What does it mean when Jesus cannot be separated from the Father and the Holy Ghost?

If I understand your question correctly, then that word is the mystery of the Holy Trinity, a mystery of faith. It said that there is only one God, but in three persons (yes, "persons" is the right term)
There is an analogy provided on Catholic.com, which is really good in giving something that we can relate to, but no analogy is perfect, and this one is no exception. Here is the analogy:
"In God we see the Father—the “being one” and first principal of life in the Godhead—the Son—the “knowing one”—the Word who proceeds from the Father—and the Holy Spirit—the “willing one”—the bond of love between the Father and Son who proceeds as love from the Father and Son. These “three” do not “equal” one if we are trying to say 3=1 mathematically. These three are distinct realities, relationally speaking, just as my own being, knowing, and willing are three distinct realities in me. Yet, in both God and man these three relationally distinct realities subsist in one being.
As St. Augustine points out, we can never know God or understand God completely through this or any analogy, but it can help us to understand how you can have relational distinctions within one being. And we can see this is reasonable.
The weakness inherent here—there are weaknesses in all analogies with reference to God—is that our knowing, being, and willing are not each infinite and co-extensive as the persons of God are. They subsist in one being in us, but they are not persons."
Hope that helped


How many books of the bible agreed on any Christian denomination?

For historical background information on the Bible canon, please refer to this article: https://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html    It explains how by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament).  Jewish rabbis and scholars had agreed upon the authenticity and acceptance of the writings of the prophets before Jesus was born.  Jesus himself read from accepted Scripture such as from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah and constantly referred to the writings of Moses (the Law.)  With regard to the Greek Scriptures the article says this:

  The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.   https://www.gotquestions.org/Muratorian-Canon.html

This article https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-authors.html  gives the names of all the authors of the books of the Bible (Old and New Testaments) and the approximate dates when they were written as agreed upon by Protestants.

As others have pointed out, the Catholic Bible canon has more books than the Protestant Bible canon.  These books (collectively referred to as the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals) were officially added to their Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid-1500s A.D., primarily in response to the Protestant Reformation.   Here are the relevant books:

  Roman Catholic Bibles have several more books in the Old Testament than Protestant Bibles. These books are referred to as the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books. The word apocrypha means “hidden,” while the word deuterocanonical means “second canon.” The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals were written primarily in the time between the Old and New Testaments. The books of the Apocrypha include 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees, as well as additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. Not all of these books are included in Catholic Bibles.  https://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html

I hope this information helps to answer your question as to which books of the Bible (Old and New Testaments) are accepted by Protestants, and which books are accepted by Catholics.


I found this information hidden at the bottom of your link:

  Mel Gibson belongs to a Catholic sect that does not accept the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. - Time, January 27, 2003

After some more digging, I found that the main differences are:

They still practice Tridentine Mass. This mass has a set liturgy which you can look at more closely in the above link. The most immediately distinguishable feature of tridentine mass is that it is performed almost exclusively in latin.
They hold onto some of the of the personal customs that were largely depreciated after the Second Vatican Counsel. The ones that struck me the most were:

Abstaining from meat on Fridays,
Fasting from midnight before receiving Holy Communion, and
Women wearing a headcovering in church.

It is worthy to note that the Vatican usually supports traditionalists, unless of course those traditionalists condemn modern day leadership or practices.

Most of this information was found on Wikipedia, I just tried to summarize it. There's plenty more information if you want to take a look!

EDIT (In response to a good comment by @Alypius): Here's a description of the different types of traditionalists, as described by an actual traditionalist. Religious preferences aside (I don't agree with the main gist of the article), the category description quoted below seems to be pretty succinct.

  "The first and by far the largest group consists of those Catholics who accept the acclaimed Pope and his recent predecessors as true Popes and who believe that the Second Vatican Council was a valid, albeit problematic, Council.

  ...

  The second group consists of those who are unsure about the status of the acclaimed Pope. Many such Catholics worship at Masses offered by the Society of Saint Pius V (S.S.P.V.).

  The third group consists of "sedevacantist" Catholics, that is Catholics who believe that the Catholic Church has not had a true Pope for some time (most consider Pope Pius XII as the last true Pope) and who, depending on the time they see as the moment the "Chair of Peter" (sede) became empty (vacante), may or may not see Vatican II as a valid Council. Many sedevacantists attend Masses offered by the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (C.M.R.I.). 5"

Traditional Catholicism 101: A Brief Primer


Is it in anyway lawfully possible for the Catholic Church to one day recognize the Anglican Church as having valid orders?

The short answer is yes.

But will that ever happen is another matter.

In 1896, Pope Leo XIII published the now famous bull, Apostolicae curae in which he declared Anglican ordinations to be "absolutely null and utterly void".

  The principal objection to validity of Anglican ordinations, according to Leo XIII, was the alleged deficiency of intention and of form of the Anglican ordination rites. Leo XIII declared that the rites expressed an intention to create a priesthood different from the sacrificing priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church and to reduce ordination to a mere ecclesiastical institution, an appointment or blessing, instead of a sacramental conferral of actual grace by the action itself. - Apostolicae curae (Wikipedia)

Here is what the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops say about Apostolicae curae:

  Apostolicæ Curæ presents a theological defense of this tradition of Vatican rejection of the validity of Anglican orders. It is based on the argument that the Church of England ordinal was defective in 'intention' and 'form'. By 'defect of intention' Leo XIII meant that by the omission of any reference to the eucharist as a sacrifice and to a sacrificing priesthood in the ordination ritual of the 1552 Book of Common Prayer, the Church of England intended to introduce a radically new rite into England, one markedly different from those approved by the Roman Catholic Church. By 'defect of form' Leo XIII meant that the words of the Anglican ordination prayer, 'Receive the Holy Ghost', did not signify definitely the order of the Catholic priesthood with its power to consecrate and offer the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic sacrifice.

  Leo XIII thus decided that historical proof of a continuation of sacramental validity with the Church of England was not the central question between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism. History is not the question. Theology is the question. For there to be sacramental validity within the Church of England from the perspective of Rome, Anglicans and Roman Catholics must be in one institutional community of faith, which implies agreements about the theology of sacraments and ministry, and some Anglican recognition of the papacy. - Anglican Orders: A Report on the Evolving Context for their Evaluation in the Roman Catholic Church

But that alone is not the whole picture.

  Now then, there are Anglo-Catholic priests that have received valid ordinations by dissenting Catholic bishops and who openly profess belief in transubstantiation. Is their Mass valid? Perhaps. Yet many of these priests openly concelebrate with “women priests” or allow “women deacons” to serve their liturgies. This alone reveals that they do not believe in the Catholic doctrine of the priesthood and Eucharist. The orthodox doctrine of Holy Order prohibits the ordination of women to any degree of Holy Orders (even to the ministerial diaconate).

  The Catholic priesthood and the Eucharist were never meant to be severed apart from the Pope and the local Catholic bishop. As Saint Ignatius of Antioch said, where the Catholic bishop is, there is the Catholic Church. - Taylor Marshall on validity of Anglican orders

Pope John Paul II made the ordination of women to the priesthood impossible in his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994).

  Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

For the Catholic Church to recognize all Anglican Orders as valid, a number of things must be done. This does not mean that Anglican are Catholic, since the pope is head of the Catholic Church and the reigning king or queen of England is the head of the Anglican Church.

1.) All bishops must be able to prove to Rome that they have been validly ordained priests and then consecrated a bishop by someone who is a valid bishop.
This may mean that many bishops may have to be ordained (perhaps conditionally) a priest once again and then consecrated a bishop once again by a bishop who has proof of apostolic succession.

2.) All priests must be able to prove that their priestly ordination was valid and be ordained again by a true bishop in the cause where doubt is present.

3.) The ritual used to ordain priests and consecrate bishops must conform in wording to the theology of the Catholic Church.

4.) The ordination of women as bishops, priests and deacons must be suppressed and declared invalid by the Anglican Communion.


(Catholic view) Why do we pray for God's Kingdom to come if good people go to heaven when they die?

What is a kingdom? It is primarily a king and his subjects, and only secondarily about a territory that is possessed. When you pray for the Kingdom to come:

1) You are asking for the King to come.

2) You are probing for any source of rebellion against that King in your heart and praying for a change of heart that it might cease.

3) You are praying that God will cause that kingdom to grow in extent by converting more rebels to the cause.

4) You are consenting to be an agent of the King to assist in accomplishing that goal.

5) You are praying that those in rebellion fail in their attempts to persuade loyal subjects to rebel.

6) You are praying that this process begin right now, while you ands those for whom you pray still live, instead of waiting until it is too late to change your mind and behavior.

Luke 17 says:

  nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the
  kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”

Before you can get into the kingdom, you need for the kingdom to get into you.


Do Mormons view the LDS Church as a pure restoration of first century Christianity?

