According to the LDS faith, did Noah build the Ark in America?

The belief that the Ark could have been "made in America" isn't restricted to the LDS.  Not that a claim is typically made that Noah was "mericun", but from a strict reading of Genesis, there is no hard and fast place where the ark would have been constructed, because for many strict creationists, the flood irrevocably altered the earth's entire geography, under a theory known as "catastrophic plate tectonics."

A hard-core creationist, such as Ken Hamm or the Institute for Creation Research, would have very little problem with the notion of the Ark being built in Missouri.

Genesis 7:11 describes the beginning of the flood this way:

  11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

Traditionally many young-earthers like to ascribe great violence to these fountains.  Both Answers In Genesis and the ICR have written papers reconciling plate tectonics with the flood, suggesting that the flood completely rearranged the planet.

To wit:

  In 1859 Antonio Snider proposed that rapid, horizontal divergence of crustal plates occurred during Noah’s Flood. Modern plate tectonics theory is now conflated with assumptions of uniformity of rate and ideas of continental “drift.” Catastrophic plate tectonics theories, such as Snider proposed more than a century ago, appear capable of explaining a wide variety of data—including biblical and geologic data which the slow tectonics theories are incapable of explaining. We would like to propose a catastrophic plate tectonics theory as a framework for Earth history. ... The Flood was initiated as slabs of oceanic floor broke loose and subducted along thousands of kilometers of pre-Flood continental margins

and

  Because of the scientific community’s commitment to the uniformitarian assumptions and framework for earth history, most geologists take for granted that the movement of the earth’s plates has been slow and gradual over long eons.  ... On the other hand, many other observations are incompatible with slow-and-gradual plate tectonics. While the seafloor surface is relatively smooth, zebra-stripe magnetic patterns are obtained when the ship-towed instrument (magnetometer) observations average over mile-sized patches

While the ark is believed to have rested on Mount Ararat in Turkey, its beginning point is never pointed out in the text. A pre-Flood Pangaea would, for the above groups, be rather irrelevant to the modern globe. (In particular, Snider pointed to the fact in Genesis 1:9-10 that the dry land was gathered into a single place.)

Under a "fast-tectonic action,"  where Noah lived before the Flood could have been Missouri or Madras just as easily as Mount Ararat.


Do any Christian traditions permit suicide to avoid being dishonored (raped)?

Let Case 1 = the suicide for women at the point of being raped and Case 2  = the suicide of a father and his family to avoid seeing the mother/wife and the daughters/sisters raped and dishonored before their eyes
The two situations are not the same. In case 1, the woman has an extra case of conscience of commiting fornication and cooperating to the sin of the rapist. To what Saint Thomas Aquinas clearly replies (Summa Theologiae, II-II, Question 64, art.5) :

Again it is unlawful for a woman to kill herself lest she be violated, because she ought not to commit on herself the very great sin of suicide, to avoid the lesser sin of another. For she commits no sin in being violated by force, provided she does not consent, since "without consent of the mind there is no stain on the body," as the Blessed Lucy declared. Now it is evident that fornication and adultery are less grievous sins than taking a man's, especially one's own, life: since the latter is most grievous, because one injures oneself, to whom one owes the greatest love. Moreover it is most dangerous since no time is left wherein to expiate it by repentance. Again it is not lawful for anyone to take his own life for fear he should consent to sin, because "evil must not be done that good may come" (Romans 3:8) or that evil may be avoided especially if the evil be of small account and an uncertain event, for it is uncertain whether one will at some future time consent to a sin, since God is able to deliver man from sin under any temptation whatever.
Reply to Objection 4. As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i, 21), "not even Samson is to be excused that he crushed himself together with his enemies under the ruins of the house, except the Holy Ghost, Who had wrought many wonders through him, had secretly commanded him to do this." He assigns the same reason in the case of certain holy women, who at the time of persecution took their own lives, and who are commemorated by the Church.

A fortiori, case 2 is sinful. Christians must be aware that they may be persecuted, and there is not only one way of being persecuted. Suicide is never the solution : "You shall not kill" (Ex 20:13; Cf. Deut 5:17). The Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions what follows:

2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being"

... including himself.
Note : this is a rather a long comment that explains the point of view of the Catholic Church, as long as you will be looking for a denomination which allow suicide in both cases.


What does "...bring them here and kill them in front of me" in Luke 19:27 mean?

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

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

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


How do traditional Christians defend the teaching that Paul is an authentic apostle?

In Acts 9 there were witnesses when Jesus Christ spoke to Saul.

  3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven
  flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to
  him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”  5 “Who are you, Lord?”
  Saul asked.

  “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up
  and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

  7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the
  sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when
  he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand
  into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink
  anything.

Also, we have from another disciple, Ananias, whom God told Saul was His chosen instrument to proclaim His name to the Gentiles.

  15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument
  to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people
  of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

Paul did not act completely on his own, either.  He had the full support of the apostles.

  Acts 15:22-27 NIV
  22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to
  choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and
  Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were
  leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following
  letter:

  The apostles and elders, your brothers,

  To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

  Greetings.

  24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization
  and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we
  all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear
  friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the
  name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and
  Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.

Since I trust the original apostles were acting on Christs behalf, I also trust that Paul was.  As you said, if Paul was a false apostle, then it would hold serious implications for our beliefs.  It would seem that if he was false and also supported by the apostles, the truth of the apostles would also be called into question.


How are John 18:36 and Matthew 13:41 reconciled according to Protestants?

This can be reconciled, like many other apparent contradictions by understanding the context of the passages.  See Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies.

  ...the vast majority of "contradictions" can be attributed to one of
  two possible causes.

  Copyist errors
  A misunderstanding of the context. (Historical context, cultural context, taking a verse out of context with related passages of
  Scripture, different meanings for words used at the time a translation
  was written compared to the meaning of the words today, etc.)

The passage from John, as covered in many commentaries is in the context of an accusation that Jesus is some threat to the existing rule.  Sample:

  Barnes' Notes on the Bible

  My kingdom ... - The charge on which Jesus was arraigned was that of
  laying claim to the office of a king. He here substantially admits
  that he did claim to be a king, but not in the sense in which the Jews
  understood it. They charged him with attempting to set up an earthly
  kingdom, and of exciting sedition against Caesar. In reply to this,
  Jesus says that his kingdom is not of this world - that is, it is not
  of the same nature as earthly kingdoms. It was not originated for the
  same purpose, or conducted on the same plan. He immediately adds a
  circumstance in which they differ. The kingdoms of the world are
  defended by arms; they maintain armies and engage in wars. If the
  kingdom of Jesus had been of this kind, he would have excited the
  multitudes that followed him to prepare for battle. He would have
  armed the hosts that attended him to Jerusalem. He would not have been
  alone and unarmed in the garden of Gethsemane. But though he was a
  king, yet his dominion was over the heart, subduing evil passions and
  corrupt desires, and bringing the soul to the love of peace and unity.

  Not from hence - That is, not from this world.

The passage from Matthew, on the other hand, is part of a parable where he is using the sample of weeds and wheat in the same field to illustrate that righteous and evil will be living together on this earth.  He is referring to His spiritual Kingdom, or the Church. Example from another commentary: (Emphasis added by me)

  Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

  The Son of man shall send forth his angels,.... Meaning himself, whose
  ministers the angels are; who wait upon him, and are at his beck and
  command; even the thousand thousands that minister unto him; these
  will be sent forth by his orders, into the several parts of the world,
  where he has any churches, or an interest,

  and they shall gather out of his kingdom: the Gospel church, over
  which Christ is king, where he rules and governs in the hearts of his
  people; and who are cheerfully and willingly obedient to his laws,
  under the influence of his Spirit and grace: but all who are in the
  visible Gospel church state, are not such; some are wicked and
  rebellious, and though they are suffered to continue, yet not always;
  for if not removed by censures and excommunications, they will be at
  last by angels; who will separate them from the saints:

  even all things that offend; who are scandals to Christ, his church,
  and Gospel, by their wicked principles, or infamous practices; and who
  give offence, not only to God, and his righteous law, but lay
  stumbling blocks in the way of the children of God, and are the
  authors of divisions and offences among them:

  and them that do iniquity; that do nothing else but iniquity; and who,
  though they profess to be religious persons, are secretly, or openly,
  workers of iniquity; and are even doing iniquity, in and whilst they
  are professing religion.

As with almost any word in the English language, the context helps to define the meaning of the word, so when taken in context, the apparent discrepancy goes away.


Why appoint Matthias to replace Judas only to later appoint Paul as a thirteenth Apostle?

