According to Catholics, when is Luke 22:8?

The Catholic Encyclopaedia, discussing the timing of the Last Supper, refers to Luke 22:7, along with parallels Matthew 26: 17 and Mark 14 12 and says:

  From these passages it seems to follow that Jesus and his disciples conformed to the ordinary custom, that the Last Supper took place on the 14th of Nisan, and that the Crucifixion was on the 15th, the great festival of the Jews.

According to this, then, Luke 22: 7 happened on the morning of the 14th Nissan. The Last Supper took place that evening and was the Passover meal.

Because the Jews reckoned a day as beginning at sunset, then the evening of the 14th counted as the 15th,  so the Last Supper on Thursday evening and the Crucifixion on Friday daytime were both on the 15th.

However, the article adds,  it seems in John's Gospel that Crucifixion took place on the 14th, and even in the other Gospels there are tings happening on the day of the Crucifixion which seem unlikely to have happened on Passover.

There is therefore some uncertainty as to whether the day on which the disciples prepared the Last Supper was the 14th (synoptic) or 13th (John).

Pope Benedict XVI discussed the issue in his book Jesus of Nazareth,  an excerpt from which can be seen here.    He starts with the Synoptic Gospels and says that according to them the Last Supper was the Passover meal. This of course means that Luke 22:7 was on 14th Nissan.

However he goes on:

  This chronology suffers from the problem that Jesus' trial and crucifixion would have taken place on the day of the Passover feast, which that year fell on a Friday. ...  But despite all academic arguments, it seems questionable whether the trial before Pilate and the crucifixion would have been permissible and possible on such an important Jewish feast day.

He then goes on to consider John's chronology:

  Let us now turn to John's chronology. John goes to great lengths to indicate that the Last Supper was not a Passover meal. On the contrary: the Jewish authorities who led Jesus before Pilate's court avoided entering the praetorium, "so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover" (18:28). The Passover, therefore, began only in the evening, and at the time of the trial the Passover meal had not yet taken place; the trial and crucifixion took place on the day before the Passover, on the "day of preparation", not on the feast day itself. The Passover feast in the year in question accordingly ran from Friday evening until Saturday evening, not from Thursday evening until Friday evening.

In that case the incident in Luke 22 7 would have been on Nissan 13.

The Pope Emeritus (as he now is)  then points out John's chronology has Jesus's death at the time the Paschal lambs were being slaughtered, and the theological significance of this has led some to argue John altered the chronology  to fit the theology.

He discusses in some detail various theories that have ben suggested to reconcile the Synoptic accounts with that of John. He does not find them entirely satisfactory.

  One thing emerges clearly from the entire tradition: essentially, this farewell meal was not the old Passover, but the new one, which Jesus accomplished in this context. Even though the meal that Jesus shared with the Twelve was not a Passover meal according to the ritual prescriptions of Judaism, nevertheless, in retrospect, the inner connection of the whole event with Jesus' death and Resurrection stood out clearly. It was Jesus' Passover. And in this sense he both did and did not celebrate the Passover: the old rituals could not be carried out – when their time came, Jesus had already died. But he had given himself, and thus he had truly celebrated the Passover with them. The old was not abolished; it was simply brought to its full meaning.

  On this basis one can understand how it was that very early on, Jesus' Last Supper – which includes not only a prophecy, but a real anticipation of the Cross and Resurrection in the Eucharistic gifts – was regarded as a Passover: as his Passover. And so it was.

It is impossible to say that there is a definite Catholic point of view on the matter. However  the idea that the chronology associated with John is the correct one is supported by  Pope Benedict, and his focus on the Eucharistic Theology, is also Catholic.

On this basis Luke 22: 7 took place on Nissan 13.


Was the "abomination of desolation" Caligula's proposed statue in the Temple?

On page 81 of http://ellisskolfield.com/pdf/2012-T.O.pdf Ellis Skolfield argues that the building of the Dome of the Rock on the Jewish Temple mount following Khalifa Omar's conquest of Jerusalem is the abomination of desolation. The original source is Bishop Sophronius, who was the bishop of Jerusalem at the time and made the connection to Daniel's prophecy (Daniel 11:31), as well as Jesus' words in Matthew.

It is likely that Daniel's earlier prophecy refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes' slaughter of a pig on the altar in Jerusalem. Comparing Daniel's prophecy and its supposed fulfillment with Matthew's prophesy may be helpful.


How did the "dubia cardinals" accuse and respond to Pope Francis's «Amoris Lætitia»?

In September 2016, four cardinals, with the support of many other clerics, questioned the orthodoxy of Francis's document on marriage and the family, Amoris Lætitia, in the form of five dubia ("doubts"):

  It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio ["in a marital way"]?
  After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
  After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?
  After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
  After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

(my emphases)

Briefly, they question if Francis supports

Communion for adulterous couples?
moral relativism?
living in sin?
there not being intrinsically evil acts?(e.g., homosexual acts, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, suicide, etc.)
private interpretation of moral norms?

After years of Francis refusing to address these dubia, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke and four bishops issued the Declaration of the Truths relating to some of the most common Errors in the Life of the Church of our Time on May 31, 2019, which reiterates Catholic teaching on the

Fundamentals of Faith (#1-2)
Creed (#3-11)
Law of God (#12-29)
Sacraments (#30-40)

in 40 brief points (cf. their accompanying explanatory note).

For example, the Declaration of the Truths says, in response to dubia number

37. By virtue of the will of Christ and the unchangeable Tradition of the Church, the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist may not be given to those who are in a public state of objectively grave sin, and sacramental absolution may not be given to those who express their unwillingness to conform to Divine law, even if their unwillingness pertains only to a single grave matter (see Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 4; Pope John Paul II, Message to the Major Penitentiary Cardinal William W.  Baum, on March 22, 1996).
12. A justified person has the sufficient strength with God’s grace to carry out the objective demands of the Divine law, since all of the commandments of God are possible for the justified. God’s grace, when it justifies the sinner, does of its nature produce conversion from all serious sin (see Council of Trent, sess. 6, Decree on Justification, c. 11; c. 13).
22. Anyone, husband or wife, who has obtained a civil divorce from the spouse to whom he or she is validly married, and has contracted a civil marriage with some other person during the lifetime of his legitimate spouse, and who lives in a marital way with the civil partner, and who chooses to remain in this state with full knowledge of the nature of the act and with full consent of the will to that act, is in a state of mortal sin and therefore can not receive sanctifying grace and grow in charity. Therefore, these Christians, unless they are living as “brother and sister,” cannot receive Holy Communion (see John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).
15. “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God, which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church” (John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium vitae, 62).  There are moral principles and moral truths contained in Divine revelation and in the natural law which include negative prohibitions that absolutely forbid certain kinds of action, inasmuch as these kinds of action are always gravely unlawful on account of their object. Hence, the opinion is wrong that says that a good intention or a good consequence is or can ever be sufficient to justify the commission of such kinds of action (see Council of Trent, sess. 6 de iustificatione, c. 15; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 17; Encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 80).
20. By natural and Divine law no human being may voluntarily and without sin exercise his sexual powers outside of a valid marriage. It is, therefore, contrary to Holy Scripture and Tradition to affirm that conscience can truly and rightly judge that sexual acts between persons who have contracted a civil marriage with each other, can sometimes be morally right or requested or even commanded by God, although one or both persons is sacramentally married to another person (see 1 Cor 7: 11; John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, 84).

(my emphases)

Since all these truths are interconnected, read the full document for a complete explanation.


What is the LDS Church's affiliation with the Boy Scouts?

The Boy Scouts of America's website states:

  The Boy Scouts of America is one of the nation's largest and most prominent values-based youth development organizations. The BSA provides a program for young people that builds character, trains them in the responsibilities of participating citizenship, and develops personal fitness.

In addition, the BSA requires all members to espouse a belief in some "higher power", in other words, whoever you believe to be god.

The 13th Article of Faith of the LDS Church states:

  We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Clearly both organizations are seeking after character-filled and moral members. Specifically, the BSA's Scout Law states:

  A Scout is:
  Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful,
  Friendly, Courteous, Kind,
  Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty,
  Brave, Clean, Reverent

(bolded entries emphasizing those that appear in the Article of Faith in some form)

As an Eagle Scout myself, and having got to know many Mormon Boy Scouts, I can attest that many are there because they believe in the principles of both organizations. The strong overlap between the two sets of values is likely what makes Scouting so appealing to Mormon young men.

The Church's statement on Scouting:

  Where Scouting is authorized by the Church, quorums may participate in Scouting activities during Mutual. Under priesthood leadership, Scouting can complement the efforts of Aaronic Priesthood quorums and Primary classes in building testimonies in young men and boys.”

