3DOP

Did you mean to ask about the possibility of His infertility? The presumption is that He was fully healthy, with all of His human parts working. As I said above, I have never heard of anyone denying the Lord's reproductive capacity, but maybe some Christians do. Catholic and Orthodox Christians adhere to the First Seven Ecumenical councils. The Council of Chalcedon spoke definitively about Christ's human nature in 451 A.D. in response to a movement to try to diminish the humanity of Christ. "...we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin;" If there was a question about Christ being sterile, Catholics and Orthodox, would need to modify the definitive statement above to read "...like us in all respects except for sin and a faulty reproductive system." The whole point is that Christ is 100% human, except he is sinless. But for those who agree with Chalcedon, it says "perfect in humanity". The Lord Jesus had everything humans ordinarily have. He had all the parts and they were healthy parts. Perfectly human. The next century would see further attacks on Christ's human perfection, saying that He lacked a human will. That idea needed a council to settle the matter too. Admittedly, we do not have a Council to say specifically that Christ's sexual organs worked. But it seems to be inferred from what I have quoted. in the 6th Century, I could have seen the reasonableness of suggesting that Jesus could only have one will, and that it would be according to His divinity. But how easy it would be to obey the Father with only the same will as the Father. No. How could we imitate Him if He lacked a human will? No. He came to teach us how to live as fully human to conform our wills with God's will, as He did. To live a life of chastity, as He did, with all of the same natural urges, temptations, illnesses, hunger, weariness, and any other difficulty that can cause us to stumble. He prayed like us too. He shows us how to to offer up our bodies, a living sacrifice, our reasonable service. (Rom 12:1 and 2) He is our perfect Captain and Brother who has experienced everything that we have experienced, except for sin. We should already love Him for all of that. And then comes Gethsemane and beyond! What a glorious and beneficent Saviour. Praise Him. Rory

Infertility.

I cannot think of any Christian community that teaches that the Lord had such a human defect.

By the way...and maybe this is cleared up already. I need to read the rest of the thread. I figured that Ft. Luke Hanson was just a typo for Fr. (Father) Luke Hanson. Fort Luke Hanson? No big deal...but what else does "Ft." stand for?

I am late to this thread. I watched the whole video tonight in October. A thought or two...I liked the serene and thoughtful presentation. Hi cal. Dave Waltz doesn't look at this site much anymore (nor do I, I might point him to it. We talk.). But both of us think there is a lot of value in comparing Islamic and LDS and Catholic claims together. I am uncomfortable with comparisons to be characterized as ridiculous. There are significant ways in which we are closer to Islam. Creation ex nihilo is big, I have seen a lot of posts on this forum which characterize that as ridiculous. To be fair, I wonder if that fuels some of the apparent Catholic favortism towards Islam. I am at odds with what most devout Catholics think the Catholic Church teaches, for accepting every baptism that uses the correct form (the form is the words used) except for the LDS. Why be confident that my Baptist baptism from a man who would vehemently deny that a Catholic should accept it? (There are some good arguments). I am conditionally baptised, but think my original baptism was probably valid. I would suggest that these norms should also apply to LDS baptisms. I hold that more non-Catholics should be conditionally baptised upon being received into the Church. Lutherans and Anglicans and Presbyterians aure. But most Catholics, incliuding the hierarchy seem pretty ignorant of the wacky stuff that is taught in some Evangelical circles. Still, we can't repeat baptism. So I say the same for LDS. To say that every LDS baptism seems difficult to support. I am glad to be conditionally baptised. But I would hesiatate to say I was never baptised. It seems like I would feel the same way as an LDS. I share my intellectual journey with hardly any living person except Dave. In the 90's, after our conversions, our kids and my wife would make remarks about "Daddy's Church", whenever we would pass an LDS....I don't even know what you call it, a Stake? It was a good joke. Anyway, one of your red brick buildings. Most of my fellow Catholics would think my interest in Islam in the early 90's coupled with an interest in your own faith would be ridiculous. I put out feelers rarely. I have one friend here in Kansas, a young fellow Catholic, under 40, who sees why I would have ever taken the LDS claims seriously. I think we need to be patient with our fellow religionists regarding their ignorance of other faith claims. I think very few of your fellow LDS are well-informed about Catholic thought. As I approach my "golden years", I have a little bit of envy toward my fellows who have never seemed called to wrestle with the issues that separate us. All the camps have good people who try to follow Christ, and who adore, and praise, and thank Him, even while being ignorant of the nuances of other ways of Christian beliefs. God save us and make us One in Him, as He prayed. Rory

