MrShorty

Agreed, the nature of the infinite God is far beyond what the finite brain can comprehend, let alone what the finite brain can explain in human words. That being said, if someone who doesn't believe in the Trinity asks me to explain it, me simply saying that it can't be explained would be a disappointing answer to anyone and everyone. So, I explain it the best I can, but at some point, it is beyond human words. Some say that if it can't be understood completely, it doesn't make sense to believe it and/or is probably not true. However, wouldn't one expect that the fullness of the very nature of God would be beyond human comprehension? I think so. I believe that if man could fully understand the nature of God, it would probably be a god that man himself made up because God would be bigger than the man He created.
So in short, yes I can't fully understand or explain it. But no, I don't see that as a problem, but rather I see it as a strength.
*I am not saying that you think this way or are arguing this way. However, I know a lot of people do think this way, and there are probably a few of them trudging through this thread.

Here's my simple understanding of the Godhead:
1. The Father is God.
2. The Son is God.
3. The Holy Spirit is God.
4. There is only one God.
Conclusion: The three persons are the one God.
Of course we agree on this points. Your church says the oneness of God is of purpose, and that is sufficient. Trinitarians say that the oneness must somehow be of shared substance. This, to my estimation, is the crux of our disagreement. Whether being wrong is damnable or not is what often gets debated. Clearly, it is important enough that we do not share sacraments, pulpits, or membership. At least here, we behave Christianly towards one another.

Always happy to explain  First, there are three things to understand:
1) Jesus was fully God (John 4:49, Matthew 28:20, Matthew 8:26-27, John 8:58, and a whole lot more)
2) Jesus was fully man (1 John 4:2, 2 John 7) and therefore experienced human emotions (John 4:6, John 19:28, Matthew 4:2, John 11:35)
3) The Son is relationally subordinate to the father, meaning that His job is to do the will of the father, never the other way around (Luke 22:42, Hebrews 10:7). However, no part of the Trinity is inferior in nature or essence. (Matthew 28:19, John 10:30)
Yes, God is three distinct persons eternally existing as one being, or essence (John 1:1-5).
So here's where I actually answer the question: Jesus prayed to the Father, who is a separate person. In His combination of divineness and humanness, He knew the pain he was going to go through and didn't want to go through it. However, because He was sent to do the Father's will, and they are one being or essence, He asks the Father, " Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done" (Luke 22:42).
 
 

Just as Creedal Christians frequently misunderstand our LDS view of God, I think we frequently misunderstand theirs.  Hence, I like to make the effort to go a couple extra miles and understand and respect Creedal beliefs there-- after all treat people how you would like to be treated.  
The idea that the Father/Son/Spirit are all the same one person put in different roles is an idea known as "modalism", and is regarded as heresy by Trinitarian theologians.   The Trinity actually teaches the the Father/Son/Spirt are three different persons.  Now that's not to say you can't find a person sitting Catholic* pew that actually mistakenly believes modalism-- they do totally exist.  But them holding that modalism belief is their own flawed understanding, and not reflective formal Catholic teaching.    (*Catholic here is just an example faith).
Also, even when working with people who do actually believe in the three-person-in-one-God Trinity, that they frequently struggle to communicate that belief.  Heck, we LDS run into the same problem-- human language rather sucks at conveying God.  And you'll get people who describe the same thing from different angles, so to an outsider at first glance it looks like they're describing very different things.  Again, we LDS run into the same language flaws, as seen in this very thread.  

My dad is a math genius.  Almost savant-like.  I love that guy but he can't teach math worth a crap.  I got good math skills but I'm a terrible math teacher too - I get easily frustrated when my kid doesn't "see it".  Luckily, my eldest gets it quickly.  My youngest doesn't get it.  I can't teach him - his brains just doesn't work the same way mine and my other kid do.
When I researched middle schools for my kids, I talked to the math teachers.  The arts school had a mediocre math teacher but she wasn't too bad.  But since this was for my eldest kid, I put priority on the "arts" of the art school and supplemented math instruction at home.  The science and technology school math teachers were great!  My youngest did super well there but I still supplemented specialized instruction at home designed for my specific child's brain processes to fill a few gaps.  They're both in high school now and I don't do anything with their school anymore.  They're completely on their own.  I felt they are sufficiently skilled in How To Think.  I believe this is where education in the US is mostly lacking (public or private) - they concentrate more on teaching a kid What to Think rather than How to Think.
My favoritest math teacher when I was in school was that guy who taught us how to extract square root without the help of calculators, then on the term test asked us to extract a cube root.  If you simply learned What to Do in extracting square roots instead of learning How to Do... you're gonna fail his class.

