What are the origins of the cope?

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a nice expose about the origins of the cope used in Catholic liturgical celebrations.

  Cope

  Known in Latin as pluviale or cappa), a vestment which may most conveniently be described as a long liturgical mantle, open in front and fastened at the breast with a band or clasp. As existing monuments show, whether we look at pictorial representations or at the copes of early date which still survive, there has been remarkably little change in the character of the vestment from the earliest ages. The most conspicuous external modification which the cope has undergone, during the past thousand years and more, lies in a certain divergence in the shape of the hood, a feature which, after all, is not in any way an essential part of the vestment. In some early examples we find only a triangular hood, which was no doubt intended to of practical utility in covering the head in processions, etc. But with the lapse of time the hood has into a mere ornamental appendage, and it is quite commonly represented by a sort of shield of embroidery, artificially stiffened and sometimes adorned with a fringe, the whole being fastened by buttons or by some other device to the back of the below the broad orphrey which usually forms an upper border to the whole. The fact that in many early chasubles, as depicted in the drawings of the eighth and ninth centuries, we see clear traces of a primitive hood, thus bearing out the explicit statement upon the point of Isidore of Seville, strongly confirms the view that in their origin cope and chasuble were identical, the chasuble being only a cope with its edges sewn together.

  History

  The earliest mention of a cappa seems to meet us in Gregory of Tours, and in the "Miracula" of St. Furseus where it seems to mean a cloak with a hood. So from a letter written in 787 by Theodemar, Abbot of Monte Cassino, in answer to a question of Charlemagne about the dress of the monk (see Mon. Germ. Hist.: Epist. Carol., II, 512) we learn that what in Gaul was styled cuculla (cowl) was known to the Cassinese monks as cappa. Moreover the word occurs more than once in Alcuin's correspondence, apparently as denoting a garment for everyday wear. When Alcuin twice observes about a casula which was sent him, that he meant to wear it always at Mass, we may probably infer that such garments at this date were not distinctively liturgical owing to anything in their material or construction, but that they were set aside for the use of the altar at the choice of the owner, who might equally well have used them as part of his ordinary attire. In the case of the chasuble the process of liturgical specialization, if we may so call it, was completed at a comparatively early date, and before the end of the ninth century the maker of a casula probably knew quite well in most cases whether he intended his handiwork for a Mass vestment or for an everyday outer garment. But in the case of a cappa, or cope, this period of specialization seems to have been delayed until much later. The two hundred capp or cope, which we read in a Saint-Riquier inventory in the year 801, a number increased to 377 by the year 831, were, we believe, mere cloaks, for the most part of rude material and destined for common wear. It may be that their use in choir was believed to add to the decorum and solemnity of the Divine Office, especially in the winter season. In 831 one of the Saint-Riquier copes is specially mentioned as being of chestnut colour and embroidered with gold. This, no doubt, implies use by a dignitary, but it does not prove that it was as yet regarded as a sacred vestment. In fact, if we follow the conclusions of Mr. Edmund Bishop (Dublin Review, Jan., 1897), who was the first to sift the evidence thoroughly, it was not until the twelfth century that the cope, made of rich material, was in general use in the ceremonies of the Church, at which time it had come to be regarded as the special vestment of cantors. Still, an ornamental cope was even then considered a vestment that might be used by any member of the clergy from the highest to the lowest, in fact even by one who was only about to be tonsured. Amongst monks it was the practice to vest the whole community, except, of course, the celebrant and the sacred ministers, in copes at high Mass on the greatest festivals, whereas on feasts of somewhat lower grade, the community were usually vested in albs. In this movement the Netherlands, France, and Germany had taken the lead, as we learn from extant inventories. For example, already in 870, in the Abbey of Saint Trond we find "thirty-three precious copes of silk" as against only twelve chasubles, and it was clearly the Cluny practice in the latter part of the tenth century to vest all the monks in copes during high Mass on the great feasts, though in England the regulations of St. Dunstan and St. Æthelwold show no signs of any such observance. The custom spread to the secular canons of such cathedrals as Rouen, and cantors nearly everywhere used copes of silk as their own peculiar adornment in the exercise of their functions.

  Meanwhile the old cappa nigra, or cappa choralis, a choir cope of black stuff, open or partly open in front, and commonly provided with a hood, still continued in use. It was worn at Divine Office by the clergy of cathedral and collegiate churches and also by many religious, as, for example, it is retained by the Dominicans during the winter months down to the present day. (See CLERICAL COSTUME.) No doubt the "copes" of the friars, to which we find so many references in the Wycliffite literature and in the writings of Chaucer and Langland, designate their open mantles, which were, we may say, part of their full dress, though not always black in colour. On the other hand we may note that the cappa clausa, or close cope, was simply a cope or cape sewn up in front for common outdoor use. "The wearing of this", says Mr. Bishop, (loc. cit., p. 24), "instead of the 'cappa scissa', the same cope not sewn up, is again and again enjoined on the clergy by synods and statutes during the late Middle Ages." The cappa magna, now worn according to Roman usage by cardinals, bishops, and certain specially privileged prelates on occasions of ceremony, is not strictly a liturgical vestment, but is only a glorified cappa choralis, or choir cope. Its colour for cardinals is ordinarily red, and for bishops violet. It is ample in volume and provided with a long train and a disproportionately large hood, the lining of which last, ermine in winter and silk in summer, is made to show like a tippet across the breast. Further we must note the papal mantum, which differs little from an ordinary cope except that it is red in colour and somewhat longer. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries the immantatio, or bestowal of the mantum on the newly elected pope, was regarded as specially symbolical of investiture with papal authority. "Investio te de-papatu romano ut pr sis urbi et orbi" were the words used in conferring it (I invest thee with the Roman papacy, that thou rule over the city and the world).

Basically, the cope as a liturgical vestment is employed in processions, benediction, assistant priests at pontifical Masses and other many other liturgical functions However it is not worn  by priest who are celebrating the Eucharist at Mass (consecration).

  The cope is a vestment for processions worn by all ranks of the clergy when assisting at a liturgical function, but it is never worn by the priest and his sacred ministers in celebrating the Mass. At a Pontifical High Mass the cope was worn by the "assistant priest," a priest who assists the bishop who is the actual celebrant. In the Sarum Rite, the Cope was also prescribed for members of the choir at various times.

  It is now the vestment assigned to the celebrant, whether priest or bishop, for almost all functions except the Mass when the celebrant wears the chasuble instead. The cope is used, for example, in processions, in the greater blessings and consecrations, at the solemnly celebrated Liturgy of the Hours, in giving Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, and the celebration of other sacraments outside of Mass. For most of these the celebrant may instead wear simply cassock and surplice or alb, both with the stole, for simpler celebrations. The chasuble, which is properly only worn for Mass, may also be worn during processions and other ceremonies that occur directly before or after Mass, such as the absolutions and burial of the dead, at the Asperges before Mass, and at the blessing and imposition of the ashes on Ash Wednesday, to avoid the need for the celebrant to change vestments.

The Cæremoniale Episcoporum envisages its use by a bishop if presiding at but not celebrating Mass, for the Liturgy of the Hours, for processions, at the special ceremonies on the Feast of the Presentation of the Lord, Lenten gatherings modelled on the "stations" in Rome, Palm Sunday and Corpus Christi. The bishop may use a cope when celebrating outside of Mass the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, matrimony, penance in solemn form, ordination (if not concelebrating), and anointing of the sick. The list in the index of the Cæremoniale Episcoporum continues with several more cases. - Cope (Wikipedia)

One website describes the origins as such:

  The Cope and Veil. The cope... was originally worn only in outdoor processions, and was considered merely as a rain-cloak, as is shown by its Latin name, pluviale, a protection against rain. The cape attached to it, which now has no use whatever, is a reminder of the large hood formerly used to cover the head in stormy weather. Our English name, cope, is from the Latin "cappa," a cape. - Vestments

But as the one can see in the Catholic Encyclopedia this is a serious simplification of the liturgical vestment.

Any similarities in the above medieval painting displaying a cope as is used by Catholic clergy is merely an artists interpretation of what he thought to be worn by Jewish priests. In fact, the opposite is true. Jewish priests did not wear copes in their liturgy at all. There is no liturgical cope mentioned in Sacred Scriptures for Jewish priests.

  The Torah provides for specific vestments to be worn by the priests when they are ministering in the Tabernacle: "And you shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for dignity and for beauty" (Exodus 28:2). These garments are described in detail in Exodus 28, Exodus 39 and Leviticus 8. The high priest wore eight holy garments (bigdei kodesh). Of these, four were of the same type worn by all priests, and four were unique to the Kohen Gadol.

