Larry Cotrell

A stake president in Salt Lake calls his son in New York the day before Thanksgiving and says,"I hate to ruin your day, but I have to tell you that your mother and I are divorcing; forty-five years of misery is enough."
"Dad, what are you talking about?" the son screams. "We can't stand the sight of each other any longer," the stake president says. "We're sick of each other, and I'm sick of talking about this, so you call your sister in Chicago and tell her."
Frantic, the son calls his sister, who explodes on the phone. "Like heck they're getting divorced," she shouts, "I'll take care of this."
She calls Salt Lake immediately, and screams at her father, "You are NOT getting divorced. Don't do a single thing until I get there. I'm calling my brother back, and we'll both be there tomorrow. Until then, don't do a thing, DO YOU HEAR ME?" and hangs up.
The stake president hangs up his phone and turns to his wife. "Okay," he says, "they're coming for Thanksgiving and paying their own way."
I think I should try this with my kids.
 

A stake president in Salt Lake calls his son in New York the day before Thanksgiving and says,"I hate to ruin your day, but I have to tell you that your mother and I are divorcing; forty-five years of misery is enough."
"Dad, what are you talking about?" the son screams. "We can't stand the sight of each other any longer," the stake president says. "We're sick of each other, and I'm sick of talking about this, so you call your sister in Chicago and tell her."
Frantic, the son calls his sister, who explodes on the phone. "Like heck they're getting divorced," she shouts, "I'll take care of this."
She calls Salt Lake immediately, and screams at her father, "You are NOT getting divorced. Don't do a single thing until I get there. I'm calling my brother back, and we'll both be there tomorrow. Until then, don't do a thing, DO YOU HEAR ME?" and hangs up.
The stake president hangs up his phone and turns to his wife. "Okay," he says, "they're coming for Thanksgiving and paying their own way."
I think I should try this with my kids.
 

There has been a lot of discussion about eternal progression lately and I wanted to add my thoughts in the proper place.
Here's John 10:34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"
In this passage Jesus is quoting Psalms 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Psalm 82 is really about earthly rulers acting with justice. They are "gods" among the people but are being reminded that they will still have to face judgement from the one true God. In this passage, the Hebrew word Elohim is used to mean rulers as it is in Exodus 22:8,9, and 28. When Jesus uses the word "gods" in John 10 we know that he is referring to earthly leaders when we look at in the context of Psalm 82. In no way does this verse support eternal progression unless you look at it by itself.
Here's what I believe:
Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."
Isaiah 43:10 "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

Short Answer: When you're not sure, avoid gender-specific pronouns and you avoid the problem.
How do you do that?
I have a lot of family in Portland and have spent enough time there to deal with it. I've found that the best way to deal with "incorrect" pronouns is to avoid them when possible. If you're talking to them, you can use you. If you're talking about them when they can hear you, you can use their name (I've had to do this when I wasn't sure what gender they were). They also works, although not grammatically correct because it is technically for plurals,  it sounds natural in everyday speech. When they can't hear you (normally when pronouns are used) it shouldn't matter unless the person you're talking to is militant about pronouns.
 

As a proud holder of two Michigan degrees, I can say with certainty that all Michigan grad should be addressed as Majesty. We are, after all, "the leaders and the best."
btw - Michigan's recent giving campaign raised 5 BILLION dollars. Even I'm impressed, and I always expect great things from Michigan. Go Blue!

@Telemantros, Welcome!
Everyone (well, we'll say 99.999% of everyone) is very kind and tolerant. The forum is just the right size because you feel like you know everyone but meet new people every day. If you're looking for good, open, and honest conversation, this is the place.

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.

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.

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).
 
 

My father, grandfather, and grandmother were ministers, so I grew up around it and always had people smarter than me that I could ask about anything. It went a little like this, "So Dad, just one really quick question, what were the Nephilim?" 
I agree with @prisonchaplain here that the difference is if they are one in purpose or one in substance, and I believe it is a major difference. At least we understand each other now 

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.

*thumbs up*
We got to build understanding bridges that go both ways, after all

My father, grandfather, and grandmother were ministers, so I grew up around it and always had people smarter than me that I could ask about anything. It went a little like this, "So Dad, just one really quick question, what were the Nephilim?" 
I agree with @prisonchaplain here that the difference is if they are one in purpose or one in substance, and I believe it is a major difference. At least we understand each other now 

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).
 
