came a lion, and a
  bear, and took a lamb out of the flock: And I went out after him, and
  smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose
  against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him.
  Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised
  Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies
  of the living God. David said moreover, The LORD that delivered me out
  of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will
  deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. And Saul said unto
  David, Go, and the LORD be with thee.
  (emphasis added)

So, your wife can be proud to say with full assurance that she is teaching your son to read. I praise God with you that she has that ability!


What's the biggest time gap between authorship of two books of the Bible?

The last book of the Old Testament, Malachi, was written about 443 B.C.  The first book of the New Testament, Matthew, was written about 40 A.D. leaving a 500 year gap between the Old and New Testament books.

Second would be Joshua (~1450 BC) and Judges (written by Samuel ~1100 BC)


Did any of the Apostolic Fathers know Paul?

A case could be made for Clement of Rome, considered by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) and Eusebius (Church History V.6) to be the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and [Ana]cletus).

(Apparently, there is some discussion as to whether Linus and Anacletus were essentially “auxiliary bishops” and Clement was Peter’s actual successor.)

In any event, scholars agree that this Clement is the author of the (First) Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. (A second letter to the Corinthians was also once attributed to him, but scholars now agree that the attribution is spurious.)

A certain Clement is named in Philippians 4:3:

  Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

There is not 100% certainty that this is the very same Clement who was the Bishop of Rome and wrote the epistle, but that is the traditional understanding. Moreover, it is plausible, given that the style of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians is markedly similar to Paul’s (and the Church in Corinth was founded by Paul, which would explain why Clement was interested in what went on there). Also, Paul likely wrote the letter to the Philippians in Rome (see, e.g., Phil. 4:22), and so the connection between this Clement and Rome is plausible.

If that is the case, then Clement of Rome, an Apostolic Father, would have known St. Paul.


Which Person(s) of the Trinity were in Jesus?

All three persons of the Trinity are in a perichoretic union.1 Hence, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father2 and the Spirit of the Son,3 yet there still exist three persons of the Trinity.4
The Son said, “I and my Father are one,”5 to which the Jews picked up stones in order to stone him. He also told Phillip, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”6 By means of the Holy Spirit, the other Comforter,7 the Father and the Son would dwell in individual Christians.8
The Father is essentially and spiritually (obviously, not physically, as in the sense of a corporality) in the Son, as the Son is spiritually in the Father, and both are spiritually in the Holy Spirit, as there is a unity of essence. In such a manner, the Father is indeed in the Son, not only by a unity of will, as some assert. Thus, the apostle Paul wrote that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.”9

Footnotes
1 From the Greek word περιχώρησις
2 Matt. 10:20 cp. Mark 13:11
3 Gal. 4:6
4 Matt. 28:19
5 John 10:30
6 John 14:10–11
7 John 14:16
8 John 14:23
9 2 Cor. 5:19


Do Calvinists Disbelieve the Doctrine of Eternal Generation as a 'Begetting'?

The Calvinistic position, traditionally, is not that the Son is (as stated in the question) 'begotten of the Father before all ages', but, rather, that the Son is :

  eternally begotten of the Father.

A very informative article by Benjamin W. Swinburnson states it thus :

  This doctrine, as classically defined in Reformed theology, states that God the Father, by an eternal personal act, by necessity of nature, generates the person (not the essence) of the Son by communicating to him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change.

And his article, in detail, argues that John Calvin did so teach.

The begetting, so taught, is a matter of an eternal begetting, without beginning, without ending, outside of time. It is an eternal matter - between the Father and the Son - and is fulfilled in one Spirit.


In the LDS church what is the process of calling a new prophet?

The Church had been initially organized in 1830 with Joseph Smith as the first Elder and Oliver Cowdery as the second. In 1832, Joseph Smith organized a First Presidency and appointed two counselors. One of these was Sidney Rigdon, The other was excommunicated in 1833 and his replacement disappeared about 1837. Oliver Cowdery had been appointed Assistant President; when he was excommunicated in 1838, Joseph Smith's brother Hyrum Smith was appointed to the position. Other counselors had been appointed, but most of these had either died or left the church.

Following the death of Joseph Smith, it was not entirely clear who should lead  the church. One of the two principal claimants at a Church conference called within a few months was Sidney Rigdon, who made a claim based on his long service as counselor to and spokesman for Joseph Smith, although he had become somewhat disassociated from the main body of the Church. The other was Brigham Young, who claimed that the office of leadership should have gone to Hyrum Smith who had been killed along with Joseph, but that the next highest authority was the Twelve apostles, of which he was the senior and president. The conference accepted the leadership of the apostles, and rejected that of Sidney Rigdon.  Three years later, in 1847 after returning from the pioneering expedition to the Salt Lake Valley to Iowa where most of the members of the Church were in temporary quarters, Brigham Young proposed reorganization of the First Presidency, with himself as the President of the Church.

Since that time, established practice and doctrine has it that the President of the Church is the supreme authority in the Church, below Christ himself. He is assisted by two (or occasionally more) counselors whom he selects. These form a First Presidency and are the highest governing body.

The next highest body is the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. These are sustained and accepted by members of the Church as "Prophets, Seers, and Revelators" when they are called and ordained as apostles.

When a President of the church dies, the First Presidency is dissolved and the counselors resume whatever position they had prior to their call to the First Presidency. They have almost always been apostles and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but there have been a few exceptions. This quorum is then the interim highest governing body, until such time as they, after prayer and by revelation, decide to reorganize the First Presidency. The man chosen as President of the Church has always been the senior living apostle (as determined by continuous length of service). It would be a major departure from the established order for anyone else to be named.


How is the Christian Jesus different from the Muslim Jesus?

The simplest place to start is that Muslims view Jesus as a man with a special role as prophet. Christians view him as God himself in the flesh (incarnate). To Muslims, the idea that God had a son is blasphemy. Even though Christians view him as one in the same being (as a person in the Trinity) and thus still hold the idea of God being one, that concept does not compute in the Islamic faith.

Interestingly there is a reference in the Qur'an to Jesus being considered sinless, but the ramifications of this idea are not developed.

  Surah 19:19 (Pickthall)
  He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.

Besides that detail, the rest of the story follows relatively consistently from the key identity issue of being God incarnate or just a man. In Islam, as just a prophet, Jesus plays no role in salvation and it is not accepted that he rose from the dead. Views on whether he was actually crucified vary, but the resurrection is never recognized.

In Christianity, Jesus role is not just that of a prophet (1 Peter 2:22), but also those of a priest and king -- The King: Lord of all creation and Lord of salvation.

  Colossians 1:15-20 (ESV)
  15 He is the image of jthe invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is sthe beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.


Is a belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three persons, but one, Modalism?

Options to consider
In the history of conceptions regarding God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit there have been names commonly assigned to some of them.  Over time, those named conceptions have developed a measure of stability and precision as shown in the Wikipedia entries dedicated to them.
A very good survey of non-Trinitarian conceptions can be found in the Wikipedia entry Nontrinitarianism.  Narrowing the field of options to those conceiving God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as one person gives us a few options:

Monarchianism emphasizes God the Father as one, and this view has two types:

Modalistic monarchianism (or simply, Modalism), 'considers God to be one while appearing and working through the different "modes" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.'  This is the view of Oneness Pentecostalism.
Dynamic monarchianism (aka Adoptionism) conceives that God the Father "adopted" Jesus to be God at either baptism, resurrection, or ascension, and that Jesus remained divine since then.  In this view, Jesus is not co-eternal with the Father.  Viewed another way, Adoptionism is a kind of Subordinationism where Jesus has less status than the Father.  This is the view of the now extinct Ebionites and a few minor groups throughout history.