  Those vestments which were common to all priests, were:

  Priestly undergarments (Hebrew michnasayim) (breeches): linen pants reaching from the waist to the knees "to cover their nakedness" (Exodus 28:42)
  Priestly tunic (Hebrew ketonet) (tunic): made of pure linen, covering the entire body from the neck to the feet, with sleeves reaching to the wrists. That of the high priest was embroidered (Exodus 28:39); those of the priests were plain (Exodus 28:40).
  Priestly sash (Hebrew avnet) (sash): that of the high priest was of fine linen with "embroidered work" in blue and purple and scarlet (Exodus 28:39, 39:29); those worn by the priests were of white, twined linen.
  Priestly turban (Hebrew mitznefet): that of the high priest was much larger than that of the priests and wound so that it formed a broad, flat-topped turban; that for priests was wound so that it formed a cone-shaped turban, called a migbahat.

  The vestments that were unique to the high priest were:

  Priestly robe (me'il) ("robe of the ephod"): a sleeveless, blue robe, the lower hem of which was fringed with small golden bells alternating with pomegranate-shaped tassels in blue, purple, and scarlet—tekhelet, argaman, tolaat shani.
  Ephod: a richly embroidered vest or apron with two onyx engraved gemstones on the shoulders, on which were engraved the names of the tribes of Israel
  Priestly breastplate (Hebrew hoshen): with twelve gems, each engraved with the name of one of the tribes; a pouch in which he probably carried the Urim and Thummim. It was fastened to the Ephod
  On the front of the turban was a golden plate inscribed with the words: "Holiness unto YHWH" attached to the mitznefet.

  High Priest of Israel (Vestments)

The only similarities that that exist in medieval art and the association between Catholic and Jewish vestments is in the eyes of the particular artist. It goes no further.

  The medieval liturgist might have said, "our clergy wear vestments because they were handed down to us from the clothing worn by the priests of the Old Testament, who in turn wore them by the express command of God in the law of Moses." This is a tall tale or at least a mistake because ancient Jewish and Christian vestments have only superficial similarities; and by the time the Church made use of vestments (after the end of Roman persecutions and the rise of Constantine, say) Jews and Christians had near zero cultural exchange. Indeed, it was more likely that a Christian would change his habits solely not appear like a Jew, and vice versa.

  If we could synthesize all these strains of thought into a greater idea, then, I'd say that a priest wears vestments to: 1.) conform to the rule of the Church (liturgical law), 2.) symbolically erase his own identity by taking up the cloak of Christ, and 3.) emphasize continuity between the religion of the Old Testament and of the New. Each reason may seem questionable on its own, but together, they refute the idea held by cynical nonbelievers that vestments are worn for priests to vainly adorn themselves in rich fabric sewn by the blood, sweat, and tears of a peasant class kept in ignorant darkness by their ecclesiastic overlords. No, friends, it's just the opposite: the priest wears vestments as an act of obedience, to conform himself to the will of God. In theory, at least. This is true for the medieval priest just as much as for the modern one. - A look into the medieval parish church's vestry: on vestments


Why do Saints Perform Less Miracles Over Time?

Rome sometimes publishes the miracle accepted for a canonization, but not always. Who knows how many Rome looked at? Besides that there is no data bank for gathering claims of miracles. Lourdes is an exception and all claims are investigated by a board of doctors.

Here is a list of approved miracles of Lourdes. Almost 7,000 cures have been documented at the waters of Lourdes. The Church has vigorously investigated and validated a mere 67 of them.


Why was Jesus amazed by the Syrophoenician women's faith?

Jesus in His life of faith would have gone only to places that were His Father's will. Some schools of thought highlight that Jesus went to the borders of Tyre and Sidon specifically for the Syrophenician women since no other event of significance was recorded there.
Jesus would have been well acquainted with the burdens of the women before she even approached Him. He responded to her in a way that a Jewish person in His time would, but instead of discouragement or pride rising to the surface, the women's response was full of humility and faith. "God resisteth the proud and gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6). Her response was in sharp contrast to many of the responses He received from people of His own nation, many of whom that had rejected Him. Her response was very precious in His sight.
Ellen White in her Bible commentary on Jesus' life describes:

The woman urged her case with increased earnestness, bowing at Christ's feet, and crying, “Lord, help me.” Jesus, still apparently rejecting her entreaties, according to the unfeeling prejudice of the Jews, answered, “It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.” This was virtually asserting that it was not just to lavish the blessings brought to the favored people of God upon strangers and aliens from Israel. This answer would have utterly discouraged a less earnest seeker. But the woman saw that her opportunity had come. Beneath the apparent refusal of Jesus, she saw a compassion that He could not hide. “Truth, Lord,” she answered, “yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” While the children of the household eat at the father's table, even the dogs are not left unfed. They have a right to the crumbs that fall from the table abundantly supplied. So while there were many blessings given to Israel, was there not also a blessing for her? She was looked upon as a dog, and had she not then a dog's claim to a crumb from His bounty?
Jesus had just departed from His field of labor because the scribes and Pharisees were seeking to take His life. They murmured and complained. They manifested unbelief and bitterness, and refused the salvation so freely offered them. Here Christ meets one of an unfortunate and despised race, that has not been favored with the light of God's word; yet she yields at once to the divine influence of Christ, and has implicit faith in His ability to grant the favor she asks. She begs for the crumbs that fall from the Master's table. If she may have the privilege of a dog, she is willing to be regarded as a dog. She has no national or religious prejudice or pride to influence her course, and she immediately acknowledges Jesus as the Redeemer, and as being able to do all that she asks of Him.

The Desire of Ages, Pg 401
Jesus was the promised seed by whom "all nations was to be blessed." (Gen 22:18). In fact, many of Jesus' followers who expressed the greatest faith were non-Jews, such as the Centurion and the Samaritan woman. All of them received blessings and compassion from their Saviour.


Looking for source for quote from Christian author

The quote is from C.S.Lewis in "Mere christianity", book 4, chapter 3 "Time And Beyond Time".


Can you refer to the Trinity as "Others"

I believe the only time when God is referred to with a plural noun or pronoun is in Genesis 1, when God Himself refers to Himself. The Bible always mentions the Father, Son and Holy Ghost separately when referring to the separate persons of God together. Otherwise, it is "He" and "Him." God is always a singular pronoun. There is no need to refer to the Trinity as your question suggests, for God is one.

However, there are no strict directives in the Bible about new terms used to describe the Trinity. But it's important that Christians do not stray too far from the language that has been given to us in the Scriptures to avoid confusion or perversion of the text. Every word of Scripture is God-breathed, so there is a good reason why there are not many words to describe the Trinity. YHWH, I AM THAT I AM, The Godhead, and The Fullness of the Glory of God, come to mind, but even these examples must be taken into the context of their Hebrew/Greek origin and their texts.

That said, even Biblical terms can be twisted to mean something completely different from their traditional, Biblical understanding. The Trinity, even, means something very different to different people. It would be foolhardy to bring in another word that is not clearly defined or established in Biblical text or received Christian tradition.

[important note]:Addressing or referring to the Godhead should always be done with reverence. This is a basic truth embedded in the 10 commandments.


What is the basis for saying that B. B. Warfield believed in theistic evolution?

Most who claim Warfield as a theistic evolutionist owe their position to the analysis of Mark Noll and David Livingstone, who together published a selection of Warfield's writings on the subject in a compendium called Evolution, Science, and Scripture. Noll wrote his analysis in a portion of his book Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind, reprinted at BioLogos, and Livingstone did so within his book Darwin's Forgotten Defenders. So it would serve us well to examine the writings of Warfield that they themselves cite. Fred Zaspel, while critical of the "Livingstone-Noll thesis," nonetheless says in a Themelios article that the compendium "collects virtually all of [Warfield's] creation-evolution writings."
If you want to examine the evidence yourself, the best primary sources are those in Evolution, Science, and Scripture, and the best secondary sources would probably be Noll's and Livingstone's writings in favor of their thesis and Zaspel's against.
It's important to note that Noll and Livingstone claim development within Warfield's thought. The following appears both in the Noll link above and in their joint introduction to the compendium:

In the course of his career, both Warfield’s positions and his vocabulary did shift on the question of evolution. But they shifted only within a fairly narrow range. What remained constant was his adherence to a broad Calvinistic conception of the natural world — of a world that, even in its most physical aspects, reflected the wisdom and glory of God—and his commitment to the goal of harmonizing a sophisticated conservative theology and the most securely verified conclusions of modern science.

The nuance is best picked up on by reading their editorial comments throughout the compendium, but for our purposes the development is not extremely important, except to note the following. There is no documentation of Warfield's views before his first published work on the subject in 1888, other than his 1916 personal recollections on undergraduate life at Princeton, speaking of one of his teachers:

He did not make me a Darwinian, as it was his pride to believe he ordinarily made his pupils. But that was doubtless because I was already a Darwinian of the purest water before I came into his hands [in 1868], and knew my Origin of Species and Animals and Plants under Domestication, almost from A to Izard. In later years I fell away from this, his orthodoxy. He was a little nettled about it and used to inform me with some vigor—I am speaking of a time thirty years agone!—that all biologists under thirty years of age were Darwinians. I was never quite sure that he understood what I was driving at when I replied that I was the last man in the world to wonder at that, since I was about that old myself [early 1880s] before I outgrew it.