Matthias was appointed for a very specific purpose: to fill the void in the Twelve once Judas had died.  We have no record of when or under what circumstances Paul was called as an apostle, but we do know that his ministry coincided with a period of very heavy persecution for the church.  So it's not at all unreasonable to assume, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that Paul was appointed, as Matthias was, once one of the other existing apostles was killed.


Is song a critical component of worship or something that we've just borrowed from example?

Allow me to answer this question via an illustration and another question.

Let's say there was someone who had an unhealthy emotional obsession with you. You tell your friends that you are concerned that this other person may even "worship the ground you walk on". Now, in this scenario, which of the following activities would make you more concerned that they worship you?

They sing you a song about how much they love you
They sing you a song about how how great you are
They spend a significant portion of their income, let's say 10%, buying gifts for you
They buy property on the town-common and erect a giant structure in your honor

That certainly is not an exhaustive list, but you get the idea. Clearly, all of these activities would be concerning, but I suspect some may be more concerning to you than others.

The Bible does not, itself, define what worship is. There are examples in scripture of people worshiping by singing, dancing, bowing, praising, and giving of gifts.

For instance, Genesis 24:26-27 shows an example of bowing and praising as a form of worship:

  And the man bowed down his head, and worshipped the Lord.  And he said, "Blessed be the Lord God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth: I being in the way, the Lord led me to the house of my master's brethren."

And Matt. 2:1-2 describes how the wise men traveled to worship Jesus by giving him gifts:

  Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, "Where is he that is born King of the Jews?  For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him."

Often we think of worship as being synonymous with music. Many churches even refer to the people leading the singing as the "worship leaders". Certainly music is a very common form of worship, but it is not the only one. I do not mean, nor intend, to denigrate music, as a form of worship, but we often forget that tithes/offerings and praise are also forms of worship.


For Jesus to ‘know’ us means we have submitted to his Lordship and we are no longer slaves but are intimate acquaintances.  Jesus said this of his disciples:

  Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother (Mark 3:35).

When we know Jesus and believe in him, we are adopted into God’s family:

  Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God (John 1:12)

We can call God “Abba, Father” (Romans 8:15).  It doesn’t get more personal and intimate than that!  When people speak of “knowing” Jesus, they refer to having a relationship with Him.  Being a Christian is more than knowing about Jesus; being a Christian is about knowing Him personally.  Jesus spoke of the need to know the Saviour when He prayed:

  This is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3).

When we know Jesus, we also know God:

  We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true.  And we are in him who is true – even in his son, Jesus Christ.  He is the true God and eternal life. (1 John 5:20)

There were people in Jesus’ day who thought they were friends of his because they knew the Law, made strict rules for themselves (and for others), and listened to his teaching.  They followed him, applauded the miracles, and liked some of what he said. But Jesus calls them “evildoers” and declared, “I never knew you.”  Matthew 7:21-23

They didn’t know who Jesus REALLY was.  Some people have an intellectual, head knowledge of Jesus.  They may have read the Bible and believe it, but have never allowed the truth about Jesus to penetrate into their hearts so that their lives are transformed.  Jesus said:

  These people honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. (Matthew 15:8–9 quoting Isaiah 29:13)

To really know Jesus means we grasp the significance of what God, in Jesus, did to pay for our sins and we seek his forgiveness so that we may know him personally, and enjoy intimate fellowship with him through the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).


What did Paul mean when he wrote 1 Corinthians 14:22 in the context of 1 Corinthians 14:23-25?

The context is that tongues are for a few individuals to demonstrate to a group of unbelievers of the same tongue the power of God. It is only a sign to the unbeliever if the unbeliever is of that tongue and can understand it.

(Acts 2:8) And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born?

But as verse 23 demonstrates, if the whole church comes together and speaks in tongues what benefit is it to anyone? It is highly unlikely the next unbeliever to walk in is of this tongue, unbelievers of all backgrounds could walk in, it may be that no one understands it.

23 ...will they not say that you are out of your minds?

If you read the entire chapter of 14, it becomes even clearer, speaking in tongues to those who do not understand it is of no use.

14 Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you
may prophesy. 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men
but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he
speaks mysteries. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and
exhortation and comfort to men...
18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in
the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that
I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.


Did the modern LDS idea of fast offerings have extra-Mormon roots?

As far as I am aware of, no there are no other modern roots to this practice.

The practice of fasting and then giving offerings to the Lord is very old.

  Judges 20:26 Then all the children of Israel, and all the people, went up, and came unto the house of God, and wept, and sat there before the Lord, and fasted that day until even, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord.

But it's vs 27 that is more interesting in the context of our current question.

  27) And the children of Israel enquired of the Lord .... 28) saying, Shall I yet again go out to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother, or shall I cease? And the Lord said, Go up; for tomorrow I will deliver them into thine hand. (emphasis mine)

While the offerings part is usually what gets the most attention. The true reason to fast is to show humility and self discipline before the Lord and then ask the Lord some pressing question.

And just as they did in Israel, LDS often go to the temple during or soon after a fast.

LDS don't tend to make a big deal of it, but they often fast far more then just the one day a month, depending on their needs, desires or trials.

On different occasions of great trial in an LDS community, the Bishop (head of one congregation) or even Stake President (head of many congregations over the bishops) may ask the members to fast for a special purpose.

On these occasions a fast offering is not paid. Though a member could pay it if they so desired.


Master of Ceremonies wears purple at High Masses according to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass?

Was it in a cathedral church?
Nainfa's Costume of Prelates of the Catholic Church (1926) pp. 36-7:

purple is the color of the episcopal Livery. Thus, according to rules laid down by the Ceremonials,4 the Master of Ceremonies of the cathedral church, the train-bearer of the Bishop,1 the cross-bearer of the Metropolitan,2 all the members of the diocesan Seminary, as well as the employees of the cathedral, namely, sacristans, ushers, chanters, etc., all should wear purple cassocks.4. Cær. Episc. I., V., 4. S. R. C, February 29, 1868. — Dec. 14, 1894.1 LEVAVASSEUR-HÆGY, Fonctions Pontificates, II., p. 273. S. R. C., Aug. 2, 1608. Jan. 24, 1660.2. LEVAVASSEUR-HÆGY, Fonctions Pontificates, II., p. 305.

cf. ibid. p. 58 (ch. 4, "Cincture"):

At ordinary times, Bishops and the Prelates di mantelletta are entitled to wear a purple cincture of plain silk over the choir cassock, the ordinary black cassock and the simar. When they wear mourning (black cassock with purple trimmings), they put on a cincture of plain black silk with fringes or tufts of the same color.1 The cincture of the Prelates di mantellone is of no other color than purple.BARBIER de MONTAULT, op. cit., Tom. I., p. 285.

And ibid. p. 60: "the Sacred Congregation of Rites forbids them [altar boys] to wear a cincture."


What do those who practice the gift of 'tongues' consider the purpose to be?

The bulk of the teaching on tongues in the Bible is not in Acts, but in 1 Corinthians. While there are a couple of instances in Acts that do mention people speaking in tongues, only Acts 2 mention that the words are understood by the bystanders. In 1 Cor 12-14, it is clearly understood that tongues require interpretation in order to be understood.

Researchers generally differentiate between

glossolalia, speaking in unknown tongues
xenoloalia, speaking in a know tongue, but in words not understood or learned by the speaker

The purpose of speaking in tongues is edification. Tongues + interpretation in public edifies the church and is comparable to prophecy in its effect. Tongues in private edifies the speaker.

Tongues are prayer and as such can be praise, thanksgiving and intercession. Being prayer of course also means that speaking in tongues is communion with God, practicing being in His presence.

The above can be understood from scripture. If we also listen to researchers the following can be said:

While glossolalia exist in some non-christian settings, there is (AFAIK) no evidence of non ecstatic glossolalia in such settings. Older research (and Bible commentaries) tended to equate Christian glossolalia with ecstasy, trances, etc. (1 Cor 12-14 clearly indicates that speaking in tongues is a non ecstatic endeavor, but that does not mean that emotions may not run high, occasionally.)
People who speak in tongues are not mentally unstable. In fact, having cross-referenced away other factors, research indicate that tongue-speaking people on average are more emotionally balanced and socially well adjusted than non tongue-speakers.

