Are (or should be) the resolutions of the SDA General Conference public?

The Seventh Day Adventist General Conference session is not secret, nor is it well published.  Formal minutes are only distributed to delegates of the session; this is primarily for practical reasons.

However, there are lots of news sources that cover the proceedings that discuss the high-level decisions that are made.  For instance http://2015.gcsession.org/en/news/index.html

you can also find information on sites like https://spectrummagazine.org/article/2015/05/29/how-delegates-are-selected-general-conference-sessions

Regarding becoming a member, this is articulated through the fundamental beliefs. Usually, the General session deals with the business of the church and the protocols of the different offices of the church.  Not often effecting lay members beliefs.  Recently, however, there has been issues with how women should be accepted into leadership and the ministry credentials they can carry.

There is no secrecy at the session level.  However, a board of directors is appointed that runs the organisation between sessions.  These minutes are confidential, but cannot make significant changes; These are confidential as they can deal with highly sensitive operational issues that can affect employees. (Think restructures, pay cuts or increases, moral failures and apostates)

As a member, I gain all my information from the websites, both the official ones and the reputable Adventist news publishers. In reality, the General conference session has little impact on my day to day faith, or how the local church operates.  There are other downstream organisations that have more influence over these.


Is there a Christian perspective on the matter of "delusion"?

Delusion is neither a Christian nor a non-Christian matter.  Delusion is simply believing something that isn't true despite overwhelming evidence.  I don't believe there is a specific "Christian" perspective on it.

I'm going to try very hard to answer the rest of this objectively and not get on a soap box (even though it goes against my obnoxious nature).

Let's start with a definition of a "delusion", straight from Wikipedia.

  A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior
  evidence. Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological
  (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it
  is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information,
  dogma, poor memory, illusion, or other effects of perception.

As long as we are limited finite beings, a certain amount of uncertainty exists in determining what is "real" and what is not.  As long as we are finite, we can't know and prove everything.

As long as we're not omniscient then the best we can do it to try to interpret the evidence in such a way that it makes sense to us.

Here's an example an atheist and non-atheist can relate to:

For years, scientists thought that atoms were the smallest level of matter, until they realized that atoms are made up of proton, neutrons, and electrons.  Then came quantum physics, which indicates that at that level, reality is a lot more strange and complex than ordinary physics.  Does this mean that the scientists that didn't understand quantum physics were "delusional"?  No, they simply didn't have all the facts.  We still don't.

Going back to the "superior evidence" portion of the definition, there is plenty of evidence both for and against the existence of God, creationism, theism, the Bible as God's word, and a whole host of other beliefs that separate us.  The problem isn't the evidence itself in many cases, it's how our own personal biases and our own presuppositions color how we interpret the evidence.  We don't have conclusive evidence for or against Christianity.

I came from the atheist viewpoint to be a very firm believer in the most conservative young-earth view of Christianity based on examining the evidence.  I was attempting to show my mom how dumb Christianity is.  My own bias was against Christianity. I don't say this to convince you or anyone else, but I do say it to back up the fact that I have examined the evidence, and I would argue with anyone that the evidence is far from conclusive either way.

I came to my position not because the evidence for God was so overwhelming, but because I learned through years of research that the evidence against His existence wasn't as strong as I'd believed, and an open mind led me to believe, personally, that the evidence for Him has fewer unresolved assumptions and problematic discrepancies.

Therefore, Christianity is not delusional, nor is atheism.  Neither one fits the textbook definition of "against overwhelming evidence".  There's a big difference between "there's overwhelming evidence" and "I'm only aware of some of the evidence and reject out-of hand the evidence that doesn't support my viewpoint."

From the note it looks like I went the wrong route and am not answering your question as you intended, but I think the above still applies.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:11, (KJV) we read:

  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
  should believe a lie:

This delusion simply refers to a falsehood - a false belief, still meeting the textbook definition above.  This is just a specific delusion being spoken of in this case.  it doesn't nullify or establish the idea of "delusion" still meeting the normal understanding of the word.


Why do some Protestants divide the Blood of Christ into individual cups?

Because they want to.

As stated already in other answers, they may use more than one cup for sanitary or efficiency purposes. But the real answer is that the issue of whether or not the communion liquid* is distributed in one vessel or several is a non-doctrinal, purely preferential issue with most Protestants. Jesus may have used one cup, but most Protestants don't believe this was meant to be a strict representation of how the Lord's Supper must be performed.

Personal Anecdote: I grew up in a church body that used little plastic cups. We probably did that because it would have taken forever to get everyone through a line to one liquid source. I'm in a church body now that does communion in smaller groups, so we each break off a piece of bread and dip it in one cup of wine. To Protestants it's just a matter of preference.

*Protestants don't believe it's literally Christ's blood. They believe it's just juice/wine that is meant to be symbolic.


What is the scriptural evidence that faith comes from God?

My position is that faith comes from God. Justification, the act whereby God pardons our sins and gives us the righteousness of Christ, is by grace through faith. There are a number of passages that illustrate this doctrine (ESV):

Jonah 2:9:

  But I with the voice of thanksgiving
      will sacrifice to you;
    what I have vowed I will pay.
      Salvation belongs to the Lord!

Ephesians 2:8-9:

  For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

1 John 4:19:

  We love because he first loved us.

Now this faith give to us by God is a living and active faith. It is no dead faith, but produces good works (obedience to the law). As James tells us, if the faith we have does not produce works, it is a dead faith.


What different acts do Catholic priests require of people who go to confession?

99% of the time that seems to be the case, even for mortal sins.  I've had a few "take your wife on a dates" but the most prayers I've ever been assigned was a Rosary. Generally it's just a few Hail Mary's.  I think there's a recent historical precedent for this practice, but I don't know off hand what it is, hopefully someone can expand on that.   I've heard of some pretty awesome penances in the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

One thing that I think is required is restitution, if possible, of stolen goods.  I'm not certain if that's in some rubric or just a teaching, but to be truly penitent it would be assumed that you'd be resolved to try and make good and you usually see that in an examination of conscience following the 10 commandments under the "thou shalt not steal" section.


According to LDS, what principles of the gospel were corrupted in the Great Apostasy

Within Mormon (LDS) theology, you can't speak of Church organization without speaking of priesthood authority.  The Priesthood exists without the Church but the Church cannot exist without the Priesthood.  The Priesthood is the power and authority given by God to act in the name of Jesus Christ.  So it makes no sense to a person of the LDS faith to separate the two.

But the question was what specific principles of the gospel were corrupted.  I would have to begin with the idea that God the Father and Jesus the Christ are of one substance (homoousia) which was cemented for Christiandom by the Nicene Creed (first council of Nicea in 325).  That is a major departing point from what a Mormon would believe is a correct principle of the Gospel.  Mormons believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost (Spirit) are three distinct beings with one purpose.  Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are not the same being as God the Father, who is our only God.

Another difference that is more subtle is in regards to soteriology.  While Mormons agree that all humankind is freely given grace by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (the atonement) as do most Christians, Mormons believe that obedience to the laws and ordinances (saving works done under priesthood authority, such as baptism) of the gospel is also required.  Some Christians would say that God approaches humans with God's saving works and never the other way around.  Mormons believe that some effort is required by humans to receive this approach (free will and choice).  This does not change the fact that Jesus Christ is the bridge between God and humankind and nobody can return to the Father any other way.

Other important principles that have experienced a slow departure over the years of the  Church would include the following ideas, not all of which are opposed by all denominations of Christians.  Humans are not born sinners because of the Fall of Adam, and thus are judged for their own sins.  Mormons do not feel that babies require baptism.  Baptism is required through proper Priesthood authority when a person is capable of understanding and accounting for their own choices.  And finally, and probably a major point of irritation to many, the words of the Bible are not the final words of God.  Prophecy and revelation are still alive and present in the world.  God has not finished speaking to humans.

This is not all-inclusive, and I'm sure there are many more points that are perfectly good and important, but this is the list that expresses the areas of greatest concern among my fellows at the (Presbyterian) seminary I attended.


Does the indwelling of the Holy Spirit encompass a person's body, soul and spirit?

Tripartite? Sometimes.

Scripture does imply a "body, soul, and spirit" (3 parts) in some places. However, in other places it's "heart, soul, mind, and strength" (4 parts). In other places it is simply "body and soul" or "body and spirit" (2 parts), though "spirit and soul" are distinguished in other places. Of course there are also many places that simply refer to the man as a single entity.

The key of course is context. What is the author talking about in the passage you're examining? Here are a few passages that may help you along in your study:

Relationship between the Holy Spirit and...

Body - as you noticed, your body is a "temple" of the Holy Spirit. This is similar to the picture we have of our bodies being a "tent" or "dwelling" for us (i.e. our non-physical self.)

Mind - The Scriptures seem to exhort believers to "set their minds on the Spirit." (I'm thinking here about Romans 8:5-6 and 1 Cor. 14:14-15.) This leads me to believe the mind is perhaps the "attention" of the person, and not a location where the Spirit dwells.

Soul - In Luke 2:35 it would seem that the soul is where the "thoughts of the heart" are found.

Spirit - Romans 8:16 seems to paint a picture of the Spirit at work alongside our spirit, rather than "from within."

...again, it is crucial to study each passage carefully and determine what the author is trying to communicate, but hopefully I have given you enough material to help you study and explore the topic more for yourself.