For more resources, you could check out the LDS-BSA Relationships website. As for the LDS Church's affiliation with scouting, it is the largest chartering organization (sponsor for local troop), with 37,856 units containing 430,557 youth, almost 70,000 more than the next-largest organization.


What is the Catholic theological basis for the Munificentissimus Deus?

In order to understand this, it is necessary to understand the possible bases for Catholic a theological belief.
My answer here discusses the role of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture in the Church; and my answer here begins a discussion of the Magisterium of the Church. These three are the grounds on which the Catholic Church can declare something to be a belief to be held by the entire Church.
Briefly, the Church holds Sacred Tradition to be passed down from the apostles, just as the scriptures were:

The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 83)
The Magisterium is the authority the Church claims, which it holds to be passed down from the apostles, to interpret Scripture and Tradition so as to guide the Church unerringly in her beliefs:

The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. "By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers."  ... "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 84–85)
One thing I did not discuss in either of the above answers is what is called the sensus fidei, or "sense of the faithful". Under certain conditions, when it appears that all of the Church holds a particular belief, the Church may declare that the belief is a truth to be held as dogma:

All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them and guides them into all truth."
"The whole body of the faithful... cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, 'from the bishops to the last of the faithful,' they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."
"By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (Magisterium),... receives... the faith, once for all delivered to the saints.... The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 91–93; the quotes are from the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium.)
Thus, the Magisterium can be exercised by the People of God in its entirety (under certain conditions), by the entire College of Bishops, and by the Pope. When Pope Pius wrote Munificentissimus Deus, he invoked all three. A few years earlier, he had written a letter to the bishops titled Deiparae Virginis Mariae, in which he reviewed the fact that many people, religious and lay, had asked various Popes over the previous hundred years to make the belief in the Assumption into a matter of dogma. He asked the bishops what they and their dioceses thought:

We earnestly beg you to inform us about the devotion of your clergy and people (taking into account their faith and piety) toward the Assumption of the most Blessed Virgin Mary. More especially We wish to know if you, Venerable Brethren, with your learning and prudence consider that the bodily Assumption of the Immaculate Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith, and whether in addition to your own wishes this is desired by your clergy and people.

Apparently, this was answered with a strong "Yes"; in Munificentissimus Deus the Pope reports:

those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God"(4) gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions. This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful,"(5) affirming that the bodily Assumption of God's Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.

In other words, because essentially all the bishops and all the faithful agreed that it was the truth, the Pope declared that it must be truth (since the Church as a whole could not err in matters of faith), and should be taught infallibly, as a truth to which all the faithful must adhere.
Some of the support that Pope Pius gives comes from the celebration of the Dormition of Mary from ancient times; for example:

the fact that a holy fast had been ordered from ancient times for the day prior to the feast is made very evident by what our predecessor St. Nicholas I testifies in treating of the principal fasts which "the Holy Roman Church has observed for a long time, and still observes."

(Munificentissimus Deus, paragraph 19; citing the "Responsa Nicolai ad consulta Bulgarorum" ["Response of Nicholas to the actions of the Bulgars"], a letter sent by Pope St. Nicholas I to Boris, king of the Bulgars, in the late 9th century)
He further cites a sermon of St. John Damascene ("In Praise of the Dormition of Mary, the Mother of God [Theotokos] and Ever-Virgin"), which states:

It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions.

After following this up with a discussion of how other saints and theologians have agreed with these ideas, Pope Pius concluded:

Since our Redeemer is the Son of Mary, he could not do otherwise, as the perfect observer of God's law, than to honor, not only his eternal Father, but also his most beloved Mother. And, since it was within his power to grant her this great honor, to preserve her from the corruption of the tomb, we must believe that he really acted in this way. ...
Since the universal Church, within which dwells the Spirit of Truth who infallibly directs it toward an ever more perfect knowledge of the revealed truths, has expressed its own belief many times over the course of the centuries, and since the bishops of the entire world are almost unanimously petitioning that the truth of the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven should be defined as a dogma of divine and Catholic faith ... we believe that the moment appointed in the plan of divine providence for the solemn proclamation of this outstanding privilege of the Virgin Mary has already arrived.
For which reason, ...  we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.


How would Jesus write his full name as, in civil records?

First, I'd point out that even in modern times full names are far from unambiguous. My own fairly uncommon first, middle, and last name together are not enough to uniquely single me out. All legal records use some other way of identifying me: a birth certificate number, a social security number, a passport number, a residence permit number. Civil governments in our modern world ALWAYS use something beyond assigned names to keep track of people because names simply don't cut it.

In the ancient world there were not good ways of keeping track of id numbers. Databases were not centralized and UUIDs were not a thing. Instead they would group records. In the near east of Jesus' era the Romans handled this by region. This is why when the census was done just before Jesus birth everybody had to register in "Their own city". That also explains why Jesus was commonly known as "Jesus of Nazareth". Nazareth being a small town and there not being too many popular figures coming out of there, that was enough to place him in most people's minds.

We don't have any civil records from the era that record anything more than what we have in Scripture, but Scripture gives us a pretty good idea how he was known both colloquially and legally. In particular Matthew was a former tax collector and Luke was a historian. Besides identifying his place (Nazareth) the most accurate way to identify people was to list off some of their genealogy.

  Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.


How do you know that you are reborn of Spirit?

You will know that you are reborn in spirit when people notice a significant change in you. It's like being hit by a large truck, you are never the same afterwards. The same can be said for the spirit of God entering your life, God is unimaginably big. If you have been truly changed and born again, people will take notice.

I know people that get saved and they don't even physically look the same anymore. Instead of hurt, you see love in their eyes.


What is the signficance of the Prince of Persia delaying the Archangel Michael coming to Daniels aid?

I have quoted this answer partly from St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theology (1, 113, 8) and the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. For me" this makes sense.

I hope it may be of help:

  "Prince: An angel who has spiritual oversight and influence over an
  earthly nation. Reference is made in Daniel to the angelic patrons of
  Persia (10:13), Greece (10:20), and Israel (12:1). Jewish tradition
  traces this idea to the Greek LXX translation of Deut 32:8, which
  states that nations are divided "according to the number of the angels
  of God" (Deut 32:8 LXX). Christian tradition also teaches that God
  exercises his providential government over nations through the
  ministry of angels. They serve as helpers and protectors who are
  tasked with preserving some knowledge of God and his truth among those
  who are ignorant of supernatural revelation (e.g. St. Clement of
  Alexandria, Stromata 7, 2; St Basil, Against Eunomius 3, 1)."

  "On the contrary, It is written (Daniel 10:13): "The prince of the
  kingdom of the Persians resisted me one and twenty days." But this
  prince of the Persians was the angel deputed to the guardianship of
  the kingdom of the Persians. Therefore one good angel resists the
  others; and thus there is strife among them.

  I answer that, The raising of this question is occasioned by this
  passage of Daniel. Jerome explains it by saying that the prince of the
  kingdom of the Persians is the angel who opposed the setting free of
  the people of Israel, for whom Daniel was praying, his prayers being
  offered to God by Gabriel. And this resistance of his may have been
  caused by some prince of the demons having led the Jewish captives in
  Persia into sin; which sin was an impediment to the efficacy of the
  prayer which Daniel put up for that same people.

  But according to Gregory (Moral. xvii), the prince of the kingdom of
  Persia was a good angel appointed to the guardianship of that kingdom.
  To see therefore how one angel can be said to resist another, we must
  note that the Divine judgments in regard to various kingdoms and
  various men are executed by the angels. Now in their actions, the
  angels are ruled by the Divine decree. But it happens at times in
  various kingdoms or various men there are contrary merits or demerits,
  so that one of them is subject to or placed over another. As to what
  is the ordering of Divine wisdom on such matters, the angels cannot
  know it unless God reveal it to them: and so they need to consult
  Divine wisdom thereupon. Wherefore forasmuch as they consult the
  Divine will concerning various contrary and opposing merits, they are
  said to resist one another: not that their wills are in opposition,
  since they are all of one mind as to the fulfillment of the Divine
  decree; but that the things about which they seek knowledge are in
  opposition."

Kind regards, have a nice day!


When was the name "Easter" first used for the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus?