I would note that, if such a statement is sufficient to make a claim to monotheism, this sounds a lot to me like D&C 20:28
JohnsonJones apparently understands the arguments for and against Trinitarianism as monotheism better than I do. It seems to me that, the same kinds of arguments towards Mormonism accepting a polytheistic label can apply to Trinitarianism as well. The same kinds of arguments that are used to defend Trinitarianism as monotheistic can also apply to Mormonism.

Well, if I remember correctly, she's had some run-ins with the law over time for ID theft and whatnot.  What other secular crimes do you believe she's committed?  Trespassing maybe?  Regardless, nothing I can do about it.  If I have some righteous yelling to do, I'm going to spend it on people in a position of sacred trust harming innocents in their care.  If someone is just trespassing, I'll call @mirkwood to handle it and go to my next class.
Mortal justice for sin?  I don't even get what that means. 
 
Anyway, I put myself to the Elder Oaks test to see if I'm doing good.  What do you think?
First, a righteous judgment must, by definition, be intermediate. 
- I'm not judging Bishop's (or Denson's) worth or value.  I'm speaking out against acts committed by folks in a sacred position of trust.
Second, a righteous judgment will be guided by the Spirit of the Lord, not by anger, revenge, jealousy, or self-interest. 
- I started being personally impacted by the evil actions of people in a position of trust as a teenager.  As I moved through my growing discipleship and testimony, learning about the subject, I began speaking publicly in my late '20's.  I know a lot of victims and perpetrators.  I have useful things to say, and yes indeed, I've felt the spirit as I've shared.  Right now, in fact.  There is a time and place for loud, righteous, condemnation of certain things.  And here, as we talk about the subject, I'm thinking this is one of those times.
Third, to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship. 
The church is big on urging us to speak out on important topics in our social circles and communities.  Mormonhub is one such place.  It is absolutely in my stewardship to have my voice be heard, as I stand up and loudly proclaim that if you're in a position of sacred trust, no really, it's extra horrible if you take some young female missionary aside and try to do something untoward.  Suzie is making a point that if you put all the stuff everyone is saying in two piles, comments against Denson's actions fills a swimming pool, comments against Bishop's actions fills a shot glass.  I don't think she's wrong, and I do think her point is important.
Fourth, we should, if possible, refrain from judging until we have adequate knowledge of the facts. 
The main point of contention here, I think.  Denson's court stuff has been mostly thrown out.  Bishop will probably never face trial.  If there's church discipline, we'll probably only hear about it through dirty tricks.  But all that said, it seems a reasonably righteous judgment that Bishop did something wrong.  We don't know what.  But to say he did nothing wrong, has been pretty dang hard to justify for a while now.   "Bishop probably did something wrong to Denson".  I think that's a righteous judgment at this stage in the game. 
A fifth principle of a righteous intermediate judgment is that whenever possible we will refrain from judging people and only judge situations. 
I'm specifically talking about the situation where a person in a position of sacred trust does something bad.  It's worse than a random person doing something bad.  That's the situation I'm judging.  I don't know what Bishop did, or why he did it.  I don't know what Denson did in response, or why she did it.  Situation - MTC President X probably did something bad.
Sixth, forgiveness is a companion principle 
Very, very important.  I remember struggling for a year on this one.  When I was finally able to pray for the people who had damaged and hurt someone I loved, when I could pray for their healing, pray that they might be able to get past this stuff in this life... When I could pray for them out of love - well - I think of my life as what happened before that forgiveness/Mount Everest moment, and my life after that moment.  Yes, a thousand times yes - we all must forgive.
Seventh, a final ingredient or principle of a righteous judgment is that it will apply righteous standards. 
You tell me - which standard here is not righteous?  1. Sexual immorality is bad.   2. Someone in a position of sacred trust doing anything involving sexual immorality is bad.  
I'm thinking righteous judgments here.  I'm also thinking it's important to see what I'm actually saying, and not saying.