Yes the LDS believe it is a pure restoration of first century Christian liturgy and beliefs.

True to the Faith specifies what was lost during the Apostasy:

  After His Crucifixion and the deaths of His Apostles, the fulness of the gospel was taken from the earth

About the restoration, the LDS specifically believe:

  When Jesus Christ was on the earth, He established His Church among His followers. After His Crucifixion and the deaths of His Apostles, the fulness of the gospel was taken from the earth because of widespread apostasy. Through the Prophet Joseph Smith, our Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus Christ restored the fulness of the gospel. The true Church of Jesus Christ is on the earth again. Because of the Restoration, the teachings and ordinances necessary for salvation are available to all people.

The 'fulness of the gospel' is defined in Mormon Doctrine (not an official LDS source) as:

  The phrase "fulness of the gospel" refers to the whole doctrine of redemption demonstrated and taught in the ministry and life of Jesus Christ. It "consists in those laws, doctrines, ordinances, powers, and authorities needed to enable men to gain the fulness of salvation"

This is reinforced in part from Joseph Smith History 1:34 in reference to the Book of Mormon:

  He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants;

President Ezra Taft Benson explained this by saying:

  That does not mean [The Book of Mormon] contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation1

1 Benson, Ezra Taft. A Witness and a Warning.


Communion of Saints and Our Relationships in Heaven

How could a community be truly united without a "deep and intimate relationship with each of its members to its full extent"?

Pope Pius XII discusses the Communion of the Saints in his 1943 encyclical on the Mystical Body of Christ, Mystici Corporis Christi:

  But, corresponding to this love of God and of Christ, there must be love of the neighbor. How can we claim to love the Divine Redeemer, if we hate those whom He has redeemed with His precious blood, so that He might make them members of His Mystical Body? For that reason the beloved disciple warns us: "If any man say: 'I love God' and hates his brother, he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother whom he seeth, how can he love God whom he seeth not? And this commandment we have from God, that he who loveth God loveth his brother also."[I John, IV, 20-21.] Rather it should be said that the more we become "members one of another"[Rom., XII, 5.] "mutually careful, one for another,"[I Cor., XII, 25.] the closer we shall be united with God and with Christ; as, on the other hand, the more ardent the love that binds us to God and to our divine Head, the closer we shall be united to each other in the bonds of charity.

Related:

  75. … Christ has all the members of the Church present before Him and united to Him in a much clearer and more loving manner than that of a mother who clasps her child to her breast, or than that with which a man knows and loves himself.

and

  89. … the divine Redeemer is most closely united not only with His Church, which is His Beloved Spouse, but also with each and every one of the faithful, and He ardently desires to speak with them heart to heart, especially after Holy Communion.


Why doesn't the Orthodox church consider Saint Augustine Doctor and Father?

There is a certain amount of freedom within the various Christian Churches to employ or ascribe certain titles to particular saints or blessed in their own way (or traditions).

The title of Doctor of the Church was first instituted officially on September 20, 1295 by  pope Boniface XIII, when he accorded this title to four saints, Pope Gregory the Great being the first.

  "The Doctors of the Church are great saints known for their defense and explanation of the truths of the Catholic Faith. The original eight Doctors of the Church—four Western (Saint Ambrose, Saint Augustine, Pope Saint Gregory the Great, and Saint Jerome) and four Eastern (Saint Athanasius, Saint Basil the Great, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and St. John Chrysostom)—were named by acclamation, or common acknowledgment; the rest have been named by various popes, starting with the addition of St. Thomas Aquinas to the list by Pope Saint Pius V in 1568."

Even within the Catholic Church, various local churches and Rites have added their own saints to the official Catholic list of 34 Doctors of the Church. If this freedom exists in the Catholic Church, it follows then that other denominations have the same freedom!

  "In addition, some parts of the Roman Catholic Church have recognized other individuals with this title. In Spain, Fulgentius of Ruspe and Leander of Seville have been recognized with this title. The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church has recognized Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory the Great, Augustine, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom, as well as Ephrem the Syrian, Isaac the Elder, Pope Leo I, John of Damascus, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius of Salamis, and Gregory of Nyssa. The Chaldean Catholic Church has recognized Polycarp, Eustathius of Antioch, Meletius, Alexander of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Fravitta of Constantinople, Ephrem the Syrian, Jacob of Nisibis, James of Serug, Isaac of Armenia, Isaac of Nineve, and Maruthas."

As for the Eastern Orthodox Churches:

  "The Eastern Orthodox Churches honors many of the pre-schismatic saints as well, but the application of the term Doctor or Father of the Church is somewhat more flexible than in the West, and it is misleading to look for lists of officially recognized Doctors. An Eastern Orthodox understanding of such pillars of the Church include saints such as Photios I of Constantinople, Gregory Palamas, Nicodemus the Hagiorite, and possibly even more recent saints such as Nektarios Kefalas. An exception to this flexibility is the grouping of Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom, universal teachers or Doctors who are collectively known as the "Three Hierarchs" and represent the Christianization of the Hellenic tradition and education."

The Eastern Orthodox uses various other titles that other denominations generally do not invoke for their saints. Their traditions remain quite valid.


Who was Pharaoh when Moses lived in Egypt?

Of course this is more of a historical-archeological question as the Bible does not directly answer but I have stumbled across a fairly convincing argument that would place Thutmose II as the Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus.

I first came across the argument in Alfred Edersheim’s Bible History. He typically pays attention to ancient monuments and secular history, as he was a historian at Oxford. He was also a Jewish man and Jewish historian converted to Christianity which makes him the most reliable source of Jewish culture and history at the time of Christ.

In his book he argues that all the records of Thutmose II best fit into the Exodus narrative:

  Now this Thothmes II. began his reign very brilliantly. But after a while there
  is a perfect blank in the monumental records about him. But we read of a general revolt after his death among the nations whom his father had conquered. Of course, one could not expect to find on Egyptian monuments an account of the disasters which the nation sustained at the Exodus, nor how Pharaoh and his host had perished in the Red Sea. But we do find in his reign the conditions which we should have expected under such circumstances, viz., a brief, prosperous reign, then a sudden collapse; the king dead; no son to succeed him; the throne occupied by the widow of the Pharaoh, and for twenty years no attempt to recover the supremacy of Egypt over the revolted nations in Canaan and east of the Jordan. Lastly, the character of his queen, as it appears on the monuments, is that of a proud and bitterly superstitious woman, just such as we would have expected to encourage Pharaoh in "hardening his heart" against Jehovah. But the chain of coincidences does not break even here. From the Egyptian documents we learn that in the preceding reign - that is, just before the children of Israel entered the desert of Sinai - the Egyptians ceased to occupy the mines which they had until then worked in that peninsula. Further, we learn that, during the latter part of Israel's stay in the wilderness, the Egyptian king, Thothmes III., carried on and completed his wars in Canaan, and that just immediately before the entry of Israel into Palestine the great confederacy of Canaanitish kings against him was quite broken up. (Alfred Edersheim’s Bible History, Vol 2)

What adds striking support of this argument is just this year an online article was published saying a ‘Harvard University educated archaeologist and president of the Paleontological Research Corporation, Dr. Joel Klenck, states an array of archaeological discoveries evidence a crisis during the reign of the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose II’. You can find the find the article here.

In this article it is mentioned that:

  The mummy of Thutmose II is the only corpse of a pharaoh during the Eighteenth Dynasty covered with cysts from an unknown malady. (Paleontological Research Corporation, Dr. Joel Klenck)

Possibly his body was fished out of the sea and mummified and that the ‘cysts’ were part of the plagues/boils which he had suffered?  This article is really worth reading as it makes a strong case that fits the Moses narrative.  The article does not mention the Bible or Moses, but I find it hard to believe the author is not making the implication but for some reason not stating it.


I'd answer this exactly the same as I did the other similar question:

Looking at how God's method of communication has changed over time, it should not be surprising that such "gifts" are not as common as they were.  When it came to the Apostles and the early Church, God was specifically working  to establish His Church. These signs and wonders were accompanied by preaching of the Gospel.

In fact, if you look at the miracles performed by Jesus Himself, you'll see that He performed them as a demonstration of His authority, and if you look at them in total, they display that He is God. http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/miracles.htm  In other words, He didn't perform them merely to amaze people, He did them to support His teaching, authority, and claims about Himself.

With the Apostolic miracles, and those of the early Church, the pattern is similar.  The miracles accompany the preaching of the Gospel, or serve to establish the authority of the Apostles, and early Church.  Once the authority has been established, there is no further need for God to "prove Himself".  He's already done so.  He had already revealed Himself, and He did say specifically that if we don't believe in the Scriptures, why would we believe Him. (John 5:46).  How many times does He have to prove Himself before we believe?

A similar pattern can be seen throughout Scripture.  In the beginning, He walked with Adam and Eve and spoke to them personally.  With Moses, He spoke from a burning bush.  Later, He spoke to the people through Moses, and then through the prophets.