Unitarianism differs from Modalism that Unitarians teach that Jesus is not God, but an inspired man and a great teacher.  (see GotQuestions entry).  This is the view of the Unitarian churches, whose theology is described here.

Sabellianism is similar to Modalism in its conception.  Encyclopaedia Britannica characterizes it as a "more developed and less naive form of Modalistic Monarchianism".  The different name is to identify the origin of the teaching as coming from Sabellius, a theologian and priest from the 3rd century, and as an Eastern Church heresy.  New World Encyclopedia has a good treatment on it.

Emanuel Swedenborg's view of the Trinity, expounded in Lee Woofenden's article Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit?.  See also Mr. Woofenden's answer contrasting this view with modalism.

What you believe
Since you specify that 1) all three are God and 2) all three is one person, then what you believe can either be Modalistic monarchianism or Sabellianism or Swedenborg's view unless I failed to name other conceptions that can fit your search criteria.
Further study
One very good book about the historical development of the doctrine of Trinity, various ways of conceptualizing the Trinity, as well as practical consequences to other doctrines is The Trinity - A Guide for the Perplexed by an Anglican priest, Paul M. Collins, reviewed here.  Here's a relevant quote from Chapter 2 (Moments of Interpretation) in a section "A pre-Nicene ecology of language":

Monarchianism can be said to have been used to safeguard the unity of God. Dynamic or adoptionist Monarchianism, attributed to Paul of Samosata, understood that the power (dynamis) of God had descended on Jesus, inspired him and given him divine honour. Some would argue that such an understanding can be read out of the Apostles’ Creed. There were other forms of Monarchianism: such as modalism, patripassianism and Sabellianism, in which the three names used in relation to the Godhead: Father, Son and Spirit represented one hypostasis or persona, which was manifest in a succession of modes. There was no understanding of any real distinction within
the divine being. These understandings of the divine led to the asking of crucial questions about how God in se was related to the revelation and redemption given. It is out of these concerns and the perceived threats of misunderstanding or heresy that the imperatives towards definition emerge.


A similar passage in Luke:

  Luke 10:5-6
  5 Into whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this household.’
  6 If a peaceful person lives there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you.

See also Mark 6:8 . Here is the whole passage:

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

The note says: "The greeting of peace is conceived of not merely as a salutation but as an effective word. If it finds no worthy recipient, it will return to the speaker." Consider what happened after St Paul and St Barnabas were driven out of a city, and shook the dusk from their feet:

  Acts 13:51
  51 So they shook the dust from their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium.
  52 The disciples were filled with joy and the holy Spirit.

See also:

  Luke 2:14
  14 “Glory to God in the highest
  and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

Peace is effectively a blessing, the favor of the Lord. If the blessing finds no worthy recipient, it will fall back on those who gave it. Those who St Paul and St Barnabas gave peace to would not have that peace, so the peace of the Lord fell back on the two men, and they were "filled with joy and the holy Spirit".


Manasseh was a full tribe. However, half of the tribe of Manasseh settled in the Holy Land proper, and half of the tribe of Manasseh, along with the full tribes of Reuben and Gad, settled on the other (east) side of the Jordan. The story is told in Numbers 32, which starts:

  Now the Reubenites and the Gadites owned a very great number of cattle. When they saw that the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead was a good place for cattle, the Gadites and the Reubenites came and spoke to Moses, to Eleazar the priest, and to the leaders of the congregation, saying, “Ataroth, Dibon, Jazer, Nimrah, Heshbon, Elealeh, Sebam, Nebo, and Beon—the land that the Lord subdued before the congregation of Israel—is a land for cattle; and your servants have cattle.” They continued, “If we have found favor in your sight, let this land be given to your servants for a possession; do not make us cross the Jordan.” (Numbers 32:1–5)

Later in the chapter, half of the tribe of Manasseh is included among the "Transjordan Tribes" that settled east of the Jordan River rather than in the Holy Land proper:

  Moses gave to them—to the Gadites and to the Reubenites and to the half-tribe of Manasseh son of Joseph—the kingdom of King Sihon of the Amorites and the kingdom of King Og of Bashan, the land and its towns, with the territories of the surrounding towns. And the Gadites rebuilt Dibon, Ataroth, Aroer, Atroth-shophan, Jazer, Jogbehah, Beth-nimrah, and Beth-haran, fortified cities, and folds for sheep. And the Reubenites rebuilt Heshbon, Elealeh, Kiriathaim, Nebo, and Baal-meon (some names being changed), and Sibmah; and they gave names to the towns that they rebuilt. The descendants of Machir son of Manasseh went to Gilead, captured it, and dispossessed the Amorites who were there; so Moses gave Gilead to Machir son of Manasseh, and he settled there. Jair son of Manasseh went and captured their villages, and renamed them Havvoth-jair. And Nobah went and captured Kenath and its villages, and renamed it Nobah after himself. (Numbers 32:33–42, italics added)

Here is a map showing the tribal allotments, including the allotments for half of the tribe of Manasseh east of Jordan, and half west of Jordan:

The half-tribe of Manasseh mentioned in Joshua 1:12 is the half of that tribe that settled east of the Jordan, along with the full tribes of Reuben and Gad.


In Mormon theology, why didn't John the Baptist baptize Joseph Smith?

+1 for a great question!
I have not found any solid answer or doctrine of the church that refers to this.  Perhaps in the Joseph Smith Papers you could find answers there www.josephsmithpapers.org, but I haven't searched there.
What you say is true is for today. One has to be baptized before they receive the priesthood, but if you look in the Book of Mormon, there is an instance where there was a 'joint' baptism:

Mosiah 18:13-14
13 And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world.
14 And after Alma had said these words, both Alma and Helam were buried in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing, being filled with the Spirit.

Hopefully this helps, I am not sure if it answers your question though.
I could give you some opinions I have as to why John the Baptist did not perform the baptism, but they are not suitable for this site because they are opinions.
Edit I did some searching in the JSP. I think the best answer you will find is that this is they way God needed it to work to re-establish his church.

Given this general lack of early records, it is not surprising that no contemporary document recorded visionary experiences that Joseph Smith later described as having taken place during this time. No surviving documents from 1829 describe the visitations from angelic messengers, hearing the voice of God, or other aspects of the restoration of divine authority. Information on these significant events, particularly the priesthood restoration, instead comes from later accounts. In his later history Joseph Smith explained that in May 1829, he and Oliver Cowdery inquired “of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins as we found mentioned in the translation” of the Book of Mormon. He then described an angelic visitation in response to their prayer for divine guidance on the subject. He indicated that their visitor conferred upon them “the priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministring of angels and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins.” Joseph Smith further recorded: “The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this priesthood upon us said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the new Testament, and that he acted under the direction of Peter, James, and John, who held the keys of the priesthood of Melchisedeck, whi[c]h priesthood he said should in due time be conferred on us.”

Reference:
Joseph Smith Documents Dating through June 1831


What are the biblical arguments for and against the "two books" view of God's revelation?

I'm sure someone will downvote this for presenting useful information other than that which directly answers the question, but before we can really know what scripture says about Bacon's theory, we must know what he actually meant (as the other answer also points out).  He clearly doesn't mean it in an atheistic sense, as if the book of creation is meant to replace the Bible or some such. We live in the age of google books, so if one wants to know what he actually meant, one can read his book here (The two books of Francis Bacon: of the proficience and ...). In there he says on page 8:

  But farther, it is an assured truth, and a conclusion of experience, that a little or superficial knowledge of philosophy may incline the mind of man to atheism, but a farther proceeding therein doth bring the mind back again to religion:...

This reminds me of such passages as Romans 1 and Psalm 8 which speak of how nature declares God's existence.  Context shows that by philosophy Bacon means natural philosophy, that is, what wee call "science," or simply knowledge of the natural world.