Suzie explicitly stated state condemning Bishop... that is a person... not a behavior (Yes condemning him because of his behavior but it she is still asking for condemnation of him)
Simple Suzie wants the condemnation of Bishop to match the condemnation that is give to Hughes (Go read her post again if you are unclear on this complaint note again a condemnation of a person)
Bishop has been held accountable as he is going to be by Mortal authority.  His judgement is now divine.  The Church has condemned the behavior, the Church has altered its policies and processes to try to stop such behavior and/or catch such sooner, and the Church has faced/is currently facing Mortal Authorities for whatever role it played.  Thus those that have been accused by Hughes have been held accountable as much as it is mortally possible to do so using the principles of Mortal Justice and Mortal Rule of Law.
Where is Hughes being held accountable for her actions?  Where is the Mortal Justice for her crimes and sin?  There is a mismatch... but it does not favor Bishop or the church.
   

Two opposing thoughts about the "miracle of lengthening a day"
1) Do I believe the account in Josh 10 is a literal, historical, factual (as a 21st century man would understand those terms) account or not. This gets at the question of Biblical literalism that I mentioned. Do I believe that the sun and moon really "froze" in their apparent motions? Or do I believe that the "author" of Joshua exaggerated the event as a way of saying, "See! Our God is bigger than your god(s)!" (which, I have read elsewhere, was not uncommon among "historians" of this time period).
Considering that the account was written to a people believing in a geocentric universe, am I supposed to read the account as if it occurred in a geocentric universe or knowing what I know in the 21st century about astronomical motions (including Newton-like laws)?
2) If I assume a 21st century interpretation of the miracle in Josh 10, I see that God would have to suspend a lot of natural laws of motion in order to cause the sun and moon to temporarily cease their "motions", and then suspend those laws again when those motions are restarted 24 hours later. Wikipedia notes that the radioactive decay at the heart of radiometric dating is controlled almost exclusively by nuclear forces inside of the atom. From my limited perspective, I don't see anything about suspending planetary scale laws of motion that necessitates suspending/altering the laws that control radioactive decay, but that doesn't mean that and omnipotent, omniscient God knows or acts according to my limited knowledge.
As I have noted elsewhere, the real challenge posed by these kinds of miracles, IMO, seems to be to challenge the basic tenet of science -- uniformitarianism. Using a miracle like Josh 10 sounds to me like "uniformitarianism is only good back to some great miracle/catastrophe when God completely disrupts natural law, then what do I do?". I can assume that I can extrapolate across the gap, so that my known laws extend before and after the miracle as if the miracle did not occur (which seems to be what we mostly do). But questions like this come across to me as saying that one should not extrapolate across the discontinuity. The argument then seems to come in favor Biblical literalism, which, as I noted, I am not sold on.
What parts of science do I accept? It's all good back to Joshua, but science has nothing to say about the universe before Joshua?
 

Not sure how that follows.  I'm joining Suzie in speaking out against behavior.  And I'm especially calling out behavior from someone in a position of trust, as an extra level of serious.  
Well, there are a few more facts than that.  A second accuser.   Denson's knowledge of the room with the bed.  Confirmation that the room with the bed did indeed exist at the timeframe in question.  Those lend credibility to claims that something untoward happened.  Yeah, we don't know what.  And Denson's credibility just seems to get worse and worse every time she opens her mouth.  But yeah, there's enough for the church to say something like "We share the anger and distress Church members and others feel to learn of incidents where those entrusted with sacred responsibilities violate God’s commandments and harm others. Such behavior is repulsive and sinful.", and there's enough for me to get all loud about betrayals from the hands of someone in a position of trust.  
Oookaayyyy... I don't get how you that follows from what I said either.  It's pretty clear at this stage that Bishop did something bad.  It's also pretty clear that Denson is troubled, unreliable, untrustworthy, and a liar.  This isn't an either-or thing.  It's possible for this to be a both-and thing.  
 