What was the early American church like?

Denominations prevalent in North America in late 17th and 18th centuries:(In approximate order of arrival or apperance) [Note: there may well have been others; these are the ones that come to mind in an overview.]

Roman Catholics, principally in Canada, the far North of New England, and the colony of Maryland;

Anglicans, both the Puritan subset, in Boston, and more mainline flavors in other Southern colonies (e.g. Virginia);

Baptists (originated in Rhode Island under Roger Williams);

Lutherans, first in New Sweden / Delaware, and Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent in other places.

Dutch Calvinists, in New Amsterdam (under the Reformed denominations) and Scots Calvinists (who eventually became the Presbyterian denominations)

Quakers, in Pennsylvania

Methodists, in Georgia, and other colonies.

Moravians and Mennonites / Amish came to Pennsylvania and North Carolina during the 18th Century.

The most significant communication and co-operation between Christians in the New World and in the Old would likely have been among the Roman Catholics, and the Anglicans.

The first "American denomination" was the Baptists, and the Congregationalists, who evolved form the Puritan Anglicans in New England.


Comparison of Age of Earth according to Biblical theories

There's not really much to say here. There are really only a few of options:

Those who think the Biblical texts are broadly historical and believe they indicate that both humanity and the earth have existed for only a few thousand years (typically between six and ten).
Those who think the Biblical texts are broadly historical in relation to humanity, believing that humanity have only existed for a few thousand years, but that the earth is much older. Specific options here include the Gap Theory and the Framework view of Genesis 1 (though many Framework proponents would say humanity is also much older).
Those who think the early chapters and genealogies in Genesis are either analogical, mythical, or just inaccurate, and so don't believe we can learn an accurate age for humanity or the earth from the Bible, and therefore turn to secular geology for the answer to these questions.


What is the difference between Heaven and Paradise?

In the LXX, the Greek word παράδεισος (paradeisos) was used to translate the Hebrew phrase גַּן עֵדֶן (gan eden), otherwise known in English as "the Garden of Eden" (cp. LXX Gen. 3:24).

Παράδεισος occurs in the LXX in:

  Gen. 2:8-10, 2:15-16, 3:1-3, 3:8, 3:10, 3:23-24, 13:10; Num. 24:6; 2 Chr. 33:20; Eccl. 2:5; Song 4:13; Sir. 24:30, 40:17, 40:27; Psa. Sol. 14:3; Joel 2:3; Isa. 1:30, 51:3; Jer. 36:5; Eze. 28:13, 31:8-9; Sus. 1:4, 1:7, 1:15, 1:17-18; 1:20, 1:25-26; 1:36, 1:38, 1:54

Παράδεισος occurs in the ΝΤ in:

  Luke 23:43; 2 Cor. 12:4; Rev. 2:7

Yeshu'a told the thief on the cross, «σήμερον μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ», that is, "Today you shall be with me in the Paradise."

In his second epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle Paulos wrote how "a man in Christ...was caught up unto the third heaven." He then elaborates that this man was likewise "caught up into the Paradise" (ἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον).

Some interpret this as meaning that this man was caught up unto the third heaven and then into Paradise. If this is so, should we understand it that the Paradise is even higher and loftier than the third heaven?


In the Angelus, which is theologically correct, "conceived of" or "conceived by"?

The Angelus is composed of three versicle-response prayers, alternating with Hail Marys. The phrase in question is from the beginning. In Latin:

  V: Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae.
  R: Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.

I learned this in English as

  V: The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary.
  R: And she conceived of the Holy Ghost.

If I were translating it into English de novo, I might come up with something like

  V: An angel of the Lord made an announcement to Mary.
  R: And she conceived by [the power of] the Holy Spirit.

The Latin de is a very common preposition that can mean "from", "of", "away from", "concerning", and sometimes other things. Here it is translated "of" and "by" in the two translations.

Note: The preposition "de" is used in the Latin translations of the Apostle's and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creeds to describe the conception of Jesus; in both cases, the preposition is used to translate the Greek ἐκ. A standard Greek dictionary, Liddell-Scott-Jones, has a vast number of possible translations or usages for the word—the most relevant ones are probably those having to do with describing place or person of origin (III. (4) and (6) in the LSJ definition list).

The English translation I learned probably dates back to the 19th century or before. Its use of "of" to mean "by" was customary in early modern English through at least the 18th century:

  Was it well done of rash Virginius
  To slay his daughter ...

(Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus, Act V, Scene 3)

  For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

(Ephesians 5:12, King James Version)

Note here that for example the New American Bible Revised Edition translates this verse

  for it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret

(emphasis added)

The phrasing appears later, in Biblical commentary:

  ...not that either the law of God, or Gospel of Christ, require this to be done of all men ...

(Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible [written mid-1740s], commentary on Matthew 19:21)

Note that Gill in the same chapter uses "done by":

  ...Mark adds, "but not with God; for with God all things are possible"; to be done by him...

At the very least, however, this was not an uncommon usage; and I see it persisting even into the 19th century.

My conclusion, then, is that the two phrases mean the same thing—there is no theological difference between them—but one is characteristic of an older variety of English.


Where does this Martin Luther quote come from?

According to God is for Us: 52 Readings from Romans, by Simon Ponsonby: "During the Diet of Augsburg Luthor wrote to Melancthon, 'Sin is essentially a departure from God.'" Quote is credited in that book to Watchwords for the Warfare of Life, Vol. 1, T. Nelson and Sons.

eBook URL: God is for Us


Do I have to disclose my private life to a stranger?

Jesus also said:

  “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. (Matthew 10:16)

and

  Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. (Matthew 7:6)

Wisdom would suggest that one choose one's counselors wisely.  This would not mean a stranger.

Confessing your sin is also done privately, per Matthew 18:15

  “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.


From where did the Pearl of Great Price come and how did it become recognized as Scripture in the LDS church?

The Pearl of Great Price is not a cohesive book in the same way as the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants are.  It serves as more of a "miscellaneous" collection: two significant elements from the unfinished Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (the books of Moses (excerpted from the start of Genesis) and "Joseph Smith--Matthew" (towards the end of the Gospel of Matthew)), one translation of an ancient document not found in the Bible (the Book of Abraham), Joseph Smith's personal retelling of the sacred events that led up to the founding of the church (Joseph Smith--History), and a short set of simple declarations by Joseph Smith about basic LDS doctrines that has been accepted by the church as a canonical declaration of belief (the Articles of Faith.)

According to BYU's Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on the subject, it was originally published in 1851 by the president of the British Mission as a response to requests for more information about the church, and at the time it contained several other revelations which have since been moved to the Doctrine and Covenants.  It was accepted by the church as an official, canonical collection of scripture in 1880.

The article doesn't mention anything about LDS offshoot sects accepting it as scripture.  The Wikipedia article mentions that it is accepted by "some other Latter Day Saint denominations," but does not elaborate or provide any references on the subject.


Why is Jeremiah 31:31-34 interpreted by Catholic Christians to point toward Jesus?

The verses of Jeremiah 31:31–34 appear in seven paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, of which six (quoted below) are directly relevant. In all of these, Christ the Messiah is the bringer of the New Covenant, which is to be written on the hearts of his people.
This is entirely Biblical. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews quotes the passage verbatim in chapter 8, and then in chapter 9 describes the differences between the High Priest of the Old Covenant and the High Priest of the New, concluding:

Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant. [Heb 9:15 RSVCE]

Not only is the Jeremiah prophecy pointing to a prophecy which will be fulfilled by a Messiah, it points to the Messiah fulfilling the prophecy by providing the New Covenant.

64 Through the prophets, God forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant intended for all, to be written on their hearts.
368 The spiritual tradition of the Church also emphasizes the heart, in the biblical sense of the depths of one's being, where the person decides for or against God.
580 In Jesus, the Law no longer appears engraved on tables of stone but "upon the heart" of the Servant who becomes "a covenant to the people", because he will "faithfully bring forth justice".
715 The prophetic texts that directly concern the sending of the Holy Spirit are oracles by which God speaks to the heart of his people in the language of the promise, with the accents of "love and fidelity." St. Peter will proclaim their fulfillment on the morning of Pentecost. According to these promises, at the "end time" the Lord's Spirit will renew the hearts of men, engraving a new law in them. He will gather and reconcile the scattered and divided peoples; he will transform the first creation, and God will dwell there with men in peace.
762 But the prophets accuse Israel of breaking the covenant and behaving like a prostitute. They announce a new and eternal covenant. "Christ instituted this New Covenant."
1965 The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity: "I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel. . . . I will put my laws into their hands, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."
[The seventh is paragraph 2713, about contemplative prayer.]


What authority can move the celebration days of Easter in the Catholic Church?

I can not find a source that says who permitted the Catholic Church on the Island of Syros to celebrate Easter on the same day as the Orthodox Churches. But understanding the integrate nature of the Church, it would be given to Catholic Church in Syros through the form of an indult from Rome, probably through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and with the approval of the Sovereign Pontiff, the Pope.

  The Catholic Community of Syros Greece, Cyclades: The island of Syros hosts a vast Catholic community, which reaches almost half of the island's population. There is also an equal quantity of Catholic and Orthodox churches. The most impressive Catholic church is the church of Agios Georgios, on the highest point of Ano Syros village, with the Centre of Historical Studies of Catholic Bishopric on the back side of the church.