Further down, again on page 8, he says:

  To conclude therefore, let no man upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation think or maintain, that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both; only let men beware that they apply both to charity, and not to swelling; to use, and not to ostentation; and again, that they do not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings together.

That is, he does not assume that both books are to be used in the same way or treat of the same subject, as the OP apparently assumes he means.  He doesn't mean that God wrote two books on religious practice.  The Bible is a book on religious practice; creation is not.  One is not to criss-cross (as he calls it "confound") nor "unwisely mingle" the disciplines of these two books.  The phrase "to use, and not to ostentation" obviously means natural philosophy is to be studied for its practical benefits for humanity, not in an attempt to disprove the Bible.

That being his meaning, surely the Bible does not oppose it.  The Bible presents itself as the rule for religious practice, but the study of nature for how to understand and use nature to our physical benefit.  Certainly this is covered by

  Genesis 1:28 (KJV) "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

God has given man dominion over the earth, and the task of "subduing" it. Certainly with this comes the task of seeking to understand the natural world and use it to human benefit.  This is the true purpose of real "science," not to tell us how the world was made or how life arose, which is answered by the Bible not "science."

I want now to also add a quote from Bacon on page 86 which demonstrates he does not intend for the book of nature to be used to alter religious beliefs:

  And as concerning divine philosophy or natural theology, it is that knowledge or rudiment knowledge concerning God, which may be obtained by the contemplation of His creatures; which knowledge may be truly termed divine in respect of the object, and natural in respect of the light. The bounds of this knowledge are, that it sufficeth to convince atheism [of God's existence], but not to inform religion: and therefore there was never miracle wrought by God to convert an atheist, because the light of nature might have led him to confess a God: but miracles have been wrought to convert idolaters and the superstitious, because no light of nature extendeth to declare the will and true worship of God.

Those, therefore, who think Bacon was trying to put natural philosophy on a par with the Bible with respect to being a sourcebook of religious belief or practice, have clearly received their information on Bacon from really bad superficial summaries, and not from reading Bacon himself.  For an example of such, see this article from ICR (The Two-Book Fallacy) the author of which is clearly clueless as to the authentic meaning of Bacon.


Can Hebrews Chapter 4 use of "Today" Be Used to Refute mistranslation of Luke 23:43 in the New World Translation of the Bible?

I don't think so, since the original manuscripts had no punctuation at all.  Where to place - or even to place at all - commas, periods, colons, semicolons, question marks - is left to the discretion of the interpreter.

I believe the only recourse one has is to appeal to the Church Fathers - particularly the Greek Fathers - and understand how they interpreted the passage, trusting that they are faithful to the teaching of the Apostles.

In John Chrysostom's Homilies Concerning the Power of Demons, he words are translated by the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series translator:

  So has God done. He gave Paradise to man. He cast him out when he
  appeared unworthy, in order that by his dwelling outside, and through
  his dishonour, he might become better, and more self-restrained, and
  might appear worthy again of restoration. Since after those things he
  did become better, he brings him back again and says Today shalt thou
  be with me in Paradise  Homily I

There are similar commentaries in other writings of Chrysostom, as well as in works of Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzus, and other Fathers.


What did Charles Hodge teach about theology as science?

I can't seem to find any measurable difference between Owen and Hodge on this topic.  Hodge does not even mention the word 'science' in his bible commentaries but in his book Systematic Theology he does.  Here he starts his book in part by explaining what he means by 'theology'.  Some say, theology is the 'science of religion', some say the 'science of the supernatural', etc. but Hodge prefers to say:

  We have, therefore, to restrict theology to its true sphere, as the science of the facts of divine revelation so far as those facts concern the nature of God and our relation to him, as his creatures, as sinners, and as the subjects of redemption. All these facts, as just remarked, are in the Bible. (Systematic Theology 1.19, Charles Hodge)

What Hodge really meant by accepting the term science as used by various others others was simply to justify the need for the systemization of knowledge derived from scripture.  Just as natural science does from facts in nature. Basically, although natural and theological sciences do not really overlap, they both need to 'systemize facts' they observe to derive understanding. They can't just leave things in there natural setting without make dogmatic deductions as a system. Otherwise a chemist could never predict the outcome of a chemical reaction, or an astronomer predict the location of a comet years to come.

John Owen and Hodge do also both agree that theology and science have a slight overlap under the title of natural theology. This just to accept that the heavens declare God's glory and his attributes of power and wisdom. These facts of nature manifest a lesser theology then scripture does.

Or as Hodge puts it:

  All these facts, as just remarked, are in the Bible. But as some of them are revealed by the works of God, and by the nature of man, there is so far a distinction between natural theology, and theology considered distinctively as a Christian science. With regard to natural theology, there are two extreme opinions. The one is that the works of nature make no trustworthy revelation of the being and perfections of God; the other, that such revelation is so clear and comprehensive as to preclude the necessity of any supernatural revelation.  (Systematic Theology 1.19, Charles Hodge)


What is the purpose of marriage in light of 1 Cor 7?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has

1604 God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love.90 Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator's eyes, and this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "and God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.'"91
90 Cf. ⇒ Gen 1:27; ⇒ 1 Jn 4:8, ⇒ 16.
91 ⇒ Gen 1:28; cf. ⇒ 1:31.

The primary reference for this question is Genesis 1:28 with other references, enumerated below.
The Catechism further extols the virtue of marriage with

1613 On the threshold of his public life Jesus performs his first sign — at his mother's request — during a wedding feast.105 The Church attaches great importance to Jesus' presence at the wedding at Cana. She sees in it the confirmation of the goodness of marriage and the proclamation that thenceforth marriage will be an efficacious sign of Christ's presence.
1616 This is what the Apostle Paul makes clear when he says: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her," adding at once: "'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one. This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church."110
105 Cf. ⇒ Jn 2:1-11.
110 ⇒ Eph 5:25-26, ⇒ 31-32; Cf. ⇒ Gen 2:24.

Thus marriage is seen as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the Church:

It is God's purpose that, as husband and wife give themselves to each other in love throughout their lives, they shall be united in that love as Christ is united with his Church. [Church of England, also CCC1617]

Thus there are two purposes to marriage: to procreate, and to model the relationship between Christ and the Church. Paul's reference to burning with passion might be seen as a desire to become one flesh: to make present that relationship (even if that second purpose might not be exactly uppermost in their mind!) In that case, marry, and demonstrate it.

Gen 1:27 — So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Gen 1:28 — And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it ..."
Gen 1:31 — And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.
Gen 2:24 — Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.
Jn 2:1–11 — Wedding at Cana in Galilee
Eph 5:25–26 — Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word.
Eph 5:31–32 — "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.
1 Jn 4:8 — He who does not love does not know God; for God is love.
1 Jn 4:16 — ...God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.


Why did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon into Jacobean English, not in use in 1830?

Joseph Smith did not just translate the Book of Mormon into Jacobean English, but into a very specific type of Jacobean English, as used in the King James Version of the Bible (KJV). W. H Stevenson (King James's Bible: A Selection, 'The Language of AV' - ebook) says King James was a virtual contemporary of William Shakespeare, but that the language is not the same as that of Shakespeare's plays. For example, he says "The formality of 'Forasmuch as ...'  (e.g. 2 Sam 19:30), was never 'ordinary' English." Presumably, Smith was at least influenced by his knowledge of the KJV to translate the Book of Mormon into the register of Jacobean English that had been used in the KJV, for example:

  2 Nephi 18:6: Forasmuch as this people refuseth the waters ...
  2 Nephi 27:25: Forasmuch as this people draw unto me ...

