What does Jesus mean when He says that we should be like children?

Great question!
There are so many things about this verse that are so awesome. I would propose Jesus' answer has a two-fold answer.

Part 1
First, Jesus says that we will not enter the kingdom of heaven unless we become like a child. We need to change our mindset and think like children think. Not that we become immature and act childish in the traditional sense, but that we accept things in simplicity. Children have a way of believing everything you say and believing it as fact. It's only when we grow up that we tend to question everything. The currency of the kingdom of heaven is faith. It's what moves God's heart and what the great people of God are known for. So for the first part Jesus is telling us, "have faith like a child".

Part 2
The humility of children is very evident. It's a beautiful thing to watch. Although they may compete with each other in games and such, the humiliity they have without even knowing it is astouding! They were also thought of in Jewish culture as insignificant until they were 12. Essentially, Jesus is saying act as if you were the lowest in society. Jesus often tell us to go lower if we want to be higher. Our humility in His eyes equals in direct proportion to how He exalts us. The word says over and over that our job is to humble ourselves in His sight and He exalts us.

I hope this makes sense and helps :)


Is Metatron actually part of Catholic dogma?

I am not a Catholic but I will try to answer anyway.

The term dogma has a specific technical meaning: it refers to a belief that Catholics are required by the Church to accept. There are many beliefs which are not dogmas, even if they are widely held to be true.

The book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott (1952) is a standard reference. He lists ten beliefs under angelology.

In the beginning of time God created spiritual essences (angels) out of nothing.
The nature of angels is spiritual.
The angels are by nature immortal.
God set a supernatural final end for the angels, the immediate vision of God, and endowed them with sanctifying grace in order that they might achieve this end.
The angels were subjected to a moral testing.
The evil spirits (demons) were created good by God; they became evil through their own fault.
The primary task of the good angels is the glorification and the service of God.
The secondary task of the good angels is the protection of men and care for their salvation.
Every one of the faithful has his own special guardian angel from baptism.
The Devil posesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam's sin.

Among these, 1, 2, 8 and 10 are listed as "de fide", meaning true by reason of divine revelation; 4, 7 and 9 are "sententia certa", meaning theologically certain; 3 is "sententia communis", meaning commonly believed but not necessarily certain; and 5 is "certa" for the fallen angels and "communis" for the rest. No mention here of Metatron, or anything of the sort.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says under "Angels" that "no proposition touching the angelic hierarchies is binding on our faith". It refers to De Coelesti Hierarchia by Pseudo-Dionysus, and the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, as containing commonly accepted beliefs about the different types of angel; neither of these mention Metatron, or any figure fulfilling that role. All such writings are seen as speculative, and within the domain that theologians can legitimately argue about. Metatron crops up only in the encyclopedia entry for "Kabbala", but the context is explaining that it is a belief held within Judaism.

In conclusion, it seems that Metatron is very far from being Catholic dogma, or even a belief that many Catholics hold.


What is the Biblical basis against Apostolic Succession?

Protestants are not generally against the idea of certain individuals having been called and gifted by God to exercise authority over a local assembly of believers, nor a hierarchy within that assembly, nor even a limited regional hierarchy within a denomination.  If this authority were what the idea of apostolic succession detailed there would be little difficulty.  It is the exercise of strong regional and ultimately global authority, which seems to be the ultimate outcome of apostolic succession as practiced by some traditions, that alarms most protestants.
Perhaps the biggest biblical basis against the passing of the apostolic office at a global level is the lack of biblical support for the notion.  There is clear and plenteous basis for the notion of guarding and passing on the apostolic message, which is the gospel of God, but the office of apostle is clearly a gifting of God, clearly held by multiple men at the same time and it is clearly not necessary for the succession to remain unbroken for the message to remain, for it is God who protects both his truth and his elect.
In both 1 Timothy and Titus we are given fairly specific lists of the attributes that Paul wants Timothy and Titus to look for in appointing overseers of churches.  Neither list indicates anything sounding like the passing of a mantle of apostolic authority.  In each list the qualifications appear as blameless character, good report, etc.  In fact, what is portrayed is the time tested fruit of the spirit in the lives of these men which qualify them as elders/bishops/overseers.

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. - 1 Timothy 3:2-7
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. - Titus 1:5-9

Just as Timothy was charged by Paul to exhort, rebuke, teach, and correct so Titus was commanded by Paul to do so with all authority.  Both of these men were to teach what they had seen and heard from Paul and that which was in accord with the Scriptures with the faith and love of Christ by the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you. - 2 Timothy 1:13-14

There is nothing in the Scripture that indicates some specialized process of seminary training (not that education is bad) that qualifies a person for leadership of a church.  Apostles, pastors, teachers, etc are called and gifted by God through the Holy Spirit which is given by and upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  Men are then recognized within a particular body of believers for lives which demonstrate the truth they espouse and those men are set apart for a particular ministry.
The resistance to the kind of Apostolic Succession which leads to a consolidation of authority in one man was nothing newly begun in the Protestant Reformation.  Many of the Church Fathers wrote as early as the 3rd Century in opposition to the idea of the passing of the primacy of Peter; notably Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian.  They considered an equality and unity of Bishops wherein each Bishop in the church in each city sat in 'Peter's chair":  Whomever sat in the 'chair' of the See in Rome held authority only over the Church in Rome rather than everywhere and whomever confessed Peter's confession of "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God" was, by virtue of that confession, both 'rock' and 'key holder'.
There is one God, one faith, one baptism, and one spirit and if there is any connecting principle flowing from one Church leader to the next it is the very same principle which unites all those who are born again by the Grace of God through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.


Are supporters of gay rights considered apostates within the LDS Church?

I think the clearest thing I've seen said on this was a statement by Elder Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (statement starts close to minute 9) in a press conference in January, 2015:

We have members, individual members in the Church with a variety of different opinions and beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues, reflect back on the Equal Rights Amendment years ago, this isn’t the first issue, in our view it doesn’t become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders, if that’s a deliberate and persistent effort, trying to get others to follow them, to draw others away, trying to pull people out of the church, or away from its teachings and doctrines. That’s very different for us, than someone who feels one way or another on a political stance or a particular action to support a group, Affirmation or any others that you named, these are things that there are fine lines here and there.

This is consistent with one of the other actions specified as apostasy in the handbook, even before the recent changes (see the unhighlighted portions of the handbook at the bottom of this article):

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

So the takeaway from this would be that, unless you are persistently and publicly voicing your opposition to a teaching of the church, you are not necessarily considered to be in apostasy.
One final note, in relation to your quotation of the temple interview questions: Another contributor stated, in response to a different question about supporting polygamy and standing within the church, that "temple worthiness is on the far opposite end of the spectrum from excommunication: one who may not enter the temple may not be near disciplinary action." Although about excommunication, and not apostasy, I think the same idea applies here.


What is the difference between Baptism of Jesus and Baptism of others?

From a Protestant, Evangelical perspective, the baptism of Jesus by the prophet John was not a baptism of repentance; rather, it was a baptism into a way of life for Jesus which culminated in his ultimate baptism: his cross-death for the sins of the world.
Recall that Jesus asked James and John, the sons of Zebedee, a poignant question when they asked if they could sit next to Jesus when he came into his kingdom. For reasons of context, I include a lengthy passage:

Jesus Predicts His Death a Third Time
32 They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33 “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”
The Request of James and John
35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”
36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.
37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”
38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”
39 “We can,” they answered.
Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”
41 When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:32-45 NIV, my emphases).

Truly, Jesus lived in the shadow of the cross. Several times (or more) Jesus predicted his death to his disciples, but each time they failed to grasp what Jesus meant (see, for example, Mark 9:30-32 NIV). Only after his resurrection did the pieces of the puzzle come together for them.
Peter in particular actually rebuked Jesus for his plain teaching about his coming trial, death, and resurrection. Jesus in turn rebuked Peter, saying,

“Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men” (see Mark 8:31-33 RSV).

We read that after he was baptized by John,

Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan [River] and was led around by the Spirit in the wilderness for forty days being tempted by the devil (Luke 4:1-2 NASB).

With the exception of Jesus' transfiguration (and his death, burial, and resurrection), his baptism was perhaps the most pivotal event in his adult life. The baptism signaled not only the beginning of his public ministry, but it foreshadowed the giving of his life at Calvary as a ransom for many.
In conclusion, as for Jesus' baptism being a fulfillment of all righteousness, that fulfillment was also, perhaps, the capstone of having successfully completed 30 years of humble obedience to the Father. You'll recall that at Jesus' baptism,

. . . the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased" (Luke 3:22 NASB).

With that declaration by the Father, Jesus did battle with the devil and thereafter began in earnest his journey to Calvary.


When are the various assorted labels for Catholics - see body - applied and how are they related?