Also, God had shown anger several times throughout Scripture towards them that seek after signs, when He had already revealed Himself.  He tolerates it at first, even though He recognizes it for what it is (temping God) (Exodus 17:7) but He is still angered by it.  (Psalm 78:18-20)

Jesus also rebuked the Pharisees and Sadducees for the same thing.  (Matthew 16:4)

That said, there are still those around today who believe that these verses are to be taken literally, and that they still apply today.  These would be the snake handlers in a few Pentecostal denominations and sub-groups that so many people love to make fun of.

As for me, personally, I don't dare practice these rituals.  It's not that I don't think that God could protect me from snakes and poisons.  It's more that I know that this would be, to me, a test of whether or not He truly would.  In other words, my actions would be a deliberate tempting of God.  I fully believe that He could do it, but I don't want to make Him angry because He could just as well let me die simply because I had the audacity to test Him.  Who am I to test Him?


Can pastors at Evangelical denominations teach that Jesus was resurrected with an invisible and immaterial body?

There's no authenticating body for evangelicalism, so who could stop an "evangelical" church preaching heresy if that's what they decided they wanted to do? But to teach an immaterial resurrection does go against the clear teaching of the Bible and many other statements of historic Christian, Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical teaching:

Luke 24:38-39 (NIV): He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
39 Articles, #4: Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man's nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.
WCF 8.4: This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake, which, that he might discharge, he was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it; endured most grievous torments immediately in his soul, and most painful sufferings in his body; was crucified and died; was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day he arose from the dead, with the same body in which he suffered; with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father, making intercession; and shall return to judge men and angels, at the end of the world.
WCF 32.3: The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonour; the bodies of the just, by his Spirit, unto honour, and be made conformable to his own glorious body.
SBC The Baptist Faith and Message, IIB: He was raised from the dead with a glorified body and appeared to His disciples as the person who was with them before His crucifixion.
The Confessional Statement of the Gospel Coalition, #7, 13: He perfectly obeyed his heavenly Father, lived a sinless life, performed miraculous signs, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, arose bodily from the dead on the third day, and ascended into heaven. ... We believe in the personal, glorious, and bodily return of our Lord Jesus Christ with his holy angels, when he will exercise his role as final Judge, and his kingdom will be consummated.
The IFES statement of belief: The bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and his ascension to the right hand of God the Father.
National Association of Evangelicals Statement of Faith: We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

Many of these statements do only say the "bodily resurrection", but to conclude that they are compatible with an immaterial resurrection is to completely divorce these statements of faith from their historical contexts and originally intended meanings. These modern statements are much shorter than the reformation era statements of the 39 Articles and the Westminster Confession of Faith, and it is reasonable to read them in line with the more verbose statements that preceded them; if the modern statements were intended to contrast with the earlier statements they would have been explicit about it. As usual, we can trust the WCF to be precise in its verbosity: the resurrection of Jesus was not just in any body, but the same body in which he suffered.


Should we allow doctors or God to heal us?

How does God heal?  Through whom does God offer healing and wholeness?

I know several health care professionals (including some physicians, nurses, and physical therapists) who chose  those demanding professions because they hope to serve as God's hands for the healing of their little part of the world.

So, my answer is "Yes, go to the doctor."


Why does the Old Testament never mention unclean spirits and demon-posessed people?

You're missing something.  :)

1 Samual 16:14:

  Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a harmful spirit
  from the LORD tormented him.

Then he started playing a game of darts with David as the bulls-eye.


What do the paragraph markings in the Jubilee Bible 2000 translation mean?

Short answer: these paragraph markings are editorial decisions made by the translator, and don't appear in the translations he mentions as his primary sources.

Paragraph markings are a relatively recent phenomenon – most older translations simply presented the text verse-by-verse, including the KJV and Reina Valera Antigua.  At the time, such a presentation was innovative – the system used today to mark New Testament verses was only introduced in 1551. Now, of course, verse divisions are ubiquitous, and in order to improve the flow of the text for modern readers, translators have divided the text by paragraphs as well.  Like the verse divisions, they are also editorial, but there is less agreement over paragraph divisions.

Thus, most modern translations of the Bible are presented with running text, in which the text is divided into paragraphs, such that each verse does not start its own line.  For example, see the same passage in the ESV: verses 1–5 are all one paragraph, and it's only a coincidence when a verse starts on a new line within that paragraph.

But that's not how the translator of the Jubilee Bible broke down the text – he preserved the verse-by-verse layout, but marked new paragraphs with the paragraph symbol.  Sadly, he seems to have not explained why, but considering his emphasis on preserving some elements of older translations like the KJV, it seems likely that he wanted to both (1) preserve the verse-by-verse rendering of older translations but (2) indicate the organization of the text to modern readers who expect paragraphs.

Incidentally, this type of formatting is often used in bilingual Bibles, where the verse-by-verse breakdown is particularly useful.  For example, here's how it looks in an RVR1960/ESV parallel Bible:


Patron saint of professional excellence? Professional excellence and holiness?

Before going on, lets look at what Wikipedia has to say about saints:

  A saint is a person who is recognized as having an exceptional degree of holiness or likeness or closeness to God. However, the use of the term "saint" depends on the context and denomination. In Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Oriental Orthodox, and Lutheran doctrine, all of their faithful deceased in Heaven are considered to be saints, but some are considered worthy of greater honor or emulation; official ecclesiastical recognition, and consequently veneration, is given to some saints through the process of canonization in the Catholic Church or glorification in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

And now for Wikipedia on what is a patron saint:

  A patron saint, patroness saint, patron hallow or heavenly protector is a saint who in Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism or Eastern Orthodoxy, is regarded as the heavenly advocate of a nation, place, craft, activity, class, clan, family or person.

Although the above definitions are somewhat generic, they do allow us the ability to resolve the problem of a patron saint of professionalism and holiness.

First of all there is no particular patron saint for genuine holiness because that is one of the things that all patron saints are occupied with for those under their protection. Thus our names day saint is very concerned with our true holiness before God.

  A name day is a tradition in some countries in Europe, Latin America, and Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries in general. It consists of celebrating a day of the year that is associated with one's given name. The celebration is similar to a birthday.

  The custom originated with the Christian calendar of saints: believers named after a saint would celebrate that saint's feast day, or in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the day of a saint's death. Name days have greater resonance in the Catholic and Orthodox parts of Europe; Protestant churches practice less veneration of saints. In many countries, however, name-day celebrations no longer have connection to explicitly Christian traditions.

Patron saints can be named for various professional trades and these particular saints should be invoked that we may execute our duties with professionalism and holiness. Thus a patron saint for professionalism excellence and holiness do not exist.

But let us  not stop here. We are always free to take on a new patron saint unto ourselves due to some particular devotion or incident in our lives.

It is in this sense that many have taken to have a devotion to St. Saint Therese of  Lisieux, "The Little Flower".

  The world came to know Therese through her autobiography, "Story of a Soul". She described her life as a "little way of spiritual childhood." She lived each day with an unshakable confidence in God's love. "What matters in life," she wrote, "is not great deeds, but great love." Therese lived and taught a spirituality of attending to everyone and everything well and with love. She believed that just as a child becomes enamored with what is before her, we should also have a childlike focus and totally attentive love. Therese's spirituality is of doing the ordinary, with extraordinary love.

  Her inspiration and powerful presence from heaven touched many people very quickly. She was canonized by Pope Pius XI on May 17, 1925. Had she lived, she would have been only 52 years old when she was declared a Saint.

  "My mission - to make God loved - will begin after my death," she said. "I will spend my heaven doing good on earth. I will let fall a shower of roses." Roses have been described and experienced as Saint Therese's signature. Countless millions have been touched by her intercession and imitate her "little way." She has been acclaimed "the greatest saint of modern times." In 1997, Pope John Paul II declared St. Therese a Doctor of the Church - the only Doctor of his pontificate - in tribute to the powerful way her spirituality has influenced people all over the world. - Saint Therese, "The Little Flower"

But, then depending on how one view's things, St. Expeditus who is the patron saint of speedy cases, emergencies, expeditious solutions, against procrastination, merchants and navigators may fit better for you.

Or perhaps St. Maximilian Maria Kolbe who is the patron saint of families, imprisoned people, journalists, political prisoners, prisoners, pro-life movement, Esperantists, Militia Immaculatae and as Pope St. John Paul II declared of him: "The Patron Saint of Our Difficult Century".


Confession and Penance in the Catholic church

The reason you don't see "penance" in the Bible is because of a difference in translation:

Matthew 3:2 in the English Standard Version, popular among protestants, says: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Matthew 3:2 in the Douay-Rheims, an English translation of the Latin Vulgate and primarily used by Catholics, says: "Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

The ESV is translating the Greek word metanoeó which means, "to change one's mind or purpose."  The Vulgate translated the same Greek word into Latin as paenitentiam agite (indicating doing or performing repentance or penitence), and the Douay Rheims translates that as "do penance."  The Catholic practice of penance grew from this, and can be supported from other passages in the Bible, as seen in the accepted answer to a similar question.