If we add testimonies from tongue-speakers about how they benefit from the practice, at least the following are common themes:

Praying in tongues is a help when one does not know how to pray. Tongues means letting the Spirit produce the prayer that is optimal for the situation.
Praying in tongues is associated with a release of the power of the Spirit to empower, heal or in any other way help. Quietly praying in tongues while laying hands on someone is a common practice, that combines these two points.
Praying in tongues is a help in situations when ordinary words don't do justice to ones inner feelings of exuberance or grief.
Praying in tongues is a help when one does not have the energy or concentration to pray ordinary prayers. When the activity of formulating words to pray are too strenuous, praying in tongues is usually effortless.
Tongues function as a "gateway" gift, i.e. having been released to pray in tongues often is followed by other gifts, such as prophecy, gifts of healings, etc.

Saving the most controversial point for last: Some Pentecostals and charismatics see tongues as the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, which in turn is understood as a separate and non-repeatable experience from conversion. According to this view there is one Spirit-baptism, but possibly many "fillings". I personally do not share this view, since I think it makes a distinction between words like the Spirit "came upon", "fell upon", "filled" and "baptized" where the Bible does not make any distinction in, but rather uses them interchangeably for the same experience.

Edit

Additional sorce:The question answered by J. Rodman Williams, the first scholar to write a systematic theology from a renewal perspective.


According to Peter Binsfeld, you've got the list right.  He made the list in 1589; there was no support for that theory before then, and there has been very little support for that theory since.

As far as I know, there is no Christian tradition which adheres to there being seven princes of Hell.  More than that, at least the names "Lucifer" and "Satan" refer to the same entity.  Mammon is synonymous with greed or money (Matthew 6:24), but is sometimes personified also.  Asmodeus and Belphegor aren't even mentioned in the Bible.

Peter's list seems to have been extrapolated from the 7 deadly sins, without any scripture to back up his list.  Here it is.

Lucifer: pride
Mammon: greed
Asmodeus: lust
Leviathon: envy
Beelzebub: gluttony
Satan: wrath
Belphegor: sloth


What is the concept of kowtow in Christianity?
According to the Wikipedia article partially quoted below, the Chinese tradition of bowing low three to nine times before the tomb of their ancestors is a mark of respect:

The Kowtowing ritual in front of the grave is performed in the order of patriarchal seniority within the family. After the ancestor worship at the grave site, the whole family or the whole clan feast on the food and drink they have brought for the worship either at the site or in nearby gardens in the memorial park, signifying the family's reunion with its ancestors. Source: Qingming Festival (Wikipedia)

There are various cultures that use bowing to living persons as a mark of respect.  For example, Japanese businessmen will demonstrate the degree of respect being given depending on how low they bow, or how slightly they bow.  The tradition of ‘kowtow’ to a living person is nowhere prohibited within Christianity.  Indeed, the Bible has many instances of where a person would even prostrate themselves on the ground before a mighty ruler, or when in the presence of deity.  Neither is the cleaning of gravesites prohibited within Christianity.
What the Christian Bible forbids is praying to dead ancestors.
In some cultures ancestors are believed to influence the lives of later generations by blessing or cursing them; in essence, acting as gods. So praying to them, presenting them with gifts, and making offerings are done to appease them and gain their favour.  This is where showing respect morphs into worship and since Christians are told to worship only the Creator God of the universe, in whose image we are made, then it would be wrong for a Christian to engage in such things.
The Bible tells us in Exodus 20:3-6 that we are not to worship any god other than the Lord God Almighty.  Furthermore, since diviners and sorcerers were thought to be able to contact the dead, they were also expressly forbidden by God (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:32, 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:10-11; 1 Samuel 28:3; Jeremiah 27:9-10).
The belief that spirits continue to reside on earth after death and influence the lives of others is not Christian.  The Bible shows that the dead are unable to influence the living.  They can no more bless or curse than they can breathe.  The dead know nothing at all.  They do not deserve any form of worship, and that includes praying to them.  We are to pray to God, through Christ Jesus.  He is the only mediator between God and men.
You say that during the Qing Dynasty, many missionaries came to China to preach, but very few Chinese believed in Christianity. Their attempt to turn China into a Christian country failed.  Then you ask What do you think of this matter?
I think the fact that Christians in China are persecuted and forbidden by the Government to worship in freedom is testimony to the fact that those early missionaries did not fail.  It also speaks volumes about the people who wish to suppress freedom of religion.  What are they afraid of?


Why is archangel Michael portrayed with a sword in art?

Michael the Archangel is depicted in the Bible as a warrior and leader of angel armies:

Daniel 12:1 (ESV)
At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.
Jude 9 (ESV)
But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses...
Revelation 12:7 (ESV)
Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back...

Not surprisingly, the early church understood Michael in this way, that he was a leader of heavenly armies (see Ancient Christian Commentary). Later writers developed more detailed understandings of angel hierarchies, and continued treating Michael as a military leader (see Pseudo-Dionysius and the Apocalypse of the Virgin).
The primary weapon of war mentioned in the Bible is the sword, and it is commonly associated with spiritual warfare (e.g., Ro 13:4, Rev 1:16, and Eph 6:17), including God's final defeat of Satan (Isa 27:1).  The Bible also specifically mentions angels with swords in several places (Gen 3:24, Num 22:31, and 1 Ch 21:16).
Furthermore, in the time of early Christianity, the sword was the weapon associated with the upper classes and military leaders.  The scene from Revelation is depicted in the statue below, where Michael is defeating the serpent, and we can see that he is portrayed much like a Roman soldier, complete with a sword:

Given the biblical mentions of angels carrying swords and the use of swords in spiritual warfare, plus the historical predominance of the sword as a leader's military weapon, it's not surprising that Christians would depict the leader of heavenly armies carrying a weapon suitable for his position: a sword.


According to Catholicism what happens to young children who die before being baptized?

Thomas Aquinas hypothesised that a merciful God would not consign innocent babies who died without being purged of Original Sin through baptism, to hell. Aquinas said these innocents must dwell in limbo, a place between heaven and hell, alongside virtuous but unbaptised pagans such as Plato and Moses, born before Jesus had come to explain things. Thus limbo became a Catholic tradition and had Church approval as such.

Now, the International Theological Commission says:

  It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned.

So, if you were taught the catechism before 1992, or enquired more fully before Vatican II, you could have been told about limbo and assured that it is real, but you would not easily find such a teaching now. Nevertheless limbo is undoubtedly a strong Catholic tradition, has been taught by the Church and had Church approval, even though it never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium.

Since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has begun to move away from its former teachings about limbo and treat it as no more than a hypothesis, and there have been suggestions that the hypothesis will eventually be abandoned. Recent Catholic theological speculation tends to stress the hope, though not the certainty, that unbaptised infants may attain heaven instead of the supposed state of limbo.


According to Catholic teaching and theology, can man ever see God as he really is?

Not in this present life, when the soul is united to body.

St. Thomas, in addressing the question "Whether in the present state of life the contemplative life can reach to the vision of the Divine essence?," quotes St. Augustine, who says in his Literal Interpretation of Genesis xii, 27:

  no one seeing God lives this mortal life wherein the bodily senses have their play: and unless in some way he depart this life, whether by going altogether out of his body, or by withdrawing from his carnal senses, he is not caught up into that vision.

cf. 1 Cor. 13:12:

  We see now by a glass in the dark sort: but then face to face. Now I know in part: but then I shall know as also I am known.

  Has anyone man ever seen God in the past? Who was it?

You may think Jacob saw the essence of God when he said in Gn. 32:30: "I have seen God face to face, and my soul has been saved." In reply to the first objection of the question "Whether anyone in this life can see the essence of God?," St. Thomas writes:

  when Jacob says, "I have seen God face to face," this does not mean the Divine essence, but some figure representing God.

  Will man be able to see God as he really is in the future?

Yes, but not of his own powers.

Answering the question "Whether any created intellect by its natural powers can see the Divine essence?," St. Thomas Aquinas explains why:

  It is impossible for any created intellect to see the essence of God by its own natural power. For knowledge is regulated according as the thing known is in the knower. But the thing known is in the knower according to the mode of the knower. Hence the knowledge of every knower is ruled according to its own nature. If therefore the mode of anything's being exceeds the mode of the knower, it must result that the knowledge of the object is above the nature of the knower. Now the mode of being of things is manifold. For some things have being only in this one individual matter; as all bodies. But others are subsisting natures, not residing in matter at all, which, however, are not their own existence, but receive it; and these are the incorporeal beings, called angels. But to God alone does it belong to be His own subsistent being. Therefore what exists only in individual matter we know naturally, forasmuch as our soul, whereby we know, is the form of certain matter. Now our soul possesses two cognitive powers; one is the act of a corporeal organ, which naturally knows things existing in individual matter; hence sense knows only the singular. But there is another kind of cognitive power in the soul, called the intellect; and this is not the act of any corporeal organ. Wherefore the intellect naturally knows natures which exist only in individual matter; not as they are in such individual matter, but according as they are abstracted therefrom by the considering act of the intellect; hence it follows that through the intellect we can understand these objects as universal; and this is beyond the power of the sense. Now the angelic intellect naturally knows natures that are not in matter; but this is beyond the power of the intellect of our soul in the state of its present life, united as it is to the body. It follows therefore that to know self-subsistent being is natural to the divine intellect alone; and this is beyond the natural power of any created intellect; for no creature is its own existence, forasmuch as its existence is participated [in God's]. …

  What will enable man to do that?