Smith copied not only the Jacobean English of the KJV, but some other usages characteristic of the Bible. The phrase 'And it came to pass' occurs more than 200 times in the Old Testament and more than 50 times in the New Testament. Although these passages are sometimes translated in other ways in different English Bibles, what we see in  the KJV is a valid translation of the Masoretic and Greek texts.  I have not counted them, but there are said to be more than 1400 occurrences of 'and it came to pass' in the Book of Mormon. Another example is that Mark's Gospel is noted, more than any other book of the Bible, for beginning many sentences with 'And', which is as ungrammatical in Greek as in English. I point this out because Smith found many sentences in the Book of Mormon that he also translated in the same way.

The KJV twice referred, incorrectly, to seraphims, where the Hebrew seraphim is already plural. The 1830 version of the Book of Mormon faithfully adopted this Jacobean spelling, although later versions of the Book of Mormon adopted the Hebrew 'seraphim'.

Stevenson (ibid) says that the language of the KJV has "become familiar as the prototype of a kind of religious dialect whose very archaism is one of its distinguishing features."  I propose that Smith adopted this biblical English in his translations because his contemporaries would not have accepted a Victorian English Book of Mormon as authentic scripture.


"Behold I come quickly" and all such 'divine prerogative epithets' are indeed Jesus' here.

Revelation 22 (DRB)
1 And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street thereof, and on both sides of the river, was the tree of life, bearing twelve fruits, yielding its fruits every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no curse any more; but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and his servants shall serve him. 4 And they shall see his face: and his name shall be on their foreheads. 5 And night shall be no more: and they shall not need the light of the lamp, nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall enlighten them, and they shall reign for ever and ever.
6 And he said to me: These words are most faithful and true. And the Lord God of the spirits of the prophets sent his angel to shew his servants the things which must be done shortly. 7 And, Behold I come quickly. Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book. 8 And I, John, who have heard and seen these things. And after I had heard and seen, I fell down to adore before the feet of the angel, who shewed me these things. 9 And he said to me: See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them that keep the words of the prophecy of this book. Adore God. 10 And he saith to me: Seal not the words of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. 11 He that hurteth, let him hurt still: and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is just, let him be justified still: and he that is holy, let him be sanctified still. 12 Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. 14 Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. 15 Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie. 16 I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and stock of David, the bright and morning star. 17 And the spirit and the bride say: Come. And he that heareth, let him say: Come. And he that thirsteth, let him come: and he that will, let him take the water of life, freely. 18 For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book. 20 He that giveth testimony of these things, saith, Surely I come quickly: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. 21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

You said: " John saw these things and heard these things and bowed before the person speaking to him." But he bowed before an angel, not Jesus:

...I fell down to adore before the feet of the angel, who shewed me these things.

The lesson to take away here is that angels must be pretty awesome creatures to behold.


HOW does the existence of the Universe make those who do not worship God to be "without excuse"?

St. Paul is evidently musing on themes in the book of Wisdom in Chapter 1 and beyond:

Wisdom 13:1-9 But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: 2 But have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world. 3 With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things. 4 Or if they admired their power and their effects, let them understand by them, that he that made them, is mightier than they: 5 For by the greatness of the beauty, and of creation, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby. 6 But yet as to these they are less to be blamed. For they perhaps err, seeking God, and desirous to find him. 7 For being conversant among his works, they search: and they are persuaded that the things are good which are seen. 8 But then again they are not to be pardoned. 9 For if they were able to know so much as to make a judgment of the world: how did they not more easily find out the Lord thereof?

The logic is this: in recognizing objective beauty in something (to the extent, especially, of worshipping it), one of necessity must recognize the mind behind it, since beauty is only appreciable in a mind, and thus only authorable by it. Hence, for as long they do so and refuse to worship the Author of such beauty, they sin: "for the first author of beauty made them all."
And if the author of beauty itself is greater, by definition, than the sum of all his creations, then "his eternal power" is evident, because it is far beyond - literally - anything we can conceive or imagine, and obviously lives with him, and so eternally.
The overall point is that all goes back to God, no matter what it is, good or bad; if you worship the good things He made, you are offending and robbing Him; if you worship the bad things, you are doing him a double offense and a double robbery.


A body is animated by the soul. Jesus’ body was no different, except that it was both fully human and fully divine: there wasn’t a “human part” and a “divine part”. As his whole nature was fully human and fully divine, it follows that his soul was both fully human and fully divine as well, for he could not be the Word Incarnate without the Word being part of all of his incarnate nature.
This is attested by the Fathers, for example St John Damascene:

By the fact that at Christ's death his soul was separated from his flesh, his one person is not itself divided into two persons; for the human body and soul of Christ have existed in the same way from the beginning of his earthly existence, in the divine person of the Word; and in death, although separated from each other, both remained with one and the same person of the Word.
De fide orth. 3, 27: quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 626

While the Word was pre-existent, the soul of the Incarnate Word came into existence with the Incarnation, just as it does with any person: Christ was fully human.
See also this question.

I don’t understand your reference to Genesis 18. While it’s true that the three visitors are generally accepted as an allegory for the Trinity, there is no reason that one should be the Word Incarnate. With the exception of “behold, three men stood in front of him”, all the references are to “the LORD” in the singular, and it is the Lord who speaks. The three men Abraham met could just as easily — even more, likely — have been God, in the same form as he walked in the garden with Adam, accompanied by the two angels of Genesis 19:1.


Wall numbers in German church / during German burial ceremony

The numbers are on little (wooden) panels that can be pushed in a (wooden) rack. In your case both panels and rack have the same colour a the wall, so they are a bit difficult to see.

The numbers give the songs to sing during the service. The red numbers give the verses to sing.

On the denomination: First I thought it is a Catholic Church (esp. because the seats in the sanctuary), but the numbers given lead to songs in the Catholic song book "Gotteslob" (then used 1975 edition) not fitting on a burial. The songs of the protestant "Evangelisches Gesangbuch" fit better. So probably it was a protestant (near Oldenburg: lutheran) service, but I may be mistaken.


It can be very difficult, in general. An example is the book of Jonah. Taken literally, he spends three days and nights inside the belly of a fish or whale. Other readers believe that the book is not meant to be read historically, but is a kind of fable that carries a moral lesson. How are we to determine which is the case?

Read the book and find out what it says about itself.
Compare it to other writings, prophetic or historical or literary.
See how it is used elsewhere in the Bible (such as Luke 11:29-32).
Examine the language and history - When did Jonah live (2 Kings 14:25)? Did he write the book, or is it only attributed to him? Is the language characteristic of that era? Is Nineveh as large as Jonah says? Did Assyrian kings behave in the way suggested? Can a person live inside a whale?
Find out what experts have written about the book. Consider their evidence and arguments.
Think about: What would the implications be if this were historical? What if it were not historical? Either way, how does that fit with any other aspect of my faith?

Additionally, while some passages are clear, there are many that have multiple meanings. I decided to find an example by opening my nearest Bible (NJB) at random. It came open at the first page of Hosea, where we read (1:2)

  Yahweh said to Hosea, "Go, marry a whore, and get children with a whore; for the country itself has become nothing but a whore by abandoning Yahweh."

The family life of Hosea (literal, historical) has an additional layer of meaning (allegorical, figurative) explained in the text: it mirrors the relationship between God and his faithless people. Equally, Hosea was speaking to Israel at a particular time, but his theme is applicable to us in general, as individuals and as a church. This more general interpretation may also be justified in terms of the Bible text as a whole: Jesus quotes Hosea 6:6 in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7, clearly validating the wider application of that passage.

This kind of thing is very common; it does not necessarily make sense to make a clean demarcation between "historical" and "figurative" passages, when there are so many instances of the Bible saying "X happened, and this is what X means". The circumstances of the Fall, the Exodus, the Exile, etc., are continually being referred to in newer writings, and used to draw moral or theological lessons.