There are a few ways to look at the origin of the word Easter:

That it comes from Eostre, an ancient Germanic goddess
That it comes from Eosturmonath, or "month of beginnings"
That it comes from Anglo-Saxon eastre, meaning dawn

Bede
The primary historical account of the origin of Easter comes from Bede's De temporum ratione (The Reckoning of Time, AD 725).  He presents the first view mentioned above, that the word comes from Eostre, the name of an ancient Germanic goddess.  He writes that this goddess had a month of celebration devoted to her, and that Anglo-Saxon Christians in early Medieval England appropriated that name for their celebration of the resurrection:

Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month.  Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honored name of the old observance. (chapter 15)

Alternative interpretations
Bede's account seems straightforward, but many scholars doubt his analysis of the origin of the word Easter.  Ronald Hutton, in Stations of the Sun, accepts that a predecessor of the word was used in association with Christian resurrection festivals in the 8th and 9th centuries.  But he points to research that indicates less than perfect accuracy in Bede's explanations of this type, and summarizes:

It falls into that category of interpretations which Bede admitted to be his own, rather than generally agreed or proven fact.

Hutton also writes that the Anglo-Saxon eastre was associated with Indo-European words "signifying dawn and also goddesses who personified that event."  Thus, he proposes two possible solutions that are "equally valid," both of which ultimately point back to dawn:

That Bede's goddess Eostre was a Germanic dawn-deity who was indeed venerated by Anglo-Saxon pagans in the Spring
That Bede mistakenly associated Eosturmonath with a non-existent deity, or one simply associated with dawn and not directly with springtime, and that the word actually meant, simply, "month of beginnings" or "month of openings," referring to the opening of buds in the Spring

Summary
The best we can say with some certainty is that Easter ultimately originates in Indo-European words meaning dawn.  The exact connection between the concept of dawn and the Easter celebration is less certain: perhaps simply an analogy between the dawning of a day and the arrival of springtime (and therefore Passover), or perhaps via the early Spring veneration of a dawn-goddess.
That said, scholars don't cast significant doubt on Bede's timeline: that by the 8th century, Christian celebrations of the resurrection were associated with a forerunner of the word Easter.


Why is death a vital piece of God's plan in LDS theology?

Wow, this is a good question. I dove into the search tools on LDS.org and came up with a few things that you've probably seen already, but they were instructive for me.

It looks like the reason for death has directly to do with circumstances of the Fall.

In Alma 12:23-24, it says:

  23 And now behold, I say unto you that if it had been possible for
  Adam to have partaken of the fruit of the tree of life at that time,
  there would have been no death, and the word would have been void,
  making God a liar, for he said: If thou eat thou shalt surely die.

  24 And we see that death comes upon mankind, yea, the death which has
  been spoken of by Amulek, which is the temporal death; nevertheless
  there was a space granted unto man in which he might repent; therefore
  this life became a probationary state; a time to prepare to meet God;
  a time to prepare for that endless state which has been spoken of by
  us, which is after the resurrection of the dead.

So death must come, among other reasons, because God said so. Is there yet a reason behind that? I don't know. There's certainly lots to learn from death that may only be accomplished by having death. For instance, how does knowing that we will die affect how we live?

Or, would it fair to say, that since Adam and Eve became even as gods through the Fall, knowing good from evil, and comprehending opposites, that life/birth must have its opposite, being death?

We've also got Alma 22:14:

  14 And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself;
  but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through
  faith and repentance, and so forth; and that he breaketh the bands of
  death, that the grave shall have no victory, and that the sting of
  death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory; and Aaron did
  expound all these things unto the king.

Although we aren't all translated, if we're righteous, the sting of death is swallowed up in Christ (1 Cor. describes the sting as sin).

Besides, if all people were just translated/taken up instead, I think that kind of death wouldn't cause us to search for something more to life. Dying has a purpose in urging us to consider our state of being and our standing with God, or even to search for God, while we yet live. This thought is mostly philosophical, but even prophets use this reasoning to convince us to "consider our ways," (Haggai 1:5) and "turn again to the Lord" (Lamentations 3:40).


Is it appropriate to refer to God as "It"?

In English, the appropriate non-gender pronouns are 'they' and 'them', but this construction is clumsy if people attempt to use it all the time. It simply does not work as a substitute. It does not adequately express person.

Babies are sometimes referred to as 'it' because, I suppose, their personality is not yet apparent. But, no, it is not appropriate in English (and, yes, it is offensive) to call a person 'it'. English just does not work like that.

When a voice was heard from heaven saying :

  This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. [Matthew 17:5 KJV] ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος εν ω ευδοκησα αυτου ακουετε

the voice used the masculine gender pronoun, αυτου - 'him'.

I think that should be respected. Throughout the Hebrew and Greek scripture - God's revelation of himself - the masculine pronoun is used.


Do all Christian traditions expect a second coming of Christ?

Yes.  Every significant Christian tradition affirms the return of Jesus.

The Nicene Creed, adopted by the Universal manifestation of the assembled church in 325AD and accepted by just about every mainline Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox church with which the average Westerner will most readily identify affirms:

  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

This is about as direct a reference as one can get- and it is pretty explicit.

Of the non-Nicene denominations (Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, Christadelphians, etc...) all of the major ones also see Jesus' return as a given. It is clear in Scripture, and thus the only denominations that are even on the fence about it are those which do not believe the Bible to be a relevant source of theology.

This would include Unitarians and that bugaboo of this site, Christian Atheists. (If you haven't heard of the latter, don't worry, Id never heard of them either)

In practice, some liberal theologians, like John Dominac Crossan and Bishop John Shelby Spong do not believe in a literal return of Christ (they are 100% amilennial), but then again, they don't believe in a literal resurrection either.

Finally, it should be noted that without an actual return of Jesus, salvation itself becomes a past tense thing- and could (should?) be viewed as reneging on a promise. When Jesus says he goes to prepare a place for us, then if he doesn't ever come back for us, it's a rather hollow promise.


Why did Joseph and Mary take one day's time to realize that Jesus had been left behind at the Temple?

Luke 2:43-44--and as they were returning, after spending the full number of days, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. But His parents were unaware of it, but supposed Him to be in the caravan, and went a day's journey; and they began looking for Him among their relatives and acquaintances.

As DJClayworth mentioned in his comment above, it may well have been assumed that he was with them There's no evidence that His parents even questioned His being in the caravan. He would have been among relatives and acquaintances and there would be very little reason for them to believe He was elsewhere.


Why a soul needs to be in a state of grace when receiving the Eucharist?

1 Cor. 11:27:

  whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.

The Catholic Haydock Commentary says on this verse:

  Ver. 27. Or
                             drink. Here erroneous translators corrupted the text, by putting and drink (contrary to the original, e
                             pine ) instead of or drink. --- Guilty of the body, &c. not discerning the body, &c.
                             This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could
                             not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord's body. (Challoner)
                             --- The real presence in the sacrament is also proved by the enormity of the crime, in its profanation. See St. Chrysostom,
                             hom. de non contem. ec. and hom. lx. and lxi. ad pop. Antioch. where he shews that the unworthy receiver imitates the Jews
                             in crucifying Jesus, and trampling under foot his sacred blood. Hence the dreadful punishments we read of in verses 27 and
                             30.


Did the young rich man sin by not following Jesus?

The rich young man did not sin by not following Jesus's counsel to a more perfect life, but he did commit the sin of covetousness: "because he was covetous, he went away sad" (Super Evangelium S. Matthæi ch. 19).

Discussing "Whether covetousness is always a mortal sin?" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 118 a. 5 co.), St. Thomas Aquinas says covetousness is a

mortal sin whenthe love of riches becomes so great as to be preferred to charity, in such wise that a man, through love of riches, fear not to act counter to the love of God and his neighbor
venial sin whenthe inordinate nature of his love stops short of this, so that although he love riches too much, yet he does not prefer the love of them to the love of God, and is unwilling for the sake of riches to do anything in opposition to God or his neighbor

If the rich man embraced poverty, this would have helped him increase in charity and perfection.


According to the Bible, do animals have souls?

In the Bible, the word for "spirit" is the same as "breathe." But there is ultimately a difference between the life of humans and the life in animals.

In Genesis 2:7, God breathes into the nostrils of man and gives him life, but all land animals have this same breath as well. "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life." (Genesis 7:15 (KJV))

However, the distinction between the two types of spirits is apparent in the following verses:

  Nevertheless man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts
  that perish.This their way is their folly: yet their posterity approve
  their sayings. Selah.Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death
  shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in
  the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their
  dwelling. But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for
  he shall receive me. Selah.
   Psa 49:12-15 (KJV)

  Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
  Ecc. 3:21 (KJV)

It is clear that God does care for the animals. In many passages, God shows compassion for the beast or bird, whether by the law, or other means. Though they do not have eternal souls, they are part of God's creation, and they give Him His due worship.


Can indirection bring us closer to Christ?

Since we speak at least one common language, perhaps this illustration will shed some light on what Catholics gain by Marian consecration.

Encapsulation

Mary is not the head of the Catholic Church, she is however, the superclass from which all Christians descend.  In my Marian consecration, each day I promise to devote all my prayers, actions and sacrifices to her to further the work of her Divine Son. My public methods, my private methods and my protected methods all should point to Christ.  I do all these things poorly, in imitation of she who did these things well and was blessed by God for her faith and purity of heart.