Understanding the question as asking:

1) In what context are all these labels used? 2) what do they signify? 3) and what is their canonical status according to the RCC? 4) Are some or all of them considered schismatics by the RCC?

About the following groups/labels:
1.Traditional Catholics [Catholics who identify themselves as Trads] 2. SSPX - Society of St. Pius X. 3. Opus Dei 4. 'Ultra-Conservative'. 5. Jesuit. 6. Conservative 7. Liberal 8. 'Neo-Catholic'. 9. [Roman Catholic in the] Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in the UK 10. Eastern Rite Catholic.

Answering first

The Eastern Rite Catholic lady belongs to one of the Eastern Rites [Churches] of the Catholic Church;

Mr. Andrew Leach belongs to an ecclesiastical structure called a Personal Ordinariate in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church;

Opus Dei is a Catholic Institution that is a type of an ecclesiastical structure called a Personal Prelature in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church; and

Pope Francis belongs to the Religious Order of the Jesuits in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church.

As regards, their canonical status, all of the above are Catholics - the expression more Catholic than the Pope comes to mind - in the Catholic Church. The Eastern Rites and the Roman Rite are Catholic Rites in the Catholic Church, the ecclesiastical structures were conceived and created by the Catholic to further the mission of the Catholic Church, and the Religious Orders are approved by the Church as ways for individuals to achieve sanctity and serve the Church.

SSPX - The Society of St. Pius X, is an international priestly society founded in 1970 by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in the diocese of Fribourg, Switzerland. The members are all Catholics but currently, the society does not have a canonical status within the Catholic Church. During the pontificate of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, SSPX was offered the canonical status of a Personal Prelature as part of a deal to heal the group’s rift with the Catholic Church. The deal fell through. It is unclear whether they are in schism since there appears to be no formal declaration from the Vatican in this regard. A Catholic ought to consult with their Ordinary regarding SSPX.

The labels do not have any significance  and meaning in the Catholic Church. One is a [faithful] Catholic or not, and that includes the Pope.

Understanding the Church terminology above

The various Rites [A Christian rite, in this sense comprises the manner of performing all services for the worship of God and the sanctification of men], are or have arisen from the three major groupings of Rites based on this initial transmission of the faith, the Roman, the Antiochian (Syria) and the Alexandrian (Egypt). I personally see the stamp of St. Peter, the first Pope on these first three Rites.

The Church sets up ecclesiatical structures to futher her mission. The Personal Ordinariate was erected to enable (groups of) Anglicans to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church, and a Personal Prelature is a juridical structure introduced by the Second Vatican Council. The Council decree Presbyterorum Ordinis stated that, among other institutions, “special dioceses or personal prelatures” could be established “to carry out special pastoral tasks in different regions or among any race in any part of the world”.

Within the Church, there are innumerable ways as there are individuals or stars in heaven to achieve sanctity and express holiness within the Church, the ways to manifest the holy in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and that's why there has arisen over the course of the life of Church religious orders [cf. Religious Life | New Advent] like the Jesuits.

This variety and diversity in the Church, in its Rites, in its Ecclesiastical Structures, and in the Vocations/Callings of her children, can best be summarized by:

  “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things,
  charity.” - St. Augustine of Hippo.

We are now left with the Labels - There isn't a 'page and line' for any of these in the Catholic Church!

As for the labels Conservative and Liberal (and the others in the spectrum: ultra-conservative, moderate, progressive, etc.), these seem as from the US sociopolitical landscape and a lens through which those familiar with them, attempt to understand and thereafter apply to individuals and groups in the Church.

Traditionalist/Trad is the label some Catholics identify with. They describe themselves as being or wanting to be the Catholics of the pre-conciliar Church.

Note: Wikipedia applies this label to SSPX and SSPX speaks of itself as 'firmly embracing a traditional, Catholic worldview'.

A Neo-Catholic as a term coined by Mr. Gerry Matatics and popularized by Mr. Chris Ferrara in his book The Great Facade, is:

  [A] combination of conservative and liberal elements representing a
  progressive tendency overall. They are not usually the cause of
  liberalism but enablers of the liberalism in the Church [...].

Further reading:

Catholic Rites and Churches | EWTN.
Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite | Pope Pail VI, November 21, 1964.
Q&A | Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter and FAQ | Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses have one Saviour or Two?

Jehovah’s Witnesses have only one principal Savior, Jehovah God.  Jesus Christ is exalted as the “Chief Agent and Savior (Acts 5:31) because it is THROUGH Jesus that salvation is accomplished:

  Savior - Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2: Jehovah is identified as the principal Savior, the only Source of deliverance. (Isa 43:11; 45:21) He was the Savior and Deliverer of Israel, time and again. (Ps 106:8, 10, 21; Isa 43:3; 45:15; Jer 14:8)...  When Jesus was on earth, Jehovah was his Savior, supporting and strengthening him to maintain integrity through his strenuous trials.—Heb 5:7; Ps 28:8.

  Along with his role as Savior, Jehovah is also the “Repurchaser.” (Isa 49:26; 60:16) In the past he redeemed his people Israel from captivity. In delivering Christians from sin’s bondage, he does the repurchasing through his Son Jesus Christ (1Jo 4:14), Jehovah’s provision for salvation, who is therefore exalted as “Chief Agent and Savior.” (Ac 5:31) Accordingly, Jesus Christ can rightly be called “our Savior,” even though he performs the salvation as the agent of Jehovah. (Tit 1:4; 2Pe 1:11) The name Jesus, given to God’s Son by angelic direction, means “Jehovah Is Salvation,” for, said the angel, “he will save his people from their sins.” (Mt 1:21; Lu 1:31) This name points out that Jehovah is the Source of salvation, accomplished through Jesus. For this reason we find the Father and the Son spoken of together in connection with salvation.—Tit 2:11-13; 3:4-6.  Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003848

  What Is God’s Way to Salvation? Watchtower 1960:  As mankind’s source of salvation Jehovah God provided the perfect man, whose life could ransom the human race, by transferring the life force of his chief angelic Son in the heavens to the womb of a virgin. Because the child that was born did not receive its life through Adam’s line of descent but from God, it was perfect. Thus Jesus Christ became equal to Adam and able to ransom mankind by laying down his perfect human life. “Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul [or life] a ransom in exchange for many.”—Matt. 20:28.  Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1960161#h=14

(Emphasis mine)

EDIT: I have deleted the part of my answer that caused offense and would refer instead to the 22 October 1976 Awake article, ‘How Many Saviors Do You Have?’ and invite people to read the article in its entirety to get the Jehovah’s Witness perspective, part of which says this:

  Salvation belongs to Jehovah,” declared the inspired psalmist. (Ps. 3:8) Through his prophet Isaiah, the Almighty stated: “I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.”—Isa. 43:11.  But it may be asked: ‘Is not Jesus Christ the Savior? So, then, are not Jehovah and Jesus the same, making our Savior but one, God?’  But what about Jesus Christ? He, too, cannot be spoken of as being a Savior besides Jehovah, that is, as a rival of his Father.   The Scriptures clearly establish that Jesus’ role as Savior was assigned to him by his Father...  Because salvation comes from Jehovah God through Jesus Christ, a “great crowd” (standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb) is depicted in the book of Revelation as making the following declaration: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.” (Rev. 7:9, 10) Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101976768
  Here are the relevant Bible verses from the New World Translation:

  Psalm 130:8 NWT: “And he himself [Jehovah] will redeem Israel...”

  Luke 2:11 NWT: “because there was born to you today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord”

  2 Timothy 1:9-10 NWT: “This was given us in [connection with] Christ Jesus before times longlasting, but it has now been clearly evident through the manifestation of our Savior, Christ Jesus...”

  Titus 1:3 NWT: “under command of our Savior, God.”

  Jude 25 NWT: “To the only God our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, might and authority for all past eternity and now and into all eternity. Amen.”

Jehovah is identified as the principal Savior, but Jesus Christ is called “our Savior,” even though he performs the salvation as the agent of Jehovah.  Jehovah is the Source of salvation, accomplished through Jesus.  That is the official view of Jehovah’s Witnesses.  I think that means they have only one Saviour.


Is God accountable for all things - good AND bad?

I'll answer what seems to be the core of your question.

  If a skilled labourer is being thankful to god for the opportunities he gave > him to acquire his skill - should the unemployed labourer complain to god for
  treating him unfairly and not giving him opportunity?

A consistent theme in Christian thought is to always be thankful to God, in good times and in bad.

From the point of view of one Christian denomination, Catholic, misfortune and suffering are opportunities to get closer to God, and to let God lead us to a productive path in accord with His will.  In the case you cite, the response recommended is to be thankful to God for providing another opportunity.  The labourer is unemployed, so he embarks on a journey to find employment.  The journey itself will reveal a variety of opportunities and graces if the Labourer trusts God and goes forth.   (If all he does is sit around and complain that God didn't find him a job, how thankful is that?)