The really difficult part comes with passages like Joshua 10:12-15. This is the part where "the sun stood still in the middle of the sky and delayed its setting for almost a whole day" (10:13). The literal meaning is, of course, that the sun did just that (and the moon too). It is presented in the text as genuinely happening, as a historical event. We can draw wider lessons, like - the sun is subject to God, God protects his people, and so on. It's not hard to believe that this passage is figuratively true in that regard, but many people have difficulty believing in its literal truth. So this question goes right to the heart of how one reads the Bible, and whether it is possible to believe in the wider message without believing in its historical grounding. In short, the determining of literary types implies also being able to settle many other controversies of Biblical interpretation.


Are the people involved in killing Jesus innocent

My take (Baptist - leaning toward free will) is that they are not innocent, and that they willingly made the choices they made.  In fact, we are all sinners in some respect, but can all be forgiven through Jesus:

[Romans 3:23 NKJV] 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
[Romans 6:23 NKJV] 23 For the wages of sin [is] death, but the gift of God [is] eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
[Romans 5:8 NKJV] 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
[Romans 10:9-10 NKJV] 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

My understanding is that for the people involved in Jesus's crucifixion, God knew these people would choose to do the things they did, and He used it in His plan.  However, I do not believe God forced Judas to betray Jesus.  However, He did know what Judas was doing, used it in His plan:

[Matthew 26:31 NKJV] 31 Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: 'I will strike the Shepherd, And the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'
[John 13:26-27 NKJV] 26 Jesus answered, "It is he to whom I shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped [it]." And having dipped the bread, He gave [it] to Judas Iscariot, [the son] of Simon. 27 Now after the piece of bread, Satan entered him. Then Jesus said to him, "What you do, do quickly."

Interestingly enough, Jesus even asked for forgiveness for the people who were against Him when He was on the cross!

[Luke 23:33-34 NKJV] 33 And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left. 34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." And they divided His garments and cast lots.

In summary, it appears the people involved in Jesus's crucifixion were not innocent, but even they could be forgiven!


Was Origen and/or certain teachings considered a heretic and/or heretical?

TL;DR: In his day, Origen was widely recognized as the most brilliant theologian of his time. Epiphanius attacked Origen centuries later and there was a lot of controversy. While Origen's beliefs on universal restoration have undoubtedly been a factor in his modern popularity, they weren't significant factors in his reception and controversy in the first millennium.

During his lifetime, Origen was incredibly popular and influential throughout the Christian world. He was widely regarded as the leading intellectual of Christianity. Origen was sought out by pagan philosophers and political officials. He had many devoted admirers among the bishops He was formally recognized by church synods as the chief theologian of Caesaria as the ultimate expert in theology. Later in life, he was considered the most orthodox of all theologians by the Christians of the eastern Mediterranean. When other Christian teachers were suspected of heresy, Origen was the one commissioned to correct them.

However, the bishop of Origen's home area, Demetrius, was threatened by Origen's activity and harshly attacked Origen throughout his lifetime. The accusations against Origen faded with the death of Demetrius, but they did not disappear entirely and they continued to haunt him for the rest of his career. Demetrius' diatribes had limited influence in Origen's lifetime, but provided source material for later opposition to Origen.

After his death around 253 CE, Origen was hailed as a martyr of the faith for his perseverance despite lengthy torture during the Decian persecution His work, On the First Principles became a landmark book which systematically laid out the foundations of Christian theology for centuries to come.

Every Christian theologian who came after him was influenced by his theology, whether directly or indirectly. He continued to be regarded as the bastion of orthodoxy and his philosophy practically defined Eastern Christianity. Origen himself was revered as one of the greatest of all Christian teachers;

As time progressed, however, Origen became criticized under the standard of orthodoxy in later eras, rather than the standards of his own lifetime. In the early fourth century, the Christian writer Methodius of Olympus criticized some of Origen's more speculative arguments, but otherwise agreed with Origen on all other points of theology. Peter of Antioch and Eustathius of Antioch also criticized Origen as heretical.

It was Epiphanius of Salamis who vociferously attacked Origen around 394 CE and sought to have him denounced as a heretic, causing an enormous stir among theologians known as the First Origenist controversy. He has been quite controversial ever since.

Much of this is adapted from the Origen article on Wikipedia. See that page history for full attribution.


Does spiritual death mean loss of faith or doing a deadly sin (or sins) or separation from God?

Christian belief is that the presence of God brings life and joy. The closer you are to God, the more joyful you are, and the more "life" you have (life here not in the sense of mere existence, but in partaking of all the good things life has to offer). God is more present to those who are close followers of him, who therefore have much joy (as Paul describes) and abundant life (as Jesus says). God is present to a lesser extent with people who are not followers but have not rejected him, or who still have a chance to become followers (i.e. everyone who has not yet died).

On death, a person will either be accepted by God and become closer to him, bringing joy and life; or they will be rejected by God, resulting in a separation from God, bringing despair and not-life (not-life being in the sense of still continuing to exist but having no enjoyment of the things that life has to offer). This is what separation from God means,and is also what the Spiritual Death means. A person after their physical death either has Spiritual Life with God, or Spiritual Death without.

The above is not universally believed in Christendom, but I wrote from the point of view of the people who use the term "Spiritual Death" frequently. And many other Christians believe something very similar.


Did Luther consider Erasmus an unbeliever, and if so, why?

It is true that after Luther and Erasmus had their falling out, from an initial weak respect for one another, Luther made several comments that imply he considered Erasmus a man without genuine faith.

Most of what he said is recorded by others during conversations which has been compiled in the 'Table Talk' volume of Luther's works. Prior to this information there is a letter to Erasmus directly when they were on better terms and then of course their open dispute about predestination and free will explained here.

To answer the question of whether Luther considered him an unbeliever because he was Catholic, or for some other reason, I would say that Luther considered most Catholics unbelievers, but only if they rejected his teaching about the doctrine of justification by faith.  As Erasmus seemed to not believe in this fundamental article of what Luther saw as the most essential part of true Christianity, yes, he assumed Erasmus was like many Catholics, and was not a Christian as he had no genuine faith.

In the table talk volume there is around a dozen mentions of Erasmus, and actually Luther speaks much more harshly about many, many, others.  So these comments are actually mild according to Luther's style and wide scope of declaring the guilt of many in his day.

I think the most revealing comments are these two (from Luther's Table Talk):

  No. 4028: An Appraisal of the Deceased Erasmus September 30, 1538
  “Erasmus of Rotterdam wrote many excellent things because he had talent and leisure, was without worries and official duties, didn’t preach or lecture, and was no businessman. In his manner of life he was without God, lived with a sense of great security, and died the same way. When he was in the agony of death he didn’t ask for a minister of the Word or for the sacraments. It’s a fabrication that in the agony of death he may have spoken these words of confession, ‘O Son of God, have mercy on me!’ God forbid that in my last hour I shouldn’t want to have a godly minister of the Word, that I couldn’t summon the nearest one at hand, that I shouldn’t want to thank God! That fellow Erasmus learned such things in Rome. But now one ought not talk about this on account of his reputation and his books.”

This being the second:

  No. 3033b: Prefaces to the New Testament by Erasmus April 1, 1533
  On April 1 Martin Luther spent almost the whole day reading Erasmus’ prefaces to the New Testament. He said excitedly, “Even if this snake is so slippery that he can’t be caught, we’ll nevertheless condemn him with his writings, we and our church. Although many wise people in the church may be offended, yet it’s better that we lose them than deny Christ, the Savior. I’ve had more experience with this Savior than I can ever say and thank him for.

  “Erasmus has indeed put out very disgraceful prefaces, even if he did soften them, because he makes no distinction between Christ and Solon. Moreover, as the prefaces to Romans and to the canonical First Epistle of John show, he obscures the authority of Paul and John, as if these writings were of no moment, as if the Epistle to the Romans had no relevance for our time, as if the difficulty in this epistle outweighed its value, etc. Is this praise for the book’s author? For shame


What is the Catholic interpretation of John 12:32?