  The equality between the Catholic and Orthodox people is an interesting fact, since Orthodoxy is actually the main dogma in Greece. This shows the influence of the Venetians, who conquered the island in the medieval times and occupied it for many centuries. During this period, Syros became a bastion of Catholicism and, in fact, it is known as the Island of the Pope.

  Even when the Ottomans dominated the island, the Catholic influence remained and Syros came under the protection of France and the Vatican. Moreover, the French had ensured from the Turks some privileges for the Catholic community of Syros. Many residents became Catholic that period of time and Catholic monasteries were founded, such as the Capuchin Monastery and the Monastery of Jesuits in Ano Syros, that stand till today.

  Later on, when Greece was deliberated from the Turks and the Greek State was established, the catholic population of Syros was Hellenized and changed their Latin names to Greek, for example Russo to Roussos, Vuccino to Voutsinos and Vacondio to Vakondios.

  The integration to the Greek State did not provoke any problems and there was a good relationship between the old Roman Catholic residents of Syros and the refugees from Asia Minor, who arrived on the island in 1921 and were mostly Greek Orthodox. Therefore, the coexistence between both communities doesn't affect the peace and tranquility of the island. They have learned to go along with each other for centuries. - Syros Catholic Community


In Catholicism, do scripted and unscripted prayers have equal importance to one's spiritual identity and development?

Short answer: yes.

The point is to pray, or as the Apostle Paul exhorts the faithful, to pray continually. (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18).

  16 Rejoice always, 17 pray continually, 18 give thanks in all
  circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.

Prayer as God's gift

  CCC 2559 "Prayer is the raising of one's mind and heart to God or the
  requesting of good things from God."  But when we pray, do we speak
  from the height of our pride and will, or "out of the depths" of a
  humble and contrite heart?  He who humbles himself will be exalted;
  humility is the foundation of prayer, Only when we humbly acknowledge
  that "we do not know how to pray as we ought," are we ready to
  receive freely the gift of prayer.

It isn't so much "what" you pray but "how" you pray.  Pray from the heart.

  CCC 2562  Whether prayer is expressed in words or gestures, it is the
  whole man who prays.  But in naming the source of prayer, Scripture
  speaks sometimes of the soul or the spirit, but most often of the
  heart (more than a thousand times).  According to Scripture, it is
  the heart that prays.  If our heart is far from God, the words of
  prayer are in vain.

This encouragement to pray in all circumstances gets emphasis in the Catechism.

  CCC  2659 We learn to pray at certain moments by hearing the Word of
  the Lord and sharing in his Paschal mystery, but his Spirit is
  offered us at all times, in the events of each day, to make prayer
  spring up from us. Jesus' teaching about praying to our Father is in
  the same vein as his teaching about providence: time is in the
  Father's hands; it is in the present that we encounter him, not
  yesterday nor tomorrow, but today: "O that today you would hearken to
  his voice! Harden not your hearts."
  CCC 2660 Prayer in the events of each day and each moment is one of the
  secrets of the kingdom revealed to "little children," to the servants
  of Christ, to the poor of the Beatitudes. It is right and good to pray
  so that the coming of the kingdom of justice and peace may influence
  the march of history, but it is just as important to bring the help of
  prayer into humble, everyday situations; all forms of prayer can be
  the leaven to which the Lord compares the kingdom.

The Church teaches that prayer, when humbly offered from an open heart, is a form of (spiritual) communion.

  Prayer as communion
  CCC 2565 In the New Covenant, prayer is the living
  relationship of the children of God with their Father who is good
  beyond measure, with his Son Jesus Christ and with the Holy Spirit.
  The grace of the Kingdom is "the union of the entire holy and royal
  Trinity . . . with the whole human spirit."   Thus, the life of
  prayer is the habit of being in the presence of the thrice-holy God
  and in communion with him.   This communion of life is always possible
  because, through Baptism, we have already been united with Christ.

To sum up:  prayer isn't about importance, it is about reaching toward God from our hearts.  Worrying about "importance" misses the point of prayer.

Longer answer: the Lord's Prayer provides a perfect model of prayer for the faithful

The Catechism covers prayer in over 300 articles. (CCC 2558 - 2865).  I'd recommend reading it from first to last to get an overview of the teaching of prayer.  A wealth of references to prayer from scripture, saints and theologians are included in foot notes that flesh out the understanding of prayer as a key element of faith.  The Lord's Prayer has a detailed section to finish off the Catechism.  (Ending on a high note, as it were).

  CCC 2766 But Jesus does not give us a formula to repeat
  mechanically. As in every vocal prayer, it is through the Word of God
  that the Holy Spirit teaches the children of God to pray to their
  Father. Jesus not only gives us the words of our filial prayer; at the
  same time he gives us the Spirit by whom these words become in us
  "spirit and life." Even more, the proof and possibility of our filial
  prayer is that the Father "sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts,
  crying, 'Abba! Father!'" Since our prayer sets forth our desires
  before God, it is again the Father, "he who searches the hearts of
  men," who "knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit
  intercedes for the saints according to the will of God."

As above, it isn't just the words of the prayer, it is in opening one's heart up in prayer that prayer becomes the great gift from God.

  CCC 2611 The prayer of faith consists not only in saying "Lord, Lord,"
  but in disposing the heart to do the will of the Father. Jesus calls his disciples to bring into their prayer this concern for
  cooperating with the divine plan.

Some might conclude from the description "perfect" that The Lord's Prayer is more important.  It is certainly the great gift of prayer given by Jesus himself to his people.

  The Lord's Prayer is the most perfect of prayers.... In it we ask, not
  only for all the things we can rightly desire, but also in the
  sequence that they should be desired. This prayer not only teaches us
  to ask for things, but also in what order we should desire them. ~
  St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II, 83, 9.

But the Church does not teach that other prayers are less important.  It teaches that prayer is important, even crucial, to Christian life.

  "THE SUMMARY OF THE WHOLE GOSPEL"

  2761 The Lord's Prayer "is truly the summary of the whole gospel."
  "Since the Lord . . . after handing over the practice of prayer, said
  elsewhere, 'Ask and you will receive,' and since everyone has
  petitions which are peculiar to his circumstances, the regular and
  appropriate prayer [the Lord's Prayer] is said first, as the
  foundation of further desires."

You could call the Lord's Prayer the gateway prayer that opens up infinite doors in one's heart to God.   (On an experiential note, when I pray I most often start with the Lord's Prayer to get myself in a good prayerful state. It is a great start to any longer period of praying.  Other times, particularly when attending Adoration, my opening prayer is an extemporaneous salutation to Jesus as I sit in front of the Body of Christ, exposed on the monstrance).

  CCC 2762 After showing how the psalms are the principal food of Christian
  prayer and flow together in the petitions of the Our Father, St.
  Augustine concludes:

  Run through all the words of the holy prayers [in Scripture], and I do
  not think that you will find anything in them that is not contained
  and included in the Lord's Prayer.

The church teaches that prayer is important in spiritual development, and spiritual identity as one who is with God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.  The point is to pray.  Quibbling over "importance" rather misses the point, as the disciples seemed to be missing the point in Luke 22:24-30.

  24 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should
  be considered the greatest.  25 And He said to them, “The kings of the
  Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority
  over them are called ‘benefactors.’  26 But not so among you; on the
  contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and
  he who governs as he who serves.  27 For who is greater, he who sits
  at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table?
  Yet I am among you as the One who serves.

  28 “But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials.  29 And
  I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me,
  30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on
  thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Come to the table, it doesn't matter where you sit.

Pray with your heart.


Is this a Calvinistic or Arminian statement of faith?

The disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians are over the precise nature of predestination and election. The traditional Arminian position can be seen in the Five Articles of Remonstrance. The key difference between an Arminian and Calvinist position is that of free will: Arminians believe that human beings are born with free will, and can therefore resist God's grace. Salvation is, from this perspective, conditional on whether a man or woman accepts God's grace.
By contrast, the traditional Calvinist / Reformed view is that mankind does not have free will, we are incapable of accepting salvation unless God himself enables us.
This is how the 39 Articles of the Church of England puts it:

X. Of Free-Will
The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will. Source

The statement of faith you cite does not actually take a position on these things. I would suggest this is almost certainly intentional. Some denominations or churches do not want to take a position on this, for fear that they will alienate some people. Many churches simply want to focus on what unites, rather than what some say are more contentious issues.
There are no doubt arguments to be had of the wisdom of such an approach, but perhaps to go into it would be beyond the scope of this answer!


I usually take proverbs to be straightforward about earthly affairs. They often fall under the theme of Ecclesiastes:

  A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God (Ecclesiastes 2:24)

This proverb might be a word of wisdom to farmers, touching on laziness or reluctance to work in the grime of hard labor. A framer might not like working hard with oxen because of the mess they make in the barn. They would prefer the manger to be’ empty’ as indicating ‘cleanliness’ (or’ empty’ could signify poverty). I lean to the cleanliness aspect of the barn resulting in poverty from the lack of harvest.

Accordingly, not only having to feed oxen and getting dirty oneself, but all the dung and waste that they would have had to clean up. However, to really accept the work that we have been assigned by the ‘sweat of out brow’ and the kindness that God provisioned in man’s use of stronger animals, man can reap a good harvest.