Polymorphism

Marian consecration takes on many, many forms.  The form you mentioned, the form I did 9 years ago at one of the lowest spiritual points in my personal life, is the consecration of St. Maximilian Kolbe who spread devotion to the Miraculous Medal given to St. Catherine Laborre at Rue De Bac (in the middle of Paris).  He took the message from Poland to Nagasaki and finally died in a concentration camp in Auschwitz, but his particular devotion of starting "Marytowns" spread all the way to Libertyville, Illinois.  Marian consecration really goes back to St. Louis De Montfort in the 18th century.  Devotion to the Heart of Mary comes straight out of the Bible, who Simeon foretold a sword would pierce.  Is the Heart of Mary, Jesus is that passage even referring to Mary?  Who can know such things.  Fortunately, through the grace of polymorphism, we can overload the devotion with as much as we want and never find it failing to point to Christ.

Inheritance

Mary's ancestors, as well as Josephs were through the Davidic line. If we take her into our home, if we esteem her like Solomon esteemed his mother then we do what we can to help our cause to become coheirs to the kingdom.  However, the abstraction fails, we're not gnostics, we don't gain access to Christ's protected methods (those hidden outside of revelation).  But we can meditate on them.

Abstraction

I think this hits your observation about indirection.  When we conform ourselves to Christ,  we want to take on His attributes.  You want to be in Him?  You want Him to be in you?  Learn from the one who took Him not only into her home, but in to her body.  Mary is the Church, the Church is the bride of Christ, the Church is the Body of Christ.  There's no way to understand these mysteries, except through a mirror abstractly.

I hope that helps, it was fun to write but probably exceptionally useless in the long run.


Why are there people in Protestant countries with the last name "Pope"?

According to
Pope (disambiguation) - Wikipedia,

Pope is a Scottish surname meaning father.

It has nothing to do with the Roman church.


Good Urdu Translations of the Bible from the Masoretic and one of the Textus Receptuses, or just either?

Here, try this: a Friend just gave it to me in private: http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Urdu_Bible


The Glory Be prayer and consolation - Catholic Spirituality

St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica II-II q. 83 a. 13 co.) that

the effect of prayer is threefold.

The first is an effect which is common to all acts quickened by charity, and this is merit. […]

The second effect of prayer is proper thereto, and consists in impetration: […]

The third effect of prayer is that which it produces at once; this is the spiritual refreshment of the mind […]

This third effect he later (ibid. a. 15 co.) calls "causing spiritual consolation at the time of praying".
Thus all prayer—regardless if it is a long or short prayer, as long as one is attentive to it an not willfully distracted—can be consoling.
See also St. Thomas's commentary on 1 Cor. 14:13-17:

– But is it true that whenever anyone prays and does not understand what he is saying, he obtains no fruit? The answer is that the fruit of prayer is twofold: one fruit is the merit the person obtains; the other fruit is the spiritual consolation and devotion produced by the prayer. In regard to the fruit of spiritual devotion, one is deprived of it, if he does not attend to what he is praying, or does not understand; but in regard to the fruit of merit, one is not necessarily deprived of it. For many prayers would be without merit, since a man can scarcely say the “Our Father” without his mind wandering to other things. Therefore, it must be said that when the one praying is sometimes diverted from what he is saying, or when a person engaged in one meritorious work does not continually think at each step that he is doing this for God, he does not lose the reason for merit. The reason for this is that in all meritorious acts ordained to the right end, it is not required that the intention of the performer be united to the end in every act: but the first influence, which moves the intention, remains in the entire work, even if in some particular it be distracted; and this first influence makes the entire work meritorious, unless it is interrupted by a contrary affection which turns one from the original and to a contrary end.

Also, appendix 1, ch. 6, from

Catholic Church. 1914. The little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, fully explained and annotated also the Office of the dead and the Office for November 2. London & Dublin: Burns Oates & Washbourne.

as reprinted on pp. 201-206 of

Catholic Church. 2015. Little office of the Blessed Virgin Mary: in Latin and English. London: Baronius Press.

is a great brief overview of the history of Gloria Patri prayer (also called the Glory Be or Minor or Lesser Doxology prayer) and saints' profound devotion to praying it:

Chapter VI
The "Gloria Patri"
The Gloria Patri is commonly referred to as the Doxology—a Greek word signifiying a hymn of praise and honour to God.
"Glory be to the Father," etc., is said at the end of every psalm and hymn, and at the close of the responsories in all, more than forty times [in the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary]. Through it the faithful are constantly reminded that the end and aim of the Office is the praise and adoration of the Blessed Trinity. In the Office of our Lady we especially wish to praise and thank the Three Divine Persons for all the great things They have done on behalf of Their well-beloved Daughter, Mother, and Bride.[Dr. Schäfer.]
According to St. Basil, this Doxology goes back to the Apostolic age. It was used by the earliest Christians to distinguish Christian worship from that of the Jews. "The first Christians sang the psalms in the synagogue as in the church," says M. Olier, "but to the psalms the Christians added the Gloria Patri, to show that their law adds to that of Moses the religion and express worship of Three Divine Persons, which, up to that time, had been scarcely distinguished."
St. Damasus, on the advice of St. Jerome, sanctioned, confirmed, and generalized this holy practice of the first Christians, who began each of their actions with an express invocation of the Three Divine Persons in whose name they had been regenerated. It was equally the practice of the Bishops and Doctors, particularly in the East, to terminate their instructions by a testimony of veneration or of gratitude towards the Adorable trinity—the Beginning and End of all things.
The Arians and other heretics having tampered with the Doxology to give colour to their errors, the General Council of Nicea in 325 condemned their heresies, and added to the Gloria Patri the words which form the second part of it: Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.
The first words of the Doxology recall the chant of the Angels at the Birth of our Saviour—Gloria in excelsis Deo; Glory to God in the highest (Luke ii. 14)—and that which St. John (Apoc. v. 13) heard repeated in Heaven: To Him that sitteth on the Throne, and to the Lamb, benediction, and honour, and glory, for ever and ever. Nothing is better calculated to raise the soul above the world than to re-echo the heavenly song: Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of Hosts, all the earth is full of His glory (Isa. vi. 3). The Doxology enunciates with majestic simplicity the most sublime sentiments we can conceive, and the most perfect love which our Lord is Himself capable of feeling for His Father. If the nobility of its language results from the elevation of thoughts, what can be more magnificent than these few words where the Supreme Majesty finds the only offering that becomes its greatness, and which its oversight demands from every creature?
St. Francis de Sales says: "It is not only the glory that Jesus Christ renders Him in His humanity and by His saints; it is a glory incomparably more perfect. The human acts of our Saviour, although infinite in value and merit on account of the Person who produced them, are not therefore infinite essentially, because they are performed according to His human nature and substance, which is finite. God cannot be glorified according to His merit except by Himself, He alone being capable of equaling His goodness by a sovereign praise. In this sense we cry aloud: Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. And that it may be understood that it is not the glory of created praises that we wish to God by these words, but truly the essential and eternal glory which He has in Himself, we add: As it was in the beginning,, etc. And we add this to each psalm, as was ordained by Pope St. Damasus, in order to protest that every praise, both human and angelic, is but a small thing for God, and that to be worthily praised it is necessary that He Himself should be His glory, His praise, and His benediction."
So that whatever may be the particular object of the psalm, this Doxology always sums up and completes its principal meaning; it is like the abridged expression of the purest sentiments, of the most generous and sublime aspirations that Divine Love can utter.[Bacquez.]
We read in the life of Bartholomew of the Martyrs, that illustrious and pious Bishop, one of the lights of the Council of Trent, that each time he sang or recited the Gloria Patri he felt such an ardour of soul, and experienced so lively a joy, that these sentiments were apparent externally in his face and in the sound of his voice. The same remark has been made in the case of Father Serarius, a religious of the Society of Jesus, a man of great learning and eminent piety. "It is impossible to express," says Pére Saint Jure in his Homme Spirituel, "with what ardent devotion and with what raptures of heart and mind, he said or heard these grand words. On feast-days, especially when he heard them sung with more than ordinary solemnity, he could no longer contain himself; the delight of his soul burst forth in spite of himself, and bore him away into a pious ecstasy."
A praiseworthy practice is to incline the head when pronouncing these words, according to the rubrics. St. Francis of Jerome never neglected to do so. By arousing the attention, this helps us to enter into the sentiments of respect and humility which this act expresses; and so by our attitude, as well as by our words, we imitate the angels and blessed in heaven. When those living creatures gave glory and honour and benediction to Him who sitteth on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, … they fell down before Him that sitteth on the throne and adored Him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worth, O Lord our God, to receive glory, honour, and power (Apoc. iv. 9-11). To this general signification we may add another, more particular and more precise. One day when St. Magdalen of Pazzi bent herself thus, with mor than ordinary earnestness, one of her Sisters inquired the reason of this observance. "It is," she replied, "a practice I have, through my confessor, to offer my life to the Holy Trinity in bowing my head at the Gloria Patri as if I were presenting it to the executioner to suffer martyrdom."
By the same inclination of the head, a pious priest proposed to himself to honour the self-abasement of the Son of God, descending from heaven in order to restore to His Father that glory of which the pride of man had robbed Him; and he united himself in this manner to the homage which the Incornate Word offered to the Divine Majesty. Another, more inclined to compunction, regarded himself as a useless and guilty servant who offers himself to the Divine Justice to undergo the punishment due to his negligence and faults. The Blessed Jordan, successor to St. Dominic in the government of his Order, had the custom to implore at this moment the blessing of the ever-august Trinity. Once, on the Eve of the Purification, God rewarded him with an extraordinary favour. As the Invitatory was being sung he was the Blessed Virgin come down from heaven, and seat herself with our Saviour upon a throne that angels had prepared for them. They both looked benignly uponeach of the religious; then, when these, having finished the Venite, exsultemus, … bowned whilst signing the Gloria Patri, Jordan saw the Mothe of God take the hands of her Son, who blessed them sweetly, making the sign of the Cross over them.[Bacquez.]
The Venerable Bede—the man of prayer, as his name implies—lovned the Doxology. He died while repeating it on the Eve of the Ascension, May 26, 735, according to the account of his disciple Cuthbert.
The Gloria Patri inspired St. Francis of Assisi with liveliest devotion. He could never tire of repeating it, and he exhorted everyone to say it frequently. Once when he desired to return thanks to God for a special favour, he ordered the Magnificat to be said by one of his friars, he himself saying a Gloria Patri after each verse. He likewise much recommended meditation upon this Doxology. To one of his brethren, who was very desirous to learn, he said: "Study well the Gloria Patri; in it you will find the whole substance of the Scriptures."[Ibid.]
In the Life of Blessed Jean Gabriel Perboyre, who had the glory of shedding his blood for the Faith in China not long ago, we read: "An extreme attention was noticed in him whenever he repeated the Gloria Patri at the end of the psalms. He then bowed his head with great respect, and his devotion seemed to redouble. 'We ought to recollect ourselves,' he said, 'during the Doxology, in order to arouse our fervour and make up for the distraction we allowed ourselves to have during the psalm we have just finished, and to dispose ourselves to recite better the one that follows.' He had, besides, so great a desire to honour the ever Blessed trinity, that it often happened that he repeated this prayer four or five times in succession."
Whenever St. Alphonsus, in his old age, heard of some good news for the glory of God or the welfare of Holy Church, he cried out with heartfelt emotion: Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Great things are told us of the devotion of the Blessed Paul of the Cross to this Doxology, and he taught the same spiritual devotion to his Religious.[Father Faber.]