God's grace.

Concluding from above, St. Thomas writes:

  … Therefore the created intellect cannot see the essence of God, unless God by His grace unites Himself to the created intellect, as an object made intelligible to it.

Also, it must be kept in mind that "seeing God's essence" ≠ "comprehending Him" (i.e., 'completely knowing' or 'infinitely knowing' Him).

St. Thomas writes in the question "Whether those who see the essence of God comprehend Him?:"

  God, whose being is infinite, as was shown above (Question [7]) is infinitely knowable. Now no created intellect can know God infinitely. For the created intellect knows the Divine essence more or less perfectly in proportion as it receives a greater or lesser light of glory. Since therefore the created light of glory received into any created intellect cannot be infinite, it is clearly impossible for any created intellect to know God in an infinite degree. Hence it is impossible that it should comprehend God.

Also, Pope Benedict XII (1335-1342) in Benedictus Deus of January 29th 1336 defined it a dogma:

  We, with apostolic authority, define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints […] already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment, have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven […] and these souls have seen and see the divine essence with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature

(See this for background.)

As an aside, the schismatic Eastern 'Orthodox' disagree sharply with the above Thomist understanding of light of glory and seeing God's essence. For an excellent comparison of the two views, which really helps clarify the Thomistic view, see James Larson's article "A Study of The Radical Divide Between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Theology." Cf. also this video from an 'Orthodox''s perspective.


Was the KJV "too highly colored in many places with the party ideas and opinions of those who made it"?

It has been calculated by some that 83% of the New Testament part of the  Authorised Version (see Wikipedia - William Tyndale footnotes 9 & 10) is fully attributable to William Tyndale. If that be true (and from my own studies I do not doubt it) then any comment about the AV being biased in any way has to distinguish between any supposed bias in Tyndale separately from any supposed bias in the AV translators.
Scrivener's learned Greek Text of 1894 has shown what texts (Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus and Computensian Polyglot) were used in which places by the AV translators and so that, also, would need to be examined with regard to any supposed 'bias' regarding the choice of source.
It is noticeable that the AV translators favoured Beza, in one important place,  by adding his words εκ σου 'of thee' to the words of Luke in 1:35 turning 'which shall be begotten, shall be called Son of God' into 'which shall be begotten of thee, shall be called Son of God' : a very noticeable difference with serious implications.
And it is certainly true that one can discern places in the AV where the translators favour certain doctrinal views which are later expressed in detail in both the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration.
One example of this is where the AV translators mis-translate Romans 5:18 δι ενος δικαιωματος as 'by the righteousness of one' (mis-representing a prepositional genitive as a possessive and adding an article not present in the original). Were they correct, then the concomitant expression δι ενος ανθρωπου in Romans 5:12 should be translated 'by the man of one' which is clearly ridiculous.
(See the Englishman's Greek New Testament Literal Interlinear Translation and Green's Literal Translation which have the correct reading.)
'By one man' and 'by one righteousness' is the correct translation. But the mis-translation which would have a schoolboy rightly castigated in Greek class is clearly an interpretation which favours the doctrine of Dr John Owen who influenced the Savoy Declaration of 1658 which contains support for the concept of 'active and passive obedience'.
However the quotation cited by the OP above, and the entire text in the link provided, bears not one single reference to the  AV and therefore (either from just that quotation, or from the entire article) no evidence whatsoever is offered of any bias at all, only a statement of unsubstantiated opinion.
The writer goes on to mention Vatican manuscript 1209 which is the Codex Vaticanus so it becomes obvious that the argument is not really against the AV, or rather Tyndale, or even the matter of English translation at all, the argument is against the Greek Received Text, as such.
Thus the above comments are singularly insufficient to persuade myself to leave the most commonly available English translation of the Textus Receptus, the Greek 'Received Text', in favour of what is being argued for, namely the Greek Text of 1881 and thereafter, which leans heavily on the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, which disagree between themselves in 3,000 places in just the four gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, as publicised by Dean John Burgon in his book 'Revision Revised' 1881.


Are there any reports or stories that the pope has seen God face to face in the last 200 years?

No Pope has made such claim, but he wouldn't need to.

As Hebrews says,

  Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,

Just because one does not have a face to face encounter does not mean that God has not spoken to them. Very few of the prophets claim they saw God's face. Indeed, Elijah perceived him only as a "still small voice."  Jeremiah saw the visions God intended for him, but none was a vision of God himself.

Indeed, Penuiel is a time where God deviated from his normal practice, in revealing himself. Later, when Moses sought to seek God's face (Exodus 33), it was understood he could not see God's face and live.

The lesson has less to do with whether or not God changes, then if man's ability to relate to God changes. And, to box God into a place where he cannot relate to people differently runs counter to his nature as a person who is capable of relating.

Futhermore, as God's appointed representative on earth, Catholics (and I am not one) claim on the basis of Matthew 18:18 that:

  "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This translates into the ability for the Apostolic office (established with Peter to whom Jesus says this) to make heavenly decisions, under God's guidance, in accordance with God's wishes.


Does the Bible give us a purpose to life?

The Westminster Shorter Catechism has as its first question:

  What is the chief end of man?

and the answer provided (with references):

  Man's chief end is to glorify God, [a] and to enjoy him for ever. [b]

[a]. Ps. 86:9; Isa. 60:21; Rom. 11:36; I Cor. 6:20; 10:31; Rev. 4:11
[b]. Ps. 16:5-11; 144:15; Isa. 12:2; Luke 2:10; Phil. 4:4; Rev. 21:3-4


How were the Vatican I and Vatican II councils related?

The First Vatican Council (8 December 1869 to 20 October 1870) defined dogmas on ecclesiology (incl. papal infallibility) and faith and reason in its two documents

Pastor Æternus (First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ)
Dei Filius (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith),

respectively. The council was cut short due to the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian war and invasion of Rome.
In 1923, Pope Pius XI considered it dangerous to reconvene the council because—as Cdl. Billot advised him, contrary to the counsel Pius XI sought from almost 40 other theologians—(from The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story II 4. §b)

it would impossible to conceal the existence of profound differences, within the episcopacy itself, on social, political and economic questions, and their relations with morality and the rule of faith. Because of their complexity, these questions will be presented under different aspects depending on the country, and they will give rise to discussion that will run the risk of being extended and prolonged indefinitely.
So here we have the most important reason that would seem to me to militate absolutely against the idea. The resumption of the council is desired by the worst enemies of the Church, that is, by the modernists, who are already prepared—as the most certain information testifies—to take advantage of the general situations in the Church in order to start a revolution, the new French Revolution of their hopes and dreams. It is useless to say that they will not succeed, but we will relive the sorrowful days of the end of the reign of Leo XIII and the beginning of the pontificate of Pius X; we will see even worse, and it will be the total destruction of the happy fruits of the encylical Pascendi which had reduced them [i.e. the modernists] to silence.

Here is what Cdl. Ottaviani said about John XXIII's idea to convene Vatican II (ibid. §c):

He had spoken about it to me from the moment of his election. Or rather, to be more precise, it was I who visited him in his little room at the conclave on the eve of the election. Among other things I told him, “Your Eminence, it is necessary to think about a council.” Cardinal Ruffini, who was present at the conversation, was of the same mind. Cardinal Roncalli adopted this idea and later had this to say: “I have thought of a council from the moment when I became pope.” It’s true, he welcomed our suggestion.”