There's a longer discussion here based upon St Paul's letters and their treatment of suffering as a gift from God.  A few points.

  Pope John Paul II explains why St. Paul writes so much on suffering:
  “The Apostle shares his own discovery and rejoices in it because of all those whom it can help – just as it helped him – to understand the salvific meaning of suffering” (Salvifici Doloris, 1).

From Scripture:

  Philippians 3:8-11 - Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God depends that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his suffering, becoming like him in his death, that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead on faith;
  2 Corinthians 12:7-10 - And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak then I am strong”


From the Tyndale Bible Dictionary:

SILOAM, TOWER OF Edifice that collapsed, killing 18 people. Jesus compared those killed by the fallen tower to the rest of the people living in Jerusalem (Lk 13:4–5). Though nothing is known of this tower, it seems reasonable to conclude that it was situated in Jerusalem. Perhaps it can be identified with the great tower built by Nehemiah on the wall of Ophel (2 Chr 27:3; Neh 3:26–27) or with one of the towers built on the wall of Jerusalem near the pool of Siloam.

According to each of the 10 commentaries I searched through (and based on what I remember as well), there is no external corroboration of this incident.  That said, the death of 18 people, while clearly significant to those involved, is not necessarily something that would be preserved in the historical record.  Hundreds of people were crucified each year, and yet no extant list exists of that either.
The facts of the case, however, aren't really all that relevant to the point which Jesus was trying to make.  It's a simple argument - God neither punishes or rewards based on man's merit.  This is highly consistent with a whole of teaching on grace, God's soveirgnity, impassability, and the popular axiom 'There is nothing you can do to make God love you more, there is nothing you could have done to make him love you less.'
Consistent with the notion in Isaiah 55:8-9 (that God is just way above us), Isaiah 64:6 (our righteousness is as filthy rags), 1 Sam 16:7 (that God looks on the heart), is the simple idea that sometimes Bad Things Happen to Good People and sometimes good things happen to bad people.
Indeed, as Jesus himself says in Matthew 5, God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike.  (Or, if he were using words today, he'd probably say, he makes the sun to shine on the just and the unjust alike).  And, as John records:

1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
3“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
6After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. 7“Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

The point is simple - not every bad thing is indicative of sin. But everybody is guilty of it, so everybody needs to repent.


Where is the verse about people sinning because they know God will forgive them?

This is a major point of Romans 6.  After arguing that the coming of the law increased the number of trespasses, and that subsequently "grace abounded all the more," Paul warns those who might twist his words:

6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
6:15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (ESV)


Firstly God's punishment is being held until the judgment due to the sacrifice and atonement of Jesus Christ.

Secondly our free will is given to allow us to make our own choices so that God will know at the judgement bar who loved him and who did not as John 14:15 says

  "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

Just because we can choose doesn't mean there are no consequences of our choices. The commandments were given not to restrict us but to free us from sin and if followed will lead to a better and happier existence here on earth.


Why was the name of Pontius Pilate included in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed?

According to this site it has to do with the importance of preserving the historicity of the event surrounding the  execution of Jesus Christ.
It says in part:

The inclusion of Pilate’s name in the creed can be traced back to the very beginnings of the Catholic Church. This section of the prayer was already quoted by Tertullian by the early 3rd century. For the early Christians, it was essential to include Pilate’s name.
One of the primary reasons the Church has kept this inclusion is to reinforce the historicity of Jesus’ Passion. The existence of Pontius Pilate can be verified by sources outside of the Gospels and his name provides a powerful reminder that Jesus’ death occurred within the context of Roman rule and at a specific date in human history.


When a Jehovah's Witness is reinstated how does the congregation react?

Beside baptism and marriage, reinstatement is one of the most joyous occasions Jehovah's Witnesses have. It feels very much like it did for the father of the prodigal son at Luke 15:17-24, as well as for the shepherd who found his lost sheep at Luke 15:4-7.
All announcements are supposed to be made in the last 3 minutes of a meeting. The reinstatement announcement is made to the congregation they were disfellowshipped from, as well as to the congregation they are currently in (if they've since moved). The announcement is basically guaranteed to be met with applause and is worded as:

[Name of person] is reinstated as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

There are some relatively new publications for ones who desire to return to the congregation. There is the brochure, Return to Jehovah, as well as a modern-day drama, The Prodigal Returns.
The brochure contains this box on the last few pages:

How Will The Congregation Receive Me?
You can be sure that members of
the congregation will warmly welcome you. Rather than criticize or
judge you, they will confirm their love for you and do whatever they
can to encourage you.—Hebrews 10:24, 25.
“I was embarrassed to return to the Kingdom Hall. I wondered how the
friends would treat me. One of our elderly sisters who was there 30
years ago said to me, ‘Welcome home, Son!’ That really touched my
heart. I was truly home.”—Javier.
“I went to the Kingdom Hall and sat
in the last row so that no one would notice me. However, many began to
recognize me from the days when I had attended as a child. They
welcomed me and embraced me so affectionately that I felt an
overwhelming peace. It was as if I had come home.”—Marco.


Why is the term "hymn" used so frequently to refer to "old-church-hymns?"

The popular usage of the word "hymn" to refer to a  traditional  musical style  is probably a consequence of the indiscriminate  use of  phrases  like  "worship songs"  to refer to all contemporary  Christian music. Of course hymns are worship songs, and  worship songs are hymns, but contradictory meanings  are quite common in English.

OPs definition of a hymn as any song giving praise or adoration to a deity is extended by HELPS word studies,, in defining the Greek word humnos, as giving honour, praise or thanks to gods, heroes or conquerors. Yet even the most traditional hymn books contain "hymns" which reflect on some aspect of Christian experience or biblical theology, or make prayers and supplications. Are  "Stand Up, Stand Up for Jesus", "Lead kindly light", "Dare to be a Daniel", "Just as I am", "God save the Queen", "The Lord's my shepherd"  and "I heard the voice of Jesus say" not proper hymns?

When is a hymn not a hymn? Am I an animal? Is white a colour? Is the night part of the day? Are Protestants Catholic?  Is a tomato a vegetable?  Does a pound of gold weigh as much as a pound of potatoes? Was  the first man mentioned  in the Bible Scottish?  All these have different answers in different contexts, and it is probably futile to argue that a common usage is just plain wrong, if  it has already  entered the language.

In the Epistle to the Colossians chapter3, verse 16, and elsewhere, we read of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.   But what is a psalm, what is a hymn and what is a spiritual song?

Matthew Poole said that some would distinguish them by the method of singing, as well as the matter sung. Some commentators interpret a psalm as referring only to ones in the Book of Psalms, The Geneva Study Bible suggests all godly songs are psalms and include  hymns (which praise God) and "odes" (the Greek word rendered "songs") as being particularly artful and fuller of music, in particular. Calvin, at one point anyway, supposed a psalm required accompaniment by a musical instrument. while a hymn might or might not. Some, particularly those who believe in Exclusive Psalmody (the idea that only psalms should be sung in church) interpret  hymns and spiritual songs as simply subsets of the Biblical psalms. William Kelly supposes (his word ) that a psalm was a more stately composition, but not necessarily from the Bible. The Cambridge Bible Guide suggests the Magnificat and the Nunc Dimittus (both from Luke 1) count as psalms, though others consider them hymns, and others songs. . HELPS Word Studies suggests spiritual songs were impromptu or spontaneous, while some suggest they were sung by individuals or small groups (choirs, worship bands) in contrast to psalms which were sung by the whole congregation.

Whether the Colossians understood the difference is not very important, since they were urged to sing all three anyway. But there is no consensus, now, about what the difference was then.

Attitudes to church music have varied. St Hilary of Poiters  wrote many hymns and included in them doctrine opposed to the Arian heresy, Luther and Wesley were great hymnodists, seeing hymns as a great way to  impart knowledge and understanding. Preaching and liturgy (in the widest sense) are vital but perhaps hymns more than anything else inculcate the beliefs of a people.

It is said that a hymn is essentially a poem, something that could be read or prayed without music, but is set to music. A hymn is something that is sung in its entirety by the whole congregation. A choir or worship band may lead,. or sing descants or harmonies, but  all join in the entire hymn, A hymn consists of stanzas  , each with identical rhythm. Yet it is as difficult to define a hymn as a poem. Such hymns as the Te Deum or the Veni Spiritus or the Ave Maria are not metrical, though metrical versions exist.  Ultimately  a hymn is whatever somebody thinks a hymn is.

There is a story in several  places on the web, but to whom it is attributable I do not know:

  An old farmer went to the city one weekend and attended the big city church. He came home and his wife asked him how it was.

  “Well,” said the farmer. “It was good. They did something different, however. They sang praise choruses instead of hymns.”

  “Praise choruses?” asked the wife. “What are those?”

  “Oh, they’re okay. They’re sort of like hymns, only different,” said the farmer.