Obviously, the Reformers rejected this practice based on their interpretation of the relevant texts, but ultimately, whether the word "penance" is "in the bible" comes down to interpretation.


Are there any conditions at all that allow a married Catholic couple to use contraceptives?

No, there are not—at least not for contraceptive purposes.
The Catholic Church has this to say about (artificial) contraception:

Similarly excluded [from consideration as a moral act] is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

(Humanae Vitae, Encyclical letter of Blessed Pope Paul VI, July 25, 1968, section 14; emphasis added)
Pope Paul reasons thus to this conclusion:

This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

(Humanae Vitae, section 12)
Pope St. John Paul II, in his apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio of 1981, said something similar:

When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as "arbiters" of the divine plan and they "manipulate" and degrade human sexuality—and with it themselves and their married partner—by altering its value of "total" self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.
When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as "ministers" of God's plan and they "benefit from" their sexuality according to the original dynamism of "total" selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration.

(Familiaris Consortio, section 32)
That is, because contraception involves one or the other of the couple changing the way the physiology of sex works, the Church sees it as the couple manipulating their sexuality and in a sense withholding something about themselves from the other. This is a fundamental dishonesty which has no place in the vocation of marriage; in addition, it is an act of pride, in that it represents the couple deciding that they, not God, will control whether life will come of their love.
As hinted above, the Church recognizes that there may be times when a couple wishes to ensure that sex will not result in having a child. In such cases, there are morally acceptable approaches (including what are often called fertility awareness methods) which allow one, without interfering with the body's normal functioning, to discover the times when the woman is most and least likely to conceive, and to refrain from sexual activity during the "most likely" times.
But there are no times when artificial contraception methods are morally acceptable.
It is, of course, the case that hormonal methods of contraception have other physical effects on the woman's body, and these are taken advantage of when the medications are prescribed to deal with other gynecological conditions. To take a medication for the purpose of curing a disease is never immoral, and Pope Paul VI addressed this possibility in Humanae Vitae:

On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result therefrom—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

However, especially in light of the potential health complications, one might consider asking the gynecologist to prescribe such medications only as a last resort.
It's too bad that so many Catholics appear to not know, or perhaps to not care, what the actual teaching of the Church is on this subject.


What is the biblical basis for baptism by sprinkling?

There seems to be a basis for sprinkling.

Ezekiel 36:25-27. " I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will become clean; I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your disgusting idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit inside you. I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put my spirit inside you, and I will cause you to walk in my regulations, and you will observe and carry out my judicial decisions."


Why do some Christians believe a very young Earth?

Prior to the birth of Christ, most Jewish scholars assumed the genealogies in the Bible were accurate and complete and the account of creation was literal history, hence attributed an age to the earth in the thousands of years.
Jesus, speaking with the authority of God, endorsed the accuracy and divine authority of the Bible. Mark 10:6 says: “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.”
The early church adopted such views, with a few dissenters.
Many Reformation leaders taught that the earth's age could be inferred from Scripture and also taught that its age was in the thousands of years.
The advent of modern science challenged the religious beliefs of millions. Some accepted theories born of this science and rejected the idea of a young earth.
Other people place a higher credence in the words of scripture and reject attempts to import ideas not apparent in the original text based solely on human scientific theories.
As this deepening fissure widened both outside and inside the church, four tendencies arose:

a) Change Biblical hermeneutics to permit an older age for the earth and make the creation story allegorical.

b) Seek scientific evidence that contradicts the Big Bang, evolution, radioactive dating, and related ideas and techniques, as well as explore phenomena indicative of a younger age for the earth.

c) Accept the Bible on faith because of the powerful evidence of its divine nature demonstrated to them by the indwelling Holy Spirit and the miraculous events that He produces in their lives, without making a significant attempt to investigate the scientific ideas and how they are seemingly in conflict with the Biblical account.

d) Reject the Bible and Christianity altogether.

The people who have taken path 7b (the subject of your question) are in the minority. They have credible answers to many of the objections of the scientific community, but the problem posed by our ability to see distant starlight has proven to be the most difficult to answer. Russell Humprehys has a white-hole cosmology, while another has offered the effects of adopting an Anisotropic Synchrony Convention when interpreting General Relativity as a possible answer.


Are there historical accounts of the character of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Here are some of the most relevant Biblical accounts I have found:

[Genesis 13:13 NKJV] 13 But the men of Sodom [were] exceedingly wicked and sinful against the LORD.
[Genesis 18:20-26 NKJV] 20 And the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, 21 "I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know." 22 Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. 23 And Abraham came near and said, "Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? 24 "Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare [it] for the fifty righteous that were in it? 25 "Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" 26 So the LORD said, "If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes."

Abraham negotiates it down to 10 people, and even still, if there were 10 righteous people in the city, God would not destroy it.  The next portion illustrates how great their sin is:

[Gen 19:1-18 NKJV] 1 Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw [them], he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground. 2 And he said, "Here now, my lords, please turn in to your servant's house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way." And they said, "No, but we will spend the night in the open square." 3 But he insisted strongly; so they turned in to him and entered his house. Then he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them [carnally]." 6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, "Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 "See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof." 9 And they said, "Stand back!" Then they said, "This one came in to stay [here], and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them." So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck the men who [were] at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary [trying] to find the door. 12 Then the men said to Lot, "Have you anyone else here? Son-in-law, your sons, your daughters, and whomever you have in the city--take [them] out of this place! 13 "For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it."

In the previous passage, the men of Sodom tried to rape the angels, who were also male.  Lot was trying to protect them.  They tried to break into Lot's house so they could rape them, and tried to harm Lot too.  Even when the angels struck the men with blindness, they kept trying to break in!  Their sin was indeed very bad.
I don't know of any extra-biblical sources, hopefully someone else can post these.


Are there any known non-trinitarian apologists in the Anglican communion?

The Anglican church in many places is extremely lax in disciplining or evicting those with heretical beliefs. Historical Anglicanism had no capacity for non-Trinitarianism, and even though the foundational documents of the Prayer Book and the 39 Articles are accepted to varying extents in various provinces, one of the foundations of the Anglican Communion called the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral still affirms the ecumenical Trinitarian creeds. The sad reality is that many ministers and bishops have been allowed to keep their positions despite publicly teaching things which directly contract the creeds, the 39 Articles, and the Bible.

The most famous Anglican heretic is retired bishop John Shelby Spong, who rejects theism, the trinity, the virgin birth, miracles, prayer, and resurrection.

A 2014 YouGov survey of more than 1500 Anglican clergy in the UK found that 2% think God "is no more than a human construct." An earlier survey from 2002 of almost 2000 clergy found that more than 75% of Church of England clergy overall accept the Trinity, with the implication that more than 20% do not accept it in some way.


Were the "prophecies" in Montanism related to the pagan oracles?

In the few reference texts (Moody Handbook of Theology, Hodges Systematic Theology & Eckman's Exploring Church History) that I looked at all references to Montanist prophecies stated that they claimed to be speaking for the Holy Spirit. The line you reference seems to be based on third party observation, and the first party claim contradicts that. I could not find an answer to whether or not they were influenced by that tradition, the only documentation I could find refers to their beliefs in the Holy Spirit.


Did the early church condemn the teaching that God the Father is a person with a body living in space somewhere?

Wikipedia's list of Christian heresies turns up Audianism.  This fourth-century group understood Genesis 1:27 to teach that God has a body like men.

This is a form of anthropomorphism, which is more broadly defined by the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia as:

  Anthropomorphism is the ascription to the Supreme Being of the form, organs, operations, and general characteristics of human nature.


What is the case against Gore Vidal's view that St. Paul "invented Christianity"?

The case is vast, and, quite literally, fills volumes. I'm currently reading New Testament People God Volume 1: Christian Origins And The Question Of God, for example, which addresses this topic at length.

There are far too many arguments against this claim than can be addressed here (obviously), but some key points I have so far taken from the book mentioned above include:

We know that Christianity was a significant factor by the early second century, because we have strong evidence of persecution of Christians. The Roman empire, and various regions, had, to varying degrees, official policies relating to (and often forbidding) Christianity.
This means that Christianity had been around long enough to grow to a noticeable size. Even assuming an early date for the origin of Christianity (say immediately after Christ's death), this is an astonishing accomplishment for such a new religion in a world where new religions, new gods, and new practices, were a dime a dozen.  Pushing back a Christian genesis date makes this only that much more astonishing--not less (as most advocates of such a theory would have us believe)
An honest study of the content of the textual evidence (particularly, but not limited to the gospels and the rest of the New Testament) shows a progression in literary style as well as theology that would have taken many years to develop, and could not have been a "quick invention" by a single person let, alone by even a single generation.