The nebulous term "pastoral" was used to describe how Vatican II refused to condemn errors and heresies.
For more info on Vatican II and how it differed from all the previous ecumenical councils, see the Little Catechism on the Second Vatican Council:

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four - The Four Constitutions: Lumen Gentium on the Church

Part Five - The Four Constitutions (continued):  Dei Verbum (on sources of Revelation)

Part Six - The Four Constitutions (continued):  Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium on the liturgy

Part Seven - The Four Constitutions (continued): Gaudium et Spes - The Place of the Church in the Modern World

Part Eight – The Nine Decrees (decrees 1-5)

Part Nine - The Nine Decrees (decrees 6-9)

Part Ten – The Three Declarations (first of three: Dignitatis Humanæ: on religious liberty)

Part Eleven – The Three Declarations (second and third of three): ‘Nostra ætate’ and ‘Gravissimum educationis’

Part Twelve – CONCLUSION


What did Protestant reformers think about the date and authorship of the New Testament?

There never was any argument between the Reformers and the Catholic church regarding the canon of scripture, just as they never had any difference of belief about the Trinity doctrine. Going back to Martin Luther, here is a quote from a historian:

  The Bible for him was not strictly identical with the Word of God. God's Word is the work of redemption in Christ which became concrete in Scripture as God in Christ became incarnate in the flesh; and as Christ by the incarnation was not denuded of human characteristics, so the Scripture as the medium of the Word was not divested of human limitations." (Here I Stand, p 331, Roland Bainton, Lion 1988)

He goes on to deal with Luther's translation of the New Testament into German, published in 1522. Although Luther had "a hierarchy of values within the New Testament", the existing canon was maintained and none of the Reformers disagreed with the ancient views of origin and authorship of those texts. Obviously, they had no knowledge of current scholarship, but given that none of the New Testament writings mention the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (though 'Revelation' might have been written after the event) it's unlikely they would support a post 100 date.

As for whether "the activity of the Church predates the Scripture", the first century Church certainly was active even before the first part of the New Testament began to be written. The book of Acts shows that the Church exploded on to the scene, with great power, only ten days after Jesus had returned to heaven. Thousands were converted in a very short space of time, yet note how those first Christians kept quoting from the ancient Hebrew Scriptures that were their only "Bible" up until the New Testament Scriptures began to circulate and be copied. Without the ancient Hebrew Scriptures, there could be no Christianity as Jesus was the fulfilment of its prophecies about a Messiah. All the new converts in the first century were converted on the basis of understanding how Jesus fulfilled the already existing Hebrew Scriptures.

Your final query, whether the Catholic Tradition came before the Holy Writ or not - the Hebrew Scriptures came hundreds of years even before Jesus was born, so I assume you actually mean 'before the New Testament'. The Reformers regarded Scripture as the church's constitution which is (and I now quote from another history book):

  ...to directly counter the Roman Catholic claim that the church is the mother of Scripture. The canon, as the constitution of the church, is what constitutes a people as this people, under this government, in this body. Of course, the Reformers and their heirs never doubted that the church came before the completed canon of Scripture in history. However, they insisted that it is the word that always creates the church. ...The law and the promise were God's sacramental word (faith-creating means of grace) even before they were committed to the canon. As that word became inscripturated, the church itself found its proper constitution. ...The churches of the Reformation do not deny the ongoing authority of the church in its representative assemblies, but the key difference is this: whereas the Roman Catholic Church combines Scripture and tradition as one source of magisterial (i.e. ruling) authority, we confess that this belongs to Scripture alone, with tradition as ministerial (i.e. serving). Just as courts interpret the constitution, church courts interpret Scripture. This is why churches from the Reformation affirm the ecumenical creeds and subscribe to confessions and catechisms as communally valid interpretations of God's Word. Yet again, it must be emphasized that this authority does not arise from the church. It arises from the canon that the church seeks faithfully to interpret in dependence on the Spirit. ...The Reformers and their heirs recognized that there were many traditions in the apostolic church that were unwritten. In that era, believers were to follow the teaching and example of the apostles in both written and unwritten forms (2 Th 2:15; cf. 1Co 11:2; 2Th 3:6)... Therefore, the churches of the Reformation have received the Scriptures as the sole magisterial authority without disregarding the ministerial authority of church councils. (Pilgrim Theology pp 67-69, Michael Horton, Zondervan 2011)


How are devout Christians viewed by other believers, when they are not delivered from "evil"?

From a purely Biblical perspective, there is nothing in God's word that promises that we will not suffer.   In fact, it teaches the opposite.

From a tract put out by Living Waters Publications:

  It is true that God loves you, but you decide if His plan is
  "wonderful." If you have heard that happiness comes through Jesus
  Christ, you may like to think again. The first thing Jesus said of the
  Apostle Paul (who wrote most of the New Testament) was that He would
  show him "how great things he must suffer for (His) name's sake.1
  Three times Paul was beaten with rods, once he was stoned, three times
  he suffered shipwreck, a night and a day he spent in the sea. There
  were times when Paul was so unhappy, he wanted to die.2

  The Bible says, "All who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer
  persecution."3 It says we enter the Kingdom of God through much
  distress,4 and that we were appointed to afflictions.5

  Jesus said if we followed Him we would be reviled, persecuted, hated,
  and all manner of evil would be said against us falsely, for His sake.
  He warned that we would have to take up our cross daily, deny
  ourselves and follow Him, saying, "In the world you shall have
  tribulation," and even that we may be called to die for our faith.6
  :
  That is 100% true.  Being delivered from Evil is a valid prayer request, but we understand that it doesn't mean we will always be delivered.  Someone on this site recently said "God isn't some Genie that goes around granting wishes."  That's also 100% true.

The question appears to come from the perspective that "God has a wonderful plan for your life" and also a variation of the Prosperity Doctrine (where all our evils are caused by our own sin, but if we are just, we'll get whatever we desire).

I've always had a problem with both teachings. For a more lengthy discussion on the topic, I recommend Ray Comfort's book on the topic, freely available online in pdf format.

Some relevant verses:

  (Mark 8:34-36) If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life
  will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s
  will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world
  and forfeit his soul?

  (Acts 9:15-16) But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings,
  and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he
  must suffer for my name's sake.

  (John 15:18-21) If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me
  before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love
  its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of
  the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I
  said to you... If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you...
  because they do not know Him who sent Me.

Also, the book of Job is a pretty good example of someone that God loves,  suffering because God allowed it.  We are reminded in that story that God is sovereign, and that He allows suffering for His purposes.

Suffering increases faith, encourages reliance on God, and destroys pride.  In short, pain makes you stronger and better.  It refines us as a fire refines fine metals:

  (Isaiah 48:10)
  Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have
  chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.

So, in short, when we see Believers not "delivered from Evil" we don't think it's unnatural.  And we darn well should be thinking "what can I do to provide comfort or help".


What is the Biblical basis against being able to predict the date of the end of the world?

Jesus taught that we might be able to read the signs that it was near, but that no one would be able to know what day the end would come:

  "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. Therefore, keep awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn, or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly. And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake." —Mark 13:28-37


What is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and what power do they have?

What is Magisterium
Magiterium is the Teaching Authority.

  CCC 93 "By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained
  by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred
  teaching authority (Magisterium),. . . receives. . . the faith, once
  for all delivered to the saints. . . The People unfailingly adheres to
  this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies
  it more fully in daily life."

Who is "the Magisterium"?
The Magisterium is the Pope and the Bishops with Him.

  CCC 100 The task of interpreting the Word of God
  authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the
  Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

Please see also Catechism of the Church CCC 85-87 The Magisterium of the Church.

From this and the references, you will get answers and clarification to your post.


Why are many Protestant Churches not practicing Confession?

The Protestant Reformation is based on, among other things, "sola scriptura"--that the Bible alone is the basis for all doctrine and practice.  There are probably two essential points in this matter.
The Priesthood of All Believers
First, a common doctrine of Protestants is the priesthood of all believers.  It is believed that there is no biblical precedent in the New Covenant for a priestly class that is above the laity.  Rather, the New Testament appears to affirm that all believers are priests.

You also, [God's elect, scattered throughout Pontius, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia] as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.  1 Peter 2:5 NASB
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;  1 Peter 2:9 NASB

No Precedent for Hierarchical Confession
Secondly, there is no biblical precedent, so it is believed, for the practice of hierarchical confession--that the laity would be obliged to confess all their sins to a man of the clergy.
Perhaps the closest verse that supports confession to men is James 5:16:

Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.  James 5:16 NASB

However, this does not support the idea of hierarchical confession, but merely confession of sins to one another.  It would seem appropriate, then, for a layman, after confessing his sins to a priest, to then switch places with the priest and have the priest confess his sins to the layman.
Even in the Old Testament, David confessed his sin to God in Psalm 32.