No, St. John does not mean "everyone" when he says "all things".

From lession 5 of St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on Jn. 12:

  Here we may note that the Father draws and the Son also draws: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (6:44). He says here, I will draw all things, in order to show that the same action belongs to both of them. And he says, all things, and not "all men," because not all men are drawn to the Son. I will draw all things, that is, the body and the soul; or all types of men, such as Gentiles and Jews, servants and freemen, male and female; or, all who are predestined to salvation.

From his Catena Aurea on John 12, lesson 4, he quotes St. Augustine:

  What is this all that He draws, but that from which the devil is cast out? He does not say, All men, but, All things; for all men have not faith. He does not mean then all mankind, but the whole of a man, i.e. spirit, soul, and body; by which respectively we understand, and live, and are visible. Or, if all means all men, it means those who are predestined to salvation: or all kinds of men, all varieties of character, excepting in the article of sin.


What happens to retired Popes like Pope Benedict?

While it's not one of our usual sources for Christian views, CNN did an article discussing this, and given that this is the first retired Pope in 600 years, and the occurrence is extremely rare, their answer is actually pretty good...

His needs will still be seen to.  There is no dictate as to what he should do, per Catholic doctrine, but he has indicated what he intends to do.

First, the statement that his needs will be seen to are addressed here:

  The 85-year-old will first leave Rome to go to the papal seaside
  retreat, Castle Gandolfo, until a successor is named. Then he will
  head to the Mater Ecclesiae (Mother of the Church) building, which
  formerly housed a cloistered convent in the Vatican gardens.

Later on, the article explores what he intends to do in this retreat - Devote his life to prayer:

  In the chapel the pope might say Mass every day for his small
  household, said Monsignor Rick Hilgartner, executive director of the
  U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat of Divine Worship.

  Benedict has said he will devote his life to prayer. There is no
  playbook for the life of prayer for a retired pope, Hilgartner said.
  "Nothing beyond the normal routine" for a monk or a priest.

  He said that would include "prayer throughout the day and the liturgy
  of the hours, morning prayer, evening prayer, Mass every day."

As for his financial needs:

  There may be a stipend for the retired pope. Italian news outlets have
  reported retired clerics receive up to €2,500 a month. Hilgartner said
  Benedict won't need much money if any at all. The Vatican will take
  care of his lodging and his health care.

  "He didn't have a pension because the presumption was he would be in
  office until he died," Hilgartner said. "His needs will be cared for.
  Because of the way he'll be living, those needs will be somewhat
  limited."

Historically, however, for how the other Popes that have retired....

St. Pontian was martyred in 236
Benedict IX retired to the Abbey of Grottaferrata, where he repented of his sins, officially resigned as pope and spent the rest of his life doing penance.
St. Celestine V resigned on Dec. 13, 1294, and returned to his monastery. His successor, Pope Boniface VIII, had him imprisoned so that there would be no attempt to place him on the throne again.


Why did the RLDS start giving the priesthood to women?

Whatever the RLDS Church's actual motivations, the 1984 decision to ordain women didn't exactly come out of nowhere, according to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism's entry on the RLDS Church:

Section 156:9-10 meant that the church would now move ahead with women's ordinations, a breakthrough foreshadowed by events dating back to 1970. Local pastors had been initiating priesthood calls for women since 1974, but no clear precedent permitted actual ordination. Now, the conference's approval of section 156 created the context for the ordination of women, the first ones being ordained November 17, 1985.

Despite this, the decision was still quite controversial, and precipitated many churches breaking away from the RLDS Church.
William D. Russell, a historian and an RLDS member, makes a case in his article "Grant McMurray and the Succession Crisis in the Community of Christ" that the decision had nothing to do with running out of male descendants of Joseph Smith:

President [Wallace] Smith introduced the document that became Section 156 of the Doctrine and Covenants, approving the ordination of women and also announcing plans to build the temple. After a long debate, delegates approved it by a vote of approximately 80-20 percent. Some thought Wallace B. Smith—having three daughters and no sons—had introduced women's ordination to allow one of his daughters to succeed him. But since Wallace ultimately recommended a male successor outside the family [W. Grant McMurray], it appears that Section 156 was not based on this motivation. Although Wallace has never, to my knowledge, publicly discussed the background to this revelation, he clearly believed the male-only priesthood was based on culture and tradition, not divine will.

Here is the relevant portion of D&C 156:

The following is also presented as the voice of the Spirit:
...
I have heard the prayers of many, including my servant the prophet, as they have sought to know my will in regard to the question of who shall be called to share the burdens and responsibilities of priesthood in my church. I say to you now, as I have said in the past, that all are called according to the gifts which have been given them. This applies to priesthood as well as to any other aspects of the work. Therefore, do not wonder that some women of the church are being called to priesthood responsibilities. This is in harmony with my will and where these calls are made known to my servants, they may be processed according to administrative procedures and provisions of the law.


What are the first references to a tradition of fasting before partaking of the Lord's Supper?

This practice is attested as early as the first half of the third century, by Tertullian and particularly Hippolytus.
Tertullian addresses the topic tangentially while addressing the dangers of women marrying non-Christians.  Their husbands will notice their Christian practices, such as fasting before taking communion, and may put pressure on them to stop:

Will not your husband know what it is which you secretly taste before (taking) any food? and if he knows it to be bread, does he not believe it to be that (bread) which it is said to be?
(To His Wife, II.5)

Hippolytus is more direct.  In the Apostolic Tradition, he writes:

The faithful shall be careful to partake of the eucharist before eating anything else. (36)

At the Synod of Hippo (AD 393), the practice is codified in Canon 29 (Mansi, III, 913), and again a few years later at the Synod of Carthage (Canon 28 (Mansi, III, 884)).  And around this time, Augustine indicates that the practice is universal:

It pleased the Holy Spirit to appoint, for the honour of so great a sacrament, that the body of the Lord should take the precedence of all other food entering the mouth of a Christian; and it is for this reason that the custom referred to is universally observed. (Letter 54, VI.8)

Conclusion
Thus we have evidence for the practice of fasting before the Eucharist as early as the beginning of the third century, and by AD 400 we see it being widely observed, at least in the Western church.


What is an overview of what the kinds of things the beast in Revelation represents?

Introduction

Wikipedia gives a pretty good summary of Revelation beasts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beast_(Revelation)

It names the beast from the sea (ch 13), the scarlet beast (ch 17), the beast from the earth (13:11-18).

There is also the dragon identified as Satan (Ch 12, 16:13, 20:2). The beasts found in the seals and throne sections (ch 4,5,6, 7:11, 14:3, 15:7, 19:4) are a different Greek word, zoon as opposed to Therion. These beasts are like cherubims and Seraphim found in various books of the Bible (Eze Ch 1, ch 10, Isa ch 6). They bear resemblances to other middle-eastern composite beasts such as sphinxes, lamassu, and genii. The middle-eastern creatures are related to seasons and zodiacal signs. In Revelation, they are associated with the throne of God and the four horsemen (ch 6).

Interpretations

Wikipedia lists four modern interpretations of the later beasts (ch 13-19).

Preterism - Most often the first beast is Nero and the second is the imperial cult.

Historicism - Favored by the Reformers.  The beast and false prophet were most commonly identified with the papacy in its political and religious aspects.

Idealism -  The beast from the sea is interpreted as the state or any human kingdom that is in opposition to God. This would include the Roman Empire but would broadly apply to all empires. Scholars take their cue from the parallels between Revelation 13 and Daniel 7, noting that in Daniel 7:17 that the beasts are revealed as kingdoms.