Was Peter poor and uneducated before he met Jesus?
Historical facts seem to be lacking in order to make a reasonable conclusion whether St. Peter was in fact poor or not and how well educated he was.
Nevertheless there are a few glimmers of historical and biblical statements that may shed some light on this subject.
What do we know about St. Peter? His original name was Simon and was born in Bethsaida (John 1:42, 44), a town on Lake Genesareth. He was married and most likely had children.

St. Peter's true and original name was Simon, sometimes occurring in the form Symeon. (Acts 15:14; 2 Peter 1:1). He was the son of Jona (Johannes) and was born in Bethsaida (John 1:42, 44), a town on Lake Genesareth, the position of which cannot be established with certainty, although it is usually sought at the northern end of the lake. The Apostle Andrew was his brother, and the Apostle Philip came from the same town.
Simon settled in Capharnaum, where he was living with his mother-in-law in his own house (Matthew 8:14; Luke 4:38) at the beginning of Christ's public ministry (about A.D. 26-28). Simon was thus married, and, according to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), had children. The same writer relates the tradition that Peter's wife suffered martyrdom (ibid., VII, xi ed. cit., III, 306). Concerning these facts, adopted by Eusebius (Church History III.31) from Clement, the ancient Christian literature which has come down to us is silent. Simon pursued in Capharnaum the profitable occupation of fisherman in Lake Genesareth, possessing his own boat (Luke 5:3). - St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles

It is traditionally believed that Peter wrote two epistles contained in the New Testament, however authenticity in modern times contests the actual authorship.

Authenticity
The authenticity, universally admitted by the primitive Church, has been denied within the past century by Protestant or Rationalist critics (Baur and the Tübingen School, Von Soden, Harnack, Jülicher, Hilgenfeld, and others), but it cannot seriously be questioned. It is well established by extrinsic and instrinsic arguments.
(1) Extrinsic arguments
(a) in writings of the first and second centuries, e.g., Justin's letter to the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Papias, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, the "Didache", the "Pastor" of Hermas, and others. The Second Epistle of St. Peter, admitted to be very ancient even by those who question its authenticity, alludes to an earlier Epistle written by the Apostle (iii, 1). The letter therefore existed very early and was considered very authoritative. (b) Tradition is also unanimous for St. Peter's authorship. In the second and third centuries we have much explicit testimony to this effect. Clement and Origen at Alexandria, Tertullian and Cyprian in Africa, the Peshitto in Syria, Irenaeus in Gaul, the ancient Itala and Hippolytus at Rome all agree in attributing it to Peter, as do also the heretics, Basilides and Theodore of Byzantium. (c) All the collections or lists of the New Testament mention it as St. Peter's; the Muratorian Canon, which alone is at variance with this common tradition, is obscure and bears evident marks of textual corruption, and the subsequent restoration suggested by Zahn, which seems much more probable, is clearly favourable to the authenticity. Moreover Eusebius of Caesarea does not hesitate to place it among the undisputed Scriptures.
(2) Intrinsic arguments
Examination of the Epistle in itself is wholly favourable to its authenticity; the author calls himself Peter, the Apostle of Jesus Christ (i, 1); Mark, who, according to the Acts of the Apostles, had such close relations with Peter, is called by the author "my son" (v, 13); the author is represented as the immediate disciple of Jesus Christ (i, 1; v, 9, 11-14); he exercises from Rome a universal jurisdiction over the whole Church (v, 1). The numerous places in which he would appear to be the immediate witness of the life of Christ (i, 8; ii, 21-24; v, 1), as well as the similarity between his ideas and the teaching of the Gospels, are eloquently in favour of the Apostolic author (cf. Jacquier, 251). Finally, some authors consider that the Epistle and the sermons of St. Peter related in the Acts show an analogy in basis and form which proves a common origin. However, it is probable if not certain that the Apostle made use of an interpreter, especially of Sylvanus; St. Jerome says: "the two Epistles attributed to St. Peter differ in style, character, and the construction of the words, which proves that according to the exigencies of the moment St. Peter made use of different interpreters" (Ep. cxx ad Hedib.). Peter himself seems to insinuate this: Dia Silouanou houmin . . . egrapha (v, 12), and the final verses (12-14) seem to have been added by the Apostle himself. Without denying that Peter was able to use and speak Greek, some authors consider that he could not write it in the almost classic manner of this Epistle. Nevertheless it is impossible to determine exactly the share of Sylvanus; it is not improbable that he wrote it according to the directions of the Apostle, inserting the ideas and exhortations suggested by him.

So what can glean from this.

St. Peter was was a good fisherman with enough personal resources on hand that he was able to follow the Lord Jesus and not worry about providing for his own family at the same time.
How educated he was is really unknown. He may or may not have been that well educated. But that in no way makes him not unintelligent. We see in  Scripture, how majestically he spoke out to the crowd on the day of Pentecost.
St. Peter was a fisherman by trade. Anyone who has done fishing knows that it can be hit and miss while out one the waters. He owned his own boat and had good days and bad days. In any case, he was good enough to maintain his household!

Notwithstanding this we still see people calling St. Peter poor. Such is the title of a church in the village of Noss Mayo, in Devon, England, was built in 1226: Church of St Peter the Poor Fisherman!
Possibly one can employ the term poor in reference to St. Peter having denied Our Lord during his Passion rather than his ability to fish for a living or the state of his finances, which are reasonably unknown to us in exact detail.
Let me explain this. The French have a have a phrase for a poor man ”homme pauvre", but they equally reverse the word  order to ”pauvre homme". Thus it is not impossible that St. Peter the fisherman was a poor fisherman or was not wealthy, but he was simply the discipline that denied Our Lord three times! Thus is simply a suggestion on this take. Oh! Poor, poor Peter!

Church of St Peter the Poor Fisherman, Revelstoke, England
One thing is certain, that St. Peter was like all of us a poor sinner ("pauvre pécheur" in French). Whether or not he was a poor fisherman  ("pauvre pêcheur" in French), I will let other decide. In any case these two French expression are both pronounced in the same way, en Français!


Is 1 Corinthians 15:28 disregarded by trinitarians?

That the Son (in regard to his Deity) should have a relationship with his Father, which is a matter of filial and voluntary subjection, does not mean that he is not equal in Deity to the Father.
Equal in Divine nature, or 'form', as we see in Philippians :

who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God, [Philippians 2:6 YLT]

Yet within that equality of Deity, the Son says :

... My Father is greater than I. [John 14:28 KJV]

One needs to understand both the matter of divine nature and also the matter of divine relationship within that nature.
And one also needs to bear in mind the fact that God is God in respect of the Son of God's divine nature but also God in regard to the humanity of Jesus Christ.

But unto the Son [God saith], Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. [Hebrews 1:8.]

I think the premise of the question is incorrect.
Trinitarians, in general, are very well aware of the whole balance of truth in regard to both divine nature, divine relationship within that nature, and well aware of the relationship in regard to the humanity of Christ, also.
The text under discussion (1 Corinthians 15:28) is not disregarded. It is well understood.

and when the all things may be subjected to him, then the Son also himself shall be subject to Him, who did subject to him the all things, that God may be the all in all.

[1 Corinthians 15:28 Young's Literal Translation]

The question expresses an unsubstantiated opinion about the 'disregard' to the text and I do not think that opinion is correct. My experience of Trinitarian denominations over the past fifty three years of my life (I was converted at the age of sixteen in 1967) is that the text is not disregarded. It is fundamental to a proper understanding of the divine relationship of the Son of God to the Father and of the human relationship of Jesus Christ to God.

Basil the Great, 330-379, who supported the Nicene Creed, had this to say about 1 Corinthians 15:28 :

So there need be no hesitation from anyone in taking this to mean that what the Father is greater than is the form of a servant, whereas the Son is his equal in the form of God

And Augustine of Hippo, 354-430, comments thus :

when every creature is made subject to God, including even the creature in which the Son of God became the Son of man, for in this created form “the Son himself shall also be subject to the one who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).

Both Quotes are from secundumscripturas Basil and Augustine on 1 Corinthians 15:28
Athanasius of Alexandria, 297-373, writes on the same text :

For this subjection, no more involves inferiority of essence, than His subjection (Luke 2:51) to Joseph and Mary involved inferiority of essence to them.

This quote is taken from the Cambridge Bible Commentary paragraph on Biblehub - 1 Corinthians 15:28 on which page are extensive articles by Trinitarians who quote other Trinitarians in some very involved and learned discussions, dealing with the original language in precise and academic detail.
No. Not at all 'disregarded'.


How do Protestants interpret "baptized for the dead" in 1 Corinthians 15:29?