According to the LDS Church (Mormons), how specifically did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon?

First, here's the simple version: Buried together with the golden plates was a device known as the Urim and Thummim, described by Joseph Smith as:

  two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate,
  constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the
  plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what
  constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and ... God had
  prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

Several revelations, including the translation of the plates, were received by the use of these stones, through a process that is not well-understood.

Answering the question well, however is a bit complicated.  By the time most people became aware of the Book of Mormon, the work of translation was in the past; both the translation and the publication of the Book of Mormon were completed before the organization of the Church or the missionary work that brought the book to so many people.  And Joseph Smith himself never had much to say on the subject; he considered the book to be the significant thing, not the process by which it was produced.

The clearest and most detailed quote regarding the translation process comes to us from David Whitmer, an associate of Joseph Smith's, but one who was never actually involved in the translation process, so its authenticity is questionable.  Whitmer stated:

  Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in
  the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and
  in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something
  resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing.
  One character at a time would appear, and under it was the
  interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English
  to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was
  written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct,
  then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation
  would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and
  power of God, and not by any power of man.

  An Address to All Believers in Christ (1887)

Again, this explanation may or may not be accurate, as David Whitmer was never present to witness the process.  Joseph's wife, Emma, who did serve briefly as a scribe during the translation process, gave a slightly different description:

  When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of
  it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to
  proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them
  out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling,
  he would stop me and correct my spelling although it was impossible
  for him to see how I was writing them down at the time.

  When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he
  commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and
  one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a
  sheet, and said, ‘Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?’ When I
  answered, ‘Yes,’ he replied, ‘Oh! [I didn’t know.] I was afraid I had
  been deceived.’ He had such a limited knowledge of history at that
  time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.

  Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856” (1916)

Many years later, in an interview, she gave some more detail on the process:

  Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and
  well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon
  [by his own effort]. ...

  I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing
  of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his
  scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when
  returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin
  where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having
  any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do.
  It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and,
  for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.

  Last Testimony of Emma Smith (1879)

The only things that are clear from the historical record, (by looking at surviving newspaper articles, personal journals, and the like,) are that Joseph Smith was widely believed by his contemporaries--both friends and enemies--to be in possession of a set of golden plates in the late 1820s, that he claimed that these plates contained an ancient record, and that he had the means to translate it by means of the interpreters (Urim and Thummim) found with the plates.

At one point, Joseph Smith produced a transcription of several characters from the plates, plus a translation of the sample, which was shown to scholars by Martin Harris, Smith's scribe at the time.  He was skeptical of the work and wanted evidence.  The record is uncertain as to the details of what happened when he did so, with Harris claiming that he received a favorable response, and Professor Charles Anthon, the scholar he showed it to, denying the claim.  As Gordon B. Hinckley noted,

  Some years later when he was approached by an avowed detractor of
  Joseph Smith, Professor Anthon denied ever having commented with favor
  upon the characters or the translation. Yet the fact remains that
  Martin Harris was so impressed by the experience that he returned to
  Joseph Smith, and then immediately proceeded to Palmyra to put his
  affairs in order so that he might assist with the translation.

  Truth Restored (1979)

Unfortunately, while speculation abounds today, the actual concrete details of the process were never well-documented and have been lost to time, and all that remains are comments and recollections given years later.


What problems, if any, do Oneness Pentecostals have with the Apostles' Creed?

Like many other non-trinitarian groups, Oneness Pentecostals tend to be hesitant to align themselves too closely with any ancient creed, even one like the Apostles' Creed that is less clearly trinitarian than others (like the Nicene or Athanasian creeds).  Still, some, like Steve Joel Moffett, apparently find trinitarianism within the creed:

  [The] common creed known as the apostles Creed is the unifying factor of all the Christian religions of the United States except the Oneness Pentecostal churches.  The Apostles Creed has as a part of the creed that those churches believe in God in three persons. (Oneness Pentecostal Theology, v2)

Others, however, on closer analysis, are not convinced that there is anything specifically objectionable in the creed.  David Bernard, a leading Oneness theologian, argues that the creed does not teach trinitarianism. Reviewing the various versions of the Apostles' Creed, he writes:

  For the most part they follow biblical language very closely.  They describe the Son of God only in terms of the Incarnation, nowhere hinting that the Son is a separate person in the Godhead or that the Son is eternal.  They affirm belief in the Holy Ghost, but not as a separate person of the Godhead.  Instead they place this affirmation together with other statements relating to salvation, leading us to believe that they are talking about the gift or baptism of the Holy Ghost and to the working of the Holy Ghost in the church.  Thus, there is nothing really objectionable in the language if we define the terms in the same way the Bible uses them. (The Oneness of God, 281)

Even so, Bernard does not advocate the use of the creed, in part because of its strong association with trinitarianism.


Who said "he would be called a Nazarene"?

My response comes from this article about OT prophecy about Jesus from Nazareth.

It basically states that there is no direct Old-Testament reference to Nazareth. The article postulates two explanations:

1) It was a reference that Jesus would be despised.

  He says 'prophets,' plural. It could be that Matthew was referring to several Old Testament references to the despised character of Jesus (i.e., Psalm 22:6, 13; 69:10; Isaiah 49:7; 53:3; Micah 5:1). Nazareth held the Roman garrison for the northern areas of Galilee.1 Therefore, the Jews would have little to do with this place and largely despised it

2) It might be a play on words for the Hebrew word for branch.

  there could be a play on words that Matthew was referring to. In Isaiah 11:1 it says, "Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit." In Hebrew, the word for "branch" is netzer, "NZR" which letters are included in NaZaReth.


Verse that says that he who cannot govern himself cannot govern others?