A farmer, who just wants a tidy place to relax in, will have nothing but poverty.


Thank you for your question, I think it is actually a good question to put ourselves into. About what Jesus's teaching is all about, and how can we live out our life that is glorifying to God. As I reflect my life upon it, I came to a simple thought that I hope that may help you.

I think we must come to understand our purpose in life. In this world that full of darkness and lawlessness, for what reason we live in this world, and to understand that Jesus has been giving encouragement and promises that comforts us, in trials, in difficulties, in persecutions and so on. To grow in Jesus Christ also means that we must allow ourselves to be exposed to the storm of life, trials and challenges.

Christian, or to say, disciples of Jesus Christ, are those who follow Jesus' teaching. Our only purpose in life is to fulfill God's Will and his purposes.

In Luke 9:23,

  23 Then he said to them all, “If any want to become my followers, let
  them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.

The daily cross represents trials and challenges in our lives, explicitly talking about the trials we face when we are doing God's Will. Jesus came and gave us Salvation, a gift of eternal life, and he has given commands to us that, as his disciples, we must do the same, the share the gospel to the world. Many unbelievers will come and try to give a hard time to those who shares gospel. Why? Simply because the Satan is deceiving the people, that Satan doesn't want the truth to be shared.

In these trials and temptation that Satan has led us into, I would explain in one situation to make a clearer picture of what I meant:

Say you have come to a church, and stayed here for several months. You join the Sunday Service even the Fellowship. And you enjoyed it, because you just sits there alone and enjoy all the programme that has been prepared by other people.

So one fine day, the pastor approach you and invited you to take up a serving position in the church. The next thing you realised is that you are sitting in a meeting, and the committee are discussing about the programme of the coming fellowship. One way or another, you started to find out that some of the people who serves in the church are less "friendly" as you expected. Some are even having very tight tension among other people who serves. You started to realised that, the relationship between men in the church are broken. Sooner or later, the trouble maker came to you and started to squeeze you and give pressure to you in your serving. And you were stressed about it, and told the pastor that you decided not to serve anymore.

Story Ends

The trouble maker I mentioned could be a pastor, a church leader, or someone who have high position, or anyone you men in your serving. I have been to many churches and see many cases, where there are always some people who have their pride inside, and doesn't allow those who were less superior that him/her to do decision or even say anything in a church serving.

These people, the "trouble makers" are one of the trials that we, as the disciples of Jesus face everyday. There is no way to avoid it, I believe God has placed different kind of people surrounding us, to test us, to give us chance to grow. And to share the gospel of those who have broken relationship with God.

And the daily cross means that, in our daily life. We must deny ourselves, get off the pride in ourselves, and in exchange, we focus on Jesus in our prayers and devotional time, to renew ourselves. Because we have trials to face.

But take courage, as Jesus said in Luke 28,

  “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens,
  and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me;
  for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your
  souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

When you have taken the cross and serve Jesus, you come to realise that: Serving People is Difficult!

And this moment, Jesus asked us to come to Him. Those who are weary and carrying heavy burdens, meaning that we are stressed and find no way in dealing the problems on our own. Neither can we just kick the Trouble Maker out of the church, or try hard to rebuke him at what he has done wrong. But one thing we can do is:

To surrender to our God.

Because at the end of the day, all the things that we do, we only participate it, and in partnership with God.

  8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is
  not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no
  one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus
  to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. -
  Ephesians 2:8-10

You see, God has already prepare everything for us, the work has done by God, in all many different ministry. God have entrusted us the work to us, and we do it not because we are trying to earn our salvation, we do it solely because we as Christian, love our God.

And in love, that we embrace ourselves in serving Him, because of the comforts and promises that Jesus has been given to us. Through love, we face difficult people; through love we share gospel to the people; That although we face trials and grows weary, but surely we will find rest and fin way in our All-Loving God, our Almighty God, Jesus Christ, Our Savior.

As Christian, we must be clear on what is our purpose. To proclaim the gospel in all nation. Understanding the challenges in this world at the End Time. And hold fast onto the hope and promises that God has given to us through the word of God. The bible is where you find your direction, and pray to listen to God for His guidance.


How to light incense like a pro?

First of all, a word on safety. Most thurifers light the charcoal in or near the sacristy.  I can not stress the point enough about having a  fire extinguisher mounted somewhere in close proximity of where one lights the charcoal. Fires happen and I have seen the results. One parish close to where I live lost it’s entire sacristy (vestments and all). To burn incense like a pro, the first step is to be careful at all times, know your surroundings and act like a pro. Safety first.

  Safety Notes

  The thurible should always be handled with care, whether or not it contains live coals. Treating the thurible with care on a consistent basis will form solid habits that will prevent injury.

  When using the thurible, the following practices should be observed:

  A fire extinguisher and water must be at hand when lighting coals
  Lit coals and matches must always be extinguished in a bucket of water
  Tongs must always be used to handle hot coals
  When the thurible has contained hot coals, never touch the cover with your hands

To light charcoals like a true professional a few things can be taken into consideration from my own experience. Although married, I still serve Masses when I attend Masses on week days or when special circumstances require it. (I am the only server at a monastery of contemplative nuns.)

First of all, not all charcoals are equal. The older they are, the harder they are to light. Broken ones are also harder to light.

Generally speaking one should not wait to the last minute to light the briquette. If incense (especially if when employing incense in “powder” form) is put onto the charcoal too soon there is a fair risk that it may smother the fire so to speak. For this reason, I prefer using incense in large grain form. Here is my favourite: Damascus Rose.

The biggest problem is exactly what K-HB wrote down in his comment:

  In my experience the biggest problem is oxygen. The censer may or may not be well constructed to serve this issue. Try it with open cover and blow a bit at the briquette. The thuribles in church are normally better constructed and the swinging helps too.

However, it does helps to keep the thurible open when not in use to help keep the briquette hot and blow air over if necessary to keep hot, especially when first lite. Moreover, one should know when it is necessary to add another charcoal to the fire pot, especially during long liturgical functions such as ordinations. Normally fire pot will accommodate 2 - 3 coals.

Here is an example of what a liturgical thurible as used in the western liturgies. In Eastern liturgies, thuribles have bells attached to them.

Parishes and Religious Institutions that are more traditional use thuribles that silver toned at Masses like funerals and High Masses on ordinary Sundays. Brass toned thuribles are used on major feast Days and on special occasions.


Did John Calvin help Nicolas Cop write his infamous inaugural address?

According to Alexandre Ganoczy's Calvin’s Life and Context, chapter 1 in The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin there is no scholarly consensus as to the extent of Calvin's involvement in Nicolas Cop's speech "made on the Feast of All Saints in 1533 at the opening of the academic year":

  Who was behind this speech? Scholarly opinions differ. Some attribute
  to Calvin merely an advisory role; others think that Calvin wrote the
  speech himself; and others attribute to Cop, the Erasmian physician, a
  time of private study and a competence in theology similar to the
  young jurist. One thing is certain: Calvin felt solidarity with Cop
  and was able to affirm his statements.

Ganoczy himself seems non-committal, as is Thomas J. Davis, Professor of Religious Studies at Indiana University. In John Calvin, he writes

  Historical evidence is ambiguous as to the authorship of Cop’s
  address. Some think Calvin wrote it, or at least had a hand in writing
  it.

Also in The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, Wulfert de Greef in chapter 3, Calvin's Writings , is of the opinion that:

  Calvin was involved in drawing up Cop’s address.

De Greef does not give any reasons for his conclusion, but a more complete account can be found in Calvin: A Biography by French scholar Bernard Cottret. He is of the opinion that, while the question remains "open", Calvin probably did not write the speech but he

  participated in its writing and...he even exercised a friendly
  influence over Cop...

In arriving at this view, Cottret notes that

  Various intriguing indications show clearly Calvin's involvement at
  Nicolas Cop's side. A fragment of this text in Calvin's own hand
  exists in Geneva, while the complete version, corrected by Cop, was
  henceforth located in Strasbourg.

In a footnote, Cottret adds:

  It is probable, moreover, that the two known manuscripts are
  themselves copies of an original draft of the text.

Calvin's friendship with Cop certainly did him no favours in the eyes of the opposition. After the speech, Calvin's room was searched by the authorities, who also took his papers, but the backlash from conservatives was not aimed only at him, and nor was it entirely to do with Cop's speech. Ganoczy again:

  ...the reaction of the opposition affected Calvin exactly as it did the
  university rector: both found themselves in that constantly shifting
  middle ground of loyalty to the church and a desire for reform. In the
  eyes of the Sorbonne occupying middle ground still meant schism and
  heresy. This radically conservative group was successful in regaining
  the confidence of the king by December, 1533. He ordered the
  extermination of the “damned Lutheran sects.”

The king referred to is Francis I (1515-47) who was initially relatively tolerant of Protestantism despite pressure from pope Clement VII in August 1533 to take action against "the Lutheran heresy and other sects infesting this kingdom". The pressure and incentives to take action increased, though, as Francis was also vying with the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V for the pope's favour in achieving "Christian unity". The French king, after meeting the Pope on the 10th of November in Marseilles, was able to proclaim a "diplomatic victory".

It wasn't until an unrelated incident in 1534 (see Affair of the Placards) that Calvin was forced to flee France altogether (note that Sproul is mistaken: Calvin did not flee France because of Cop's speech).