  “Well, what’s the difference?” asked the wife.

  The farmer said, “Well it’s like this … If I were to say to you, ‘Martha, the cows are in the corn,’ well that would be a hymn. If, on the other hand, I were to say to you, ‘Martha, Martha, Martha, Oh, Martha, MARTHA, MARTHA, the cows, the big cows, the brown cows, the black cows, the white cows, the black and white cows, the COWS, COWS, COWS are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn, in the CORN, CORN, CORN, COOOOORRRRRNNNNN,’ then, if I were to repeat the whole thing two or three times, well that would be a praise chorus.”

  As luck would have it, the exact same Sunday a young, new Christian from the city church attended the small town church. He came home and his wife asked him how it was.

  “Well,” said the young man, “It was good. They did something different, however. They sang hymns instead of regular songs.”

  “Hymns?” asked the wife. “What are those?”

  “They’re okay. They’re sort of like regular songs, only different,” said the young man.

  “Well, what’s the difference?” asked the wife.

  The young man said, “Well it’s like this … If I were to say to you, ‘Martha, the cows are in the corn,’ well that would be a regular song. If on the other hand, I were to say to you,

  Oh Martha, dear Martha, hear thou my cry
  And incline  thine ear to the words of my mouth.
  Turn thou thy whole wondrous ear by and by
  To the righteous, most glorious truth.

  For the way of the animals who can explain
   There is in their heads no shadow of sense,
  Hearkenest they in God’s sun or His rain
   Unless from the cool, tempting corn they are fenced.

  Yea those cows in glad bovine, rebellious delight,
   Have broken their shackles, their warm pens eschewed.
   Then goaded by minions of darkness and night
   They all my mild Chilliwack sweet corn have chewed.

  So look to that bright shining day by and by,
   Where all foul corruptions of earth are reborn
   Where no vicious animal makes my soul cry
   And I no longer see those foul cows in the corn,

  then, if I were to do only verses one, three and four, and change keys on the last verse, well that would be a hymn.”


Looking for Nanjing Mandarin Colloquial version (南京官话译本) of the New Testament

I've checked Chinese websites for you and was able to find the following page where you can type in the chapter numbers and read the image of the copy of the book (in Chinese).
http://hb.fhl.net/gbdoc/ob/ro.php?book=90&procb=1
Which it helps!


What is the Catholic belief concerning Deuteronomy 24:16

Baptism is considered by the Catholic Church to be a cleansing not only of personal sin ("past actions", as you put it) but also original sin. Original sin, confusingly, is not "really" a sin. That is, it's not a sin in the same sense that adultery (for example) is a sin. It is a change in human nature that was brought on by the first sin, which has effects persisting for all humans:

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin—an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 405)

Children are not seen as sinful at birth. Indeed, since sin is the result of a voluntary action, word, or thought, it is not possible for a child to sin until they are (as the saying goes) "old enough to know better". (The Church generally takes this to be about six or seven years old.)
Baptism, among other things, allows a person to be justified before God, and to receive again the strength to pursue holiness which original sin deprives us of. It also cleanses us of any previous personal sins we've committed.
Adam and Eve are the only ones responsible for their actions (and thus the passage from Deuteronomy applies to them, in that we are not condemned for what they did); but on the other hand, their actions changed human nature in such a way that it is, generally speaking, impossible for us not to be sinful to some extent. Thus, it is in a sense because of their actions that we can be sinful; but any condemnation that comes on us is because of our actual choices, not because of that first sin.


According to open theism, did God know that the crucifixion of Jesus would benefit anyone after him?

Ron Nash doesn't seem to be wrong here in the facts he's presenting, however he's picking his words carefully.

This poor impotent deity faced the possibility that the suffering of his Son upon the cross would bring about the salvation of no one

Could easily be rephrased as

God did not dictate that particular people be saved, but allowed free will to preside and for none to be saved forcibly - just as his Son died on the cross, he left himself vulnerable to the possibility that Jesus' death on the cross would bring about the salvation of no one

I've intentionally taken a tone here which makes it sound like God is being overly noble in choosing to take on this "impotence" that Ron Nash describes. My point here is that while he has the facts right, his statement is misleading in that it appeals to a subjective view of what that God would be like, when the same facts can be portrayed very differently.
As you might assume, there are a number of varieties of Open Theism - here is the Wikipedia summary:

Philosopher Alan Rhoda has described several different approaches several open theists have taken with regard to the future and God's knowledge of it.
Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents. Dallas Willard was thought to hold this position.
Involuntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because truths about future contingents are in principle unknowable. William Hasker, Peter Van Inwagen,[45] and Richard Swinburne espouse this position.
Non-Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions about future contingents are neither true nor false. J. R. Lucas and Dale Tuggy espouse this position.
Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions asserting of future contingents that they 'will' obtain or that they 'will not' obtain are both false. Instead, what is true is that they 'might and might not' obtain. Greg Boyd and Arthur Prior hold this position."
"Open Theism" - Wikipedia

The key thing here is that all of the positions described above agree on one thing: God does not know the future (this is what "epistemically open" means). Where these views split is that the "Nescience" camps believe the future is "alethically settled" - that is to say that there is already "truth" about the future now in the form of facts. The "Nescience" camps disagree on whether God chooses not to know these facts, or whether he doesn't know these facts because they can not be known.
On the other hand the "Omniscience" camps believe that the future is unwritten entirely, that there are no set truths about the future yet, whether they'd be knowable or not. The split here appears to be less to do with the nature of God and more to do with facts about the future. Either there simply are none (they are neither true nor false- hence not facts) or they are all "might and might not be true". I can't see any real functional difference between these two personally, it just gives philosophers something to argue about..
I'll see if I can find some actual open theist quotes to back this up, but from what I can see, any variety of Open Theist is logically committed to the fact that when Jesus died, it was not a necessary truth that any single future person would be saved.
The only way you can have God knowing any actual facts about this is through some form of middle knowledge (see - Molinism)
But - again, according to Wikipedia, Open Theists do not believe in this by definition:

...Yet other versions of classical theism hold that even though there is freedom of choice, God's omniscience necessitates God foreknowing what free choices are made (God's foreknowledge is closed). Open theists hold that these versions of classical theism are out of sync with:
1 - the biblical concept of God
2 - the biblical understanding of divine and creaturely freedom
and/or result in incoherence

Again, I'll try and find some actual open theist sources rather than just relying on Wikipedia, and I'll update the answer when I do.
On a side note, Ron Nash has a some free courses/podcasts on Biblical Training on the history of philosophy, and also on apologetics. I don't agree with everything he says but he's usually at least entertaining to listen to, in particular he tends to put on a bizarre "false pride" (in contrast to "false humility")- at least, as far as I can tell he's joking about how brilliant he thinks he is.


When people sin against us but don't repent, should we forgive and forget?

Depends, are they a believer or an unbeliever?
Unbeliever
(Mark 11:25 ESV)
"And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”
When you forgive an unbeliever you are acknowledging that they have wronged you but you will not try to seek justice yourself, you will leave that to God. In this way you may live peacefully not worrying about getting tit-for-tat in a never ending cycle with the other person.
Believer
(Luke 17:3, ASV)
"Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him."
In the first part of this verse Jesus issues a warning, what follows is important. Next comes two If/Then's which start out addressing the cause if your brother sins. Most people would agree that 'brother' here means fellow believer. So if a fellow believer sins your first action is to rebuke him not forgive him. From here there are two options. Either he repents and you forgive him (the second If/Then) or he doesn't repent. In the second cause we can look to the Gospel of Matthew.
(Matthew 18:15-17, ASV)
"And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican."
Once again this verse is addressing what to do when a brother (fellow believer) sins against you. If he hears you, not necessarily agrees with you, he is still your brother. Otherwise if he doesn't hear you then you gather witnesses. If he still doesn't hear you then he should not be in community with you like another believer since the both of you would not be able to live in harmony. And @ChoasGamer has some verses that also point that out.
Now Jesus didn't say that he must repent first but it is in your best interest to not forgive him till he repents otherwise you pass judgement on him.

Should we forget?

Not necessarily. If someone sins against you, especially someone close to you, it will take time for them to gain your trust and most people would agree that this is healthy. Also trying to forget something you know to be true can be unhealthy.  Forgiveness is stating your will that you will not try to get justice back from the other person it doesn't necessarily deal with your emotional response.
This is just a brief answer on the topic. For more information check out this site which I used to form this answer.
The main difference between this approach and the answer by Sonic is the Biblical consideration of NOT ignoring the person. 1st Corinthians 5:10 shows that we remove the unbeliever from community SO THAT WE CAN fellowship with them in order to win them back to Christ!


Why are Independent Baptist Fundamentalists labelled Protestants?

My first answer wasn't very good; I want to take a different angle. I hope this approach helps make this issue more clear.