Where in Holy Scriptures does it say that he who cannot govern himself cannot govern others?

As @curiousdannii & @NigelJ pointed out, 1 Tim 3:5 is probably the closest NT single-verse match (Douay-Rheims translation):

But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

Since you are looking for OT Wisdom literature, another (but less exact) match can be the combination of these 2 Proverbs verses (Pr 25:28 and Pr 16:32), comparing the rule of one's self with the rule of a city (by a king), showing both the defensive and offensive attributes of self-government respectively (ESV translation):
Pr 25:28:

A man without self-control is like a city broken into and left without walls.

Pr 16:32:

Whoever is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city.

Source: bibletools.org topical study on Self Government


Is there a "Reina-Valera" only movement?

Yes there is.  And like the KJV-only movement, it is not monolithic.

For English speakers, it's important to recognize that the Reina Valera (RVR) is a group of Bible translations that continues to dominate the Bible translation market in Spanish-speaking countries. They primarily rely on the Textus Receptus, like the KJV, not modern critical Greek texts, like popular English translations (NIV, NLT, ESV, etc.).  The most common edition is the 1960, but the two other 20th century editions, 1909 and 1995, are also popular.

With that in mind, we can break down "RVR only" tendencies as follows:

Those who prefer some edition of the RVR because they are most familiar with it or it is most common in their area
Those who generally prefer the RVR because they consider the Textus Receptus to be the best basis for a Bible translation
Those who consider one particular version of the RVR to be the "correct" or even "inspired" translation of the Bible into Spanish

The KJV-only movement can be broken down similarly, but the distinctive in the RVR-only movement is that not all those in group 3 agree on what is the "right" version of the RVR.  There are at least three versions of the RVR that are claimed to be the only "correct" version:

1602 Purified.  Robert Breaker III examines the various RVR options and concludes that a recent revision of the original 1602 RVR is the "purest" Bible translation. (source)
RVG (Reina Valera Gómez 2010).  Emanuel Rodríguez wrote a book entitled, God's Bible in Spanish: How God preserved his words in Spanish through the RVG.
1865. Jeff McArdle argues that the Valera1865 is the best representative of the original 1602 text, saying that "every attempt should be made to defend every word found in the Valera 1865." (source)

In this sense, the RVR-only movement is even more divided than the KJV-only movement.  These three camps naturally criticize each others' versions; for example, Emanuel Rodríguez (the proponent of the RVG) issued a lengthy rebuttal against Jeff McArdle's criticisms.

It's worth noting that the RVR-only movement seems to originate in, or at least get much of its voice from, the KJV-only movement.  Robert Breaker and Jeff McArdle are both fundamentalist baptists and KJV-only proponents, and a prominent KJV-only advocate, D. A. Waite, endorsed the RVG and hosts Emanuel Rodríguez's defense of it on his website.


At least as far as Judas is concerned, there is an exact answer in Matthew 26:24:

  For the Son of Man must die, as the Scriptures declared long ago. But how terrible it will be for the one who betrays him. It would be far better for that man if he had never been born!"

I've also heard it phrased "but woe to him through whom it comes."

That said, God is sufficiently great to turn even evil events to his purpose.  Joseph says as much in Genesis 50:20:

  "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive. (NASB)

Finally, Romans 8:28 (a verse that it should be illegal to quote without a license!) hints at the same, saying:

  28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Disclaimer: I never have, nor never will tolerate any form of anti-Semitism based on "Christ-killer" propoganda.  As a German student who won a trip to Germany for my study, I was personally sickened when, as part of a class, I had to watch a Nazi propaganda film, that pushed this line of thinking.  The question asked for a justification. I am providing that argument, even if I completely disagree with it.


You are not signing a contract as an Inquirer

  Does participating in an RCIA class require an initial commitment to convert to Catholicism?

Absolutely not.  If you find that it isn't working, you may leave

The beginning of the RCIA process is the inquiry phase. (Officially referred to as "The period of Evangelization and Precatechumenate" in the cited reference below).

  Page 15: It belongs to the conference of bishops to provide for the
  evanelization proper to this period.  The conference may also provide,
  if circumstances suggest and in keeping with the local custom, a
  preliminary manner of receiving those interested in the
  precatechumenate, that is, those inquirers who, even though they do not
  fully believe, show some leaning toward the Christian faith ...

During this time, as an inquirer, our deacon likes to put it this way: "you check out the Church and the Church checks out you." This assessment continues even in the following phases of the preparation for entry into the Church, as either catechumen or candidate (candidates are those already baptized but not yet Catholic) right up until the Rite of Initiation takes place.

There are checkpoints along the way; self-evaluation is included

Two intermediate rites act as milestones toward your answer of "yes, I'll keep going through with this" or "no, I am not ready yet" (or similar decision to demure).

The Rite of Acceptance -- where one accepts certain tenets and agrees to proceed
The Rite of Election -- where the local ordinary will (during the early part of Lent) identify those who are eligible and willing to receive the sacraments at the Easter Vigil.

In our experience, the Rite of Acceptance took place about 3 months after
we started the class, but timelines will vary a bit by parish and based on the needs of the person(s) involved.  For those who are already well versed
in Scripture and Christianity, for example a Lutheran or a Methodist, the
inquiry phase may well be a lot shorter.

There are also three scrutinies.

All of the above represent potential decision points for you, and in some cases for the Church, on whether proceeding is in everyone's best interests.

The two rites and the three scrutinies all precede the capstone event of baptism / confirmation / receiving communion at the Easter Vigil. (Or such other time as is chosen by the local ordinary / bishop).  If at any point along the way the prospective Catholic finds, inside their heart, that this just isn't their path to Christ (yet?) then it is best and honest to step aside. (Usually that decision will include a one-to-one discussion with the pastor and / or deacons where they are undergoing RCIA).

I found that even after the Rite of Acceptance, it was not uncommon for people who were on this journey to find that it isn't for them, and so they moved on to other things or other churches.  (In our parish, when this happened they went with our prayers and our blessings, and an invitation to return any time in the future if the time became right, or if they'd heard a new call).

  Would it be possible to participate in a Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) class in order to learn about the faith, even though I am unsure of if I will join it at the end of the class?

Yes.  I've seen that quite often, with varying results in terms of who chose to take the whole journey and those who didn't complete it.  I offer you a caveat, however.  There is more to RCIA that "a class."  It's supposed to combine instruction with spiritual formation in a harmonious fashion.

If during your journey toward being received into the Church you find that you are not moved to join, or that you cannot commit yourself honestly and without reservation, it would be wrong (and it would feel wrong in your gut) to accept the invitation to be received into the Church at the Easter Vigil.

As a point of reference, the restoration of the Catechumenate after Vatican II was inspired by the original conversion/initiation process from the early church, which sometimes took years before a person was ready to enter into the Faith. (Or before the Faith was ready to let them in).

Basis for this answer:

Catechist serving in the RCIA ministry for 6 years, mostly informed by RCIA in America; I cannot speak for the flow in other countries, but I suspect it is similar.  What we did was governed by this USCCB endorsed publication: Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (Study Edition).   The long form ritual edition of The Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults is here.


What is the biblical basis for the Catholic and Eastern doctrines of the Assumption of Mary?

There is no obvious basis for the Assumption of Mary in the Bible. Mary is mentioned a few times outside the birth narratives of Luke and Matthew:

Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary... (Mark 6:3)
Is he not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary ... (Matthew 13:55)
Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother ... (John 19:25)
On the third day there was a wedding in Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. (John 2:1)
His mother and his brothers arrived. (Mark 3:31)
While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers appeared (Matthew 12:46)
Then his mother and his brothers came to him (Luke 8:19)
All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus (Acts 1:14)

Nothing is said about Mary's death specifically. However, it appears from this link given in another answer that the Church traditionally has interpreted the vision of the woman in Revelation 12 as referring to Mary taken up into heaven:

A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. ... The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God ...

(Revelation 12:1,6a)
This may be as close as we get to a biblical basis for the belief in the Assumption.
Since you specifically do not ask about the history, I am not including another review of that.


Where did the mockery of Jesus take place?

The soldiers mocked Him in the hall called the Praetorium (Matthew 15:16). The Jewish leaders spit on Him in the palace of the High Priest (Matthew 14:65) and also at the cross (Matthew 15:31).


Is there any real significant difference between Protestantism and Catholicism?

The question makes the assumption that "Protestantism" is easily defined, and can easily be compared.

"Protestant" simply means "Not Catholic or Orthodox", and could refer to one of hundreds of different denominations, all with subtle and not-so-subtle differences in beliefs.  Some hold doctrine that is similar to Catholic doctrine, and some that is vastly different.