Agreed Pyreaux. There seems to be an assumption on Christ's part that we have enemies, human enemies. For instance, by being politically liberal, I will have enemies. By being politically conservative, I will have enemies. An enemy is anyone who has ill will towards me. Our challenge, if we would love our enemies as the Lord instructs us, does not necessarily involve having great affection for them, but to wish them well. I know that I have been guilty of being glad when someone for whom I had an aversion, stumbled and fell, for example. I was unloving, unChristlike. I was his enemy at that point. He may never have been aware of it. If we would love our enemies, or those we don't like because they are constantly talking about murders and economic disaster, or other depressing news, we need to avoid malice towards them. It is very hard to feel affection towards them, and I have no guilt about having aversion to such persons. But if everyone is my brother or sister through Christ's coming in the flesh, uniting Himself with each of us, as my faith teaches, I must love them. To love only means to want the best for them for Christ's sake, which is to say for TRUTH'S sake. By God's grace we can love those who are naturally repulsive to us (for what might be good reasons), and especially if we detect that they have actual malice towards us. God tests us and tries to perfect us by placing these kinds of people in our lives. God is pleased when we wish well to those who treat us well. But He asks us for something more which does not come naturally. I do not believe I am capable of it on my own. I need help to do that which is beyond my nature. I need my faith and God's grace to be able to make real in my mind and will that He is only asking us to behave towards others, how He has behaved towards us. He wishes the best for everyone! That is the ultimate test of our Christian faith. What will we do or wish for those who make us disgusted, or hurt us and our loved ones? This is what it means to be perfect, because God is perfect. God is love.

If I understand correctly, it is definitely a good trait in Catholic spirituality to be skeptical about our own subjective experiences. Why else would the Church recommend that we observe rules for what is called in our lingo, "discerning of spirits"? On the other hand, I am seeing that the Church, through the Holy Spirit, is being guided more and more to seeing that modern man, more than before perhaps, needs an experience. An experience of Christ and His whole eternal history together with the Event; of His entry into out history as the Second Adam. I am saying that to properly live a life faithful to Catholic beliefs, the Catholic needs what in LDS lingo is called "a testimony". This testimony does not prove the faith, but it can demonstrate to individuals that faith is reasonable.

Navidad, hi. I avoid participating in the Evagelical-LDS discussions. But it is currently the only thing for me to read here. I could wish that you would hang around and "stir the pot"! I have missed your presence. You have understood my journey like no one else here, for reasons only you and I could well understand. I am glad to see you are active and doing well. God bless, Rory

All of us who claim to follow Christ have to recognize Him in everyone. He is one of us! We don't have to be loving our neighbors excusively through prisons and finding someone in rags. If we don't love our affluent neighbors, we are in trouble. We have to love our enemies we are told. This Christ event needs to be experienced in our hearts in such a way that we feel a communion toward the one who checks us out at the cash register, or the fellow who cut us off at an intersection. I am not a universalist. When I say that all men are our brothers and sisters, I admit that there are living members of Christ's Body. These have been made alive through baptism (regeneration) and faith. I do not see that Christ is saying that every prisoner and poor person is saved, merely because He identifies with them. But those who keep the second most important commandment, to love their neighbor, can be saved two ways. Either in ignorance of the theology, but having a good heart towards all through Him they do not know through no fault of their own. Or in eager obedience to Him they love, desire to see Him they love in every person that crosses their path in one way or another in all times and places. This is true religion, according to St. James, to visit the fatherless and widows. True religion can be practiced, without true theology. One more thing. I have been anti-communist all of my life. But this way of thinking makes me consider what I have in common with modern day Marxists (who identify with different political movements). It starts with social justice, seeking a better common good for all. Ultimately, I can never believe in a political utopia that does not crush the individual. Still, I try to see a way that I find unity with the communist because of the reality of the Man-Christ that Christians profess. To deny the use of political power, does not need to make me deny the good thing the communist wants. Truly Christian are those who promote this unity and love of the One who in a certain sense unites all humanity, as the only way to promote peace and unity among enemies, nations, and our obnoxious neighbors. The common good, a healthy society, depends on individuals living the reality of the One who was celebrated by the Angels near Bethlehem before shepherds who might have been theologically deficient. Heh. 3DOP PS: I forget my youth. I called myself an atheist and denied that countries existed. No borders. More of an anarchist, but I haven't always been "anti-communist" as I say above. Still journeying. Where is Bukowski? Rory

"If salvation depends on correct theology, at what point in the Christian walk do you know enough to be truly saved?" When our Lord separates the sheep from the goats, of the goats He says that He never knew some who had thought they were serving Him, Why was that, it wasn't because of their lack of Christology, it was because they failed to clothe, feed, or help those who were in need. Jesus explains that He was identified with the least of them, and inasmuch as they didn't help their neighbours in need, they didn't help Him. Even more interesting are some of the sheep. Some are as surprised as the goats who thought they were serving Him. They ask, "When did we clothe, feed, or visit you in prison?" Same answer, in the sense that Jesus identifies Himself with the least of our neighbours. "When you gave that cup of cold water, you did it to Me." There is a lot of theology in explaining this way of division at the Judgment, about how and why Jesus answers both as He does. But without going any deeper, it seems obvious from this deep and mysterious passage, that we are not saved by theology! I am not among those non-Mormons who deny salvation to everyone who is separated from my Church or her doctrine. I would say it is a big help to belong to the true Church, with the true priestly Sacraments. But it is no guarantee. Also, my Church teaches that we cannot identify with certainty that any individual is suffering the loss of their salvation in Hell. That is another reason I am confident that I am on safe ground as a Catholic, denying that I will be saved if all I do is to merely continue to maintain orthodox theology through my Church. 3DOP