So it would seem that he accepted Darwin's theory for much of his young life, "outgrowing" his pure acceptance of it sometime around the early 1880s, but never fully rejecting its possibility in his published works post-1888. Phrased in this careful way, I don't think even Zaspel would disagree.
In an effort to present the strongest case for Warfield as a theistic evolutionist, I'll arrange this answer topically, using your bullet points as a guide, with two additions of my own:

Acceptance of the usefulness of the term "evolution"
Antiquity of the universe and/or of the human race
Adam not a historic, individual person
Adam a historic individual, but a product of evolution from a lesser mammal
Death of mammals prior to the Fall
The Fall not a discrete historical event

We'll examine one at a time whether he affirmed these ideas.
Warfield on "evolution"
Warfield's 1895 article "The Present-Day Conception of Evolution," a two-part essay which is largely a reworking of his 1888 lecture "Evolution or Development," says the following at the opening of part two:

There are three general positions which may be taken up with reference to the doctrine of evolution, which has so deeply affected modern thought as to the origin of the universe and all that it contains.

We may look upon this doctrine as supplying an obviously true and adequate philosophy of being, and treat it as furnishing a complete account of the origin and present state of the universe. ...

We may consider the doctrine of evolution as a discovery by science of the process through which this ordered world in which we live has, as a matter of fact, come into existence; we may treat evolution merely as an account of the manner in which the universe, considered as a cosmos, has been produced, and all the forms of being which constitute it have been brought into being. In this form, evolution ... is made a second cause and implies a first cause working by and through it. ...

We may look upon the doctrine of evolution as a more or less probable, or more or less improbable, conjecture of scientific workers as to the method of creation; and thus we may treat it as only a working hypothesis suggested to account for the manner in which the universe has come into being, and seeking now to try itself by the facts. This has always been the attitude of the more cautious thinkers.

Warfield counts himself one of the "cautious thinkers" who consider evolution a "conjecture" and "working hypothesis." After describing the three possible positions, he first dismisses the first position, as he had already spent part one doing, as "the old problem of the atheistic philosophy" in "a new dress." Then he breezily says that, were evolution proven true, "the old faith will be able" to "assimilate to itself all facts," concluding thus:

The only living question with regard to evolution is whether it is true. And the only reasonable reply which can be given to this question today is that it is sub judice [before the court].

He similarly concludes his 1888 lecture by stating that one can be Biblically faithful and accept evolution:

I do not think that there is any general statement in the Bible or any part of the account of creation, either as given in Genesis 1 and 2 or elsewhere alluded to, that need be opposed to evolution. ... There is no necessary antagonism of Christianity to evolution, provided that we do not hold to too extreme a form of evolution. To adopt any form that does not permit God freely to work apart from law and which does not allow miraculous intervention (in the giving of the soul, in creating Eve, etc.) will entail a great reconstruction of Christian doctrine, and a very great lowering of the detailed authority of the Bible. But if we condition the theory by allowing the constant oversight of God in the whole process, and his occasional supernatural interference for the production of new beginnings by an actual output of creative force, producing something new, i.e., something not included even in posse [potentially] in the preceding conditions, we may hold to the modified theory of evolution and be Christians in the ordinary orthodox sense.

Note his caveats, that even if one accepts evolution, one must accept God's miraculous intervention in order to still accept the Genesis account. In his 1911 article "On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race," he goes further and implies that, not only does a purely evolutionary (non-miraculous) account of human origins defy the Bible, it also defies common sense:

Men seemed to imagine that, if only time enough were given for it, effects, for which no adequate cause could be assigned, might be supposed to come gradually of themselves. Aimless movement was supposed, if time enough were allowed for it, to produce an ordered world. It might as well be supposed that if a box full of printers' types were stirred up long enough with a stick, they could be counted on to arrange themselves in the order in which they stand, say, in Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason." They will never do so, though they be stirred to eternity.

These threads come together in the conclusion to his 1901 essay "Creation, Evolution, and Mediate Creation":

What, then, is to be the attitude of the Christian man toward the modern doctrine of evolution? He is certainly to deny with all the energy given to him that the conception of evolution can take the place of creation as an account of the origin of the universe. Evolution offers no solution of the question of origins. For its operation it presupposes not only already existent material which can unroll into fresh forms, but material within which all that is subsequently evolved already potentially exists.
And he is to deny with equal strenuousness that the conception of evolution can take the place of that of mediate creation, as an account of the origination of new things in the course of the divine government of the world. Things have come into being since the first origin of the world which did not lie potentially within the primal world-stuff, needing only to be deduced from it. If nothing else, the God-Man has come into being; and that not as a product of the precedent conditions in the world, but as an intrusion from without and above. And with him, the whole series of events that constitute the supernatural order of the Kingdom of God. Nor is there any reason to doubt that the same intrusion of purely creative force, productive of something absolutely new, may have occurred also in the natural order of the first creation — say at the origin of self-conscious, immortal beings in the complex of nature.
On the other hand, the Christian man has as such no quarrel with evolution when confined to its own sphere as a suggested account of the method of the Divine Providence. What he needs to insist on is merely that Providence cannot do the work of creation, and is not to be permitted to intrude itself into the sphere of creation, much less to crowd creation out of the recognition of man, merely because it puts itself forward under the new name of evolution.

Age of the universe and humanity
Warfield, in his 1911 article "On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race," says that the Ussher chronology and similar attempts to discern the age of creation or humanity are misguided. He argues at length that the genealogies are not meant to be any sort of clue about how much time elapsed between Adam and Abraham. He concludes that the Bible does not tell us the age of mankind, and says thus:

The question of the antiquity of man is accordingly a purely scientific one, in which the theologian as such has no concern. As an interested spectator, however, he looks on as the various schools of scientific speculation debate the question among themselves.

He goes on to state that there is considerable debate between the sciences of geology, biology, and physics over the age of the creation, while granting that for the age of the earth the question regards how many millions of years.
The same general argument is traced out in his 1903 article "The Manner and Time of Man's Origin."
Individuality of Adam
Warfield argues in "On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race" that, contrary to the ideas of racists, Scripture and science are united in claiming a singular origin point for humanity rather than multiple origins for different races. In my reading, he heavily implies Adam as the single origin.
In his review of James Orr's book God's Image in Man, Warfield explains his view this way:

We partake in Adam's sin because he was our representative. ... He was constituted our representative because he was our father and as such was naturally indicated for that office.

Animal ancestry for humanity
Warfield seems to accept the theoretical possibility of pre-Adam "brutish" proto-humans without too much fuss. In his review of Orr's book, he invokes what we now call "punctuated equilibrium" to reject Orr's argument that the body and mind must have evolved together if evolution is true:

Body and mind must go together [argues Orr], and a great brain with a little mind is just as unthinkable as a little brain with a great mind. The argument does not seem to be available, however, as against a theory of evolution per saltum [by leaps]. If under the directing hand of God a human body is formed at a leap by propagation from brutish parents, it would be quite consonant with the fitness of things that it should be provided by his creative energy with a truly human soul.

Similarly, in his article "Creation, Evolution, and Mediate Creation," he admits the possibility that "Adam's body was formed (not created) from the lower animals," while insisting that each human being's soul, Adam's included, is a special creation of God.
Death before the Fall
Warfield speaks about pre-Fall death strangely little, but perhaps my wish for him to have addressed it more is anachronistic. The only mentions in the index of Evolution, Science, and Scripture of "death" occur in his review of Orr's book. All he says regarding the issue in question is this:

Perhaps also a query may be placed over against the strong statement to the effect that "there is not a word in Scripture to suggest that animals ... came under the law of death for man's sin." The problem of the reign of death in that creation which was cursed for man's sake and which is to be with man delivered from the bondage of corruption, presses on some with a somewhat greater weight than seems here to be recognized.

It's ironic that the only statement Warfield makes on this subject is a complaint that another author doesn't deal with it adequately.
The nature of the Fall
In both "Evolution or Development" and in his review of Orr's book, Warfield decries a common (even today) evolutionary depiction of the Fall as representing awareness of sin. He argues in both places that Scripture depicts the Fall as a fall from morality into immorality, and that the idea of the Fall as a development of a "moral sense" within humanity or of human beings from "nonmoral beings" into "moral beings" reverses the Scriptural picture. As far as I can tell, he never directly addresses allegorization of the Eden account, instead always treating it straightforwardly.
Conclusion
Warfield believed that the theory of evolution was neither proven nor disproven in his time and that it was permissible for Christians to believe a limited form of it. Like modern theistic evolutionists, he believed that the age of the universe was an open question and that it was possible that Adam had evolved from "lower animals," though he affirmed Adam's historicity and the special creation of his soul. His thoughts on the Fall and on death before the Fall are less clear, but he doesn't seem to give credence to views that make the Fall less than historical, and he's cautious about accepting pre-Fall animal death.