Futurism - Futurism often interprets the beast from the sea to represent a revived Roman empire that will oppose Christians in the last days.

Relation to Daniel

As noted, these beasts are similar to the beasts found in Daniel where they are usually interpreted as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek Empire, and the Roman Empire. However, the church historian Eusebius gives us an alternate interpretation of Daniel.

  For it was quite consistent in the king, whose view of the spectacle of life was so false, and who admired the beauty of the mere sensible colours, so to speak, in the picture set up to view, to liken the life of all men to a great image; but (it became) the prophet to compare the great and mighty tumult of life to a mighty sea. And it was fitting that the king, who prized the substances deemed precious among men, gold, and silver, and brass, and iron, should liken to these substances the kingdoms that held the sovereignty at different times in the life of men; but that the prophet should describe these same kingdoms under the likeness of beasts, in accordance with the manner of their rule. And again, the king—who was puffed up, as it seems, in his own conceit, and plumed himself on the power of his ancestors—is shown the vicissitude to which affairs are subject, and the end destined for all the kingdoms of earth, with the view of teaching him to lay aside his pride in himself, and understand that there is nothing stable among men, but only that which is the appointed end of all things—the kingdom of God."
  Scholia on Daniel

In comparing the vision of chapter 2 to the vision in 7, Eusebius sees the differences as different views of how the king and prophet consider the lives of all men. This is perhaps similar to the way the Greek poet Hesiod describes his ages of man. Hesiod describes the five Ages of Man.

Golden Age - Men had a youthful appearance and eventually died peacefully.

Silver Age - They lived only a short time as grown adults, and spent that time in strife with one another.

Bronze Age – Men of the Bronze Age were hardened and tough, as war was their purpose and passion.

Heroic Age – The Heroic Age is the one age that does not correspond with any metal. It is also the only age that improves upon the age it follows.

Iron Age – During this age humans live an existence of toil and misery.

There seems to be a correspondence to the ages of man and the physical aging of a natural person, with the Heroic age representing intellectual wisdom while the body weakens, and eventually, dies.

Church Fathers

Another early Christian apocalypse is the Shepherd of Hermas, which seems to bring together the parables of Jesus with the symbolism of the Apocalypse. Hermas sees a tribulation beast with four colors that are reminiscent of the beasts in Revelation. Instead of multiple heads and horns, Hermas is told of commandments and similitudes.

Although Hermas doesn't mention 7 and 10, other church fathers associated these numbers with the spirit and the law.

  For if we determine on the number that should indicate the law, what else can it be but ten? For we have absolute certainty that the Decalogue of the law, that is, those ten well-known precepts, were first written by the finger of God on two tables of stone. (Deut. ix. 10.) But the law, when it is not aided by grace, maketh transgressors, and is only in the letter, on account of which the apostle specially declared, “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” (2 Cor. iii. 6.) Let the spirit then be added to the letter, lest the letter kill him whom the spirit maketh not alive, and let us work out the precepts of the law, not in our own strength, but by the grace of the Saviour. But when grace is added to the law, that is, the spirit to the letter, there is, in a kind of way, added to ten the number of seven. For this number, namely seven, is testified by the documents of holy writ given us for perusal, to signify the Holy Spirit. For example, sanctity or sanctification properly pertains to the Holy Spirit, whence, as the Father is a spirit, and the Son a spirit, because God is a spirit, so the Father is holy and the Son holy, yet the Spirit of both is called peculiarly by the name of the Holy Spirit. Where, then, was there the first distinct mention of sanctification in the law but on the seventh day? "
  NPNF1-07. St. Augustine: Lectures or Tracates on the Gospel according to St. John; Tractate CXXII, Chapter XX. 30-31, and XXI. 1-11.

Jerome:

  ...The number ten signifies the Decalogue, and one hundred shows the crown of virginity.
  For he who has preserved entire his resolution for virginity, and faithfully fulfilled the precepts of the Decalogue, and has overcome impure actions and impure thoughts among the chambers of the heart so that they do not rule him, this is truly a priest of Christ and entirely completes the millenary number, believed to rule with Christ, and rightly with Him the devil is bound...
  Jerome (ending to his version of Victorinus' commentary, which replaces Victorinus' material on chapters 20 and 21 of the Apocalypse)

Methodius:

  Therefore, taking to you a masculine and sober mind, oppose your armour to the swelling beast, and do not at all give way, nor be troubled because of his fury. For you will have immense glory if you overcome him, and take away the seven crowns which are upon him, on account of which we have to struggle and wrestle, according to our teacher Paul. For she who having first overcome the devil, and destroyed his seven heads, becomes possessed of the seven crowns of virtue, having gone through the seven great struggles of chastity. For incontinence and luxury is a head of the dragon; and whoever bruises this is wreathed with the crown of temperance. Cowardice and weakness is also a head; and he who treads upon this carries off the crown of martyrdom. Unbelief and folly, and other similar fruits of wickedness, is another head; and he who has overcome these and destroyed them carries off the honours connected with them, the power of the dragon being in many ways rooted up. Moreover, the ten horns and stings which he was said to have upon his heads are the ten opposites, O virgins, to the Decalogue, by which he was accustomed to gore and cast down the souls of many imagining and contriving things in opposition to the law, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,” (Deut. vi. 5.) and to the other precepts which follow.
  Methodius, Symposium, Thekla, Chapter XIII.—The Seven Crowns of the Beast to Be Taken Away by Victorious Chastity; The Ten Crowns of the Dragon, the Vices Opposed to the Decalogue; The Opinion of Fate the Greatest Evil.

I call this the "Wisdom" interpretation of Revelation. The Greeks loved wisdom (1Co 1:22). After all, Revelation calls for wisdom to understand the beast (13:18, 17:9).

  2Pe 2:12  But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;


According to the penal substitutionary atonement view, why was Jesus' punishment not eternal?

Reformed theologians who hold to penal substitutionary atonement emphasize a) the divine nature of Christ and the increased capacity for suffering that that implies and b) the intensity of God's wrath against him.
Louis Berkhof, in his Systematic Theology (3.2.1.B), writes:

[Christ's] capacity for suffering was commensurate with the ideal character of His humanity, with His ethical perfection, and with His sense of righteousness and holiness and veracity.  No one could feel the poignancy of pain and grief and moral evil as Jesus could.
[Christ] was subject not only to physical, but also to eternal death, though He bore this intensively and not extensively, when He agonized in the garden and when He cried out on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" In a short period of time He bore the infinite wrath against sin to the very end and came out victoriously. This was possible for Him only because of His exalted nature.

The Heidelberg Catechism, answer 37, reads:

That during his whole life on earth, but especially at the end, Christ sustained
in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race. This he did in order that, by his suffering as the only atoning sacrifice, he might deliver us, body and soul, from eternal condemnation, and gain for us God’s grace, righteousness, and eternal life.

Wayne Grudem, in chapter 27 of his Systematic Theology, emphasizes the meaning of Christ's words on the cross as signifying the completion of his suffering and his victory:

Jesus was able to bear all the wrath of God against our sin and to bear it to the end.  No mere man could ever have done this, but by virtue of the union of divine and human natures in himself, Jesus was able to bear all the wrath of God against sin and bear it to the end. [...] When Jesus knew that he had paid the full penalty for our sin, he said, "It is finished" (John 19:30).  If Christ had not paid the full penalty, there would still be condemnation left for us. (p578)

Other views of the atonement
Grudem notes that Roman Catholic teaching on the completion of Christ's sacrifice is different.  He quotes Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

In the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Sacrifice of the Cross the Sacrificial Gift and the Primary Sacrificing Priest are identical; only the nature and the mode of the offering are different.... according to the Thomistic view, in every Mass Christ also performs an actual immediate sacrificial activity.