May the Pope waive the requirements of Canon Law in the appointment of bishops?

Short answer: The Pope can.

  Can. 331 CIC: The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

The Pope has the full power over the Church. He establishes the canon law and can abolish it, in general or for one case. He is only bound to divine law, but that is no problem here.

In context of the appointment of bishops this is clearly stated in the CIC.

  Can. 377 §1. The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms those legitimately elected.

The Pope should follow the requirements stated in can. 378 § 1, but is not required to.  Ending a schism seems to me a very good reason for behaving in a unusual way.

By the way: I think a canidate can fulfill the requirements of can. 378 § 1 even if he was excommunicated. When he is appointed he has to be in communion again (see KorvinStarmast's answer).


Why do LDS members (Mormons) maintain a long-term supply of food?

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on Emergency Preparedness explains that this practice is about simple pragmatism.  It really has little if anything to do with eschatology; rather, the concept that members should maintain a stored supply of food is based on the simple reality that disasters and emergencies, both personal and wide-scale, do happen, and often without warning.

A person who has a long-term supply of food on hand is much better prepared to weather various disasters, ranging from a sudden loss of a job or unexpected medical expenses to societal disruptions such as natural disasters, riots, truckers' strikes or other conditions that make shopping for food difficult.

The recommended target given by the church is to have a year's supply of essential food saved up.  The EoM article references a 1980 General Conference talk by Ezra Taft Benson, then of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, which can be found here.  In the talk, however, he states that this has been the counsel of the church "for over forty years."  (Which would most likely place the origin of the idea in the 1930s, most likely during the Great Depression, which makes sense. If anyone can find a source to date this counsel back that far, feel free to edit it in here.)


Are there physical or psychological conditions that are a barrier to ordination to the Priesthood in the Catholic Church?

Can.  1041 The following are irregular for receiving orders:

  1/ a person who labors under some form of amentia or other psychic
  illness due to which, after experts have been consulted, he is judged
  unqualified to fulfill the ministry properly;

  2/ a person who has committed the delict of apostasy, heresy, or
  schism;

  3/ a person who has attempted marriage, even only civilly, while
  either impeded personally from entering marriage by a matrimonial
  bond, sacred orders, or a public perpetual vow of chastity, or with a
  woman bound by a valid marriage or restricted by the same type of vow;

  4/ a person who has committed voluntary homicide or procured a
  completed abortion and all those who positively cooperated in either;

  5/ a person who has mutilated himself [this includes vasectomy, castration, sterilization, etc.] or another gravely and
  maliciously or who has attempted suicide;

  6/ a person who has placed an act of orders reserved to those in the
  order of episcopate or presbyterate while either lacking that order or
  prohibited from its exercise by some declared or imposed canonical
  penalty.

(cf. the commentary on this canon)

This Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders by CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION, is an example of how Bishops, major superiors and all relevant authorities are to carry out an attentive discernment concerning the suitability of candidates for holy orders, from the time of admission to the seminary until ordination. In one section it states

  The spiritual director has the obligation to evaluate all the
  qualities of the candidate's personality and to make sure that he does
  not present disturbances of a sexual nature, which are incompatible
  with the priesthood. If a candidate practises homosexuality or
  presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director as
  well as his confessor have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from
  proceeding towards ordination.


Why did God tell Moses to make a bronze serpent on a stick?

I think in order to answer this question, a short detour needs to be taken to John's Gospel, because in it Jesus Christ himself refers to this incident with Moses and the bronze serpent.  In John 3:14-15, Jesus tells Nicodemus, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."

Then, Jesus continues by noting that out of love God sent His Son into the world to save it, not to condemn it (John 3:16-17).  Jesus then says, though, that the world was already condemned: "Whoever believes in him [i.e. the Son, Jesus Christ] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:18).

The point in Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus is that he came into the world to save a world that was already condemned, and that this salvation comes through him being "lifted up."  The world, and us in it, are "condemned already" due to the sin of Adam and Eve, and Jesus saves us through his death on the cross (i.e. he was "lifted up").  All who look on Christ in faith receive this redemption from death; those who do not are not condemned by Christ, because they were already condemned due to sin.

So, getting back to Moses and the bronze serpent in the book of Numbers.  To put some context around it, the people of Israel had been in slavery in Egypt.  Through Moses, the Lord has delivered them up out of slavery, redeeming them from their captivity.  He is now leading them to the land He has promised them.  Yet, the people continually rebel against the Lord.  They finally "spoke against God and against Moses," accusing them of bringing the people out to the wilderness to die.  Then, they call the manna which the Lord had been sending them "worthless."  Thus, they despise the Lord's grace and mercy in delivering them out of captivity (cf. Numbers 21:4-5).

Therefore, the Lord gives them what their sins deserve: death.  He sends "fiery serpents" to them, which bite the people and kill them.  Sin came into the world through the serpent, Satan, and now here in Numbers the people are suffering the consequences of sin, namely death; they are "condemned already" (Numbers 21:6-7).

However, the Lord provides a means to save the people.  He has Moses make a bronze serpent, the symbol of death, and raise it up on a pole.  All who look on it will live (Numbers 21:8-9).

Jesus connects this event with his own crucifixion.  He is raised up on the cross to die for our sins.  He dies on the symbol of death, apparently "bitten" by the serpent Satan, dying the death we deserve.  Yet, through this symbol of death we have life; everyone who looks on the cross of Christ in faith will live, even though we have been bitten by the serpent and are therefore sinners (cf. Numbers 21:9).

That's a lot of words to say basically that Christ interprets the event in Numbers in light of what he came to do; he came to die by being raised up on the cross in order to save people who were "condemned already" by the serpent Satan and the sin he brought into the world.  So, what happens in Numbers points forward to what Christ was coming to do on the cross for all people.

Indeed, Christ came to save not only us, but also his entire creation.  He died and rose to save a world that was "condemned already," restoring it to the perfection in which he had originally created it (cf. John 1:1ff). This will come on the "Last Day" with his return and the resurrection.


When did Christians switch from an ‘immediate baptism’ to ‘after years of instruction and scrutiny’ baptism, such as in the Apostolic Tradition?

According to A history of the catechumenate: the first six centuries by Michele Dujarier (Sadlier, 1979), the development of a longer initiation period predates Hippolytus (assumed to be writing in 215AD) by at least a few generations.

In Rome, the First Apology of Justin Martyr (155-157AD) attests to preliminary instruction in the faith, prior to baptism (though not necessarily for three years, and it was not organized systematically). Dujarier writes, "Some Christians dedicated themselves more particularly to the task of awakening faith and of teaching and opened 'schools' as did philosophers of this period. These were private initiatives and were not institutionalized. The hierarchical Church had not yet assumed the direct responsibility for the teaching given in them. But the fact is clear: the laity themselves carefully ensured the evangelization and instruction of converts. [...] The witness of Justin thus manifests the essential aspects of stages and, catechumenal requirements. In the course of the following decades, these stages and requirements were codified more and more strictly."
In Alexandria, there was a school of catechesis (using that word!). Jerome says it was founded by the apostle Mark; at least, it was in existence in 176AD. Clement of Alexandria taught there from 190AD. There is some doubt, however, about whether the term catechesis here should be understood as including pre-baptismal instruction, or whether it refers to teaching in general.
Other writings around 200AD refer to catechumens, proselytes, auditors, recruits, or novices. This includes work by Tertullian and Cyprian. Dujarier deduces the existence of a catechetical period in Carthage in 200-210AD from this history.

The Apostolic Tradition is therefore recording a more formal version of a method that had been happening for a long time - certainly since the time of Justin Martyr. The justification seems to be both pastoral and practical; it is not only that new converts should be truly converted in their lives, but also relates to the effort to ensure orthodox belief, in the face of various heretical movements of the time. After Constantine, a further reason was that some people were seeking to become Christian in order to gain social status (condemned by Augustine, The first catechetical instruction 5), so it was important to distinguish between real converts and pretend ones.

As far as current practice goes, I don't know of a church which specifically holds to a three-year period before baptism, though it is unusual not to have some period of instruction (at least in the case of adult baptism). There is nothing particularly special about three years, though; and as Dujarier records, that length was not universally observed, and the span of time is less important than the content of the instruction.


What exactly was the purpose of the Council of Nicea?

Although many are of the opinion that the Council of Nicea was called to prep Christianity to become the official state religion, this is not accurate. This hypothesis does not fit with what we know about the mindset of the people of that time or Constantine. It should be remembered that Constantine was not yet a baptized Christian in 325 AD (the year the council was held); rather, his mother was. Although he took a great interest in the church (and would continue to do so with greater fervor as he grew older), Constantine was not baptized or fully accepted into the church until shortly before his repose.

The Edict of Milan also did not simply give freedom to Christians: it gave freedom to all religions. So, while Christianity certainly enjoyed the favor of the court, it did not become an official state religion, especially not to the exclusion of other religions. Even the Arian group that was cut off from the church existed peacefully in the empire for another several centuries.

Constantine also did not control the council, despite popular rhetoric to the contrary. In fact, everything we know about the council indicates the exact opposite. We have no official acts from the council, but we do have writings of many of the bishops and other clergy that attended it. Eusebius of Caesarea (not to be confused with Eusebius of Nicomedia) says that Constantine did not speak or understand Greek (the language used at the council) very well, so Bishop Hosios of Spain translated into Latin for him when he (Constantine) could find time to attend the council. It is estimated that the council took place over several months, and an emperor simply wouldn't have time to attend them all.