What is the Biblical basis for favoring the Majority Text?

Scriptures below are quoted from the King James Bible, which is based on the Textus Receptus.
The main arguments I am aware of can be grouped into the following categories.
Many witnesses
It is a principle first found in the law that you need at least two witnesses to establish the truth. (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15)

2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
Proverbs 11:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

The majority text follows the multitude of witnesses. With the Alexandrian type texts, there are many differences even in the two main witnesses the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
Preservation of Scripture
There are many scriptures talking about the preservation of God's word. Under the Textus Receptus tradition the text is assumed to be preserved. The critical manuscripts based on the Alexandrian texts assumes the originals are lost, in contradiction with scripture.

Psalms 100:5 For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
Psalms 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

A point is made here that Timothy had the scriptures:

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

So Timothy is either using the original autographs as a child or, more likely, the copies he had were scripture and therefore preserved.
There are many more texts around preservation.
Spiritual condition of Egypt and Alexandria compared to Antioch
Egypt was a land of idolatry and false worship. God plagued Egypt and saved Israel out of Egypt (Exodus 9-12). Egypt is used in Revelation to characterize spiritual wickedness.

Revelation 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

The Alexandrian type texts originate from Alexandria which is in Egypt and would be an odd place for God then to use as the best source for his word.
Alexandria comes up in the new testament as a place where people came and set up false witnesses against Stephen (Acts 6:9-14).
In contrast Antioch was a stronghold of Christianity:

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Acts 15:35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

The Byzantine type texts are sometimes called Antiochian.
Recorded attacks on the word of God
It is argued against the Textus Receptus, that the Alexandrian type texts are only fourth century and therefore earlier. However scripture records there were attacks on the word of God before this time, so the Alexandrian manuscripts could be examples of this.

2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
Acts 20:29-30 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Greater consistency of the text
Following on from the idea of preservation is the observation that the Textus Receptus is more consistent, which we hope it is because the Word of God is true.

Psalms 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

For example, in the critical texts Mark 1:2 attributes two scriptures to Isaiah which are actually quoted from Malachi and Isaiah. In contrast the TR is consistent by just saying "prophets":

Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

When the TR is attacked the attacks fail. For example, there appears to be a similar problem in all texts:

Matthew 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

The apparent problem is the text attributed to Jeremiah belongs to the book Zecharaiah. However, a proper study of Ezra, Nehemiah and Zecharaiah reveals that there is a Jeremiah around about the time of Zechariah, and the quote is from portions of Zechariah not attributed to prophet Zecharaiah explicitly.
There are of course many thousands of textual differences to consider.
Better doctrine
Finally it can be argued that the Textus Receptus has better doctrine. What is better doctrine comes down to hearing.
Jesus said:

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

It is then up to individuals to looks at texts with questionable doctrine and decide which one is more accurate. Taking care not to be deceived
For example the Textus Receptus is very careful to not call Joseph Jesus' father, which the critical texts freely do. (e.g. Luke 2:33)
Also:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Some translations leave out the word begotten allowing for the doctrine that Jesus was born of Joseph but became a son of God.
There are dozens of important examples to consider.


What was God the Father like, when he was a man?

No, and in fact it is explicitly stated in LDS scriptures that such a revelation does not pertain to us:

  Moses 1: 35

  But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof,
  give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed
  away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and
  innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me,
  for they are mine and I know them.

Any history of beings from other worlds and their experiences in mortality falls outside the scope of "only an account of this earth and the inhabitants thereof."


Why does Catholicism have priests but Protestantism does not?

In the Old Testament, priests would appeal to God on behalf on sinful men through sacrifices.  Jesus is the Great High Priest who 1) offered Himself as a sacrifice once for all and 2) who ever lives to intercede for us.

The old priesthood order was of the line of Aaron, but in 70 A.D. in the destruction of Jerusalem, the ancestral records were destroyed, I believe.  Therefore, there is no current Aaronic Priesthood.  Jesus was of the greater Melchizedek Priesthood that preceded the Aaronic Priesthood.

Consequently, there is no need for a man to intercede on our behalf to God, since Jesus does that.  Indeed, the New Testament states that there is "one mediator between man and God--the Man Christ Jesus".

The New Testament also states that all believers are priests (a chosen priesthood) to worship God.

The role of priest is not mentioned in Ephesians 4:11-12

  It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service.

The Protestant church has the office of pastor and teacher and evangelists.  Missionaries could be considered apostles, since that word means "one who is sent out".  Teaching pastors could be considered prophets--not necessarily in foretelling the future, in proclaim the message of God.

So, Protestants reject the notion that there is the need for any other mediator between us and God.  We confess our sins to God--not to any man.  (Only one place in the New Testament are we commanded to confess sins to another person, and it states there that is "to one another"--not to a priest.  So, confessing to a "priest" is valid if the "priest" confesses to you as well).


Immaculate Conception: Why was it necessary for our Salvation?

Was Mary's Immaculate Conception Absolutely Necessary for our Salvation?
Before I go on with my answer, I object to that fact that you claim that according to many Catholic apologists, like Dr. Robert Sungenis, the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary is necessary for our salvation.
"According to many Catholic apologists, like Dr. Robert Sungenis, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not simply binding because it is a divinely revealed dogma, but according to them it is binding additionally because logically speaking without Mary being sinless Jesus could not accomplish the redemptive work in the first place." Can someone please name a few Catholic theologians with this viewpoint. In 2008 his local bishop had instructed him to stop writing about Jews and to remove the name "Catholic" from his blog.
The short answer is no.
Our salvation was guarantied by Our lord Jesus Christ on the Cross.

The Catholic Church believes that it was not absolutely or intrinsically necessary for the Blessed Virgin Mary to be sinless; only fitting or appropriate (God making the choice).
Thus, even a dogmatic belief in the Immaculate Conception does not in any way impinge upon the Two Natures of Christ. We believe the Immaculate Conception happened, and are required to believe this, but we don't believe that it had to happen exactly as it did (in all possible worlds, etc.), in order for God to be God.
All the Immaculate Conception did was make Mary as Eve was before the Fall (precisely why the Church fathers often called her the Second Eve or New Eve): unfallen and sinless; not subject to original sin. As Cardinal Newman remarked: why is it considered such an extraordinary thing that God chose to simply make one person -- the Mother of God the Son, the Theotokos -- the way that all of us would have been, but for the Fall?
Fr. Ryan Erlenbush wrote on The New Theological Movement website (12-8-11):

And this is the great difference between Jesus and Mary: She required a special grace to preserve her from the stain of sin, but our Savior (by virtue of the Incarnation itself, and on account of his divinity) could not possibly have contracted the guilt or debt of original sin in any respect.

While our Blessed Lady, even though Immaculately Conceived, required a Redeemer (namely, her own Son, Christ Jesus), the Lord did not have any need of a Redeemer. No special grace was required (beyond that of the Incarnation itself) to keep the Christ Child from original sin – he could not possibly have contracted it.

In this sense, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is seen to be fitting and true while (in itself) not absolutely necessary, but the sinlessness of the Lord Jesus is absolutely necessary and super-eminently fitting.

Was Mary's Immaculate Conception Absolutely Necessary?

St. Thomas Aquinas maintains that it was indeed possible for Our Lord Jesus Christ to have been born of sinful woman; Christ's glory would not have been diminished thereby. But, he states elsewhere, it would have been inappropriate:

God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: "(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament." Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office. ... But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: "The glory of children are their fathers": and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother's shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the "Divine Wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins."
We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee," etc. - Was the dogma of the Immaculate Conception formulated in response to someone challenging Mary's ability to bear a perfect Son?

If God preserved Mary from all sin, He could have preserved Christ's body and soul likewise without the grace of Mary's Immaculate Conception.

Was it necessary for God to make Mary immaculate at her conception so that she could be Jesus' mother?
No. The Church only speaks of the Immaculate Conception as something that was "fitting," something that made Mary a "fit habitation" (i.e., suitable dwelling) for the Son of God, not something that was necessary.

And hence they [the Church Fathers] affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace. . . .

For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness [Ineffabilis Deus].

Can anyone show where in Pope Pius IX's Papal Encyclical Ineffabilis Deus that the Mary's Immaculate Conception was absolutely necessary for our salvation. You can not!
Unless one can show evidence to the contrary, in Pope Pius IX's dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception that the Immaculate Conception of the Ever Virgin Mary was necessary for our salvation, the contrary is to be upheld.
St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa clearly states that it was Adam and not Eve that was responsible  for the transition of original sin. Now if Mary, the Mother of Jesus is the New Eve and Jesus Christ is the New Adam, it is obvious that the Immaculate Conception was not necessary for our salvation for the Holy Spirit can operate in that dwelling place He so chooses to. It the Holy Spirit that made it possible for Christ to be free of original sin and not Mary, the New Eve.