There are a few interpretations that I have come across regarding the specific meaning of this verse, but all agree that this is a small argument in a wider context, not a change of direction from the verses before and after it:

John Stevenson (a Presbyterian theologian) argues that "for" in this case means "in the place of". This was a time when Chrisitans were heavily persecuted and frequently killed, yet the gospel message was spreading and more believers were being baptised. So Stevenson asserts that this verse is asking (rhetorically), "why, when so many Christians are being killed for their faith, are people still becoming Christians and being baptised, replacing those who were killed?"

Meanwhile, Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry concentrates on the meaning of the word "they" as opposed to "we". He asserts that Paul is talking not about Christians, but about a pagan religion from Eleusis, north of Corinth, who believed that baptising in the sea guaranteed a good afterlife. Slick's interpretation is that Paul is saying "if even the pagans believe in the resurrection and the importance of baptism, why can't you?"

The Restored Church of God teaches that the word "for" should be translated as "in the hope of" and asserts that the meaning is much more straightforward: if there is no bodily resurrection, we have no hope after we die. We therefore believe and are baptised because we do have hope that the dead will rise again.

While these interpretations vary in their conclusions regarding what Paul was specifically referring to, they all make the point that the verse must be taken in context. Stevenson explains,

  The context of this passage is one in which Paul is arguing on behalf
  of the doctrine of the bodily resurrection. The Greeks as a rule did
  not hold to a bodily resurrection. It was a new concept to them. Their
  religion taught that the afterlife consisted of a disembodied
  existence. Throughout this chapter, Paul gives one argument after
  another showing that Christians legitimately believe in a
  resurrection.

So the verse itself doesn't result in specific doctrines in protestant churches outside of LDS, because the verse is part of a much wider set of arguments for the doctrines of baptism and the bodily resurrection.

I've picked on a few particular resources that address this issue but there are several others that also support the argument that the verse should be taken in the context described above and not as an indication of support for baptism on behalf of those that have already died. In addition, here's a specific rebuttal of the Mormon view from David Pratte's gospelway.com website.


You are basically asking why God allows people to sin, without taking their lives beforehand, or even allowing them to live at all. Or how about "Why does God create people that will end up in hell?", because it would be better for anyone to not be born than to turn from their creator.

God created us and gave us free will, knowing we would turn to our own ways. He perfectly chose Adam and Eve to represent you and I. He also knew that some would repent and yearn for Him. Now I do not recall if it's mentioned that Adam (or Eve) find redemption, but if not and God had not allowed them to live long enough to sin, then mankind would not exist. It would be wrong for God to take every man's life that would not be saved through faith and repentance before they had sinned. God offers salvation to every sinful man (Matt 7:7-8). If all of these people had died so soon, or before they were even born, then how many souls would not even come to be? How many would not even be offered life and salvation?

Obviously if Judas ends up in hell, then it would be better if he had died before he sinned. I think Jesus is giving us a metaphor or simile in plain terms of the pain and suffering he would endure from his conviction for betrayal to his suicide, or perhaps in hell, or both.


What was St. Robert Bellarmine teaching on human cooperation with grace?

St. Robert's opinion
St. Robert's views are found in his De gratia et libero arbitrio libri sex.
According to Pohle-Preuss's Grace, Actual and Habitual: A Dogmatic Treatise (Chapter III. Grace In Its Relation To Free-Will, Section 2. Theological Systems Devised To Harmonize The Dogmas Of Grace And Free-Will, Article 2. Molinism And Congruism),

Cardinal Bellarmine, who was a champion and protector of P. Molina, seems to have rejected Molinism765 in favor of Congruism.766

Cfr. his treatise De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, I, 12 […]: “Prima opinio eorum est, qui gratiam efficacem constituunt in assensu et cooperatione humana, ita ut ab eventu dicatur gratia efficax, quia videlicet sortitur effectum et ideo sortitur effectum, quia voluntas humana cooperatur. Itaque existimant hi autores, in potestate hominis esse ut gratiam faciat esse efficacem, quae alioquin ex se non esset nisi sufficiens.”Their first opinion is that efficacious grace consists in human assent and cooperation, so that from its occurence it is called efficacious grace, because it works its effect and thus achieves the effect, because the human will cooperates. So these authors think that it is within human power that grace is made efficacious, which otherwise of itself is only sufficient.Bellarmine treats this opinion as the extreme counterpart of Thomism (which he also combats) and disposes of it thus: “Haec opinio aliena est omnino a sententia b. Augustini et, quantum ego existimo, a sententia etiam Scripturarum divinarum.” (l.c.)This opinion is entirely foreign to the thought of St. Augustine and, as far as I think, even to the thought of Holy Scriptures. Among the Scriptural texts which he quotes in support of this view are John VI, 45, 1 Cor. IV, 7, Rom. IX, 11.

The learned Cardinal describes the difference between Congruism and extreme Molinism (which latter, it may be remarked, was not defended by Molina himself) as follows: “Neque enim intelligi potest, quo pacto gratia efficax consistat in illa interna suasione, quae per liberum arbitrium respui potest, et tamen infallibilem effectum habeat, nisi addamus, Deum iis quos efficaciter et infallibiliter trahere decrevit, eam suasionem adhibere quam videt congruere ingenio eorum et quam certo novit ab eis non contemnendam.” (Op. cit., […])Nor can it be understood that efficacious grace consists in that internal persuasion which by freewill can be rejected and yet have an infallible effect, unless we add that God efficaciously and infallibly decreed they draw it, which persuasion He sees congruent with their innate nature and which He certainly knows they will not despise.The objection that this explanation eventually resolves itself into the Molinistic theory which he had censured, Bellarmine meets as follows: “Respondeo sententiam nostram, quam S. Augustini esse demonstravimus, aliqua in re cum prima illa opinione convenire, sed in multis ab illa discrepare. Convenit enim in eo quod utraque sententia gratiam sufficentem et efficacem ponit in auxilio excitante potissimum, non in adiuvante. Sed discrepant inter se, quod prima opinio vult efficaciam gratiae pendere a voluntate humana, nostra vero pendere vult a voluntate Dei.” (l.c., cap. 13 [p. 294].)I answer that our opinion, which we have demonstrated is St. Augustine's, really agrees with that first opinion, but in many ways disagrees with it. It agrees with both opinions by putting sufficient and efficacious grace in the most powerful eliciting divine help, not in the one helped. But they disagree with each other, the first opinion wanting efficacious grace to depend on the human will, but ours wanting it to depend on the will of God.

(Improvements of the English translations, which are not in Pohle-Preuss, are welcome. ☺)
From this answer: St. Augustine's view on efficacious grace, from his De praedestinatione sanctorum, chap. 8:

Grace which is not rejected by any hard-heartedness, since it is bestowed, in the first place, to remove hardness of heart.

and his De gratia Christi, chap. 24:

[Efficacious grace is the] internal, hidden, wonderful, and ineffable power by which God effects in the hearts of men not only true revelations but even upright wills.

Congruism
Fr. Hardon, S.J., defines "congruism" as:

The theory of man's co-operation with grace, first developed by Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) and St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) and later adopted by the Jesuit order. According to congruism, the difference between efficacious and sufficient grace lies not only in the consent of the free will (Molinism), but also in the congruity or suitableness of a particular grace to the peculiar conditions of the one who receives the grace. When the grace suits the interior dispositions and external circumstances of a person, it becomes effective by the free consent of the will; otherwise it remains ineffective because it lacks free acceptance. As in Molinism, God foresees the congruity of the grace and its infallible success. Unlike Molinism, congruism places the emphasis not on man's freedom but on the supremacy of the divine will in determining salvation. (Etym. Latin congruitas, congruity, fitness, suitability, becomingness.)


Is there a commandment to love your parents?

No, there is no specific commandment to, 'love,' your parents.

Neither the Hebrew, 'ahav,' or the Greek, 'agape,' which may fairly be described as, 'love,' are commanded with regard to parents.  We are however commanded to both, 'ahav,' and, 'agape,' almost everyone else, from The Lord to our enemies.

I guess it is assumed that we will love our parents regardless, and only have to be commanded to honour / fear / obey them.

Ahav:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H157&t=KJV

Agape:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G25&t=KJV

As to, 'honouring,' parents in the Ten Commandments, the root word is, 'kavod,'  which implies weight, glory, or wealth.  We are commanded to obey our parents as people who deserve great respect, but not to love them in the emotional sense.

Ex 20:12 Ex 21:15 Ex 21:17 Lev 19:3 Lev 20:9 Deu 5:16 Deu 21:18-21 Mat 19:17-19 Mar 7:9-13 Eph 6:1-2 (incomplete list, various root words)

However, honouring parents is secondary to obeying the Lord.

Deu 33:8-11 Mar 10:28-31 Luk 12:51-53 (incomplete list)


How does the Swedenborgian Church explain passages where Jesus talks/prays to the Father?