I acknowledged my sin to You, And my iniquity I did not hide; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord”; And You forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah.  Psalm 32:5 NASB

Conclusion
So, based on the conclusion that there is no biblical foundation for the priestly class of clergy, but rather an affirmation of the priesthood of all believers, and also based on the lack of biblical foundation for hierarchical confession, the vast majority of Protestant churches do not practice confession in the Catholic manner.


Where did the account of Veronica originate?

Luke 23:27-31 tells us that certain women lamented as Jesus carried his cross to Golgotha. At this stage, there is no mention of Veronica or of anyone wiping Jesus' face.

The apocryphal Acts of Pilate (an extant copy of which is contained in the Gospel of Nicodemus, dated at around the fourth century, expanded on Luke's brief passage, saying that one of these women offered a cloth to wipe the face of Jesus. A later eleventh-century story says this resulted in a portrait on the cloth (a reproduction of which is now kept as a relic in Saint Peter's basilica in Rome).

It seems unlikely that the medieval authors, well known for their pious creativity, could have known something that the author of Luke did not know. It is even more unlikely that the woman's name, Veronica (vera + ikon = "true image"), happened to coincide with what she was famous for in this story - wiping Jesus' face and receiving a true image of his face. Nevertheless, St Veronica remains important in Catholic liturgy and she now has a place in the popular devotion of the Stations of the Cross.


Proverbs is wisdom literature, and that category seeks to describe things as they are, not necessarily what they should be.

Ecclesiastes 7:15-16, for example, says:

  In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these:
   the righteous perishing in their righteousness,
      and the wicked living long in their wickedness.
    Do not be overrighteous,
      neither be overwise—
      why destroy yourself?

Exodus 23:8 is clear that bribery is bad:

    Exodus 23:8 (ESV)

  8     And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of those who are in the right.

Proverbs 15:27 says as much as well:

  Whoever is greedy for unjust gain troubles his own household,
      but he who hates bribes will live.

And Proverbs 17:23 says don't do it:

  23 The wicked accepts a bribe in secret[a]
      to pervert the ways of justice.

Even Jesus notes the unfairness in life saying in Matthew 5:45,

  He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous

The easiest way to reconcile all of this is to say that this verse is descriptive rather than prescriptive.


I'll describe what I've seen at (traditional) Catholic masses. At some masses, the priest will consecrate a large number of hosts, more than would be needed at that mass.  These are in a ciborium on the altar (See: Wikipedia for pictures of some ciboria), which is uncovered at the time of the consecration. They are consecrated along with the host that the priest will consume at that mass. Those that are left after communion are kept in the ciborium (covered) in the tabernacle on the altar, and they are available for distribution at later masses. I'm not aware of any particular rules about when additional hosts can be consecrated, and I would guess it's just whenever the priest notices that the supply in the tabernacle is getting low.
The preceding paragraph describes what I've seen in typical churches. In places where there is no church and the mass is celebrated in rented halls, there is no tabernacle in which hosts can be stored for the weeks (or more) that can elapse between masses. (Actually, hosts should not be stored for that long anyway, because they shouldn't be allowed to get moldy.) In such a situation, I've seen them count (before mass) the number of people planning to receive communion, so that the priest can consecrate the right number of hosts (maybe a few more than the count, in case of latecomers). If any hosts remained after mass, the priest would consume them.
If, for some reason, there are not enough hosts, the priest can break them and give each communicant half (or a smaller fraction) of a host. Any small part of a consecrated host is still Christ's whole body, blood, soul, and divinity (as long as the part still has the accidents of bread --- not just a molecule or two).
To answer your other questions: At the elevation, the priest elevates only the host that he will consume. The rest remain in the ciborium. The ciborium is covered except during the consecration and the distribution of communion.
Consecrated hosts are kept in the tabernacle, except during a special ceremony from Holy Thursday to Good Friday.  Unconsecrated hosts are, I believe, stored in the sacristy, the room where the priest puts on his vestments and generally prepares for mass.


Will Adam and Eve be resurrected to eternal life or are they dead forever?

The answer to your question, I believe, is found in 1 Corinthians 15.

  20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come . . ..

Notice the words "in Adam all die." That means all God's image-bearers have this in common with the first man, Adam: They sin, and they die. Just as Adam became subject to death because of his disobedience (see Romans 5:19), we too are subject to death for our disobedience. By default, all of humanity is in Adam.

  . . . for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

Since all of God's image-bearers, including Adam (and Eve!), are all sinners, we all are in need of the regenerative grace of God. Once regenerated--though each of us will die physically, we will then be in need of the resurrection power of God in order to live forever. The clear teaching of Scripture is that "in Christ, we all shall be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22).

Perhaps a better question for you to ask would be this: Why wouldn't Adam be resurrected to eternal life? True enough, "the guilty pair, bowed down with care" couldn't believe in and receive Jesus Christ into their lives, since the Lamb of God ("the seed of the woman") would not come onto the scene for thousands of years. Yet God did prefigure the atoning death of his Son when he clothed Adam and Eve with the skins of animals--animals whose blood had to be shed to provide a temporary covering for sin.

Regarding sin, the Bible makes clear that until Christ's atoning work had been accomplished on the cross at Calvary, the sins of all God's children were covered (see, for example, Psalm 32:1; Psalm 85:2; Romans 4:7; Proverbs 10:12; Proverbs 17:9; and 1 Peter 4:8).

Moreover, Christ's blood, shed at the cross, was efficacious for the forgiveness of sins committed both prior to and after his crucifixion. His atoning death was a fait accompli as far as God was concerned, since in the eternal counsels of God, the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (see 1 Peter 2:19-20; Revelation 13:8; Colossians 1:17-18; and Ephesians 1:11).

No mere mortal can ever truly know whether or not a person is a possessor of eternal life. The Scriptures tell us clearly,

  . . . the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His," and "Everyone who names the name of the Lord is to abstain from wickedness" (2 Timothy 2:19 NASB Updated, my emphasis).

Was the first man Adam saved? Was he a possessor of eternal life? I believe he was. There are no passages in the Bible of which I am aware that indicate Adam remained under God's condemnation for having disobeyed God's clear command not to eat of the forbidden fruit. That Adam's son, Abel, sacrificed to God the firstlings from his flock indicates to me that Adam may have taught his son the significnce and importance of blood sacrifice (Genesis 4:4).

Jesus referred to Abel as righteous (see Matthew 23:35), and the apostle John referred to Cain in 1 John 3 as follows:

  For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous (vv. 11-12).

In conclusion, I see no reason why Adam would not be counted among the righteous children of God. Not that Adam was any more or any less deserving of redemption than any other child of God. Whether before or after Calvary, the fact remains that Adam, and all who are "in Adam" were, are, and will be dead in trespasses and sins. What is required for each of us to pass from death to life is the blood which Jesus interposed between sinners and a holy God.


Q: What is an overview of how Christians interpret 2 Timothy 1:6-7 and apply it to their own lives?
2 Timothy 1:6-7 NIV

For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which
is in you through the laying on of my hands. 7 For the Spirit God gave
us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and
self-discipline.

As a Christian, I believe 2 Timothy 1:6-7 is a straightforward exhortation from Paul to Timothy. Paul had selected Timothy to travel with him years before the Books of 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy were written as we see in this passage from Acts:
Acts 16:1-3 NIV

Paul arrived in the city of Derbe and then went to Lystra, where a
disciple named Timothy lived. Timothy’s mother was a Jewish believer,
but his father was Greek. 2 The believers in Lystra and Iconium spoke
well of Timothy. 3 Paul wanted Timothy to go with him. So he
circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in those places and
because he knew that Timothy’s father was Greek.

Paul mentored Timothy in many ways and this passage (2 Timothy 1:6-7) is simply a continuation of Paul’s long-term encouragement. The passage has strong similarities to a portion of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount:
Matthew 5:15-16 NIV

Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they
put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16
In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see
your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

I believe Paul was encouraging Timothy to be bold in his preaching and teaching. Paul believed Timothy had been called to preach the Gospel so Paul wanted to make sure Timothy’s shyness and relative youthfulness did not cause him to stop. That is, to cover his light. Paul made this same message clear in:
1 Timothy 4:12-16 NIV

Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an
example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and
in purity. 13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of
Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. 14 Do not neglect your gift,
which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid
their hands on you. 15 Be diligent in these matters; give yourself
wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. 16 Watch your
life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you
will save both yourself and your hearers.