TL;DR

You don't have to stage a protest to be Protestant. It's a matter of heritage.

Of fallacies and analogies...

Your question commits some basic fallacies that can easily be addressed.

  cite an accurate historical reference that says the Independent Baptist Fundamentalists were an active part of the "Protestant Reformation"

This step is quite unnecessary. Let's look a few analogous examples to understand why:

You didn't fight in the Revolutionary war, but you are an American citizen right? Even if you don't hold the same views as these who picked up muskets to fight for the colonies independence, your very existence has it's roots in that conflict.
By a similar token, I was born in America to third generation American parents. But my last name is Maclennan. Somewhere way back when, I had an ancestor named Lennan and -- whatever my opinion of Scotland may be -- I bear his name and and have my roots in that country.

Speaking of ancestry, let's think about your bloodlines for a minute. I'm a white boy. Nobody looking at me would take me for an Asian or an African. My blood comes from the Anglo-Saxon world. Never mind the fact that I now live in the Middle East, I have roots in a specific world and culture. I may not identify with its values, eat its food or speak its language1 but there is still a sense in which it is valid to identify me as a Westerner.

Now for Theology...

Much like a genealogy, the history of Christian religion may be drawn as a tree. We can start with the NT church2. I think its safe to say we both consider that a true church. For at least some very initial stages, there was not anything quite like what we know of as denominations3. As time went on, deviant theologies cropped up, were countered, and some people stuck with orthodox belief and others wandered. Some of these might be considered fundamentals of faith (such as the Gnostics) others might be considered less fundamental (eventual division between the major traditions we have today).

I covered a lot of similar ground on my answer to a question about what the purpose of the Creeds were. Your question mentions the Nicene Creed, but it is by no means unique to Lutheranism. In fact Catholics use it as well. As a matter of fact, so do many Independent Baptists. The statements of that creed are a very basic outline of some basic facts about our faith derived directly from Scripture. Whether you actively use it or not, your fundamentalist baptist beliefs are probably consistent with it as well.

Basically, the only way for your Baptist church to not be considered Protestant is for you to be a cult. The definition of a cult is pretty simple really. It is a group of people who claim affiliation with a larger established religion but, because their beliefs diverge significantly enough, are rejected as unorthodox by that larger body. This is not the case for most independent baptists4, fundamentalist or otherwise.

Baptists are Protestants. By that, we mean that their beliefs fall under the general umbrella of non-Catholic, non-Orthodox and non-Cult Christian tradition.
Your individual denomination may trace it's origin to some recent event, but whatever it split off from, it also inherits many of the attributes of its linage. All the other answers have covered the history of Catholic to Anglican to Anabaptist to Baptist history.

All clear now?

You don't have to actively stage a protest to be one of us. After all you aren't Catholic are you? You aren't Orthodox. Cult?

Welcome to Protestantism, my friend :)

1 Except when it comes to StackExchange, English is not my "daily driver".

2 I have started with the NT church only for purposes of keeping this simple, although I would argue we could draw the tree going back to Adam.

3 This isn't to say there weren't divisions / factions / sub-groups. There were.

4 There are a few possible exceptions here, but you would probably agree on those as well.


Does the cosmological argument ignore the Spirituality of God?

I think you're misunderstanding the cosmological argument. The argument states that everything that we see is contingent on the existence of something else - for anything we see, it wouldn't have come into being if not for the existence of something else. The existence of those things in turn is contingent on other things, and so on. As a consequence, a complete explanation of the existence of anything (including its causes, the causes of its causes,...) must either go on infinitely, or terminate in an entity which could exist without being created. The argument states that there is no actually infinite series in the physical universe, thus that the first of these possibilities cannot occur. Therefore, it concludes, an uncreated being must exist, who is ultimately responsible for the existence of all things in the universe.

The argument is not seen to need to refer to a distinction between spiritual and physical worlds. Thomas Aquinas, for example, listed this as one of his arguments for the existence of God, as well as insisting separately that God, a spiritual being, had no location and took up no space.

Not all people, even within a given denomination, will necessarily give credence to the cosmological argument. I'm not aware of any denomination that specifically states that the reason God is uncreated is that he is a spiritual being.


Seventh day Adventists...will the saved ultimately take on a new form in the kingdom of God?

The question is directly answered by Paul in the following verses through an anlalogy.

  51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all
  be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
  trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised
  imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53For this perishable body must
  put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
  54When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on
  immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

This passage completes the analogy, which is that of redemption through Jesus Christ. When Paul says that 'flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of God' he is referring to sinful creation.  However through redemption that is when in the mortal body can put on immortality.

Body and spirit are important theological components, and these components are combined by God in the creative act in Genesis 2. Where God breathed into the man and he became a living thing.  That is, Body and Spirit were combined.


In what ways did orthodox trinitarianism diverge from Tertullian's proto-trinitarianism?

Tertullian did not have the benefit of the Johannine comma (1 John 5:7), so he appears to have taken a bold step forward in talking about the Trinity. Roger E. Olson, Christopher Alan Hall (The Trinity, page 31) say that Tertullian stumbles in his attempts to explain trinitarian relationships, but despite occasional missteps is a reliable guide and avoids the twin hazards of tritheism and modalism.

He believed that God, who made the world out of nothing through his Son, the Word, but Jesus was created, not eternally pre-existent - as we see in Against Praxeas chapter 6, where Jesus had been in the Father's mind as part of the eternal plan  (my emphasis):

  He first put forth the Word Himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things might be made through Him through whom they had been planned and disposed, yea, and already made, so far forth as (they were) in the mind and intelligence of God.

In speaking of the Trinity, he said that the Son is distinct from the Father, and the Spirit from both the Father and the Son (Against Praxeam, 25):

  Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, I and my Father are One, in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.

He further distinguished the Father, the Son and the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) in Against Praxeam, 13:

  For we, who by the grace of God possess an insight into both the times and the occasions of the Sacred Writings, especially we who are followers of the Paraclete, not of human teachers, do indeed definitively declare that Two Beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three, according to the principle of the divine economy, which introduces number, in order that the Father may not, as you perversely infer, be Himself believed to have been born and to have suffered, which it is not lawful to believe, forasmuch as it has not been so handed down.

Then, Tertullian saw Jesus as subordinate to the Father, which in most respects is very much contrary to modern theology, as briefly described below.

Post-Nicene view

Some centuries after the Nicene Creed was formulated, the Catholic Church introduced the filioque clause to the Nicene Creed, stating that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and from the Son, a subtle novelty that Tertullian certainly never taught. This clause was rejected by the Orthodox east.

Eusebius of Caesarea still saw the Nicene Creed as a full expression of Subordinationist theology, but this view was soon rejected. Roman Catholicism is firmly non-Subordinationist, in the Arian or Semi-Arian sense, but does accept a relational subordinationism of Son to the Father. Different views are held amongst Protestants, but most do not differ significantly from the Catholic position.

This site discusses the Catholic doctrine that the second person of the Trinity was the Son of God from all eternity and also criticises the view of some evangelicals that the second person of the Trinity only became the Son of God at his incarnation. The Catholic position differs from that of Tertullian  but we see that other, minority views do still exist.

According to the Orthodox Church, the Son or Word is derived from the Father who alone is without cause or origin. This is not a subordination in time, since the Son is co-eternal with the Father or even in terms of the co-equal uncreated nature shared by the Father and Son.


Are Job's seven sons and three daughters in Heaven?

At Acts 2:34 we see that not even David, who was considered to be one of the righteous kings, ascended to heaven. The Bible indicates that Jesus was the first one to be resurrected to spirit life and ascend to heaven. (John 3:13) This would include Job and his sons and daughters. They are still potentially eligible for a resurrection to earthly life during the thousand year reign of Christ. (Job:14:14-15; Acts 24:15; Revelation 20:13)

This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. You can read more about the condition of the dead and the hope for the dead in chapters 6 and 7 of the book "What Does the Bible Really Teach?", which you can read for free online.


Is there biblical evidence of "cavemen"?

I think that "is there Biblical evidence" is a completely different question than "do old earth Christians believe".

The Bible gives no mention of human ancestors, and specifically states in the Genesis account that God created Adam and Eve rather than that they evolved from a proto-human ancestor, so the answer to "Is there Biblical Evidence" is "no".

To answer the other question, there are a whole range of beliefs that Christians hold - from Young-Earth Creationism to Old-Earth Creationism, theistic evolution, and full belief in evolution.  Some Christians really just see the Biblical account as allegorical - just a story, but believe in the less "outlandish" things in the Bible.

Given that not all Christians agree on what is to be taken literally, or on the inerrancy of Scripture, there is a wide variety of views on the entire origins debate.  Certainly, some Christians believe in proto-humans.


Why would God create beings with the capacity to sin?

