Hooberus - What does the very next paragraph from the Lectures on Faith say? This does look rather incriminating, but Joseph Smith has taught from the very beginning that God the Father has a body. When he wrote that he was a "personage of spirit" he didn't intend for anyone to interpret that He had no body. Many years later he started using "personage of spirit" to denote a bodiless state, and that's when he made the clarification with the Holy Spirit. I don't expect anyone to accept my explanation, but nothing on or off this earth could convince you that you're wrong anyway; you've already made your decision and you're just going to filter out the evidence that doesn't agree with your idea. That's a common fallacy that dogmatic people fall into. I realize that you're going to say I'm the same way, so save it; and I could point out contradictions in the Bible all day long, but that's not going to change how you think about it. Argumentum ad hominem is pretty useless, although it seems to be the recourse most often utilized by politicians and Christians.
"It must be said - though I say it with the deepest sorrow - that the cold exclusiveness of the Pharisee, the bitter ignorance of the self-styled theologian, the usurped infallibility of the half-educated religionist, have ever been the curse of Christianity. They have imposed the senses of men upon the words of God; the special sense of men on the general words of God; and have tried to enforce them on all men's consciences with all kinds of burnings and anathemas under equal threates of death and damnation. And thus they incurred the terrible responsibility of presenting religion to mankind in a false and repellent guise. Is theological hatred still to be a proverb for the world's just contempt? Is such hatred - hatred in its most base and ruthless form - to be regarded as the legitimate outcome of the religion of love? Is the spirit of peace never to be brought to bear on religious opinions? Are such questions always to incite the most intense animosities, the most terrible divisions? Is the world to be forever confirmed in its opinion that the theological partisans are less truthfull, less candid, less high-minded, less honorable even than the partisans of political and social causes, who make no profession as to the duty of love? Are the so-called 'religious champions' to be forever as they are now, the most unscrupulously bitter, the most conspicuously unfair? Alas! They might be so with far less danger to the cause of religion if they would forego the luxury of 'quoting scripture' for their purpose."
- Canon Farrar
I was under the impression that this forum was for repectable debate, but when someone asserts a belief that is unorthodox in the eyes of others, they get attacked. I assert my beliefs without specifically telling anyone else they're wrong. I believe that is respect; but I get nothing in return except for people telling me they think they know more about my religion than I do. I know more about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than anyone in this forum. The automatic response will be another ad hominem answer: "Oh, you're real humble, aren't you!?!" Well, I invite anyone who wants to to prove me wrong. I will answer any doubts based only on the knowledge I already have in my head, but I invite you to go study whatever sources you have access to if you think you can stump me.
deputy dog - your argument does just as much to disprove your argument as it does to disprove my argument. If you want to assert that you know the nature of God you're gonna have to toss that reasoning out. And I don't lean solely on scripture for my understanding. A prophet of the Lord has revealed the true nature of God. That is the pattern throughout the Bible, but few people actually believe in what the Bible preaches.