The gift Paul referenced was the Spirit of God calling Timothy to preach and to share the Gospel. Timothy received this gift in Paul's presence and Paul and other elders laid their hands on Timothy to demonstrate their acceptance of him and his gift. Paul wanted Timothy to keep preaching and teaching. Publicly acknowledging Jesus as His Lord would certainly 'fan the flames' of the Spirit of God Timothy had received.
I take the words of encouragment Paul wrote to Timothy as being written to me too. I don't want to be timid in my faith, but rather to have power, love, and self discipline also. My calling may be different from Timothy's, but I believe Paul's words apply to me too as I 'fan the flames' of the Spirit of God within me.


At the very least, all of creation will be "reconciled" - ie, made right again - at Christ's second coming:

"For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now." {Romans 8:20-22}

and

"But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells." {2 Peter 3:13}

and

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea." {Revelation 21:1}

More importantly, though, is the context in which Colossians 1:20 is found:

"For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven." {Colossians 1:13-20}

The greater context of the immediate passage, let alone the rest of the letter to Colossae, describes Christ's matchlessness, His supremity, etc.
Given that without Christ creation cannot exist, and given that Christ was sent to earth to save the elect of God, and given that eventually all will be made right at His second coming, the "all things" Paul references truly are "all things" (not all people, though, as some are not elected to be saved and are instead, like the Devil and his angels, condemned to eternal punishment).


When did knowledge of Christ's sacrifice become necessary for salvation?

Pre-Christianity Salvation
The concept of "salvation" before Christ was not the same concept as we see today.  The idea of salvation back then was that God would come and save us from whatever affliction we were dealing with.  God brought salvation from the Egyptians;  He brought salvation from the giants that controlled Canaan; He brought salvation from lions and from being thrown in a fire.
So, the idea that "salvation" before Christ was brought from the hope of "future redemptive work" is very much invalid.  "Salvation" before Christ was brought from following God and obeying his commands.
For illustrative purposes:

Deuteronomy 28:1 (NIV)
If you fully obey the LORD your God and carefully follow all his commands I give you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations on earth.

(a secular source, a non-secular source)
Pre-Christianity Remission of Sins
However, in the context of Christianity, if we say "salvation", we mean that Christ has saved us from the bondage of sin.  When a Christian says "I am saved", he means that God has forgiven his sin and that he's been freed from that bondage.  The debt has been paid; the sin is forgiven.
The concept of remission of Sins pre-Christ was that of animal sacrifice.  The sacrifice of the animal was performed for the atonement of sins. (See Leviticus 4 and Leviticus 16.)
To show that sins were forgiven:

Leviticus 16:30 (NIV)
because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins.

Once the Isrealites were scattered from the promised land, the animal sacrifices stopped and prayers from the forgiveness of sins began.
I won't go into that too deep.  But here's a post on Judaism.SE that explains why they are not required to sacrifice animals: Why don't Jews sacrifice animals anymore?
The point, though, is that the Jews (pre-Jesus and currently) are not expecting future redemption to be forgiven of sins.  They are (rightly so) expecting their sins to be forgiven at the time when they ask for forgiveness and truly repent.
The Salvation of Jesus
The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross has brought about a new type of salvation:  salvation from sins.  He has provided us a way to gain access to God directly; he has become our mediator, our savior, and our redeemer.
When people hear of Jesus, his story, his resurrection, and the forgiveness of sins that we have through his sacrifice, it is at that point that they become culpable for believing or disbelieving his sacrifice.
Prior to hearing of Jesus and learning of his sacrifice and his grace and mercy, people are still under the old ways and the old rules.  (See also What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus?)
To answer your question:
The requirement was never "faith in future redemptive work".  The requirement was sacrifice of atonement and repentance.  This requirement is still around today, but the atonement was the perfect atonement made on the cross.  Prior to learning about Jesus, we must make atonement in other ways.  After learning about Jesus, we can accept his amazing gift of his sacrifice as the perfect atonement.
The burden lies on the heart, not on the timing.  It's learning about Jesus that changes the "salvation" (forgiveness) from atonement through animal sacrifice to atonement through messianic sacrifice.
Summary
The sacrifice of Jesus completely changed the concepts of "salvation" and forgiveness of sins.  His sacrifice allows people to be forgiven of their sins without the sacrifice of animals.  He has become the perfect sacrifice for us.
The requirement for forgiveness was never "faith in future redemptive work".  The requirement has always been faith in God and following his laws.  (Remember, Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.)
It is the point of learning of Jesus and accepting him as the Messiah that allows us to turn from other atonement to the perfect atonement.  Once we accept Jesus, we can rest on his perfect sacrifice.


Who first described Pentecost as a reversal of Babel?

Two fourth-century fathers clearly make this connection. First, Cyril of Jerusalem:

  The multitude of the hearers was confounded;—it was a second confusion, in the room of that first evil one at Babylon.  For in that confusion of tongues there was division of purpose, because their thought was at enmity with God; but here minds were restored and united, because the object of interest was godly. (Lecture 17.17)

Gregory of Nazianzus, during his discussion of Pentecost, contrasts Babel:

  But as the old Confusion of tongues was laudable, when men who were of one language in wickedness and impiety, even as some now venture to be, were building the Tower; for by the confusion of their language the unity of their intention was broken up, and their undertaking destroyed; so much more worthy of praise is the present miraculous one [i.e., the tongues at Pentecost]. For being poured from One Spirit upon many men, it brings them again into harmony. (Oration 41)

Augustine, shortly thereafter, clearly makes the connection in his exposition of Psalm 55:9:

  Recollect that tower of proud men made after the deluge [...] they builded up a lofty tower, and the Lord divided the tongues of them. [...] Through proud men, divided were the tongues; through humble Apostles, united were the tongues. Spirit of pride dispersed tongues, Spirit Holy united tongues. For when the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples, with the tongues of all men they spake, by all men they were understood: tongues dispersed, into one were united. (Psalm LV.10)

A number of later fathers continued this understanding.  In the sixth century, we have Pseudo-Fulgentius (quoted in Henri de Lubac, Catholicism) and, quoted here, Arator:

  Then there was a confusion of tongues, though they were of the same race; now there is one tongue though the peoples are many. (Quoted in Hiller, Arator on the Acts)

And in the early 8th century, Bede refers to the Church speaking various languages at Pentecost:

  How the arrogance of Babylon scattered the unity of languages, [and] the humbleness of the Church gathers it back. (Commentary on Acts)


The magicians of Pharaoh performed miracles, copying Moses' works when Moses was sent to Egypt to deliver Israel.

  And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said. Exodus 7:22 [KJV]

Jesus warns that :

  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many miracles (δυναμεις) ? Matthew 7:22 [KJV]

But he shall say to them :

  I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:23 [KJV]

Paul also says :

  though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. I Corinthians 13:2. [KJV]

It is prophesied in the Apocalypse that in the last days that which is termed the second beast and the false prophet works miracles on earth in order to encourage worship towards an entity other than God :

  And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. Revelation 13:12,13 [KJV]

So, not every miracle is of God.


Where did the notion that Adam and Eve ate an APPLE come from?

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word apple has, until recently, always meant simply "fruit" in English. This was certainly the case at the time of the earliest English Bible translations in the 1600s.

  In Middle English and as late as 17c., it was a generic term for all fruit other than berries but including nuts (e.g. Old English fingeræppla "dates," literally "finger-apples;" Middle English appel of paradis "banana," c.1400). Hence its grafting onto the unnamed "fruit of the forbidden tree" in Genesis.

(emphasis added)


In the parable of the sower, what exegetical reasons are there to interpret the third type of soil to be genuine Christians?

Mark 4:10-20 explains in a little more detail what 4:1-8 recorded. Jesus is explaining to the disciples the purpose of parables as a whole, and we see that he uses the Parable of the Sower again to describe the people that the disciples will encounter.

  18And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word, 19but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.

Initially, the person is hearing the Word (v 18), but desires of the flesh and worldly things make their way in, causing that person to not produce fruit (v 19).


How to go about learning about Christianity for someone from a non-Christian background?

A very readable overview of Christian history may be found in Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley.

A deeper dive into more recent history is Eerdman's Handbook to Christianity in America.

For a good overview of the common beliefs shared by a majority of Christian groups, try Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.

For a somewhat polemical take on the contributions of the Catholic church, try How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods.

The last book I will cite I have not read, but comes well-reviewed:

David Daniell. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003. xx + 899 pp. $40.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-300-09930-0. The following review should make it clear how comprehensive is the author's study of the impact of the English Bible on English culture: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=9709


In Mormonism, do persons ordained as Teachers in the Aaronic Priesthood have actual teaching duties?

EDIT: As of this annoucement, some parts of this answer are out of date. I'll keep it as it is now though for historical purposes.