The reason God created anything at all is for His glory.  (Isaiah 43:1-7 (esp v.7), Rev. 4:11, Col 1:15-16)This is a hard concept to grasp for anyone, even for a committed Christians.  So the answer is that sin is there to glorify God.  You may ask, "How does sin glorify God?"  Sin glorifies God's attributes of justice and wrath, not His most popular attributes.  Many Christians view God a pure love, and that is correct; but God is also pure wrath "a consuming fire" and pure justice. (Hebrews 12:29, Deuteronomy 32:4)

Think about it this way.  If you had a family member who had been murdered by a criminal and you were present at the trial and the Judge decided to acquit the criminal despite eye witness testimony, how would you feel?  Would the judge be 'glorified' in your eyes.  God is glorified in the judging of sinners.  In the case of true Christians, Christ stands as their sacrifice.  So if we go back to the courtroom example we see the Judge's Son offering to take the punishment of the criminal and the Judge offering to take the criminal into his family to reform him.

So God is glorified by sin in two ways.  He is glorified by judging sin righteously and also by His Son taking the punishment for some of the sinners.

Romans 3:22-26 (NKJV):

  For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


Has there ever been a successful Catholic Christian rock or pop band since the Singing Nun?

Matt Maher

From what I understand, his first record was released in 2007 but he'd been touring before that.

He uses rock and pop musical styles in a goodly portion of his catalog.  His focus is contemporary Christian music, but I'll say this about his live performances: his early work in jazz piano really comes out, and his band can rock it.  Their cover of Joe Cocker's feelin' alright had the whole place on its feet.

I've heard his song Hold us Together on a pop radio station, but it's been a few years.


Were all the various systems of Gnosticism Docetist?

Short Answer: No, Docetism was not a necessary feature of Gnosticism (or even the Christian variety of Gnosticism.) It was however, a very popular solution for Gnostics, who necessarily held that God cannot interact directly with the material world.

Gnosticism held that the material world was evil and the spiritual world was holy. At first glance this might sound semi-Christian, but here are a few key implications of Gnosicism:

A holy God could not possibly have any association with the wicked material realm. Thus, He could not have created the physical realm, nor could He directly interact with it, let alone come and be encased in it.
The goal was to escape the physical realm (through the layers of intermediary states) to the spiritual realm. The idea of a physical resurrection was absolutely appalling to Gnostics. Why would you want to be raised back up into the disgusting, wicked, base elements that you had finally been freed from upon death?

Docetism was one way of reconciling Gnostic philosophy with Christianity. Yes, Jesus was God, they would say, but He most certainly was not a real, physical man. Nor did He die, and He most certainly did not raise up in a physical body.

Arianism (including Socianism) would be the other obvious solution for the Gnostic Christian. Yes, they would say, Jesus was a real man, but He most certainly was not God.

There were other fringe solutions as well, such as the idea that Jesus was something in between God and man, but Docetism and Arianism were by far the most prominent solutions.


Is adultery grounds for excommunication or other discipline in a Jehovah's Witness Church?

A simple answer to a simple question:

  Is adultery grounds for excommunication or other discipline ...? ... I'm
  talking about openly unashamed sinful behaviour.

The answer is "Yes".

...and its called "disfellowshiping" instead of "excommunication".

Slightly extended...

By comments under your question and the obvious fact that this is a personal situation of yours that prompts you to ask, there are many circumstances which people run from that sort of discipline, and do seem to evade it. There are many circumstances where contending parties have different accusations and versions of a story. Obviously there is no divine revelation to reveal the true nature of what happened, so there is the obvious human limitations that keep things from getting solved.

With that in mind, many people successfully (seem to) evade discipline, but there is the simple fact that its not humans they are disobeying, or running from. Here is the more important thing:

Galatians 6:7 [Amplified Bible]:

  7 Do not be deceived and deluded and misled; God will not allow
  Himself to be sneered at (scorned, disdained, or mocked [a]by mere
  pretensions or professions, or by His precepts being set aside.) [He
  inevitably deludes himself who attempts to delude God.] For whatever a
  man sows, that and [b]that only is what he will reap.

Compare to Proverbs 6:27-29:

  28 Can one go upon hot coals and his feet not be burned?

  29 So he who cohabits with his neighbor’s wife [will be tortured with
  evil consequences and just retribution]; he who touches her shall not
  be innocent or go unpunished.

Marriage is God's arrangement, and typically judged by God himself. Disfellowshipping is the least of one's fears when they are blatant and unrepentant in their course.


I think your answers lays in the New Testament where Jesus explained how "10 commandments" work in practical use and not just in theory (also today's problem, not just Pharisees in Jesus's time) - Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5:27-30 NIV
Adultery

  27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
  28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Isn't looking at somebody lustfully a desire? For me it is.
Sin happens in our hearts/mind and we are already guilty of it, even if we didnt "act", but we acted in our hearts and our Creator knows our heart.

That is why:

  29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
  30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

That is why sanctification and purification is needed daily so our mind and heart are clean of sinful thoughts.

Hope this can help brother.


Where did the custom of dancing with flags during worship originate?

In American Christianity, specifically black or African American churches, "praise dancing" is a cultural norm practiced all over the United States, generally in more progressive churches.  It is also referred to as Liturgical Dance(a).

Generally, the practice involved playing gospel ballads or other popular black gospel music from contemporary black gospel artist.  Brightly colored flags, scarves, and shawls are used and artist, usually young women, dance using ballet-like movements, in unison with the music being played as a form of worship and praise toward God.

Historically, Liturgical Dance is ancient, tracing back to even ancient Israel as noted in passages like 2 Samuel 6, albeit, this is David and many did condemn him for his expressive worship.  However, in the middle ages, according to professor Paul Dilley at the University of Iowa, the Dance of the Savior, a liturgical dance, was probably used in some "churches and martyr shrines".  In addtion, Dilley states that a "dance scene in a Coptic text from the Qasr el-Wizz monastery suggests that ritual dance enjoyed a place in established, orthodox Christianity..."

Regardless, it is probably not possible to establish an exact reference to the beginnings of such practices in the American church.  Theologically, it is forbidden by some denominations, including some that are primarily African American, because it is consider too liberal or sensual(b).

(a) Based on my personal experience growing up and being involved in the Progressive Baptist Convention and other independent and other affiliated black churches primarily in and around the Washington DC Metropolitan Area.

(b) As an example of why this practice is not accepted, see There is Never a Good Reason For Liturgical Dance


Can non-Catholic Christian souls participate in Intercession?

The ability to intercede on behalf of others is a gift given by God, and so He can give it to anyone He pleases. Here is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes prayer of intercession:

  Since Abraham, intercession—asking on behalf of another—has been characteristic of a heart attuned to God’s mercy. In the age of the Church, Christian intercession participates in Christ's, as an expression of the communion of saints. In intercession, he who prays looks “not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others,” even to the point of praying for those who do him harm (no. 2635).

All that is required is that God inspire the intercessor to make the prayer. Hence, it is not at all limited to Catholics or even to Christians.

As far as the deceased are concerned, the ability to intercede on behalf of those on earth is not limited to those who have been officially canonized. Anyone who is in friendship with God has this ability, even those who were not in full union with the Church. Hence, if a Protestant or non-Christian died in friendship with God, and hence was saved, then he can intercede, just as any other saved soul can.

(As the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus suggests, presumably, even the condemned could, in theory, intercede for us, if God gave them that power, but St. Augustine suggests that it would be for selfish motives [see no. 17]; e.g., the rich man interceded because the presence of the his brothers would only increase his torment.)

Note that canonization and beatification are done chiefly because the person has lived a life of holiness and heroic virtue; that he intercedes for someone and provides a miracle is only a sign that he is already in Heaven.


I don't know of any official position other than at conception (i know individuals who disagree though), but I haven't heard any body defend that position in detail. Before you asked this, I didn't really think I needed a reason to accept that other than the fact that when a human egg is fertilized the result is always going to be human and not some other animal. So interfering in a pregnancy that will otherwise continue as normal is always the same as murdering a human being, because it's not going to be something else. Now interfering in a pregnancy that definitely(and not just possibly) would lead to death for mother and/or child may be a different matter. However given some of my other resent research, I just couldn't sleep until I had the answer to this fundamental question of when a soul comes into being. So this is my opinion on defending at conception.

First of all Genesis 2:7 (KJV + Strong's numbers) says:

  And the LORD<03068> God<0430> formed<03335> man<0120> of the dust<06083> of<04480> the ground<0127>, and breathed<05301> into his nostrils<0639> the breath<05397> of life<02416>; and man<0120> became a living<02416> soul<05315>.