From a Swedenborgian perspective, there is a simple answer and a complex answer to this question.
The Simple Answer
The simple answer does not require the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) at all. It only requires common human experience:
Jesus was talking to himself.
People often talk to themselves. Sometimes they even do it out loud! I doubt anyone goes through life without talking to himself or herself on many occasions—perhaps many times a day. The Bible records a number of times when people talk to themselves. A simple search for "said to himself" on BibleGateway turns up seven instances in the Protestant Bible, and three more in the Apocrypha.
But more specifically from a Swedenborgian perspective:
Jesus was talking to his own soul.
In Swedenborg's theology, "the Father" is the divine soul, while "the Son" is the divine body, or human manifestation. (See my answer to the question, "What do non-trinitarians mean when they call Jesus the 'Son of God'?")
The Bible also offers an example of someone talking to his own soul, in Jesus' parable of the rich fool:

Then he told them a parable: "The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, 'What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?'
"Then he said, 'I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.'" (Luke 12:16-19, italics added)

So the simple answer, which doesn't even require Swedenborg's theology, but only a common understanding of human nature (which is an image and likeness of God's nature, see Genesis 1:26-27), is:
Jesus was talking to himself, and specifically, to his own soul, which was the Father within him.
The Complex Answer
The complex answer does require Swedenborg's theology of the Incarnation, which also has a solid basis in the Bible.
Jesus' dual nature while on earth
According to the two Biblical accounts of Jesus' conception and birth, which occur in Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38; 2:1-7, Mary was Jesus' mother. However his father was not Joseph. Instead Mary conceived him "from the Holy Spirit," such that the child to be born of her would be called "the Son of God." The clear inference is that God was Jesus' father. And the New Testament commonly refers to God as the Father of Jesus.
This means that at birth, Jesus had a dual nature:

A finite human nature from his human mother Mary
An infinite divine nature from his divine Father

These two natures were arranged in him such that the finite human nature from Mary constituted his outer self, while his infinite divine nature, which was God, constituted his inner self. Swedenborg states this succinctly in Secrets of Heaven #1460:

His inner aspects were divine ones from Jehovah, his Father; his outer aspects were human ones from Mary, his mother.

According to Swedenborg's theology, it was through his finite human nature, which he received from Mary, that Jesus could be tempted by the Devil.
In fact, it was the very weaknesses and tendencies toward sin (not Original Sin—a non-Biblical Catholic doctrine that Swedenborg rejected) that made it possible for hell and the Devil to approach Jesus so that he could be "tempted in all ways just as we are" (Hebrews 4:15). The Devil could never approach God's divine nature directly. Such an encounter would annihilate the Devil—who, in Swedenborg's theology is a personification of all evil and hell.
Ironically then, according to Swedenborg's theology, the non-Biblical Catholic doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception (which is not the same thing as the Virgin Birth of Jesus), if it were true, would destroy the very reason Jesus took on a human nature through and from a finite human being. He took on that nature specifically to face the Devil on the Devil's own turf, which is the fallen human nature, subject to sin. In other words, the Incarnation required that Jesus receive from his human mother a finite, fallen human nature with inborn tendencies to evil and sin just like that of any other human being ever born.
Jesus' victory over the Devil through temptation
And yet, according to Hebrews 4:15, though he was tempted to sin in every way that we are, unlike any ordinary human being he never actually sinned. In line with this, Swedenborg states that during Jesus' lifetime on earth, every time the Devil approached him through his finite, human nature and tempted him, Jesus overcame in that temptation, and was victorious in his struggle against the Devil (or hell). This can be seen especially in Jesus' temptation by the Devil in the desert after his baptism (Matthew 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13).
Through a lifetime of victories in all of his temptations, Jesus completely overcame the Devil, or the power of evil, subjecting it to his personal control, and reducing it to a state in which it could no longer overwhelm humanity.
This, according to Swedenborg was the essential and universal act of Redemption that Jesus accomplished during his lifetime on earth. If Jesus had not fought against and emerged completely victorious over the Devil, all people on earth would have suffered eternal damnation, because by our own strength we humans cannot possibly resist the overwhelming power of the Devil and hell.
Jesus' process of glorification
This victory over evil took place in the context of a process that Swedenborg calls "glorification," based on the usage of that word especially in the Gospel of John. (See, for example, John 7:39; 12:23, 28; John 13:31-32; 14:13.)
This process of glorification took place in two basic states that continued throughout his lifetime in an alternating cycle:

The first state was one of emptying out, or of expelling from himself the finite human nature from his human mother Mary.
The second state was one of being glorified, or of uniting his human nature with his inner divine nature, called "the Father" in the Bible.

Here is how Swedenborg describes this process, and its ultimate results, in True Christianity #104:

When the Lord was being emptied out he was in a state of progress toward union; when he was being glorified he was in a state of union itself. The church recognizes that the Lord had two states while he was in the world: one called being emptied out; the other called glorification.
The prior state, being emptied out, is described in many passages in the Word, especially in the Psalms of David, but also in the Prophets. There is even one passage in Isaiah 53 where it says, "He emptied out his soul even to death" (Isaiah 53:12). This same state also entailed the Lord's being humbled before the Father. In this state he prayed to the Father. In this state he says that he is doing the Father’s will and attributes everything he has done and said to the Father.
The following passages show that he prayed to the Father: Matthew 26:36-44; Mark 1:35; 6:46; 14:32–39; Luke 5:16; 6:12; 22:41-44; John 17:9, 15, 20. The following show that he did the Father's will: John 4:34; 5:30. The following show that he attributed everything he had done and said to the Father: John 8:26, 27, 28; 12:49, 50; 14:10.
In fact, he cried out on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34). Furthermore, without this state it would have been impossible to crucify him.
The state of being glorified is also a state of union. The Lord was in this state when he was transfigured before three of his disciples. He was in it when he performed miracles. He was in it as often as he said that the Father and he were one, that the Father was in him and he was in the Father, and that all things belonging to the Father were his. After complete union he said he had power over all flesh (John 17:2) and all power in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). There are also other such passages. (links added)

Why Jesus sometimes talked and prayed to the Father as if to a separate being
In other words, during his lifetime on earth Jesus went through two alternating states:

In one state, Jesus was more present in and aware of his finite human
nature from Mary. This was the state in which he could be tempted. It
was also a state in which he felt a sense of separation from the
Father, who was his own inner divine soul. It was in this state
that Jesus prayed to the Father as if to a separate being.
In the other state, Jesus was more present in and aware of his
infinite divine nature, which was God the Father. When he was in this
state, he said that he and the Father are one (John 10:30),
that those who have seen him have seen the Father (John
14:8-9), and that the Father within him does the works (John
14:10).

These alternating states of feeling separated from the Father (his own divine soul) when he was more conscious of his finite human side, and feeling one with the Father when he was more conscious of his infinite divine side, continued throughout his lifetime on earth, culminating in his final and greatest temptation, on the Cross, when he cried out (quoting the opening verse of Psalm 22), "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34).
Jesus' full union with the Father
That, according to Swedenborg, was the last time he was immersed in his finite human nature from Mary. Through his victory in that final and greatest temptation, he completely put off from himself the last vestiges of his finite human heredity from Mary, and fully united himself with the divinity of the Father within. After the Resurrection, and especially after the Ascension to the Father, there was nothing left of that finite human maternal heredity; he was fully divine, so that Swedenborg calls him the Lord God Jesus Christ.
One final passage illustrating this, from Swedenborg's True Christianity #102:

There is a belief that the Lord in his human manifestation not only was but still is the Son of Mary. This is a blunder, though, on the part of the Christian world. It is true that he was the Son of Mary; it is not true that he still is. As the Lord carried out the acts of redemption, he put off the human nature from his mother and put on a human nature from his Father. This is how it came about that the Lord's human nature is divine and that in him God is human and a human is God. The fact that he put off the human nature from his mother and put on a divine nature from his father—a divine human nature—can be seen from his never referring to Mary as his mother, as the following passages show: "The mother of Jesus said to him, 'They have no wine.' Jesus said to her, 'What do I have to do with you, woman? My hour has not yet come'" (John 2:3-4). Elsewhere it says, "Jesus on the cross saw his mother and the disciple he loved standing next to her. He said to his mother, 'Woman, behold your son.' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother'" (John 19:26-27). On one occasion he did not acknowledge her: "There was a message for Jesus from people who said, 'Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, and they want to see you.' Jesus said in reply, 'My mother and my brothers are these people who are hearing the Word of God and doing it'" (Luke 8:20-21; Matthew 12:46-49; Mark 3:31-35). So the Lord called her "woman," not "mother," and gave her to John to be his mother. In other passages she is called his mother, but not by the Lord himself.