Protestants and others who reject the theory of penal substitution also answer this question differently.  Proponents of the moral influence theory, for example, do not suggest that Christ was "paying for our sins" at all, and that therefore punishment of eternal length was not required.
Similarly, under the governmental theory, Christ suffers to show that a penalty must be paid for lawlessness, but he does not pay the penalty for all the sins of the elect, so again, full payment is not required.  More on these and other theories of the atonement can be found on the corresponding Wikipedia articles, and analysis of them is found in both works of Grudem's and Berkhof's that I've quoted.


He was speaking literally in a way: "six days later", at the transfiguration, they did see some of the glory that Jesus would have at that time, and seeing Peter's reaction it was quite impressive.  Read on in chapter 17:1-9, that's where your answer is.

In verses 10-13, Jesus explains a bit more about the time they lived in at that point.


What practical effect do stock worship phrases, like "God be magnified", have?

Clearly, those phrases can't mean that we have the ability to alter God in any way.  I don't think that the definition of "magnify God" in these phrases means to actually make God "bigger" or "greater". I understand them to mean "Make God more prominent in my life, our culture, etc."

Magnification doesn't make objects bigger, it alters our perception of an object, making it appear bigger to us.

Similarly, magnifying God doesn't make Him bigger, it means He becomes more prominent to us.

The phrase "God, I magnify you" simply means "I am making you greater (more important) in my life, and putting you first, because you are my focus and priority."


Can a church pastor prohibit sacraments to people for any reason, other than mortal sin?

As in most such cases: It depends on the context and is complicated. The relevant norms of the CIC are:

Can. 213 The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.

Can. 980 If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred.

Can. 991 Every member of the Christian faithful is free to confess sins to a legitimately approved confessor of his or her choice, even to one of another rite.

Can. 980 (cited by Geremia) applies only to this situation: After the penitent stated his/her sins the priest does not want to give absolution because of non-spiritual reasons (personal differences etc.). This is not allowed. The norm does not say something about someone wanting to confess but not getting an appointment. In this case the condition "the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent" cannot be fullfilled.
More relevant are cann. 213 and 980. Every member of the faithful have a right to the sacraments, esp. to confession with a priest of his/her choice.
But to have a right does not mean, you can use it under every circumstances. If your selected priest has no time/is ill/... you will have to wait. And a if a pandemic compels some hygienic measures you will have to confess under that circumstances. If the vaccine reduces the risk of a confession I see no problem to differentiate between vaccinated and not-vaccinated christians.
The screenshot seems very harsh. But I have the strong presumption that it does not represent the full picture. Most priests will find possibilities to hear confessions as safe as possible, if someone really want. But they may also ask, if the penitent could wait a few weeks/months. That the public opportunities to confess are bound to vaccination seems justifiable to me. For the others one may find individual solutions.
The wording of the screenshot suggests before the vaccination-rule there was no possibility to confess. So let's celebrate there is more freedom now and not complain that the pandemic is not yet over!
The church wants to bring the grace of God in the sacraments to every human in the world. But it is restricted in its means by the earthly circumstances. This is not new, but we notice it in this pandemic in a hard way.


What is the basis for arguing that Paul should have been selected as the 12th apostle instead of Matthias?

Two prominent advocates of this view are Rudolf Stier (1800–62) and Lloyd John Ogilvie (1930–).  They argue both that the apostles erred, and that ultimately the evidence points to Paul being the true 12th apostle.  They make several arguments:

The method of selection, particularly the casting of lots, was improper
The selection was unnecessarily hasty
The biblical record shows Paul as being "chosen," and Matthias is never heard from again

Improper method of selection
Stier says that the apostles were "justified generally" for casting lots, considering biblical support for the practice (Proverbs 16:33), and the fact that the Holy Spirit had not yet indwelt them.  However, he considers it a "deficiency" that Peter did not mention the imminent coming of the Holy Spirit in his speech (v. 16–22), as promised by Jesus (v. 8).  Ogilvie calls the casting of lots "crude" and suggests that Luke is pointing out that casting lots "was a poor substitute for the guidance of the Holy Spirit."
Stier also questions the propriety of the qualification that Peter specifies in verses 21 and 22 ("one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us"), particularly in light of the apostleship of Paul despite him not meeting this qualification.
Hasty selection
Stier points to the context of the chapter, particularly verses 7 and 8, and argues that the apostles were instructed to wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit.  Given this, he suggests that Peter's statement and the casting of lots was not "consistent with the prescribed 'waiting.'"  Furthermore, the passage Peter quoted, Psalm 109:8, does not prescribe any action, but merely says "let another take his office."
Ogilvie suggests that Luke's motive in this passage is to cast doubt on the proceedings: he argues that Luke's "extensive review of Peter's explanation" suggests that,

perhaps Luke is pointing out that the apostles, prior to the gift of the Holy Spirit, were precipitous in replacing Judas when the Lord already was planning ahead for a Pharisee named Saul of Tarsus to fill that position.

Other biblical evidence
Stier finds Luke's language relating to the selection of Matthias to be significant.  He wonders why Luke in verse 26 merely states, "the lot fell on Matthias," rather than, "the Lord chose Matthias."  Similarly, he notes that the chapter ends with "he was numbered with the eleven apostles," rather than explicitly calling Matthias the twelfth.  And why, he asks, does Luke not use the expression "twelve apostles" in the rest of his book?
Stier argues further that language referring to the apostleship of Paul throughout the New Testament is evidence that Paul should have been the twelfth.  For example, he quotes Acts 9:15, where Jesus is talking to Ananias about Paul:

But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. [ESV]

This and other passages, like Galatians 1:1, 1:15–17, 2:6–9; Acts 9:15, 13:31, and 26:16, Stier believes, should lead us to conclude that "the Lord had decreed to do something special" in the case of selecting Judas's replacement. To those who argue that Paul is an apostle in addition to the twelve (making for a total of thirteen), Stier cites Revelation 21:14:

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. [ESV]

In contrast to Paul's prestige as a "chosen instrument" and the author of numerous books of the New Testament, both Stier and Ogilvie point to the Bible's lack of reference to Matthias after his selection.  Ogilvie refers to this as "strange," and while not suggestive of Matthias defecting, is still an indication that "the position was filled by Paul."
Summary
Champions of Paul's place as the twelfth apostle, like Stier and Ogilvie, point to the biblical record in their attempt to demonstrate that the apostles improperly and hastily selected Matthias, and that Paul was the apostle selected by God to replace Judas.

Ogilvie, The Preacher's Commentary, v28 (Acts).
Stier, The Words of the Apostles, p12–14.


Why is "in the name of Jesus Christ" usually used at the end?

The answer to your question is in several Scriptures.

In the book of Matthew He told us first of all that we should pray directly to the Father, and not for rewards here on Earth.

Matthew 6:5 through 7 KJV

  5  And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

  6  But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

  7  But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Then Jesus taught his disciples (which of course includes us) in the model prayer:

Matthew 6:9 through 15 KJV

  9  After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

  10  Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

  11  Give us this day our daily bread.

  12  And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

  13  And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

  14  For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:

  15  But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

This was given as an outline and not meant to be recited word for word, but even if you recite it word for word, what matters is your intent; and so praying the "Lord's Prayer" in not in any way sacrilegious as long as your intent is right.

He went on to say that we need to pray knowing that God has the power to grant our every wish, and that He will grant them in accordance with His plans for us.

Matthew 21:22  KJV

  And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

John 14:13 and 14 KJV

  13  And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

  14  If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Finally He tells us that if we expect him to grant our request we must continue in his word, and be the best Christian we know how to be.

John 15:7  KJV

  If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

It really doesn't matter when you acknowledge Jesus Authority, either before or after, but it does matter that you acknowledge it.