The solution of this question is made clear by what has been said. For it has been stated that original sin is transmitted by the first parent in so far as he is the mover in the begetting of his children: wherefore it has been said that if anyone were begotten materially only, of human flesh, they would not contract original sin. Now it is evident that in the opinion of philosophers, the active principle of generation is from the father, while the mother provides the matter. Therefore original sin, is contracted, not from the mother, but from the father: so that, accordingly, if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would not contract original sin: whereas, if Adam, and not Eve, had sinned, they would contract it. - Whether if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would have contracted original sin?


Process Eschatology is based on a foundation in the metaphysical system of Alfred North Whitehead (among others), a methodology that integrates both speculation and empirical verification. It seeks to use Process Theology to explain biblical eschatology.

But in an article titled, Process Eschatology and the Power of God (Part I), Sandalstraps declares:

  "Eschatological language has next to no place in a Process system. The
  future is, after all, undetermined, ultimately indeterminate, the
  product of both random events and the vast chorus of free agents
  acting out of their freedom. To speak of some ultimate end that
  represents God's final vision for creation - which is what eschatology
  often does - is, in Process thought, nonsense."
  http://sandalstraps.blogspot.com/2008/10/process-eschatology-and-power-of-god.html

However, theological debates are going on as to how process thought can be best applied to the field of eschatology. Meanwhile here is an excerpt from the works of Austin Roberts on process eschatology still under construction:

  "... Christian process theologians affirm life after death and the
  redemption of creation in a naturalistic, not supernatural way.
  Process philosophy views nature as made up of actual occasions of
  experience.

As Whitehead writes

  The actual temporal world can be analysed into a multiplicity of occasions of actualization. These are the primary actual units of which the temporal world is composed…each is a microcosm representing in itself the entire all-inclusive universe.”

Process theologians thus affirm a kind of relational atomism in which momentary actual occasions are constituted by their relations as experiencing subjects and then perish to become an object for new becoming occasions. Everything that exists is ultimately made up of actual occasions, while the things we normally experience with our senses that endure through time (e.g., a dog, chair, mountain, etc.) are groupings of occasions – what Whitehead called “societies.” As such, material bodies and living souls are in fact different kinds of interrelated societies of actual occasions. Souls are not a special kind of substance, as much traditional theology affirmed, but an especially complex part of nature.

With this in mind, we can understand what process theologians say about the immortality of the soul. As it turns out, there is nothing metaphysically implausible about an individual soul continuing to live on after the death of the body – although whether it will live forever is another question.
While Whitehead is more neutral on life after death, arguing that it should be decided on “more special evidence”, Cobb and Griffin are more open to it as Christians who affirm the resurrection appearances of Jesus (as for an empty tomb, Cobb is open to it but does not think it is very plausible). Christians can thus affirm the real hope of life after death. Note that process cannot be simply dismissed as Gnostic - it is nondual rather dualistic and thus does not place matter as an evil substance in opposition to the soul as a higher, spiritual substance...

Suchocki also takes the resurrection of Jesus seriously:

  “If we take the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus to be a revelation of God for us, then the resurrection is a vital part of this revelation.”

As such, many process theologians affirm the eschatological significance of the resurrection of Jesus, even though they do not agree with traditional theologians that it was a supernatural event that necessarily produced an empty tomb. But there is more to process eschatology than life after death.

For process theologians, the primary problem of existence to be overcome is not death but meaninglessness due to the perpetual perishing of occasions. Without some ground of permanence, our accomplishments would finally seem to be insignificant. It is ultimately God who is this ground of meaning, since process theologians see God as not only creative as the source of novelty but responsive to the world, eternally preserving every occasion that has ever existed in her own nature. As Mesle explains:

  “God shares the experience of becoming of the entire universe, and synthesizes it into God’s own, infinitely vast and complex experience.”

This means that occasions are given objective (not subjective) immortality in the divine life, forever preserved in their immediacy and woven into an ideal and growing harmony. As Whitehead wrote, this is the kingdom of heaven, which

  “... is not the isolation of good from evil. It is the overcoming of evil
  by good.”

As such, the ultimate eschatological 'fact' is the redemption of all things in God.  Suchocki is one of the few process theologians to argue that this is subjective not just objective immortality. Beyond the hope for subjective life after death of the soul and the objective redemption of creation (soul and body) in God, there is also an emphasis on historical eschatology in process thought that coheres with Borg’s view of Jesus. In cosmic history, there is no end to the process of creation or need for a final new creation, as in traditional eschatologies. The future is radically open, and God continuously creates by luring the world toward greater richness of experience and complexity.

As Borg argued, this means that Christian eschatological hope in history takes the form of participation: we are co-creators with God for the future kingdom or “commonwealth." As we respond more positively to God’s lure, we participate in God’s ongoing work for justice and shalom in creation. Cobb and Griffin conclude

  “There is no divine action apart from creaturely action, but equally the divine action is the principle of hope in the creaturely action…Trusting God is not assurance that whatever we do will work out well. It is instead confidence that God’s call is wise and good.
  http://austinroberts13.blogspot.com/2012/03/exploring-process-eschatology-how-is-it.html


What is the Biblical basis for the idea that spiritual gifts are no longer relevant?

1 Corinthians 13 8 is a verse sometimes referred to as supporting the theory that some spiritual gifts no longer operate.

  Love never fails: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

This  article discusses the question from the perspective of Grace Community Church California, concluding that some gifts no longer operate.


Where in the Bible does it mention that every person has a guardian angel?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that there is a guardian angel for each person.  It is well to recall that while the Catholic Church does not confine its teaching to sola scriptura, there is scriptural support for the teaching that angels are assigned as protectors.  Angels engage in a variety of tasks as described in scripture, to include protection of the faithful.  In English the term "guardian angel" is a way to describe an angel who protects someone.

  The angels in the life of the Church

  334 In the meantime, the whole life of the Church benefits from the
  mysterious and powerful help of angels.

  335 In her liturgy, the Church joins with the angels to adore the
  thrice-holy God. She invokes their assistance (in the funeral
  liturgy's In Paradisum deducant te angeli. . .["May the angels lead
  you into Paradise. . ."]). Moreover, in the "Cherubic Hymn" of the
  Byzantine Liturgy, she celebrates the memory of certain angels more
  particularly (St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael, and the guardian
  angels).

  336 From its beginning until death, human life is surrounded by their
  watchful care and intercession.  "Beside each believer stands an
  angel as protector and shepherd leading him to life." (203) Already here
  on earth the Christian life shares by faith in the blessed company of
  angels and men united in God.

St Basil notes this in his description of the distinction between spiritual beings:

  (203) St. Basil, Adv. Eunomium III, I: PG 29,656B.
   All the angels,
  having but one appelation, have likewise among themselves the same
  nature, even though some of them are set over nations, while others of
  them are guardians to each one of the faithful.

Scriptural verses that inform this teaching include:

Matthew 18:10

  10 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to
  you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my
  heavenly Father.

Hebrews 1:14

  "Are they [i.e. angels] not all ministering spirits sent out to serve
  for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?"

Luke 16:22

  22 When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom
  of Abraham.

Psalm 34:7

  The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him, and he
  delivers them

Psalm 91:10-13

  10 no harm will overtake you, no disaster will come near your tent.
  11 For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all
  your ways;   12 they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will
  not strike your foot against a stone.   13 You will tread on the lion
  and the cobra; you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

Job 33:23-24

  23 1 If then there be for him an angel, one out of a thousand, a
  mediator, To show him what is right for him and bring the man back to
  justice,

  24 He will take pity on him and say, "Deliver him from going down to
  the pit; I have found him a ransom."

Zech 1:11-14

  11 And they answered the angel of the LORD who was standing among the
  myrtle trees and said, "We have patrolled the earth; see, the whole
  earth is tranquil and at rest!"    12  Then the angel of the Lord
  spoke out and said, "O LORD of hosts, how long will you be without
  mercy for Jerusalem and the cities of Judah that have felt your anger
  these seventy years?"   13  To the angel who spoke with me, the LORD
  replied with comforting words.   14 And the angel who spoke with me
  said to me, Proclaim: Thus says the LORD of hosts: I am deeply moved
  for the sake of Jerusalem and Zion,

Tobit 5:17

  Tobit said, “Blessing be upon you, brother.” Then he called his son
  and said to him: “Son, prepare whatever you need for the journey, and
  set out with your kinsman. May God in heaven protect you on the way
  and bring you back to me safe and sound; may his angel accompany you
  for your safety, son.”


Why does the Bible talk only about the people of Israel?