Now some take this to mean that the soul enteres when a babe is born and takes his first breath. However we have to remember this is hebrew, not english, the second breath<05397> here is actually nshamah , wich also means spirit. So a better understanding may be that the spirit of life was what was breathed into him. Now that was talking about Adam who was not born by a woman but was formed out of the dust by God. So he was getting a soul at his conception, but to find out about the soul of anyone else we may need to look elsewhere. I point you t'ward Genesis 9:4:

  But<0389> flesh<01320> with the life<05315> thereof, which is the blood<01818> thereof, shall ye not eat<0398>.
  I realize this is talking about animals, but you may have noticed this already that the world life there is the same word as soul (nephesh) in the first verse. So here we see that the life/soul is in the blood.
  It also states this in Leviticus 17:11:
  For the life<05315> of the flesh<01320> is in the blood<01818>: and I have given<05414> it to you upon the altar<04196> to make an atonement<03722> for your souls<05315>: for it is the blood<01818> that maketh an atonement<03722> for the soul<05315>.

So the while my original statement, about interrupting a pregnancy at any point is human murder, still stands. The question now becomes if the life = soul and the life is in the blood; when does a fertilized human egg have blood? Well I'm no medical doctor, but if I'm reading this correcting according to wikipedia there is a type of hemoglobin(blood) present at the very first week of pregnancy.

So while I'm sure you'll find people who would disagree, I wouldn't say it's much of a stretch to say the soul is present no latter than the first week of pregnancy if not at conception itself. Of course the people, who want to believe babies don't have souls until a specific date, will usually not take the bible literally anyway; so this isn't likely to be of any value to them.


Did Luther really use bar tunes for his hymns?

Nope, it's not, actually. Luther used a form of music "bar form", but he was actually opposed to use of common tunes (like Calvin) for his hymns. The following is from an essay called "Major Forms of BS" by T. David Gordon:

  I cannot count the number of times I have heard the common myth about
  Martin Luther employing the tunes of familiar “bar songs” in his
  hymns.  This is entirely false, and its utter falsehood is only
  partially explained by confusion, because Luther did indeed, at times,
  employ what musicians call “bar form” (an AAB structure), a common
  musical form in classical and sacred music.  Luther wrote many of his
  own tunes, and borrowed others from Gregorian chant and elsewhere, but
  not from taverns.  Here’s what the good friar actually said:

    “I too, with the help of others, have brought together some sacred songs, in
    order to make a good beginning and to give an incentive to those who
    can better carry on the Gospel and bring it to the people…And these
    songs were arranged in four parts for no other reason than that I
    wanted to attract the youth (who should and must be trained in music
    and other fine arts) away from love songs and carnal pieces and to
    give them something wholesome to learn instead.”

  [Emphasis mine, from
  the Forward, first edition, of Johann Walter’s Wittenberg Geistliche
  Gesangbüchen, 1524.  Cf. also the discussion of this matter in “Luther
  and Bar Song:  The Truth, Please!”, chapter 21 in Paul S. Jones,
  Singing and Making Music:  Issues in Church Music Today (P&R, 2006),
  pp. 171-178].


Poor defined as 'Any Poor' or 'Christian Poor'

The word Poor is a translation from another word or words used in either the Old or New Testaments. It appears 201 times in the Bible in 194 different Verses.

The word poor is a translation from both Hebrew and Greek, and actually is several words in both the Old and New Testaments. The exact meaning of the word poor is dependent on what the original word was. That being said your question appears to only be concerned with where it is used in relation to the status of people, So let's look at some verses and see just how it is used:

  Genesis 41:19 KJV And, behold, seven other kine came up after them, poor and very ill favoured and leanfleshed, such as I never saw in all the land of Egypt for badness:

Here the word can in no way refer to Financial depravity since a Kine is a cow.

  Leviticus 14:21 NKJV  "But if he is poor and cannot afford it, then he shall take one male lamb as a trespass offering to be waved, to make atonement for him, one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering, a log of oil,

Here the word poor does in fact refer to the person's lack of earthly riches however:

  Matthew 5:3 NKJV  "Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Here the word translated poor can only refer to a man's Spiritual wealth. These are only examples but it shows that the word poor in translations into English, are dependent on what particular word was used in the original manuscript and the particular circumstance in which it is used.

  Matthew 11:5  The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Here the word poor could be understood to refer to either or even both.

So in answer to your question, it is necessary to take the surrounding verses, and possibly the entire chapter, or even the whole book into consideration in determining the meaning of not only the word poor, but many other words used in modern translations. When you get to the point of trying to exact the meaning of certain words it necessitates that you study and not just read the Scriptures, and even then it is sometimes necessary to search out the original word in either Hebrew or Greek in order to fully understand what is being conveyed. Even after many years of studying the Bible there is much that still perplexes me.

Hope this helps.


It is pretty clear that when Jesus called his disciples together on various occasions was to teach them things that they were to pass on to the entire church, this is one of them.  Just as various commands on how we aught to live was only said to them, and not other disciples, so this practice was initiated with only them.

The text does not specifically say ‘only you should do this in remembrance of me’ nor does it say ‘tell everyone else to do this in remembrance of me’. Therefore we must turn to other scriptures to confirm that natural suspicion that Jesus must have been changing the meaning of Passover for Christians, just as all Jews used to eat the meal in remembrance of their deliverance from Egypt.

Turning to the Corinthian’s where the subject had come up due to their abuse of the practice we see clearly that all believers who sincerely believe in Christ should partake of the Lord’s Supper.

  Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

  (I Cor 10:17, ESV)

Notice above ‘we all’ partake, that is all believers.

However Paul makes it clear than this should only be done in a right frame of mind by true believers and is not to be made light of like it was just an opportunity to party and get drunk.

  23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
  27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

  (I Cor 11:23-27, ESV)

Notice above Paul is speaking to all the believers and saying they should all partake but not to do it in an unworthy manner.


If God created the sun and the moon on the fourth day what had been lighting the earth for three days?

From an old Earth creationist perspective, the key lies in Genesis 1:1-2, which reads in part (NASB) "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void..." Did God create the earth formless and void? 1 Corinthians 14:33 tells us that "God is not the author of confusion", so one would assume that God did not create the earth formless and void. The Hebrew word translated as "was" in verse 2 can also be translated as "became". So it appears that at some point after "God created the heavens and the earth" the "earth became formless and void". This can be accounted for by Satan's rebellion, which had to happen sometime before he tempted Eve in the garden.


Short Answer, YES; Long Answer, YES YES
First we need to define what repentance is.
The word in Greek is Metanoeo which means: To change ones mind. The word repent in Hebrew is Nacham which means to: to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion.

Repentance is a state of mind, of sorrow over your actions.

Now that we understand the word's definition we need to understand the context that the word is used in. Here in the old testament is one verse, of many, that defines repentance.

Ezekiel 18:30 NKJV
“Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your
own ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your
offenses; then sin will not be your downfall.

Repentance is to turn away from all of your offenses, to turn away from sin.

So you can see that repentance is a mindful state of abhorrence to the things that you have done. The bible says that we need to prove this mindful state by our actions. Have a look:

Acts 26:20 niv
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all
Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent
and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.

Your turning away from sin is proven by what you do.

Repentance is: Having a changed mind that turns you from the things that you were once doing in order that you may do the opposite.
What does God say about Repentance?
We are commanded to repent of our sins.

Job 36:10 niv
He makes them [his children] listen to correction and commands them to repent of
their evil.
Acts 17:30 niv
In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all
people everywhere to repent.

What does Jesus say about Repentance?
Here we see Jesus talking about the final judgement, he's giving us insight into what He will say and do on that day.

Matthew 7:21-23 (NKJV)
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom
of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many
will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in
Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your
name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart
from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

We know that sin is lawlessness. Christ is literally saying that if you practice sin He will have nothing to do with you, you did not know Him and He did not know you. In this next verse you see Jesus commanding us to repent, He does this constantly throughout his testimony on this earth.

Matthew 4:17 (NIV)
From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of
heaven is near."
Luke 3:3
He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the > forgiveness of sins.

It's interesting what Luke says here, a baptism of repentance FOR the forgiveness of sins. If we put this altogether with what else we have learned so far, we see that if we turn from our sins then God will be faithful and forgive us for those sins.
So if this is true, then the opposite should also be true. If we continue to sin then we will go to Hell? Let's see if what the Bible says.

Hebrews 10:26-27 (NIV)
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the
knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a
fearful expectation of judgment and of  raging fire that will consume
the enemies of God.

Finally God says that He stands FIRM on this very statement. He will not change His mind.

2 Timothy 2:19 (NIV)
19 Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this
inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who
confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”

Assurance of salvation as it relates to repentance

1 John 1:6-76 NIV
If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness [evil], we
lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light [love], as he
is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of
Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

If you continue to sin then the truth [Holy spirit, God, Jesus] is not in you.

1 John 2:4-5 NIV
The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a
liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's
love is truly made complete in him.

If you say that you know God, but you continue to sin, not loving as you were commanded, then you are a liar and [Holy spirit, God, Jesus] is not in you.
Repentance is a struggle against the desires of your flesh

Revelation 2:19
I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance,
and that you are now doing more than you did at first.