Yes

Teachers usually do not teach on Sunday (unless assigned to teach a class), but are assigned as home teachers.

All teachers are assigned one or more families to home teach. A new teacher is usually assigned a more experienced Priesthood holder (such as an Elder or High Priest) to mentor them, but they usually give the lesson half of the time. (This lesson could be considered a "lecture"). For example, in the New Era (a magizine for the youth of the Church), in Watching over the Church

  One of the most important parts of a successful home teaching visit is
  preparing and sharing a lesson. Every other month Brandon Stewart
  gives the lesson. Brandon has learned how to prepare a lesson by
  watching his senior companion, his father. Thanks to his dad’s good
  example, giving the lesson is Brandon’s favorite part of home
  teaching.

They might even create the lesson themselves (under the direction of the older Priesthood holder), although usually they do not. Home teachers also have other duties, which can be said to be "teaching by example", although I guess you would consider this more "abstract".

Some teachers are also assigned as the president of a teacher's quorum (in particular, one per quorum). This will usually be a 14 or 15 year old. They also might teach (in particular, they would teach other teachers), again under the direction of older priesthood holders.

It should be noted as well than any member can be assigned to give a talk on Sunday.

Is a teacher in the Aaronic teacher the same as college professors? Sadly no. Do they teach? Yes.


What is the difference between an apostle and a disciple?

The Oxford Dictionary gives a generic meaning of disciple as:

  A follower or pupil of a teacher, leader, or philosopher.

The specific meaning is given as

  A personal follower of Christ during his life, especially one of the twelve Apostles.

A definition of apostle is

  An important early Christian teacher or pioneering missionary.

Apostle is from the same Greek word as post and conveys the sense of a messenger of Christ.

Prior to the Ascension Peter etc. were essentially following  Jesus and learning from Him. They were disciples. After Whitsun they were teaching about Him. They were His apostles. So the fundamental difference is between learning and teaching.

They also conducted a preaching tour during Jesus' earthly ministry. So at that point they were both.

In practice, though, people often use the terms interchangeably.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses still believe the number of the 144,000 in Revelation is a literal number?

The number 144,000  is still believed to be a literal number.  The reason for the number of persons claiming to be spirit anointed increasing in recent years can only be explained 2 ways:

1) The number chosen from the earth is going to consist of a larger number of modern day Christians  than previously thought.

2) Many of the persons who are counted as partakers of bread and wine at the annual memorial of Christ’s death are mistaken about being called.

Remember JWs number under 8.5 million worldwide but over 20 million persons attended the memorial. As the number of attendees goes up the number of cases of persons partaking in error goes up too.

The actual number of spirit anointed brothers and sisters on earth today is known only by the King who calls them.

Do we worry about the number ?
See  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/402016046?p=par#h=23

When does the calling of Christians to a heavenly hope cease?

See https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2007327


What are vows? Are they relevant even today?

Well, I suggest you read A Defense of Rash Vows by G.K. Chesterton for more enlightement.

  Modern sages offer to the lover, with an ill-flavoured grin, the largest liberties and the fullest irresponsibility; but they do not respect him as the old Church respected him; they do not write his oath upon the heavens, as the record of his highest moment. They give him every liberty except the liberty to sell his liberty, which is the only one that he wants.

But here's the gist of it.

Married couples make a vow to each other, with Christ as their witness
Priests and others make vows to the Catholic Church or consecrate themselves to Mary (as I have).
Other vows can be of a more mundane purpose (I promise to eat my weight in kelp), but still important to keep if for no other reason than, 'to thine own self be true'

  The man who makes a vow makes an appointment with himself at some distant time or place. The danger of it is that himself should not keep the appointment. And in modern times this terror of one's self, of the weakness and mutability of one's self, has perilously increased, and is the real basis of the objection to vows of any kind. A modern man refrains from swearing to count the leaves on every third tree in Holland Walk, not because it is silly to do so (he does many sillier things), but because he has a profound conviction that before he had got to the three hundred and seventy-ninth leaf on the first tree he would be excessively tired of the subject and want to go home to tea. In other words, we fear that by that time he will be, in the common but hideously significant phrase, another man.

Making a vow gives an individual the liberty to constrain themselves.  Modernity rejects this notion because it rejects obedience (even to yourself) and it rejects truth (even being honest with yourself).  So, in the sense that no one will take your vow seriously, yes they're irrelevant today.   But to the Christian, who does not live in accord with the age, vows are very important and they can help us to be obedient to the Church and to Christ.

Good vows will keep our wills as closely aligned to God's as possible.


What happens to one's sins if the priest omits the words of the Absolution?

For a sacrament to be valid, the matter and form ought to be performed according to the proper ritual, along with the due intention on the part of the minister of the sacrament.

The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII, On the Sacraments in General, Canon XI).

In the first scenario, a priest omitting deliberately the formula of absolution might be an indication of the Priest not intending to do what the Church does. If that were the case, not only would this invalidate the sacrament, but also on the account of the absence of the correct formula, which is the form of the sacrament.

If the penitent is aware of the omission, they should request for the absolution with the right formula. The Priest would be offending gravely.

In the second case, the priest unintentionally forgetting the formula of absolution, and not through carelessness, and especially if this is one-off, there would be no indication of absence of the intention on the Priest's part, so long as during the administration of that sacrament, the Priest intended to do what the Church does.

Again the penitent if aware, should request for the absolution.

Please see:

ON THE INTENTION REQUIRED IN THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENTS: A Summary of Dogma and Theology compiled by Christopher V. Mirus | EWTN.
Sacraments | New Advent.
Intention | New Advent.

The Catechism does not speak directly to a priest forgetting to give absolution, but there are several statements that would make one think forgetfulness does not determine a failure to receive forgiveness for sin.  Here is a sampling of some of the relevant references:

1468 Supports my initial statement above

  “The whole power of the sacrament of Penance consists in restoring us to God's grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship.” [Roman Catechism, II, V, 18] Reconciliation with God is thus the purpose and effect of this sacrament. For those who receive the sacrament of Penance with contrite heart and religious disposition, reconciliation “is usually followed by peace and serenity of conscience with strong spiritual consolation.” [Council of Trent (1551): DS 1674] Indeed the sacrament of Reconciliation with God brings about a true “spiritual resurrection,” restoration of the dignity and blessings of the life of the children of God, of which the most precious is friendship with God. [Cf. Lk 15:32]

In 1441, the Church points out only God forgives sin so the forgetfulness of it's ordained minister, priest or bishop, would not negate forgiveness

  Only God forgives sins. [Cf. Mk 2:7] Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, “The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” and exercises this divine power: “Your sins are forgiven.” [Mk 2:5, 10; Lk 7:48] Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name. [Cf. Jn 20:21-23]

1461 points out that it is the bishops who are the primary ministers of this sacrament

  Since Christ entrusted to his apostles the ministry of reconciliation, [Cf. In 20:23; 2 Cor 5:18] bishops who are their successors, and priests, the bishops' collaborators, continue to exercise this ministry. Indeed bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

1464 points out that priests must make it available

  Priests must encourage the faithful to come to the sacrament of Penance and must make themselves available to celebrate this sacrament each time Christians reasonably ask for it. [Cf. CIC, can. 486; CCEO, can. 735; PO 13.]


Why are there so many priests in the LDS Church?

A priest in the LDS Church is a priesthood office to which young men are ordained at the age of 16, or adults who are still progressing to higher priesthood offices. Most men in the church will be ordained priests after ecclesiastical interviews with their leaders and through demonstrating faithful living. From D&C 20:

  60 Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according to the gifts and callings of God unto him; and he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordains him.

A priest has responsibilities in the church to administer the sacrament, see that meetings are held regularly and in accordance with the Spirit, and to help take care of physical needs of the congregation:

  46 The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and
  baptize, and administer the sacrament,

  47 And visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally
  and in secret and attend to all family duties.

  48 And he may also ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons.

  49 And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder
  present;

  50 But when there is an elder present, he is only to preach, teach,
  expound, exhort, and baptize,

  51 And visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally
  and in secret and attend to all family duties.

  52 In all these duties the priest is to assist the elder if occasion
  requires.

Oh, and priests are also typically educated in seminary, in areas where it is available. In most parts of the world, members who are high school age go to seminary class before or during school. Its a four year program of scripture and doctrine study. These classes are also for the young women.

Unlike other Christian denominations, a priest does not necessarily give a sermon on Sundays. Speakers are chosen by the local priesthood leaders and can be nearly anyone in the ward (local congregation).

I'm mobile now but if required I can cite some scriptures.