Further evidence that Constantine did not control the council is its result. It was precisely Constantine's best friends that were condemned by the council. I have in mind here in particular Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia (Eusebius later repented, was received by into the church, and went on to be the one to baptize Constantine).

As for the canon of scripture, it was necessary to establish at the beginning of the council which books were valid for argumentation. The question of authenticity was put to the Alexandrian party, as Alexandria was the center of learning in the world. The person generally credited as the lead researcher on the project is Athanasios the Great, whom I believe was a deacon at the time (if memory serves me). The selection of books was not, as Dan Brown might lead you to believe, done in either a conspiratorial or haphazard manner. The selections were quite reasonable, thoughtful, and well researched.

However, the selection of these books was not formally codified until the Second Oecumenical Council (381 AD). Part of the reason for this—and this is a major point missed by the majority of modern scholars—was the preference for and devotion to tradition on the part of the early church. Just as today, we argue over "what the Bible says," the early church argued over what had been handed down from the apostles and their successors. Oral tradition was considered sacred and the key to understanding the writings of any apostle or early church author. "Hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word or our epistle," wrote the Apostle Paul. The early church believed this deeply and followed it closely. All councils, whether local, regional, or oecumenical, were considered valid only in so far as they did not deviate from the sacred tradition handed down. Nearly all arguments made at these early councils hung on whether a thing had been passed down from bishop to bishop or not.

The main arguments at the First Oecumenical Council centered precisely around oral tradition. This is very important to understand. The First Oecumenical Council DID NOT FORMULATE NEW THEOLOGY. The very idea of "formulating" new theology is a very western idea and didn't even appear in the west as a concept until much later. The early church fathers abhorred and shunned the very idea of innovation.

Then what did the council do? The council introduced new terminology to more accurately express what had already been handed down. All of the bishops but 5 agreed on what had been handed down, though it took them quite a while to decide on whether or not to use the term "homoousion" (as opposed to the Arians' preference for "homiousion"). They tip-toed around this term because it had been used in a heretical way by Paul of Samosata some years earlier.

Constantine certainly did want to see the church rid of divisions—don't get me wrong. But I hope you will consider reading PRIMARY sources on this topic rather than the opinions that are currently trending and regurgitating among modern christians.


Can these three "2nd greatest commandments" be put into one sentence?

I will try to answer this, but how to love is shown in various parts of the NT, but I think the best description of what is not love is

  1 Cor 13

You will find that love is not a feeling, but an action. For example, Jesus ordered that we love one another.

  JOHN 13:34 NKJ  34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one
  another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

If it was a feeling you can't command people to feel a certain way, but you can command that they act a certain way.

So, when we are ordered to love our neighbor, and we know from the story of the Good Samaritan that everyone is our neighbor, and Jesus talked about how we should love our enemies:

  Matt 5:44  But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who
  persecute you

So, love is more encompassing that just feeling or pretending to love by being nice to others.

So, perhaps something along the lines of:

Love everyone, especially those that hate you, where you are willing to die for them, just as Jesus was willing to die for us, but start with loving yourself, as Jesus loved us enough to die for each of us.

What I am trying to show is that Jesus valued us enough to die, so we should reciprocate by loving ourself, as, if we can't love ourselves, then how can we truly love anyone else.  The Holy Spirit isn't going to hang out in a place that is filled with hate, and if you hate yourself, then that is not a hospitable home for the Holy Spirit.


What were the beliefs, teachings, and practices of the church regarding slavery in the New World?

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery#Revival_of_slavery_in_the_Early_Modern_Period) (empasis is mine):
Before Columbus

The Portuguese sought confirmation that they could enslave infidels in a crusade. In 1452 Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas to King Alfonso V of Portugal which included the following words: "we grant to you...full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ...to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery". In 1454 Pope Nicholas explicitly confirmed the rights granted to King Alfonso V in Dum Diversas in Romanus Pontifex by which he granted to Alfonso "...the rights of conquest and permissions previously granted not only to the territories already acquired but also those that might be acquired in the future".

We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit...

In 1456, Pope Calixtus III confirmed these grants to the Kings of Portugal and they were renewed by Pope Sixtus IV in 1481; and finally in 1514 Pope Leo repeated verbatim all these documents and approved, renewed and confirmed them.
These papal bulls came to serve as a justification for the subsequent era of slave trade and European colonialism.

Spanish New World

Slavery was part of the indigenous cultures much before the landfall of the Europeans in America. After the Europeans made landfall in America in 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella saw that, if Spain did not receive from the Pope in regard to the American "Indies" the same authority and permissions which Portugal had received in regard of West Africa, then Spain would be at a disadvantage in making use of her newly discovered territories. Accordingly Pope Alexander VI was approached and already on May 3, 1493 he issued two bulls on the same day in both of which he extended the identical favours, permissions, etc. granted to the Monarchy of Portugal in respect of West Africa to the Monarchy of Spain in respect of America.....and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery...wherever they may be.
Although the church was excited by the potential for huge numbers of conversions in the New World, the clergy sent there were often horrified by the methods used by the conquerors, and tensions between church and state in the new lands grew rapidly

16th century - Slavery in Europe

Slavery in Europe, mainly around the Mediterranean, continued, and was increased by the increased size of Mediterranean navies to combat the powerful Ottoman navy. The main type of naval ship in the Mediterranean, unlike the Atlantic and Northern seas, was the galley, rowed by galley-slaves; use of the galley only declines from about 1600. The navy of the Papal States was no different from that of Venice, France, Genoa and other naval powers. Galley-slaves were recruited by criminal sentencing, usually for a term of years many never survived, as well as capture in war, mostly of Muslims, and sometimes the African slave-trade. Some of the Popes were personally involved in the purchase and use of galley-slaves.[86] The Ottoman admiral Turgut Reis was captured and made a Genoan galley-slave for nearly four years before being imprisoned and eventually ransomed in 1544. After the battle of Lepanto approximately 12,000 Christian galley slaves were freed from the Turks.[87]
In 1535 Pope Paul III removed the ability of slaves in Rome to claim freedom by reaching the Capitol Hill, although this was restored some years later. He "declared the lawfulness of slave trading and slave holding, including the holding of Christian slaves in Rome".[88]
In 1639 Pope Urban VIII forbade the slavery of the Indians of Brazil, Paraguay, and the West Indies, yet he purchased non-Indian slaves for himself from the Knights of Malta,[89] probably for the Papal galleys. The Knights of Malta attacked pirates and Muslim shipping, and their base became a centre for slave trading, selling captured North Africans and Turks. Malta remained a slave market until well into the late 18th century. It required a thousand slaves to equip merely the galleys of the Order.[90][91]

It appears that the Catholic Church certainly approved of mass slavery and even participated in it. Some clergymen who were sent to those countries were shocked by what they saw and did not really approve of it. But as far I can tell, the Church played a big role in slavery.
You might want to read the complete article on Wikipedia though.


Do Southern Baptist traditionalists agree with the Arminian view of prevenient grace?

The statement made that established "Traditionalism" as a term for this long-held belief is here, and I believe accurately reflects the views of most (Southern and Independent) Baptists who hold this point of view: http://connect316.net/the-statement/

You are right in that they don't hold the same view of prevenient grace as a Methodist does. Methodists/Arminians actually commonly accept Total Depravity, but many Baptists do not. The other way that Traditionalists would explain things is by agreeing with the necessity of something like "prevenient grace", and that God has given such to everyone, and that it still may be resisted.


Is having a moment of silence for someone anti-Christian?

I don't think there's anything religious at all about a moment of silence for somebody who died. It is supposed to be a moment to remember those persons and to show our respect for them.. If someone wishes to use the opportunity to pray, then that is their own business.

The political issues brought up in David Stratton's answer seem to be more concerned with a moment of silence where it is not held in connection to some deceased person or tragic event. For example, a daily moment of silence in schools are seen by some as an endorsement of prayer in conflict with the separation between church and state, but that is a different matter and not really relevant to this question.

However, I agree that it would be best to ask her once she has cooled down.


Perpetual virginity of Mary: why did Mary see "not knowing man" as an obstacle to the conception of Jesus?

ειπεν δε μαριαμ προς τον αγγελον πως εσται τουτο -επει- ανδρα ου γινωσκω
Luke 1:34 - TR (Stephens 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624 and Scrivener 1894 are all identical.)
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? KJV

The Greek conjunction ἐπεί epei (see Strong 1893) cannot be manipulated into meaning something with regard to a time sequence in the future. The force of the word is 'because' or ' for the reason that'. Note that the KJV quite correctly renders the conjunction as a present participle.
"How shall I bear a child in my situation of not (presently) knowing a man ?"
. . .  is all that can possibly be construed from the Greek wording .
[ There is a disputed translation of Luke 7:1 (see interlinear) where epei is rendered 'and when' but the meaning has the force of 'and for the reason that he had completed ...'. It is not a future consequence but, here in Luke 7:1, epei conveys a decision made upon a completed situation. ]
As to Mary's words in Luke 1:34, The Douay-Rheims also correctly renders the conjunction (from the Latin Vulgate) using the very apposite English conjunction 'because':

And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

However the D-R then mis-translates ανδρα (from aner - an identifiable man) and renders it as though it was ἄνθρωπος (anthropos - humanity). This may be a fault of the Latin-from-Greek translation of the Vulgate or it may be a fault of the English-from-Latin translation thereafter.
'Know not man' is quite inappropriate, here. It should be 'know not a man', meaning a particular man. Only an impossibly travelled harlot would know anthropos. Broadening the meaning of 'a man' to 'mankind' in no way strengthens an argument for perpetual virginity.
This attempt to extend Mary's utterance in perpetuity has resulted in very inappropriate English words being put into her holy lips with regard to humanity.
Mary was already espoused to Joseph before Gabriel appeared to her (see Luke 1:27 - ... to a virgin espoused to a man ... ). Hardly the action of a woman who intends, in perpetuity, to remain a virgin. But, having not (yet) come together (Matthew 1:18), she did not (at that stage) know a man.