There are several issues you bring up that need to be addressed in this question, and it is going to take a little space.
Only Israel?
You are correct in your assumption that God loves the whole world and not just Israel.  However, Israel was, indeed, specifically chosen as part of God's plan to proclaim His name throughout the world.
Here is a general summary of the Bible.

God created mankind in His own image to live in relationship with God and to fill the world with such people.  (Genesis 1-2)
Mankind rejected God's authority and thus incurred God's righteous judgment for doing so. (Genesis 3)
The rest of the Bible is the record of God reaching out to draw mankind back into a relationship with Himself and to pay the appropriate penalty that mankind incurred.

Israel was just one part of God's plan to draw all mankind back to Himself.  Israel played a vital role from about 2000 B.C. to about 33 A.D..  Although it only plays significantly for 2,000 years, it does comprise the vast majority of the Bible.
Still, God's choosing of the Jewish people was specifically to be a blessing to the entire world:

And I will make you a great nation,
And I will bless you,
And make your name great;
And so you shall be a blessing;
3 And I will bless those who bless you,
And the one who curses you I will [d]curse.
And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”  Genesis 12:2-3 NASB

In the Jewish Temple itself, there was the Court of the Gentiles specifically designed for non-Jews to come and worship God.
Yet, God does not love Israel without condition.  Time and time again, God judged Israel for their own rebellion against Him.  Psalm 78 shows Israel's cycle of rebellion against God and God's judgment of them, and there are many instances of this.
In Numbers 21, God delivered a great victory for them, and shortly thereafter they began grumbling against God, doubting His promise and love and provision.  As a result, God brought judgment upon them.
Egypt
The Egyptians worshiped false gods of their own making who were no gods at all and actually worshiped the pharaohs themselves as gods.  Worshiping false gods often degrades into horrific practices like the offering of babies as sacrifices.  God desired to show the Egyptians that they were worshiping false gods, and He desired to draw them back into a relationship with Him.  He did this by great signs and wonders, including 10 plagues.  These 10 plagues were basically a showdown between God and the gods of the Egyptians--the god of the Nile, the god of the harvest, the god of the sky, etc., and finally the god of the line of the pharaohs.  God won the showdown, and it is important to note that the whole purpose was for the Egyptians to know who God really is.

The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out My hand on Egypt and bring out the sons of Israel from their midst.  Exodus 7:5 NASB

It is true, in fact, that God did kill every firstborn of Egypt, but this was not without warning.  God righteously judged Egypt for their rebellion against Him, but He also provided a way to escape His judgment through the offering of the Passover Lamb.  This provision was open to anyone.
God always does this.  In the days before the flood, Noah proclaimed that judgment was coming, but only his own family responded and entered God's provision for escape from judgment.
So, God does not hate people.  God loves all people and desires that all would return to Him.  The fact that God judges does not mean that He has to hate.  He upholds His own justice, but He does not hate.

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.  2 Peter 3:9 NASB

God's Judgment and Mercy
So, God will always bring judgment, but He always offers a pardon to those who will accept it.  The penalty for rebellion against God's authority, which is really high treason, is to be separated from God.  God also has the right to take the life He has given when it is used in rebellion against Him.  However, His desire is always that people would respond to His offer of mercy.
God the Son entered into the world, being named Jesus, and took upon Himself the penalty which we ourselves deserved for our rebellion against God.  Because of this, He can righteously say that our penalty is paid and justice has been served.  This is the whole essence of Christianity.  Our penalty and debt is paid by another, if we will only accept that in faith.  If we attempt to pay off our own debt or reject His offer, then we will indeed pay the penalty for our own rebellion.
Still, many absolutely reject this offer and do not want to live in relationship with Him.  Someone put it this way... either we say to God, "Your will be done" and accept His offer of mercy, or God will say to us, "Your will be done" and give us our choice to live apart from Him.

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.  1 Peter 3:18 NASB
He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.  John 3:36 NASB

All Nations
God does, indeed, love all nations.  The baton was passed, in a sense, from the Jewish people to the Gentiles in the early days of the church.  To be sure, the first Christian missionaries were all Jewish, and there have always been Jewish believers whom God has used in mighty ways to take the message of salvation and forgiveness to all people.
The concept of all nations comes first in the first chapter of the book of Genesis:

"God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth..."  Genesis 1:28a

This gets carried along with Noah:

“As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.”  Genesis 9:7

We see it in Abraham's call as noted above.  It is in the Psalms as well:

All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, And all the families of the nations will worship before You.  Psalm 22:7 NASB

It is in prophecies of the Messiah:

He says, “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also make You a light of the nations
So that My salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”  Isaiah 49:6 NASB

It is in the Great Commission:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"  Matthew 28:19 NASB
"but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”  Acts 1:8 NASB

Finally, the prophecy is fulfilled in Revelation:

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; 10 and they cry out with a loud voice, saying,  “Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.”  Revelation 7:-10 NASB

CONCLUSION
So, God loves all people and desires that all would accept His provision for the payment of their sin.  He does not love some people without condition and hate others for no reason.  In fact, He offers all people forgiveness of their sin, but He does not force anyone to love Him against their will.  He does righteously judge those who rebel against Him, but always provides a way of escape.


It is important to understand that we do not have an "original copy" of any book of the Bible.  What we have are copies of copies of copies... (manuscripts), from which "Textual Critics" seek to ascertain the original wording.  It is the original wording that most Bible scholars hold to be perfect and inspired by God.

Many modern Christians view "The Bible" that is sitting on their shelves as the perfect, exact word of the living God, but this doctrine is a bit off.  What is sitting on your shelf is an English rendition of a particular translator's interpretation of the group of manuscripts he studied when writing his translation.  (NOTE: The Bible on your shelf is completely sufficient for understanding God's message to us in 99.99% of cases.)

The books of the Bible were not originally divided into verses - this happened around the 16th century.  This was a period in time when a very limited set of manuscripts were available for translation.  The numbering scheme was, of course, based on those manuscripts which were available at the time.  The KJV is one of the translations written around this time.  (It is very interesting to look at how few manuscripts the KJV is based on, but that is a huge volatile topic that I won't go into here.)

Since that time, thousands of manuscripts have been excavated, which have given us more insight into what the original wording might have been.  Modern translators (e.g. the NIV translators) seek to faithfully handle the word of God by considering as many reliable manuscripts as possible during translation - which is exactly what the KJV translators sought to do in their day (they just had far fewer manuscripts to work with.)

Contrary to what some in the KJV-only camp would have you believe, the NIV translators are not trying to lead you into a fiery demise by deceiving you with false translations.  Many of the so-called "missing verses" are referenced in the side-column of your NIV Bible (see here).  The only reason they were left out is that the translators of the NIV honestly believed that the evidence was overwhelmingly against those verses being part of the original writing.


Abortion and Biblical End Times Prophecy

Nothing specific to abortion, although I wouldn't expect there to be. 2 Timothy 3:1-7 gives us:

   1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

Which generally points to people being disobedient, which is probably the closest you'll find. The problem, though, is that people have always been disobedient and rebellious. Before deciding the above fits "today", first try to find a point in history where it wouldn't fit. And indeed, much of this comes down to simply different ethics (meaning: bemoaning people who don't abide the church's edicts) . Moving away from abortion (too divisive to have a constructive discussion), while "modern" values may sometimes seem at odds with Christianity, I for one thinks today's society is heading in a positive direction, not a negative one, with a lot of emphasis on equality and the value of all humans, even (tongue in cheek) those that don't profess and follow Christian beliefs. And even those that do.

Likewise, looking at Luke 21 10-11, 25-26 - we have always been at the mercy of nature. The difference now is that we have much better reporting, measurement and awareness (including awareness of our own harm on the world).

On a more personal note, I don't think obsessing about end of the world prophecy is healthy in a culture. I'd much rather we all got on with living our lives in accordance with our values, and to the greater communal (local and international) good.

So: no, and no.


The first verse that comes to my mind is in Genesis 18:12-

  Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

This is the only verse I can really remember in this context, and it is probably what Peter is referring to.


St. Thomas describes how it works in Summa Theologica suppl. q. 42 a. 3 (on how matrimony confers grace) ad 4:

A remedy can be employed against concupiscence in two ways.

on the part of concupiscence by repressing it in its root, and thus matrimony affords a remedy by the grace given therein.
on the part of its act, and this in two ways:1. by depriving the act to which concupiscence inclines of its outward shamefulness, and this is done by the marriage blessings which justify carnal concupiscence;2.   by hindering the shameful act, which is done by the very nature of the act because concupiscence, being satisfied by the conjugal act, does not incline so much to other wickedness. For this reason the Apostle says (1 Cor. 7:9): "It is better to marry than to burn." For though the works congenial to concupiscence are in themselves of a nature to increase concupiscence,* yet in so far as they are directed according to reason they repress concupiscence, because like acts result in like dispositions and habits.*i.e., engaging in the act makes them want to engage in it more, like how eating makes one want to eat more (if not restrained by reason)

Summary:
Matrimony confers graces to allow one to practice

continence.
the marriage act without sin, because of the1. marriage goods (sacrament, children, fidelity)2. directing the act according to reason,

which honestant the marriage act (justify and dignify it).
St. Augustine says married couples use evil well; they use the concupiscence in the act (an evil) for a good purpose.