So although Jesus did have a dual nature during his lifetime on earth, having a finite human side outwardly, but an infinite divine side inwardly, after his process of glorification on earth was complete, he was fully divine and human at the same time, his humanity having become fully divine. This is why another common expression that Swedenborg uses to describe the risen and glorified Jesus Christ is "the Divine Humanity."
So the complex answer is:
When Jesus talked and prayed to the Father as if to a separate being, he was doing so from the finite, human nature that he received from his mother Mary. However, by the time of his Resurrection and Ascension, none of that that finite nature was left in him. He had become fully divine, and fully one with the Father, so that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all essential components of one Divine Person, who is the Divine Humanity, or the Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ.


Although Jesus takes away the sins of the world, are God and Jesus still offended by every sin that is committed?

Jesus was most offended by hypocrisy. People who practiced the sins they condemned in others.

When we accept Jesus as our savior, our past sins are forgiven, are future sins are not recorded. (Romans 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you for ye are not under the law, but under grace.) Romans 5:13, sin is not imputed where there is no law. Impute means to record in our account; the one we present God on the day we stand before him.

Remember the parable of the unforgiving servant? Matthew 18:15. The servant owed the king a huge sum, and was forgiven. Was he forgiven? Yes he was. Are we forgiven? Yes we are. But then something happened. That servant was owed a small sum and demanded that the debtor pay up, or be thrown in jail. The servant did not forgive his debtor. Subsequently, the unforgiving servant was thrown in jail. Jesus is clear that it could happen to us.

Matthew 7:1 Judge not that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you again.

When we sin against God (and remember, as you have done it unto the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me), in order to measure out the judgment, he needs to wait until we pass judgment on someone who offends us in that way. So, he sends someone our way to offend us in the way we have offended him. Then, he measures to us accordingly.

The moral of the story is, when you mete out judgment, make sure you would be happy to have that measured unto you again.


Here's an example from St. Robert Bellarmine's life (ch. 30 of 35 Doctors of the Church):

  Not only did he give freely to those who asked, but he remembered those who were too embarrassed to ask, too reserved to beg. He sent out men to find such cases and helped them. He was often “taken in” by beggars who were not deserving. Some came back in disguise to receive a second alms. He knew this, but his principle was that it is better to be deceived a hundred times than miss one genuinely in need. No wonder the people of Rome called him “the new Poverello,” referring of course to St. Francis of Assisi, his patron.


How did Christians of WW1/WW2 view the book of Revelation?

While there must have been groups of Christians that understood these times as you suggest, the time leading up to the world wars actually was a time of great progress and optimism. While there certainly were premillennial groups, much of mainline Christianity during the 17-19th centuries was actually post- or a- millennial; that is, many believed that things would continue to get better and better until everyone on earth became Christians, then Christ would return. A nice example of this comes from my own tradition, whence the serial publication The Millennial Harbinger comes.

The increase in popularity of premillenialism (at least as it is commonly expressed nowadays) was actually the result of the great Wars. The wars called into question whether or not things actually were getting better—many argued that they weren't. So instead of thinking things would get better prompting Jesus' return, many people began to assume things would actually get worse, and would only get better by the direct intervention of God—hence the great tribulation, rapture, etc. of modern premillennialism. Interestingly, this falls nearly perfectly in line with the Apocalyptic movement in Judaism during the Second Temple Period out of which Christianity grew.


What is the biblical basis against contraception?

Genesis 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful and multiply
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply
Genesis 8:17 Be fruitful and multiply on the earth
Genesis 9:1 Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth
Genesis 9:7 Be ye fruitful and multiply
Genesis 28:3 God Almighty bless thee and make thee fruitful and multiply thee
Genesis 35:11 I am God Almighty : be fruitful and multiply

On seven occasions in Genesis, fruitful multiplication is encouraged (one might say, commanded) by God or the blessing of it is conveyed.
To Adam and Eve, by God himself ; to Noah, again by God himself after judgment of the earth ; by Isaac to Jacob ; and finally by God himself, again, to Jacob.
Fruitfulness and multiplication is set before humanity, as such, in the beginning and again after catastrophic judgment and again in what might be termed a covenant relationship.
There is every encouragement that, within a marriage union, there should be fruitfulness. The subject of deliberately avoiding having babies is just not there, apparently.


What is the origin of throwing dust over head (as a sign of mourning) in the Bible?

It would seem that is the earliest known Biblical reference to ashes being in Genesis, when Abraham accepts that he is nothing but dust and ashes before the LORD, so it is a symbol of humility before God.

  Then Abraham answered and said, “Indeed now, I who am but dust and
  ashes have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord..."

  Genesis 18:27

Nevertheless, I believe there is also another symbol of great significance. It is important to note that ashes were taken from the burnt offering in the earthly sanctuary:

  And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen trousers
  he shall put on his body, and take up the ashes of the burnt offering
  which the fire has consumed on the altar, and he shall put them beside
  the altar.

  Leviticus 6:10

Ashes could symbolize something very important, purification:

  Then a man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and
  store them outside the camp in a clean place; and they shall be kept
  for the congregation of the children of Israel for the water of
  purification; it is for purifying from sin.

  Numbers 19:9

Many times sackcloth and ashes were put on for mourning a death, but other timer for mourning over sin and showing outwardly the repentance that should have been happening inwardly.

Here is the case of Ahab...

  But there was no one like Ahab who sold himself to do wickedness in
  the sight of the Lord, because Jezebel his wife stirred him up. And he
  behaved very abominably in following idols, according to all that the
  Amorites had done, whom the Lord had cast out before the children of
  Israel.

  So it was, when Ahab heard those words, that he tore his clothes and
  put sackcloth on his body, and fasted and lay in sackcloth, and went
  about mourning.

  And the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, “See how
  Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself
  before Me, I will not bring the calamity in his days. In the days of
  his son I will bring the calamity on his house.”

  1 Kings 21:25-29

And also the case of the city of Nineveh where even the animals were covered in sackcloth and ashes...

  So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on
  sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. Then word came to
  the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his throne and laid aside his
  robe, covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes. And he caused
  it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of
  the king and his nobles, saying,

  Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; do not let
  them eat, or drink water. But let man and beast be covered with
  sackcloth, and cry mightily to God; yes, let every one turn from his
  evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. Who can tell if
  God will turn and relent, and turn away from His fierce anger, so that
  we may not perish?

  Jonah 3:5-9

And Job's repentance...

  Therefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes.”

  Job 42:6

They symbolize the blood of Christ.

  For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer,
  sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how
  much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit
  offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead
  works to serve the living God? And for this reason He is the Mediator
  of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the
  transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may
  receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

  Hebrews 9:13-15

We should take the example of how people mourned and repented and put ashes on their head, as repent in the same way. Instead of covering ourselves with ashes, claiming to be covered by the blood that Jesus spilled in the cross of Calvary for us. For that is how we are cleansed.

  But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship
  with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us
  from all sin.

  If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
  not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to
  forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

  1 John 1:7-9

TL;DR - ashes are representative of Christ blood which cleanses us from our sins.


What are the root causes of the recent clerical sexual abuse scandals within the Catholic Church?

The percentage of Catholic priests who indulge in sexual abuse may not be on higher side compared with that of doctors, teachers , policemen et al   who have direct interaction with their clients in fiduciary capacity or otherwise.   But unfortunately, the news value of alleged abuse by Catholic priests  is much more than the other cases put together. The simple reason is that  malpractice of priests is an affront to the very trust invested on them by the faithful. Children and the young alike choose to go unaccompanied, to the private room of a priest more easily than they would, to that of a doctor or teacher. Who will tell them that priests are also made of flesh and blood like every other human being  is ? It is the parents who miserably fail in their duty in this aspect. The Church needs to cultivate a collective consciousness towards the vice.


What are the qualifications for becoming an eternal family according to LDS teaching?

Becoming an eternal family requires living the gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes the following:

Developing faith in Jesus Christ.
Repenting.
Being baptized and receiving the Holy Ghost.
Enduring to the end.

"Enduring to the End" includes temple ordinances, such as the sealing (husband and wife or child to parents), and implies that one would be temple worthy. See the two quotes below, but essentially, the sealing  only remains effective when the parties involved are faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ. You may find the temple-recommend interview questions helpful for a guide but, unfortunately, it's impossible to make a checklist of the complete teachings of Jesus Christ.

"Family members who accept the Atonement of Jesus Christ and follow His example can be together forever through sacred ordinances performed in God’s holy temples. Jesus gave to Peter the power to have things sealed on earth and sealed in heaven (Matthew 16:19). This same sealing power was restored to Joseph Smith. Mormon’s believe that they can be “sealed” or bound together through His power enabling them to live together in eternity." - http://mormon.org/faq/mormon-families

"In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the word sealing refers to the joining together of a man and a woman and their children for eternity. This sealing can be performed only in a temple by a man who has the priesthood, or the authority from God. According to Latter-day Saint belief, the sealing means these family relationships will endure after death if the individuals live according to the teachings of Jesus Christ."- http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/sealing