What is much more relevant regarding the certainty of the situation is Matthew's wording in Matthew 1:24, 25 :

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. [KJV]

Had Matthew wished to convey - without a trace of ambiguity - that Mary had remained a virgin thereafter, Matthew would have stopped writing after 'knew her not'.

... and took unto him his wife and knew her not [Full Stop]

Thereafter he would have made a new sentence regarding the name of Jesus.
But he does not do that, he continues :

... until she had brought forth the son of her (in literal) ...


What is the origin and meaning of the rosary?

Short answer, another name for the Rosary is the Angelic Psalter.  It is a repetition mainly of the words of the Angel Gabriel to the Blessed Virgin Mary announcing the Birth of Jesus and the words spoken by St. Elizabeth when Mary visited her shortly before the birth of John the Baptist, when he "leapt in her womb".  The reason for its simplicity is that it is for lay-people to pray who wouldn't have access to a regular psalter, like priests and other religious would have.  Originally, there were 150 Hail Marys which was close enough to the 150 Psalms in the Book of Psalms.

From the time Saint Dominic established the devotion to the holy Rosary up to the time when Blessed Alan de la Roche re-established it in 1460, it has always been called the Psalter of Jesus and Mary. This is because it has the same number of Hail Marys as there are psalms in the Book of the Psalms of David. Since simple and uneducated people are not able to say the Psalms of David, the Rosary is held to be just as fruitful for them as David's Psalter is for others.
St. Louis De Montfort - The Secret of the Rosary

While praying the Rosary, for repetitions of the Hail Mary, you're expected to meditate on one of the central events or themes of the Gospel and/or the Life of Mary.  Like I said, originally there were 15 decades with 3 groups of mysteries (Joyful: pertaining to the Birth of Jesus; Sorrowful: Pertaining to His Passion; Glorious: Pertaining to events after the Resurrection) or thing to mediate on, in 2000, the Year of the Rosary, St. John Paul II added another Mystery (the Luminous Mysteries, which are about the works of Jesus).  People who pray the Rosary every day rotate between these mysteries with one to think about every day, almost like priests will do with the Liturgy of the Hours.
The origin of the Rosary itself are a little nebulous as it seems to have been given and redicovered several times since the turn of the second millennium (St. Domininc and Alan De La Roche being key figures).  But from all the Visions and Marian Apparitions (Fatima especially) it's clear that Our Lady wants us praying the Rosary.
The reason there are 10 Hail Mary's in each decade is interesting, especially since I never considered it before figured it just came naturally like a clock with 12 numbers on it. But there is special significance to the number 10

The Dominican tradition consolidated the combination of Hail Marys and events of Jesus' life added to each Hail Mary. Over time fifteen mysteries (events of Jesus' life) were retained and combined with the Hail Marys for each one of the mysteries. Independently from this historical reason, there is a symbolic reason. Ten has the meaning of totality and unity, meaning that each one of Christ's mysteries is part of his total person and work and expresses its unity and totality, as well as its thorough contemplation by the person who says this decade of the rosary.
Why 10 Hail Mary's

The most widely read history of the Rosary can be found in St. Louis De Montfort's Secret of the Rosary a much better answer than mine can be found in Pope John Paul II's encyclical Rosarium Viginis Mariae

The Rosary of the Virgin Mary, which gradually took form in the second millennium under the guidance of the Spirit of God, is a prayer loved by countless Saints and encouraged by the Magisterium. Simple yet profound, it still remains, at the dawn of this third millennium, a prayer of great significance, destined to bring forth a harvest of holiness. It blends easily into the spiritual journey of the Christian life, which, after two thousand years, has lost none of the freshness of its beginnings and feels drawn by the Spirit of God to “set out into the deep” (duc in altum!) in order once more to proclaim, and even cry out, before the world that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour, “the way, and the truth and the life” (Jn 14:6), “the goal of human history and the point on which the desires of history and civilization turn”.


Herod's Temple is the massive building on which the Salomon Temple (with golden roof) stood, so the chances are; however, there is no archeological evidence of any previous Salomon Temple.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/0c/b4/ca/0cb4ca76c5c01a5b43938663503a222e.jpg


The original Hebrew word being used here is רֹעִי (ro·'i),[1][2], which does indeed translate as "shepherd" according to Strong's Concordance.[3][4]


According to dispensationalism, who is 'the dragon' and what are the differences between 'the dragon' and 'the beast'?

I have been a classical Dispensationalist for forty-eight years, so I am quite familiar with the answer to this question. Most Dispensationalists believe that "the Dragon" is Satan, and "the Beast" is the Antichrist and his government. He is a man possessed by Satan who will be given a brief period to rule the entire world. According to Dana & Mantey's A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament the prefix "anti" can mean "instead of" as well as "against", so this may lend support to the idea that the Antichrist is a counterfeit of Christ. The usage of the term "the Beast" in the question refers to "the Beast from the Sea" of Revelation 13:1-10.  There is another Beast from the Earth (Revelation 13:11-18) identified by Dispensationalists as the False Prophet (Revelation 16:13), a man who will lead the world to worship the first Beast from the Sea as god. Some Dispensationalists hold that the False Prophet is the Antichrist, but since "Christ" is actually a political term meaning "King" (Luke 23:2), most believe the first Beast is the Antichrist. Thus there is a kind of unholy trinity: the Dragon (anti-God the Father), the Beast from the Sea (anti-Christ the Son), and the Beast from the Earth (anti-Holy Spirit).

There are a large number of Dispensationalist writings on these issues, and I recommend a couple of good places to start that are a bit old, but still very relevant: Jesus is Coming by W.E.B. (William E. Blackstone)[1898; third edition 1932], and Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (1958) by J. Dwight Pentecost.


The only reason to believe something is because it is true.

  Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all
  circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do
  not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophecies, but test everything;
  hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil. (1
  Thessalonians 5:16-22 ESV)

How do we test if something is true/good?  By holding it in the light of what we already know to be true.

Some things are true by their very nature.  Some truths are derived through logic or widsom.  Some, we believe, cannot be deduced or induced from nature itself and so are revealed to us.

The reason there are so many disagreements about what is true regarding God and heaven, Jesus, religion, etc is because everyone has their own frame of reference and current baseline that they compare new information or ideas to.


Why did God tell David to go to the town of Hebron?

Unfortunately, there's no contextual verse where God says to David "...and this is why I want you to go blah blah blah." Therefore we must infer what the reason is based on the surrounding context and circumstances.
We know, from the text, that David had just finished doing battle. We also read that at the time all of Israel was under one King, Saul, who was now dead along with his son Jonathan. David is wondering whether he should come back to the cities of Judah, but God tells him to go to Hebron instead.
I think it's because God knew that the nation of Israel was about to split and God wanted to make sure that David was away from the town of Mahanaim which is where a new king of Israel was being crowned.

2nd Samuel 2:8-10 ESV But Abner the son of Ner, commander of Saul's army, took Ish-bosheth the son of Saul and brought him over to Mahanaim, and he made him king over Gilead and the Ashurites and Jezreel and Ephraim and Benjamin and all Israel. Ish-bosheth, Saul's son, was forty years old when he began to reign over Israel, and he reigned two years. But the house of Judah followed David. And the time that David was king in Hebron over the house of Judah was seven years and six months.

2nd Samuel 3:1 ESV There was a long war between the house of Saul and the house of David. And David grew stronger and stronger, while the house of Saul became weaker and weaker.

Though Hebron and Mahanaim were pretty far away in the first place. Hebron is C-15 on that map and Mahanaim is J-9, so there's still plenty of unanswered questions.
But it seems most likely based on a lack of detail that Hebron itself was chosen by God simply because it was a place to go and there's nothing special about the place itself. Same reason God chose the land of Canaan, or Jerusalem, or Bethlehem, or anywhere else. It's his divine purpose through David that was important.

Acts 17:26-27 ESV And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us


Disclaimer: This answer is from a Charismatic Evangelical perspective with Wesleyan soteriology.

  Is receiving the Holy Spirit the completion of Salvation?

The short answer is no.