You and I have no disagreement here, Suzie.  And you don't stand alone here.  If ever there was something that deserved some all-caps yelling, it would be a friggin PRESIDENT OF THE MTC doing something untoward with a young sister missionary.  You stand on your rooftop and shout, I'll stand on mine.  No really, on the list of betrayals, something like this is near the top.  Akin to being molested by your father.  
So yeah, let's print this out in a big 500 foot banner and have the plane that carries the space shuttle fly it around the country:
Church Statement About Alleged Sexual Assault by Former Mission President - 23 March 2018:
 

My take is a little different. I feel very bad for all parties and families involved. Having said that, I didn't like the Church statement. I think Eric Hawkins could have done a better job at phrasing it.  It sounded like an angry statement to me which I think it was not necessarily given the nature of the allegation.
But what I am upset the most, is the fact that the Bishop allegedly made some sort of confession to the police and another woman came forward with more allegations.  And yet, even though this man confessed asking this missionary to expose her breasts to him no one bats an eye. If he has been living a lie for all these years, who is to say he did not in fact rape her? Of course, it is pure conjecture but you get my point.
I'm upset that all I see online about this case  is condemnation towards her,  people choosing to dig about her past,  condemnation at the fact that she recorded the public shaming in sacrament meeting, etc and YET I have NOT seen online the SAME amount of condemnation about the CONFESSION of this Bishop. Disappointing to say the least.
 

I would note that, if such a statement is sufficient to make a claim to monotheism, this sounds a lot to me like D&C 20:28
JohnsonJones apparently understands the arguments for and against Trinitarianism as monotheism better than I do. It seems to me that, the same kinds of arguments towards Mormonism accepting a polytheistic label can apply to Trinitarianism as well. The same kinds of arguments that are used to defend Trinitarianism as monotheistic can also apply to Mormonism.

I would note that, if such a statement is sufficient to make a claim to monotheism, this sounds a lot to me like D&C 20:28
JohnsonJones apparently understands the arguments for and against Trinitarianism as monotheism better than I do. It seems to me that, the same kinds of arguments towards Mormonism accepting a polytheistic label can apply to Trinitarianism as well. The same kinds of arguments that are used to defend Trinitarianism as monotheistic can also apply to Mormonism.

Ironically, Trinitarianism is closest to HINDUISM, NOT a monotheistic religion.  If Trinitarians were Monotheistic they would hold views closer to either Judaism's view or Islams view.  Very few Christian religions actually fall under Monotheistic belief.
This is why they are called Trinitarian.
Hindu varies between sects (just like Mormons).  Their main deific characters, however, are a trinity.  They are three separate beings, but each, though separate, is also a different aspect or being of the same being.  In some beliefs (or sects), they are three separate distinct beings, but generated of the same substance (sound familiar?).  Trinitarian Christians do NOT believe in Modalism (though some Hindu sects also believe in Modalism in their deific three) typically, and thus believe that there are three separate individual Deities (even if they are consubstantial).
Latter-day Saints believe very similarly, however, they do not believe that the three in one are consubstantial, or so Mormons claim.
IRONICALLY, if we get to what consubstantial actually means, the gap between Mormons and Trinitarians becomes far closer. 
Consubstantial is almost normally utilized exclusively to the trinity...and people just accept it without asking what it means.
One other term that is used regularly and from which it springs is Homoousion.  This is used to indicate that the Son is generated of the same substance as the Father, but not necessarily of the same essence as the Father.
What is this substance than? 
The creed holds that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit too) are Distinct personages (NOT monotheistic) that are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial (from Homoousion in the Greek).
Modalists believe more on what the Sabellius promoted who was a splinter group of the Athanasians, which was that the trinity is actually ONE individual acting in different roles.
Mormons on the otherhand, believe that the Father and the Son are distinct personages, but are not necessarily co-equal (this does not mean they are not co-equal either, Mormons have that they have different roles or purposes).  They believe that the Father is head of all things and THE GOD, while the Son is the Son of God (and thus also a God as a son is made of the same type of stuff his father is, for example, I am human and my son is human, thus Jesus as the Son of God is also a God).  We also believe the Son created the Earth and all there is, but under the command/direction of the Father, thus the Son is also the Father of creation.  In the bible we believe that when it says Jehovah, this is form of Jesus Christ before he condescended to be born of Mary.  The Father is a separate individual.
They are both sects of Christianity, and the views are very similar, yet each sect feels they are different enough to be exclusive to their own set of beliefs.
I would say the Trinity is just as polytheistic in it's belief as Mormonism.  Only Modalists could really claim to be Monotheistic.
The claim that Mormons are polytheistic because they believe that the Saints can become Deities themselves, I find is rubbish.  We do not hold that we replace God, or that we become him.
Instead we get our information from verses like this in the New Testament
John 10 25-39
And Romans 8 13-25
So you can see the context of what was spoken and how it was spoken (KJV).
We, thus, do NOT believe we replace the Father, but that we are the Children of God and as such, Joint Heirs with Christ (and what was Christ the Heir of?).
Thus, to me, the claim that we are polytheistic because we believe this is not a valid claim, however the claim that we are polytheistic similar to a claim that Trinitarians are polytheistic holds more truth.
If a Trinitarian claims to be monotheistic, than the same would apply to a Mormon in my estimation.