According to the Mormon doctrines, who created the universe?

Mormons do not believe in creation ex nihilo, as traditional Christian doctrine does.  So to ask who created the universe in Mormonism is asking the wrong question.
Rather, Mormons believe that god arranged pre-existing matter in creation. The matter always existed; creation was an act of organizing the matter.
From Ancient Views of Creation and Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo by Stephen D Ricks:

To these should be added his[Josephs Smith's] powerful rejection of creation ex nihilo ("from nothing")—according to which doctrine God alone is eternal and uncreated while matter is not—and his affirmation of creation from preexisting matter.
Abraham 3:24 in the Pearl of Great Price confirms the Latter-day Saint belief in creation from preexisting matter: "And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell."

This is a clear distinction between the beliefs of Joseph Smith and conventional Christianity. Mormonism affirms that physical material is eternal and organized by God; conventional Christianity affirms that God is eternal and that He created the physical world out of nothing.


Could the Pope be removed from office for lapses in judgment?

A valid Pope's subjects cannot depose him. That would be conciliarism, which Fr. John Hardon, S.J., in his Modern Catholic Dictionary as:

The theory that a general council of the Church is higher in authority than the Pope. It began in the fourteenth century, when respect for the papacy was undermined by confusion in Church and State. William of Ockham (1280-1349), in his battle with Pope John XXII (c. 1249-1334), questioned the divine institution of the primacy. Marsilius of Padua (1324) and John Jandun (1324) declared it was only a primacy of honor. During the great Western Schism (1378-1417) many otherwise reputable theologians, such as Peter of Ailly (1394) and John Gerson (1409) saw in the doctrine of the council's superiority over the Pope the only means of once more reuniting a divided Church. The viewpoint appeared that the Church in general was free from error, but the Church of Rome could err, and in fact had erred and fallen into heresy. The Council of Constance (1414-18), in its fourth and fifth sessions, declared for the superiority of council over Pope. However, these decisions never received papal approbation. In Gallicanism the conciliarist theory lived on for hundreds of years. Conciliarism was formally condemned by the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which defined papal primacy, declaring that the Pope had "full and supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world." He therefore possesses not merely the principal part but "all the fullness of this supreme power." Moreover, this power is ordinary or constant, and immediate or direct; it extends the Pope's authority over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful (Denzinger, 3063).
In more recent times, conciliarism has been renewed by those who appeal to a "magisterium of theologians" or "consensus of the people of God" against ordinary or even solemn teachings of the popes. (Etym. Latin concilium, council, assembly for consultation.)

(source: this answer)


What is the basis for the LDS (Mormon) teaching regarding Atonement in Gethsemane rather than at Calvary?

It's both, not one or the other. It started in Gethsemane and was completed on Golgotha.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/05/the-purifying-power-of-gethsemane

  We do not know, we cannot tell, no mortal mind can conceive the full
  import of what Christ did in Gethsemane.

  We know he sweat great gouts of blood from every pore as he drained
  the dregs of that bitter cup his Father had given him.

  We know he suffered, both body and spirit, more than it is possible
  for man to suffer, except it be unto death.

  We know that in some way, incomprehensible to us, his suffering
  satisfied the demands of justice, ransomed penitent souls from the
  pains and penalties of sin, and made mercy available to those who
  believe in his holy name.

  We know that he lay prostrate upon the ground as the pains and agonies
  of an infinite burden caused him to tremble and would that he might
  not drink the bitter cup.

  We know that an angel came from the courts of glory to strengthen him
  in his ordeal, and we suppose it was mighty Michael, who foremost fell
  that mortal man might be.

  As near as we can judge, these infinite agonies—this suffering beyond
  compare—continued for some three or four hours.

  ...

  Finally, on a hill called Calvary—again, it was outside Jerusalem’s
  walls—while helpless disciples looked on and felt the agonies of near
  death in their own bodies, the Roman soldiers laid him upon the cross.

  With great mallets they drove spikes of iron through his feet and
  hands and wrists. Truly he was wounded for our transgressions and
  bruised for our iniquities.

Then Alma 7:11-12 in the Book of Mormon:

  11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and
  temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled
  which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his
  people.

  12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of
  death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their
  infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to
  the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his
  people according to their infirmities.

The suffering in Gethsemane was an important part of taking upon Him the pains and sicknesses of His people. Calvary was vital so He could take upon Him death.

The Bible refers to this suffering in Luke 22:

  39 And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of
  Olives; and his disciples also followed him.

  40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye
  enter not into temptation.

  41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled
  down, and prayed,

  42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me:
  nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

  43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening
  him.

  44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was
  as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

Emphasis added, of course.

I'm still mobile but will get more Biblical references in a bit.

To answer your other question, this has been the teaching of the LDS Church since its organization in 1830.


Does yearning to know more about God for a stronger relationship leave us hanging in confusion?

This is one of my favorite scriptures to turn to with questions like this.

  James 1:5 if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6) But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

So James tells us that we should ask God for any knowledge that we don't know. But with a condition attached. You need to ask in faith that God will answer your question. If you do so its promised that the Lord will give to you freely. And He always keeps His promises. I would add that @San Jacinto was right on in that you need to be humble in asking as well.


What is the reasoning for Latin being the official language of Catholic Mass?

The evolution of the Latin Rite as we know it today does not necessarily come from Sacred Scripture as much as it does ecclesiastical functionality.

As The Roman Rite aritcle at The Catholic Encyclopedia puts it:

  The Roman Rite was adopted throughout the West because the local bishops, sometimes kings or emperors, felt that they could not do better than use the rite of the chief bishop of all, at Rome. And this imitation of Roman liturgical practice brought about in the West the application of the principle (long admitted in the East) that rite should follow patriarchate.

  Apart from his universal primacy, the pope had always been unquestioned Patriarch of the West. It was then the right and normal thing that the West should use his liturgy.

The Church does, as it always has, teach that the the Greek language used by the New Testament writers is the inspired "language" chosen by God to reveal his Truth. Prior to the invention of the printing press only about 10% of the population could read.  This number dropped even lower with the advent of the "dark" ages initiated by the Barbarian invasions and the fall of Rome.

The New Testament as we know it was not officially canonized until A.D. 397 with the ratifying approval of Pope Damasus. By this date the Mass had already been celebrated in and around Rome for over 300+ years prior. St. Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus to translate the newly canonized Greek texts into Latin so that more people could understand the New Testament texts.  This is the same reason why the King James/Douay-Rheims editions have been translated into the more universally spoken English language of today.

(See Canon of the New Testament from The Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Keep in mind that the Eastern Catholic (and also Greek Orthodox) churches have all along used Greek in all of their liturgies and rituals to this day.  It is arguable that the language chasm that existed between the East and West is what ultimately lead to the East-West Schism.

Later, during the Reformation period, the Council of Trent was convened to address and severely condemn the rampant abuses that had crept into the Church's liturgies, as well as respond to the Reformers.  The Council led to the solidification of the Tridentine Mass, which was celebrated universally in the Western Latin Rite for over 400 years until Vatican II.  Elements of the Tridentine Mass still exist in the "Novus Ordo" liturgy, which uses both Latin and the vernacular of the local region (i.e. English, German, French, or Spanish).

(See Reforms of the Council of Trent.)

Latin's superiority and precision is 2nd only to Greek in the history of languages.  Perhaps this is why the Holy Spirit chose Greek for divine revelation.  This is also why the Catholic Church was hesitant to translate the Bible into English from Latin.  English is more likely to be manipulated to misrepresent meanings conveyed.  Latin is more pure than English. Greek, however, is the purest of all languages.


Byzantine Chant vs. Gregorian Chant: What are the differences in goals as far as attitude and concepts between these two chanting styles

This is purely subjective, and others may feel differently. I'm not claiming
this to be an absolute truth, but here it goes:

I believe that Catholic theology is centered around exaltation and Orthodox theology is centered around humbleness.

I see this in the different architectural approaches. Catholic churches with their tall, narrow and pointy windows instill a sense of exaltation, of going upwards towards the Heavens while the huge central Pantokrator icon of Christ on the ceiling of every Orthodox church is extremely humbling.

The iconographies speak the same thing to me as well. The Catholic canonical depiction of the Resurrection depicts Christ triumphantly rising from the grave, sometimes alone sometimes with two angels bowing down to Him, again, very exalting. The Orthodox canonical depiction of the Resurrection shows Christ rising triumphantly from a defeated Hell (gates and keys broken), dragging Adam and Eve out of their graves, again, humbling, as we, the sinners, identify with Adam and Eve.