There's a comparison chart of Catholic to Protestant views here, but as I said in the above paragraph, on the Protestant side, there are a wide range of beliefs, and this chart only shows one particular protestant view.  (Glancing at it, it appears to be a Calvinistic point of view.)

An entire book could be written on this subject alone, but some differences include:

In general, Protestant Churches adhere to the concepts of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura.  These are probably the biggest differentiating beliefs, but even they are not universall held by protestant denominations.
The Catholic Church includes Apocryphal writings as part of their accepted Scripture.  This includes a few extra books to the Bible, and two extra chapters to the Book of Daniel.
The Catholic Church accepts the concept of Purgatory, which is almost universally rejected in protestant denominations.  The same can be said for Transubstantiation, indulgences, prayer to saints, confession to a Priest rather than direct confession to God through prayer, and a host of other teachings.

In general, your question can be answered as "yes, there are some significant differences between Catholicism and Protestantism", but the difference varies based on which Protestant denomination you're referring to.


What is the Scriptural evidence for the Protestant view that the AntiChrist will be Jewish?
This is not a view that is shared uniquely by some Protestants. Many Catholics, Orthodox and other denominations hold this viewpoint.
The problem with prophecy is that it becomes understood, only after the event foretold have run their course!
The Church Father, Irenaeus was the first to write that the Antichrist would be of Jewish origin from the Tribe of Dan.

As is well known, there is some lack of consistency among the Church Fathers in the way each tried to synthesize the variegated traditions that formed the Christian expectation of the Antichrist. This is no less true when it came to the question of the Antichrist's origins. The starting point for much of New Testament and later Christian thought, as well as much Jewish apocalyptic thought in this area, was the book of Daniel, particularly the portrayal of the final wicked ruler of Daniel's fourth kingdom in the visions of chapters 2 and 7, and filled in with details from chapters 8 and 11 which were thought to point beyond the past historical appear- ance of Antiochus Epiphanes. Paul (assuming it was indeed Paul) plainly draws upon this tradition in his description of the 'man of lawlessness' in 2 Thessalonians 2: 1-12. The book of Revelation too is indebted to this tradition in its depiction of the beast from the sea (13: 1-9), who embodies in some sense the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7. This tradition of the fourth kingdom, wedded always in some way in the literature of our period to the Roman empire, lent itself to fears and speculation about the return of Nero as the head of the revived fourth kingdom, as may be seen in the Ascension of Isaiah and in Sibylline Oracles 3, 4, ands. And Origen can refer to his three main sources for Antichrist teaching, Daniel, the writings of Paul (2 Thess. 2: 1-12), and the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels (pels. 6. 45), without even men- tioning the Johannine writings. But it is precisely in those writings (1 John 2: 18, 22; 4: 3; 2 John 7), written towards the end of the first century AD, that the term 'Antichrist' makes its first known appearance in literature, and there no hint survives of a Roman or even a chiefly political foe. The author shows no trace of the Danielic fourth kingdom tradition at all. Rather, the emphasis is on deception, error, and false teaching, specifically about Jesus. This tradition is easily linked with words of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse about false prophets and false Christs working signs and wonders so as to deceive those who might still be looking for the Christ and, if such were possible, even the elect (Matt. 24: 5, ii, 23-24).
The idea of a Jewish Antichrist in Christian thought may be quite old. Bousset, with others, believed Paul had in view an Antichrist who would deceive the unbelieving Jews into thinking he was their Christ. Bousset goes on to intimate that Paul in 2 Cor. 6: 15 knows a name for the Antichrist, Belial, citing Test. Dan 5, the Sibyls, and Asc. Isa. But G. Jenks has recently shown this to be mistaken. At Qumran, Belial is a Satan figure, not an Antichrist. Jenks has established with some success the view that 'hellenistic Jewish literature was not familiar with an Antichrist figure such as occurs in the later Antichrist literature of early Christianity'. If one has in mind, as Jenks does, centrally important, human, messianic pretenders, and not merely evil
'Endtyrants' (such as show up in Daniel, and possibly in 4Q246 and the Testament of Moses) who may pose a military threat to the people of God, Jenks appears to be correct.
But our first explicit mention of a Jewish Antichrist comes in the writings of Irenaeus, where it occurs already in tandem with the people of God, the opinion that he will also spring from the tribe of Dan (AH 5. 11 30. 2). In AH 5. 25 Irenaeus details the career of the Antichrist: from 2 Thess. 2, tying the notice of Antichrist's taking his seat in the temple with Christ's 'abomination of desolation' in Matt. 24: 15 (cf. Dan. 9: 27); from Dan. 7, the little horn from the fourth beast; and from Jesus' parable of the unjust judge, Luke 18: 2 ff., wherein the judge is the Antichrist and the widow is the earthly Jerusalem: 'he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ'. -  Antichrist from the Tribe of Dan

The Early Church believed that the Antichrist will have Jewish roots of some sort.

St. Methodius of Olympus 250 - 311
"When the Son of Perdition appears, he will be of the tribe of Dan, according to the prophecy of Jacob. This enemy of religion will use a diabolic art to produce many false miracles, such as causing the blind to see, the lame to walk, and the deaf to hear. Those possessed with demons will be exorcised. He will deceive many and, if he could, as our Lord has said, even the faithful elect.
"Even the Antichrist will enter Jerusalem, where he will enthrone himself in the temple as a god (even though he will be an ordinary man of the tribe of Dan to which Judas Iscariot also belonged).
St. John Chrysostom 347-407

"Antichrist will be possessed by Satan and be the illegitimate son of a Jewish woman from the East. This world will be faithless and degenerate after the birth of Anti-Christ”

The Church Fathers on the Antichrist

Many Christians believe that the Jewish nation as a whole will be converted to Christianity. However, they are still expecting the Messiah to come. Some have ventured to speculate that it will only be altered they have been deceived by the Antichrist.
In some sense this seems a logical step, since the Chosen People, as true to their heritage would not acknowledge an Antichrist (false messiah) of Gentile origins. It simply a logical future situation in the minds of many, whether Protestant, Catholic or other denominations.

The widespread conversion of the Jews to Christianity is a future event predicted by many Christians, often as an end time event. Some Christian groups consider the conversion of the Jews to be imperative and pressing and make it their mission to bring this about. However, since the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church has formally upheld Constitutio pro Judæis (Formal Statement on the Jews), which stated:

We decree that no Christian shall use violence to force them [the Jews] to be baptized, so long as they are unwilling and refuse. ...

Despite such papal declarations, personal, economic and cultural pressure on the Jews to convert persisted, often stirred by clerics. Persecution and forcible displacements of Jews occurred for many centuries, and were regarded as not inconsistent with the papal bull because there was no "violence to force baptism". There were occasional gestures to reconciliation. Pogroms and forcible conversions were common throughout Christian Europe, including organized violence, restrictive land ownership and professional lives, forcible relocation and ghettoization, mandatory dress codes, and at times humiliating actions and torture. The object often was for the Jews to choose between conversion, migration or dying. The Anglican Ministry Among Jewish People, founded in 1809, used non-coercive means in its outreach and missionary efforts.
A 2008 survey of American Christians by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that over 60% of most denominations believe that Jews will receive eternal life after death alongside Christians
The biblical basis for this expectation is found in Romans 11:25–26:

I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved... (NIV).

The meaning of Romans 11:25-26a has been disputed. Douglas J. Moo calls Romans 11:26 "the storm center in the interpretation of Romans 9–11 and of New Testament teaching about the Jews and their future." Moo himself interprets the passage as predicting a "large-scale conversion of Jewish people at the end of this age" through "faith in the gospel of Jesus their Messiah".
Pope Benedict XVI in his book Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week (2011) has suggested that the church should not be targeting Jews for conversion efforts, since "Israel is in the hands of God, who will save it ‘as a whole’ at the proper time." - Conversion of the Jews

At the same time, there is the possibility that the two witnesses of the Apocalypse will come to the aid of the Jewish nation in the end times.

In the Book of Revelation, the two witnesses are two of God's prophets who are seen by John of Patmos, during the "Second woe" recorded in Revelation 11:1-14. They have been variously identified by theologians as two people, as two groups of people, or as two concepts. Dispensationalist Christians believe that the events described in the Book of Revelation will occur before and during the Second Coming. The two witnesses are never identified in the Christian Bible. Some believe they are Enoch and Elijah. as in the Gospel of Nicodemus, since they are the only two that did not see death as required by the Scriptures. Others believe them to be Moses and Elijah because they appeared during the transfiguration of Jesus, or because Enoch was not Abraham's descendant. Some also believe that they are Moses and Elijah due to the description of what they are to do. They have the power to shut the heavens (Elijah) and turn water into blood (Moses). - Two witnesses

What will be the result of the death of the Two Witnesses mentioned in the Book of Revelation? Perhaps nothing more than Israel’s true conversion to the Christian Faith.
If the Jews were in effect to be deceived by one of their own, God in his infinite mercy would send his Holy Prophets Elijah and Enoch to save the remnant of God’s Chosen People.