While it is true that Ephesians 4:30 ESV says

  And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

Given this, it would be easy to think that if we've received the Holy Spirit, we will definitely be kept from falling away and will surely be saved from the wrath to come (i.e. 'once saved always saved'); However, just a little further along in the same discourse, the believer (who has 'shared in the Holy Spirit, and ha[s] tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come' - Heb 6:4-6) is solemnly warned:

  5 For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not become partners with them; - Ephesians 5:5-7 ESV

This is not an idle warning, there are many places in scripture that believers are warned of the dangers of falling away (cf. Heb 3:12-14, Rom 8:12-13, Rom 11:17-22, Matt 7:13-27, John 15:1-6) - even given the unfailing faithfulness of the Heavenly Father, even after evidence of His mighty anointing upon us with signs and wonders.  The simple fact is the Holy Spirit's influence in our lives is resistable (cf. Acts 7:51, Eph 4:30, 1 Thes 5:19) and the consequence of this, is that like Esau it is possible to despise our (new) birthright. As we receive Him, so we must walk in Him (Col 2:6).

So when we initially receive the Holy Spirit it is not the 'completion' of our salvation. Paul's instruction to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12) was given to believers who had received the Spirit. The Holy Spirit will lead us into the fulness of salvation, but we must follow and not shrink back through unbelief.  The journey of sanctification is along the straight and narrow road that is difficult, but at the end of the road, our journey will be completed in full satisfaction of that which the Spirit's presence gives us a foretaste.

The 'completion' of our salvation is described here:

  28 And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming. 29 If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practices righteousness has been born of him.
  3:1 See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. 3 And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. - 1 John 2:28-3:3 ESV (emphasis added)

The completion of our salvation, is to be conformed to the image of the Son (cf. Rom 8:29, 2 Cor 3:18, Eph 4:13-15) and to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect (Mat 5:48).  "Character trumps Charisma" (cf. Mat 7:15-23).

Nevertheless, receiving the full measure of the Spirit promised to the Children of God is extremely precious and should not be despised - He will convict of sin, of righteousness and judgement (John 16:8), He will lead us to confess that Jesus is Lord (cf. 1 Cor 12:3), He will guide us into all truth (John 16:13), He will equip us to be powerful witnesses to the Truth* (Acts 1:8), He will bring prophecy, dreams and visions that we may know the day of the Lord's favor and see His deliverance* (Joel 2:28-32).

The question correctly cites verses from Luke 11 and Acts 1 & 2 as giving keys as to how to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit - Ask, Seek, Knock, Expect the good gift from your Heavenly Father, Wait on God according to his timing, unite with other believers in prayer with one purpose.  We see from the many other examples in the book of Acts that those who have received can help others to receive, particularly through the laying on of hands (cf. Acts 8:14-17, Acts 9:17-18). We can see further, that *'the baptism of the Holy Spirit' is a subsequent experience to believing the gospel and it was always evidenced by outward signs (gifts of prophecy, tongues or healing etc. - cf. Acts 8:14-17, Acts 9:17-18, Acts 19:1-7)

In closing, to answer your final question:

  The question that arises in my mind is whether this receiving of the Holy Spirit was only applicable, those early converts or is that applicable to all converts?

This is directly answered in the clearest terms possible by what the Apostle Peter says in Acts 2:38-39 -

  38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (emphasis added)

The promise of the Holy Spirit is to everyone whom the Lord God calls to himself - even those who are 'far off'.


What does the LDS church teach about what men and women did or do in the pre-existence?

According to The Family: A Proclamation to the World,

  IN THE PREMORTAL REALM, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped
  God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His
  children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to
  progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny
  as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family
  relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances
  and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for
  individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be
  united eternally.

Specifically, the pre-existence (perhaps more correctly "pre-mortality" since the doctrine is we did, in fact, exist -- though I've seen the term used all over the place and I'm not sure why) consisted of all of God's children living in His presence. We were all taught the plan of salvation, or God's plan for us to come to earth, gain a body, and progress and be like Him.

We learned about agency (the power to choose), which we had before we came here. This included the choice to even come to earth and gain a body, which was God's plan. Those who rejected it followed Lucifer and were damned (stopped in their progression).

Both the Bible and certain LDS scriptures refer to those who chose to follow God in the pre-mortal life (and, to use your words, "passed the test") as those who "kept their first estate" (e.g. Jude 1:6; see also Isaiah 14).

In mortality here on Earth, we do not remember our pre-mortal life. The Bible refers to this as seeing "through a glass, darkly" -- or, in more common lingo, being separated by the veil. There will be death and resurrection, through which we will remember all things again.

To answer a comment, there is no doctrine of reincarnation in LDS theology. Birth to earth (that rhymes) was a one-time event, and after death we will be resurrected but not reincarnated. The whole process of mortality is a one-time process for each of us and mortality is not repeated.

The LDS Topical Guide to the Scriptures has a very helpful index for scriptures related to pre-mortal existence, many of which come right out of the Bible.

[ Further reading ]


Why is Mary's perpetual virginity a Catholic dogma?

I believe the O.P.'s question can be interpreted as, “Why is belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity considered so important that the Church makes it an excommunicable offense (heresy) to deny it?”

The first observation to make is that all Marian dogmas have their root in the fundamental Marian dogma, which is that she is Theotokos, the Mother of God. This extraordinary grace exalts Mary—in the order of grace—over all other creatures, even the angels. Only Jesus Christ, who is hypostatically united to the Word is more “full of grace” than she. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 498.)

The dogma of the Theotokos would not have so much importance in itself if it did not follow as a direct consequence of the Hypostatic Union and the so-called communion of properties. Mary can be rightly called Mother of God precisely because Jesus Christ’s human nature is so closely united to the Word (that is, the Divine Person of the Son), that his human actions and states are rightly attributed to his Divine Person. It is perfectly orthodox to say that God—that is, the Divine Son—was born of a woman; grew up in Nazareth; ate, drank, spoke, and laughed; died on a cross; and rose from the dead. For this reason, Mary is rightly and properly called Mother of God. This is, in fact, the solemn teaching of the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431. The Council Fathers reasoned that, in effect, if they denied Mary the title of Mother of God, they would be denying Jesus’ complete unity as a Person. (See CCC 466.)

In teaching the perpetual virginity Mary, the Church is in no way belittling the beautiful vocation of marriage, nor is she suggesting, in the slightest way, that the marital act and the begetting of children is in any way evil.

However, the Divine Motherhood of Mary forges a special relationship between Mary and the Holy Spirit, which the Scriptures strongly suggest was meant to be exclusive.*

For example, there was no particular reason why the Incarnation could not have occurred by means of the normal process of human generation. The consummation of marriage and the procreation of children are far from sinful, and God could easily and fittingly have used these means to achieve His ends.

However, in fact—as all orthodox, Nicene Christians agree—He chose the even more excellent step of being born to a virgin—that is, without making use of the carnal union. Again, that is not because the carnal union is evil, but because the Virgin Birth is a more manifest sign of the immensity of the Incarnation. (As I am sure the O.P. is aware, the Scriptures abundantly bear witness to the Virgin Birth—to the fact that Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father—especially Luke 1 and Matthew 1.)

The Holy Spirit, by “overshadowing” Mary (see Luke 1:35) with His power, effectively consecrated Mary and her womb to Himself. Again, it was not necessary for God to ask Mary to refrain from consummating her marriage after the Virgin Birth (just as it was not necessary for the Incarnation to take place by means of a virginal conception, and just as it was not strictly necessary for our salvation for God to become incarnate at all). It was, however, most fitting that the womb, once consecrated to God, should remain for Him alone.

Finally, there is also the simple matter of fact. The perpetual virginity of Mary is a historical fact, whose truth or falsehood depends not on theological speculations, but on Mary’s actual condition when she was on the earth. Either she consummated her marriage with Joseph, or she did not. The testimony of the Church Fathers on this question, however, is unanimous. They called her Aeiparthenos, the Ever-Virgin (see CCC 499). As witnesses we might mention the Protoevangelium of James (c. 145 A.D.), a non-Canonical but pious book from the second century; Origen of Alexandria; Hilary of Poitiers; Athanasius; Epiphanius of Salamis; Jerome; and son. (See the article on the perpetual virginity of Mary from Catholic Answers for actual excerpts from the Fathers.)

In other words, the Church affirms the dogma for the simple reason that it corresponds to historical reality.

It should be mentioned that although the Church maintains Mary’s virginity before, after, and even “even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man” (CCC 499), the Church does not insist on teaching that the virginity is a physical one (as if the birth of our Lord had no effect on Mary’s body; e.g., that she did not suffer from the pains of childbirth). There is a pious tradition to that effect, but it is not part of the faith.

* At the request of Jon the Architect, here are some other references to the Scriptures that help paint the picture that relationship of Mary to the Holy Spirit was exclusive. (Please note that I said that the Scripture suggests this, without being explicit. The definitive justification for the dogma comes from Sacred Tradition—i.e., the witness of those who knew Mary and Jesus, whose testimony was passed on orally.)

Mary asks the angel how the birth of the Messiah is to take place. (Luke 1:34.) Since Mary is already engaged to be married to Joseph (Luke 1:27), that would be a strange question if she were not intending to remain a virgin.
In all of the Old Testament, the places in which God has a special presence are deemed inviolable: the Holy of Holies of the Temple (especially when God appeared in the cloud there; see, e.g., Leviticus 16:2), the Ark of the Covenant (2 Samuel 6:6-7), theophanies like the Burning Bush (Exodus 3:4), and so forth. None of these presences, however, comes anywhere near the extraordinary presence of God that came to be at the Incarnation. It is likely that Joseph (a faithful Jew steeped in the Old Testament Scriptures) would have feared to consummate his marriage with Mary for this reason.