With reference to the passage--"Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven," and the Reverend gentleman's remarks thereon, I wish to say, in passing, that the antithesis between man and God in the passage extends merely to the fact that the source of Peter's revelation was God, not man; and is no attempt at defining a difference between the nature of God and the nature of man. Here also I may say that the Latter-day Saints do not hold that God is a personage of _flesh_ and _blood_, but a personage of _flesh and bone_, inhabited by a spirit, just as Jesus was after his resurrection. Joseph Smith taught concerning the resurrection that "all [men] will be raised by the power of God, having _spirit_ in their bodies, and not _blood_."[A] Again, in speaking of the general assembly and church of the first born in heaven (Heb. 12:23), he said: "Flesh and blood cannot go there; but flesh and bones, quickened by the Spirit of God, can."[B] So that it must be remembered throughout this discussion that the Latter-day Saints do not believe that God is a personage of flesh and blood; but a personage of flesh and bone and spirit, united. [Footnote A: Discourse delivered at Nauvoo, March 20, 1842. _Mill. Star_, Vol. xix, p. 213.] [Footnote B: Discourse delivered at Nauvoo, Oct. 9, 1843. _Mill. Star_, Vol. xxii, p. 231.] I would remind the reader, also, that while Jesus said, "God is a spirit," and that a spirit "hath nor flesh and bone as ye see me have," he nowhere says that a spirit is immaterial or not substance. That is a conclusion drawn by the theologians from the false philosophy of the ancient pagans. But let us examine these premises and arguments of Mr. Van Der Donckt, more in detail. The inspired apostle says: "_Our God is a consuming fire_" (Heb. 12:29). "Now," to use the words of Mr. V., "although we must believe whatever God reveals to us upon one single word of his, just as firmly as upon a thousand; nevertheless, I will add" that Moses, who solemnly received the word from God which he delivered unto Israel, also says, "_The Lord thy God is a consuming fire_" (Exod. 4:24). Is Mr. V. ready to believe on these solemn assertions of scripture--hence of the Lord--that God is a fire, and therefore that fire is God? Or would he insist upon interpreting these passages by others, and by reason? Would he not want to quote Moses again where he says, "Thy God is * * * _as_ a consuming fire" (Ex. 9:3), and accept this as a reasonable interpretation of the passage stating so definitely that "God is a fire"?