Here's an interesting article on 14C creation rates being much lower than previously believed. If carbon dating didn't use lots of other kinds of historical and physical ways to confirm age, this might be an argument in favor of the young-earthers who claim that C-14 dating provides dates much too old.
https://www.llnl.gov/news/atmospheric-carbon-14-measurements-reveal-natural-production-rate-cosmic-rays

I understand this, but I have also seen some outside of Christianity (Muslims or Jews) who have accused Trinitarianism as also being polytheistic, so it seems that there are some who do not "define" Trinitarianism as monotheistic. I cannot speak to the deep theological and philosophical arguments that get made. I suspect, MaryJehanne, if you can understand why Catholics and Protestants bristle when Muslims or Jews accuse them of being polytheistic, you can kind of understand why Mormons bristle when traditional Christians accuse us of being polytheistic.

This I agree with whole-heartedly.  
This is a two-edged sword.  I frequently find this forum to be entirely inhospitable to people like myself who do not subscribe to the more orthodox/traditionalist/literalist leanings of the Church membership[1].  And there was a time where my continued participation in the Church in general was at risk because a number of the participants here had me convinced that I was not welcome (unless I changed my ways).
1. One recent example, 
 

I hope that we don't always assume that everyone who asks a question (or a certain type of question) is a rabble rouser. I am reminded of this recent BYU devotional where Professor Huntsman ask us to make spaces (doesn't necessarily have to be Sunday School, though I am not convinced that it could not sometimes be Sunday School) "where our sisters and brothers can safely question, seek understanding, and share their pain." (https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/eric-d-huntsman_hard-sayings-and-safe-spaces-making-room-for-both-struggle-and-faith/ ). I don't think that assuming that the questioner must be some kind of rabble rouser is conducive to building these kind of spaces.

I have a facebook arguing buddy, who married a lady who now says she's a man named George.  I just plain out asked my buddy to help me with pronouns.  He thanked me, and said "George uses male pronouns".  
I have yet to actually meet either of them face to face, I'm still not sure what I'd do.  The second great commandment is to love thy neighbor as thyself.  I don't know crap about this person, what they're like, their beliefs and loves and fears.  The only thing I know is that folks going through gender transitions tend to have lots and lots of problems, up to and including suicide rates off the charts.  I don't think I'd go in trying to be insulting, openly refusing to call George 'him' and making a big deal about it.  I'd probably just plain admit that I still feel totally awkward and don't know what to do.  Then I'd tell a funny story about my facebook buddy from our youth that this person would probably find funny.
All that said, encouraging people to have problems that simply aren't there for most people, sort of makes me a tad disrespectful.  I dunno.  You figure it out and come tell us! 