And finally, I perceive Gregorian chanting to be exalting and Byzantine chanting to be humbling.

However, I may be wrong, the perception of music is a huge academic field, but I've pointed out the unrelated examples of architecture and iconography to validate my (again, subjective) consistency.


When and who was the first disciple to truly believe Jesus' claims

The phrasing of the question is a bit tricky because it assumes the first believer was a disciple.  It may also assume a certain gender.  So I have provided three answers, but in the apparent order of actual belief.  First are some guards at the tomb.  Second is Mary Magdalene and probably the other women.  Third is the male disciples.
FIRST GUARDS
If we look at the resurrection account in Matthew 28, we find that the first believers (Jesus is the Messiah, crucified, buried, resurrected) were the guards at the tomb.

And for fear of him [the Risen Lord] the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. Mat 28:4

The guards were certainly instructed about the circumstances of their watch.  A crucified man has been entombed, but some of his followers think he will rise from the dead alive on the third day.  They think he is the King of the Jews, the prophesied Messiah.  Watch carefully.
So when it happens as they were told, we read later in the chapter that only some of the guard go tell the chief priests.

Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.  Mat 28:11

Why some?  Why not all?  Because it would be evident that the others ended up believing.  The guards were not disciples, but I think a solid case can be made that some of the guards were the first believers.
SECOND WOMEN
What about actual disciples?  Do women count as disciples?  If so, then the next case would be Mary Magdalene.  She comes to the sepulchre to annoint Christ, but find his body gone.  She tells Peter and John who come see the body is indeed missing, but they don't believe in the resurrection at that time.

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.  John 20:1-2
Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. John 20:8

Believed what?  Believe the idea that the body had been stolen.

For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. John 20:9

They depart, but Mary stays.

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17

She tells the other disciples, but they are still in a state of denial.
THIRD MALE DISCIPLES
If one is asking about the first male disciple to believe that Jesus is Messiah, then we look at Luke 24 and the two travelers to Emmaus.  Unbeknown to them, it is Jesus who is explaining the scriptures to them, concluding with this question.

Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?  Luke 24:26

But not until the breaking of bread was revelation given.

And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. Luke 24:30-31


How do Roman Catholics reconcile Acts 15:20 with transubstantiation?

Transubstantiation for a Catholic is from the philosophic concept of substance and accidents which could perhaps be phrased reality and appearance.  The substance is the reality of the thing, in this case bread or wine and the accidents is what it appears to be.  During the consecration, each element (bread and wine) are changed in substance while the accidents remain the same so, for example, the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord really and truly in the sacrament while still looking, smelling and tasting like wine.

The question equates the changed wine with the substance & accidents of blood which is not the case here.  The blood referred to here is both blood in accidents and substance.  While the Greek αἷμα can refer to literal blood or those things that refer to blood such as the blood of grapes (eSword G129, Thayers & Strong's), one must take this commentary reference into account:

  20. (in part)... The four classes (also v28; 21:25) seem to be four of the things proscribed by Lev 17-18 for aliens residing in Israel: meat offered to idols, the eating of blood and of strangled animals (not ritually slaughtered) and intercourse with close kin (see Lev 17:8-9, 10-12, 15 [Exod 22:31]; 18:6-18). 21. Supporting the four clauses (gar) is their recognition factor, based on the universal Torah instruction.
  The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, pg 752

This reference to Leviticus is not a sacramental but a literal reference, hence requiring the blood (αἷμα) referred to in the passage to be meant literally as blood and not in some other way, hence there is no contradiction as it might appear on the surface.

This is a good article from the old Catholic Encyclopedia that discusses transubstantiation http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3.


How many wives did Joseph Smith Jr. have in his lifetime?

Polygamy is one of the more difficult subjects to study of early LDS history,  because the environment in which it was practiced necessitated secrecy as a result of the hostility toward the Church and it's usefulness as a polemical tool for the enemies of the Church.  However, credible research is continually trickling out, and we now have some great theories to explain it.  Unfortunately there is enough contradictory evidence that we may never know with 100% certainty what actually happened.

Rather than attempting a full explanation, I'll provide some brief thoughts and references to external sources.

I believe the number of wives is around 27 to 29, with 3-5 being wives he spent any amount of time with.  There are a lot of different opinions out there, so you'll likely get a different answer depending on who you talk to.  FAIRMormon has some excellent documentation on the subject.

Dr. Greg Smith of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research published a fantastic paper in 2005 called, "Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication".  While not specifically commenting on the number of wives Joseph had, he discusses a lot of the historical and contemporary issues surrounding polygamy and why there are so many questions surrounding this.

In 2012, Brian Hales gave a great speech where he also addresses how many wives he thinks Joseph had, including how many were polyandrous marriages.  He also discusses some of the background and theology surrounding the polyandrous marriages, providing some good primary research that he has written about in his multi-volume books.

Richard Lyman Bushman spends a lot of time discussing Joseph's wives and investigating the issues surrounding them in his excellent biography of Joseph called Rough Stone Rolling.


Are there any Christian traditions that say anything about feminism? Under the old traditions women where held to a strict standard. Some could view these standards as a form of oppression. Jesus came to set free the oppressed. Feminism by definition is considered by Webster as "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities". He has said "Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke?" (Isaiah 58:6)

I'm wondering if the topic of feminism is ever discussed or approached with critical, religious perspective within any Christian tradition. Yes it has. For example we can strive for equality, but specific situations may not be received equally. The giving of flowers for example, if a man gives flowers to his wife, this is a gift that is approved of, and if he gives flowers to another mans wife then this action has condemned him. Equally this was the same action. How the action was received however is of opposite values. Or think of the value of a woman giving her man flowers? Does he receive this gesture with the same value as the woman receives this gesture. For me no. I do not receive this gesture the same as the woman, so again an unbalance occurs.

These are special situations in the larger scope, so these specific situations where talked over and a standard way of handling things can be considered agreeable to both sides. Now making offerings are a display of love so a man should not ask for an offering from another mans wife when her husband is present (1 Cor 11:4). For the offering decided by the wife could cause jealousy or envy to her husband. And likewise a wife shouldn't ask another man for an offering when her husband is with her, for isn't that display of Love best to be reserved for the husband to display to his wife? Is it not better that she ask of her husband, then it be for him to ask? So that he is the one that presents it to her? (1 Cor 11:5). Therefore if the woman refuses her husband this glory she causes disgrace to herself (1 Cor 11:6). Also a man should not have his wife ask for the offering, for God finds Glory in offering to the man (1 Cor 11:7). Now we find that it is good for the woman to have the power of choice, since in the days of old the angels took advantage of the woman and had them as wives (Gen 6:4, 1 Cor 11:10). The needs of husband and the wife should be considered the same (1 Cor 11:11-12).

It is true that under the old law. That the husband was to rule over his wife (Genesis 3:16). Under the new covenant however, the least will be the greatest (Luke 9:48) negating the power of the authority given to man, for if in service grace is to be given, then the man and the woman serve each other in unity.

In the Gospel of Thomas it states:
"Jesus saw some little ones nursing. He said to his disciples, "These little ones who are nursing resemble is those who enter the kingdom." They said to him, "So shall we enter the kingdom by being little ones?" Jesus said to them, "When you (plur.) make the two one and make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside and the above like the below, and that you might make the male and the female be one and the same, so that the male might not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye and a hand in place of a hand and a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image - then you will enter [the kingdom]." (Gospel of Thomas Saying 22)

"Simon Peter said to them, "Mary should leave us, for females are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "See, I am going to attract her to make her male so that she too might become a living spirit that resembles you males. For every female (element) that makes itself male will enter the kingdom of heaven." (Gospel of Thomas Saying 114)


Do Christian denominations vary in interpreting whether an act is sinful or not?

There is a tremendous amount of agreement across all denominations that certain actions are always sinful: murder, adultery, idolatry, blasphemy, etc.

There are also a number of actions that are viewed differently by the various Christian traditions.  (This list is nowhere near complete...)

Baptist denominations generally believe it is wrong to drink alcohol except for medicinal purposes.
The Roman Catholic church teaches that birth control is wrong.
I have heard some individual pastors teach that "rock music" is always sinful.
There's a song titled If Your Hair’s Too Long, There’s Sin in Your Heart.  While it's intended to be comedy, all good comedy is funny because it's based in truth (not that I personally think long hair is a sin, but I have known people who did).
Seventh Day Adventist hold church services on Saturday instead of Sunday.
Many Church of Christ churches do not use musical instruments.

I'm not sure all of those things are considered "sin" by the groups that avoid them, but if you look at the differences between traditions, you'll be able to find more areas where they differ on their understanding of what is considered sinful.