11 I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers. 2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. 3 And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 They are “the two olive trees” and the two lampstands, and “they stand before the Lord of the earth.” 5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. 6 They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.
7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. 10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.
11 But after the three and a half days the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. 12 Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on.
13 At that very hour there was a severe earthquake and a tenth of the city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven. - Revelation 11: 1-13


Was Martin Luther a Protestant or a Traditionalist Catholic?

Luther started out as a traditional Catholic and became a very zealous one, but as the name ‘Protestant’ was not coined until 1529 (due to the protest at the Diet of Speyer) your question can only be answered in light of that progression of event.

Luther was born in 1483, brought up as a Catholic, then made a voluntary vow to God when aged 21, while a student at the University of Erfurt. This was occasioned by being struck to the ground due to a bolt of lightning. He cried out to the patron saint of miners, “Saint Anne! Help me! I will become a monk!” Two weeks later, he had entered a strict Augustinian monastery as a novice. Later, he was selected for the priesthood by his superior. Luther set himself to the pursuit of holiness. Sometimes he would fast three days on end, and he laid upon himself vigils and prayers in excess of those stipulated by the rule, writing:

  “I was a good monk, and I kept the rule of my order so strictly that I
  may say that if ever a monk got to heaven by his monkery it was I. All
  my brothers in the monastery who knew me will bear me out. If I had
  kept on any longer, I should have killed myself with vigils, prayers,
  reading, and other work.” Here I Stand, Roland Bainton, p45 (Lion
  1988)

After returning from a visit to Rome in 1510, he was transferred from Erfurt to Wittenberg. He was appointed a professor at the university in 1511. Under the guidance of his spiritual mentor, Dr. Staupitz, he advanced into the mystic system of Catholicism and became a Doctor of Theology. This is all part of the case for saying that Luther was a staunch Catholic of the most traditional type.

However, we all know that that changed after he posted 95 points for discussion on the eve of All Saints in 1517. The posting of his affirmations was traditional, however. That was the way scholars would be invited to debate issues. Luther made no attempt to disseminate his complaints among the people. Others surreptitiously translated the theses into German and gave them to the press. Luther sent a copy to Albert of Mainz, who then forwarded them to Pope Leo.

There is no need to detail the events that led to Luther being excommunicated by the Pope. On 10 October, 1520 the papal Bull reached Luther and 60 days later, he was officially put out of the Catholic Church with much burning of his books, and a curse. However, the title “Protestant” could not be applied either to him or those who agreed with his theological stance until the Diet of Speyer in 1529, after which they were first called “Protestants”.  After all those events, to ask if Martin Luther was a Protestant is a bit like asking, “Is the Pope a Catholic?”


After several searches through various translations, I was unable to find any verse that specifically states that our worship brings God "joy". However, this doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't bring Him joy. The overwhelming weight of Scripture implies that our worship (more specifically, our proper worship) pleases Him.

Whether this indicates "joy" specifically is up for interpretation.  I personally believe it does, based on many things, but at least partially because He is angered when we worship anything else. He is "a jealous God"

  Exodus 20:2-5 (KJV)

  2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of
  Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

  3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

  4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of
  any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
  that is in the water under the earth:

  5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the
  LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
  upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that
  hate me;

  6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my
  commandments.

I may be guilty of anthropomorphism here, but the fact that worshiping other gods seems to imply that God wants (and deserves) all our worship. That tells me that our worship pleases Him.

In fact, idolatry angers God, again and again in  Scripture we see this. The opposite of anger is joy, so, it seems to me that our proper worship must bring him joy. Even if that's not specifically stated, it seems strongly implied.

On the other hand, worship and sacrifice do not please Him if offered with the wrong motivation, heart, and love. He is more interested in our love, obedience, and faith than in the "things" we give.  Offerings are meaningless in and of themselves.

  Psalm 51: 15-19 (KJV)

  15 O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy
  praise.

  16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou
  delightest not in burnt offering.

  17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite
  heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

  18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of
  Jerusalem.

  19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness,
  with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer
  bullocks upon thine altar.

The same goes with phony worship.

  Matthew 15:18 (KJV)

  This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me
  with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

So I'd put forth that, proper worship, from a contrite heart, one that truly loves and is honoring God brings Him joy, while empty, meaningless worship (just going through the motions, or doing so in an attempt to please Him, rather than simply because you love Him so much that you want to worship out of an expression of the love in your heart) does not.


Does the Russian Orthodox Church recognize Adolf Hitler as a Saint?
The short answer is no.
There is no liturgical celebration for the above said person known infamously as Adolf Hitler in the Russian Orthodox Church.
I can find no glorification process for him either.
The fact that the Main Cathedral of the Armed Forces in Russia maintains a section containing Adolf Hitler's hat and uniform as relics within a wing of its building is in a sense not surprising.
For example, many Catholic Churches in Italy, have museums attached to them, say in an adjacent wing just outside the church (proper) or in or around the cloister if it Church was at one time a monastery or convent. All sort of the ”museums” exist throughout Rome. It is not a new idea.
Many of these church museums in Italy are by paid admission only, but not all.
Seeing that this is the Main Cathedral of the Armed Forces in Russia, it does not seem so out of place that there exists in a wing of the building a section dedicated to World War II memorabilia. Referring to Hitler’s personal effects as relics (given the situation) is a poor choice of words. A better phrase might have been chosen such as historical artifacts or something similar.
The website you link to clearly states that Hitler’s personal belongings are housed in a separate military museum (with historical military paraphernalia) area within the complex, thus not in the actual worshiping section of the cathedral.

The cathedral complex also houses a museum section, housing Adolf Hitler’s personal belongings, including his uniform and military cap. - A giant BLACK cathedral from remelted weapons appears in Russia

As such, certain aspects of the design of the cathedral have proven to be controversial.

Putin and Stalin mosaics controversy
At the end of April 2020 photos were leaked which showed in the unfinished cathedral mosaics of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and other high-ranking Russian officials, as well as Joseph Stalin. The Russian Orthodox Church initially explained the presence of mosaics featuring Putin and Stalin according to the tradition of depicting historical events – in this case, the 2014 accession of the Crimea to Russia and the Great Patriotic War (World War II). However, later it was reported that the cathedral would not have any mosaics of Putin. The Russian Orthodox Church explained that this decision was made taking into account the President's own opinion.

Caveat: I am not a Russian Orthodox, but I believe I have answered this question in a spirit reflecting their own perspectives on this subject matter.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses recognize marriages performed by non-denominational ministers?

As your brother and sister-in-law are not yet baptized members of Jehovah's Witnesses it would not matter who performed their legal marriage ceremony. In fact a baptized member of Jehovah's Witnesses can be married by a Justice of the Peace if they so desire. A member of the congregation could even be married by one of the couple's fathers or good friends if that person meets the qualifications set forth by that particular state's laws for officiating a wedding.

Where things would become more complicated would be in two scenarios:

1). If the couple were to be married by you, in a church, as part of a religious ceremony this would be frowned upon by the individuals studying with them and by the religion in general. Because Jehovah's Witnesses consider all other religious to be false, just attending religious ceremonies at a non-JW church would generally be considered taboo. (See "Question from Readers" Watchtower 2002 5/15.) So, your brother and sister-in-law being married as part of a religious ceremony would definitely run them afoul of the congregants with which they study.

Another point that may illustrate the JW stance on matters of interfaith, is that as an individual grows closer to baptism, if they are a former member of another religion, they are urged to send a letter of resignation to that church so that they are in no way connected with what is considered "false religion." (See "Keep Clear From False Religion" Watchtower 2006 3/15)

2). The other scenario, though less likely, is if you would want to perform the ceremony at one of Jehovah's Witnesses places of worship (Kingdom Hall). In that case it would not be possible as generally only Jehovah's Witnesses Elder's are allowed to perform religious services at a Kingdom Hall. Of course being that your loved ones are not yet baptized they would not be able to marry at a Kingdom Hall in the first place. Only baptized members of the religion, who are in good standing, would be able to avail themselves of the Kingdom Hall facilities.

So to summarize: If you are chiefly officiating the legal proceeding of the wedding (which may include all of the traditional activities associated with a wedding such as reciting of vows and exchanging of rings) then there should be no issues. However if the ceremony also has heavy religious overtones or is held at a church, if your brother and sister-in-law are as far along it would appear, this would definitely create friction for them. Hope this info is helpful!