I understand your concern, and I don't blame you. But keep in mind that relationships between human beings are not like ownership of used cars or old houses. An individual human being is infinitely precious, worth much more than this planet we live on. We must never allow ourselves to gauge other people like we might examine a horse or an automobile or a piece of property we were thinking about acquiring.
That said, you're a fool if you go into a relationship with your eyes shut. In this case, that's your brother's call, not yours. Worrying (privately) about him is fine, but your duty is to support and love him.
To answer your question, I know that in the early history of the Church, during the polygamy days, the brethren did sometimes marry women whose husbands had left them or who had left their husbands. I don't think that really has anything to do with your brother's situation, though. If people can overcome their painful and often damaging experiences in life, they can achieve true greatness. This applies as much to your brother's fiancée as it does to him, or to you, or me, or anyone else.

However, in a sense of levity, I would also say that most of the questions you use as examples are not particularly difficult.  If I were teaching and these questions came up, I'd probably give answers such as the following and move on without really discussing
How did Noah get all the animals on the ark?  If you're a biblical literalist, then I don't know.  Probably some lost ordinance that was scrubbed from the record with the promise never to flood the world again.  If you're not a biblical literalist, then he probably didn't.  Moving on now.
How about dinosaurs? If you're a biblical literalist, then dinosaurs are evidence that God is perpetrating a fraud against humanity. If you're not a biblical literalist, then dinosaurs are irrelevant to our discussion. Moving on now.
Why is the sacrament passed to the Bishop first? TraditIOOOOOOON! TRADITION!   (yes, I'd sing Fiddler on the Roof).  Moving on now.
Did Jonah really get swallowed by a fish? Don't be silly.  Of course he didn't.  Moving on now.

So, first I will say I made a wise choice going with the staff member and his family. It was pretty easy to blend in, and being part of a family going made it feel much more natural. There were 49K plus in attendance, and a repeated theme, even by a couple of the speakers, was the unique privilege of being able to see and hear God's prophet in person. Other common themes were the privilege of the restored gospel, the powerful witness the Book of Mormon offers (with reference to the Moroni promise, as well as James admonition to ask the Lord for wisdom), and the power and blessing of temples (with their covenants and sealings, etc.). As for styling, the feel was that of the old church--dress up, piano and organ, and order of worship clearly laid out. President Russell was impressive in his energy, his conviction, and the clarity of his message. There was a good blend of classy, yet comfortable. I may not have a testimony of several of the unique doctrines and claims of the church, but it is now much easier for me to understand why so many find strength and comfort in the church, the community, and from its teachings.

On the article itself -
The problem you would run into as a Historian is that Plato and Aristotle are not being used to try to establish actual historical events.  They are seen as philosophers rather than a recorded history.  As such you can utilize devices in the writing to find historical relevance, but it does not normally establish historical events. 
When people talk about the bible as a Historical they are normally trying to establish certain things as absolute truths in history.  Rather than seeing the Bible in a similar manner as to what they see as Plato's Republic (and thus ONLY a philosophical item that reflects historical attitudes and sentiment) they see it more like a history book or historical record.  It is a cultural reference that can establish what the culture may have been like, but normally is not used as one to establish historical events on it's own. 
The Bible on the otherhand is used in many instances by Christians as trying to be the sole item to establish historical fact, sometimes against or contrary to various other items that say such facts are impossible to have occurred.
A more relevant comparison would be the records of the Norse Mythology (their religion) is taken FAR less reliably as a historical record than the Bible, and they typically date from a far sooner period in many instances. 
If one is going to compare documents authenticity from a scholarly secular historical point of view, it probably is best to compare like to like documents rather than apples and oranges.
 
I should note, that historians DO use the Bible as a historical document in some cases, but not as much as some Christians would want them to.  In addition, some of the more incredible items (read miracles and supernatural items) are normally taken as literally as they would any other mythological text from a civilization.  This is NOT to say that historians may believe otherwise in regards to FAITH, but there are some standards that are there in order to set what can or cannot be acceptable in regards to historical events as a secular scholarship would demand.

In other discussions here, I have occasionally pointed out that no other ancient texts seem to have their historicity/authenticity questioned the way the Bible does—you don’t see legions of secular scholars arguing that Muhammad wasn’t a real person, for example.
Here’s an article I came across today that makes a similar point in a much more intelligent and engaging way.