You will not be perfect right away, you will go through a lot of discipline and correction from God, so that you may produce more and more fruit throughout the days of your life. Persevere in your repentance.

Hebrews 10:36
You need to persevere so that when you have done the
will of God, you will receive what he has promised.


What are the Main Characteristics of Mormon Prophets?

(1) Does the LDS Prophet claim the Petrine Seat?

The simple answer to this quesion is "yes," but that's not quite right.  The LDS Church recognizes Peter as an apostle of Jesus Christ and as head of the primitive church by virtue of receiving the keys of the sealing authority (Matt 16:19).

However, we believe that the primitive church came to an end in a general apostasy.  Jesus taught, "there needs be a falling away first," (2 Thes 2:3) and that falling away occured soon after the deaths of the apostles.

From an article "Simeon Peter" in the Feb. 1975 LDS publication Ensign we read:

  This commission [receiving the sealing keys] did not create the first pope, for Peter never called himself bishop of Rome. ... Peter’s successors were not Bible scholars, ministers, evangelists, bishops of any kind, or even general councils of the church. Peter was an apostle raised to presidency and a prophet and revelator for the church. No one less can perpetuate his office in any Christian organization.

So, we believe the primitive church (the church of the original apostles) came to an end and therefore there is no continuation of it.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restitution or restoration of something lost (Acts 3:20-22).  Part of that restoration process must include (and did include) the keys to the sealing authority as were given to Peter, as well the keys of prophecy and revelation.

Therefore, yes, the LDS prophet claims the "Petrine Seat" from the perspective that he must be a prophet and head of the faith just as Peter was a prophet and head of the faith as were the prophets before him — by restoration following a prophecied general apostacy.

(2) Does the Prophet have a College of Bishops/"Highest Teachers" in union with the Prophet which is supposed to aide him in teaching the Church as a whole?

Again, the simple answer is "yes."  When you see official references to the Prophet, you will see him identified as "Prophet and President of...".  This is because there are two roles.  The Lord calls and sustains His prophet, but the apostles call and the membership sustains the president of the Church.  This distinction is important for a later question, too.

The Prophet and two counsellors form the First Presidency of the Church (D&C 107:22).  For a detailed description of how this happens, see my answer to this other question.
The Twelve Apostles are a quorum equal in authority to the First Presidency (D&C 107:23-24).  This quorum's purpose (beyond testifying of Jesus Christ) is to officiate and regulate the affairs of the Church under the direction of the First Presidency (D&C 107:33).
The Quorum of the Seventy are a quorum equal in authority to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (D&C 107:25-26).  This quorum's purpose is specifically missionary work (proselyting) (D&C 107:34).
Authority is only equal when the quorums are acting (in each quorum) unanimously (D&C 107:27-29).

These three quorums constitute the group in the LDS Church that has primary responsibility to aid the Prophet.  Further...

The First Presidency has authority to organize the Church as necessary (D&C 88:74-75; 117-120).  Over the decades presidencies have been formed to support our youth organizations, women's organization, children's organization, sunday school, and welfare efforts.  These presidencies, too, council with and aid the Prophet.
Additional information about these offices may be found on the LDS Church's website.

(3)  Does the Prophet have jurisdiction as universal pastor of all churches.

Yes.  Only the Prophet holds all the keys of authority in the Church and it is within his authority to reorganize any council or congregation within the Church.  (D&C 107:65-67; 132:7)

However...

The Prophet is not a dictator.  All things are done in the Church according to the Law of Common Consent (D&C 26:2 and see the question I posted about it).

The only example I can remember of Church members voting against a proposal from the First Presidency was when the Provo, UT Tabernacle burned down.  The building was destroyed and the First Presidency's initial decision was to demolish the remains and sell the land.  When this was presented to Church members in Provo, they refused the decision.  This led to President Monson's later announcement that the building would be rebuilt as a temple.

(4) Is the Prophet immune from being dethroned from the office of Prophet unless it is his own decision to step down (Or can't he step down at all)?

The call of Prophet is a lifetime call.  Certainly, he can refuse that call should he choose at any time (though none has).  Though we hold people to standards for advancement in the Church (such as minimum worthiness requirements to enter our Temples), no one is compelled to anything in the LDS Church.

However, the Lord has provided for His people should a day ever come that the President chooses iniquity.  Bishops are called as judges, and the presiding Bishopric has one judicial duty: to try the President of the Church.  This is discussed in D&C 107:73-84.  Specifically quoting from verse 84:

  Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God....

You'll note I shifted from "Prophet" to "President."  As I mentioned earlier, there are two roles.  The congregation of the Church can reject their president, but only the Lord can reject His prophet.
Technically this process can happen in either of two ways: either the president is tried by the Presiding Bishopric or the general membership vote to disapprove his call (Common Consent).  Given that today's membership is about 16 million, getting 8 million +1 to vote against is fairly unlikely.
If I remember correctly, no president other than Joseph Smith has been tried for his membership.  Joseph was tried three times — all during the Zion's Camp march — and was exonerated all three times.

(5) Are Mormons encouraged to listen to the Prophet above any other figure in the hierarchy?

Yes.  Frankly, this is an odd question.  It's like suggesting a U.S. citizen should listen to a senator above the President...  The last time any sizable group in the U.S. did that it led to our Civil War.

Nevertheless, remember what I said above about the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the Quorum of the Seventy having to act unanimously to be equal in authority to the Quorum of the First Presidency.  Individual members may have their opinions, but the quorums do not act contrary to one another.

It should be remembered that the concept of command doesn't exist in the LDS Church.  No Bishop can command his ward, nor can the Prophet command the Church.  D&C 121:41-44 teaches that the Priesthood is to be used:

  by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile...

People are people and will upon occasion disagree, but by definition, if a disagreement cannot be politely resolved, something went very, very wrong.  Ours is not a church of command.

Therefore, yes, we invite people to hear the Prophet's voice and obey, but we're not looking for slaves, or robots, or people who follow blindly.  "...Men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will..." (D&C 58:26-29).

Like I said, kindof an odd question.  Let's assume (as I obviously believe) that our current Prophet is, indeed, a living prophet of the living Jesus Christ.  Why wouldn't you listen to him?  Curious....

It should be noted that the primary purpose of the Law of Common Consent is to help people come to Christ.  In rare occasions that's an expectation of clarification from the Prophet.  In most cases, it's the member who needs to pray, study, ponder, and then pray to receive the testimony of the Spirit themselves.  The LDS Church is not a democracy.  We cannot tell the Lord what to do.  The general membership does not have the right nor the authority to force, for example, social change upon the Church.  Dictating to the Lord is a fast way to earn His wrath.  the Lord's response to Habbakuk is a good example.

(6) If the Prophet can claim to speak infallibly...

The one and only person who is infallible is Jesus Christ.  This is why we have the Law of Common Consent, so that issues can be brought before the Church (and, ultimately, the Lord) and resolved.  We, as regular Church members, are invited to balance two teachings:

"Whether by my voice or the voice of my servant, it is the same" (D&C 1:38).  When the Prophet speaks the word of the Lord, we are expected to listen.
"Study it out in your mind..." (D&C 9:8-9).  We are expected to learn about and know the truth for ourselves.

Joseph Smith understood this basic balance when he taught that "a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such" (History of the Church, 5:265).  And how do we know when he is "acting as such"?  We study it, ponder it, review scripture, and then get on our knees and pray.

(7) Can the Prophet in union with the College claim to speak infallibly to declare new dogma?

"Infallible" is a big word.  We believe the only infallible person is Jesus Christ, therefore the answer is specifically "no."  This does not mean the doctrine isn't perfect and from the Lord.  It only recognizes that imperfect Man is, indeed, imperfect.  As I mentioned, this is why the Law of Common Consent exists.  However, when the Prophet of the Lord in union with the Quorum of the Twelve and Quorum of the Seventy stand together to declare new dogma... maybe you should listen, study, review scripture, and get on your knees and pray.

An example of this was the acceptance by the Church of D&C sections 137 and 138 as doctrine of the Church and Declarations #1 and #2.  In all these cases, the Prophet didn't simply declare and we listen.  The Church was invited to accept the additional scripture and changes in Church policy by vote in Solemn Assemblies.  It's a big deal.

As a contrasting example, consider the unaffiliated "FLDS" (Fundamentalist LDS) church run by Warren Jeffs.  He believes himself to be infallible, as does his congregation.  The mess they're in is a very good reflection of what happens when you believe a mere mortal is equal with God, which is what an infallible person must be.

The Priesthood is the authority to act in the name of God — but only at the level of God if the bearer is clean and purified of all sin (D&C 50:26-28).  And even then, we do not command.  The true followers of Christ pursuade through patience and long-suffering because there has ever only been one perfect person: Jesus Christ.