 

True, it has snuck into everything (obviously somewhat subtly) and I think there are too many other variables to directly relate the movies' success to the "SJWism." That being said, I do agree with @The Folk Prophet that the entertainment industry is one of Satan's greatest weapons, as he makes wrong things seem "cool" or normal and evil things seem trivial. I do think we need to be increasingly aware of how what we are putting in affects us because what we put in goes straight to our heart and comes back out through our actions. (I'm not necessarily talking about feminism, but things like homosexuality, sorcery, and the like.)
David set the ultimate example when he said, " I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me"  (Psalm 101:3).
(Wish I could say I follow this perfectly, but it's definitely something to work on )

Am I wrong, or is this one of the most fruitful and informative strings we've had on this fundamental doctrinal topic? Yay us!

Some argue that for good to exist the possibility for evil must also. Still others, including the script writers for the current TV series Lucifer, have taken your approach. In their case, the result was to portray the Devil as a God-ordained "fall guy," doomed to carry out opposition to God and good. Me? I see no flaw in believing God created us with the capacity to rebel against God--against good. It does not strike me as necessity that any capacity for evil must originate apart from God. After all, could not evil, or bad, simply be the absence of God/good? The serpent's primary temptation against Adam & Eve was not to do evil, but to gain the wisdom to make moral choices independent of God.

Darn. I should have brought up Indiana Jones and Spielberg's comment that she should be female in the next iteration.
How can these people be so stupid? The water has been spiked with goofy-juice in Movie-town.
He honest-to-goodness literally said “We’d have to change the name from Jones to Joan."
ARE YOU DAFT?! JONES IS THE LAST NAME! Not to mention Indiana is a perfectly reasonable female name. But most importantly...FANS OF INDIANA JONES DON'T WANT A FEMALE!!!!
NO WONDER CRYSTAL SKULL TANKED!?!
Sorry...getting worked up... Indiana Jones is beloved to me. Indiana Joan is NOT!

If you mean Solo, I agree. It was a long shot replacing such an iconic character any way you cut it. It also had the director problems/changes which is never a good sign. That being said, based on one seeing, I think it's the best thing they've done in the new movies...by far. (I know some will say Rogue One...but Rogue One was a well made show with poorly developed characters that all die. I cannot not get a bit bored in it.)
I think without the SJW stuff from The Last Jedi Solo might have done quite well. I think if you flipped Solo and Rogue One in the order of release they might flip in their box office takes.
Hard to say.

True, it has snuck into everything (obviously somewhat subtly) and I think there are too many other variables to directly relate the movies' success to the "SJWism." That being said, I do agree with @The Folk Prophet that the entertainment industry is one of Satan's greatest weapons, as he makes wrong things seem "cool" or normal and evil things seem trivial. I do think we need to be increasingly aware of how what we are putting in affects us because what we put in goes straight to our heart and comes back out through our actions. (I'm not necessarily talking about feminism, but things like homosexuality, sorcery, and the like.)
David set the ultimate example when he said, " I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me"  (Psalm 101:3).
(Wish I could say I follow this perfectly, but it's definitely something to work on )

I have been a big Disney fan. It seems like that must change. It's very disheartening...but I have to keep an eternal perspective. Disney is not important! But it sure feels important. Either way it's sad.
Why do I feel like my Disney fandom must change? Because social-justice-warrior-ism is corrupting every aspect of it bit by bit.
First we have Beauty and the Beast and that innocuous gay moment that secretly wasn't innocuous at all. Then the destruction of Star Wars. Then Black Panther. Then the new Jungle Cruise movie. And, finally, we land on Captain Marvel.
So the director of Beauty and the Beast announces a special "gay moment" in his movie. The gay moment, I'm told, was "innocuous" -- easy to miss -- not that big of a deal -- kids wouldn't notice -- etc. I can only speak to what I've been told because I haven't seen it, and I won't. Why won't I? Because all of that is wrong. It's not easy to miss (particularly when announce by the director), it is a big deal, kids do notice (my sister's daughter's first question after they saw it: Why were those two guys dancing together like they were married), etc. So not so innocuous after all. And, of course, the most harmful part, it was a toe-dip, testing the waters -- which, of course, is also wrong. They weren't testing the waters. They were creating "evidence" that gay can work so they can push the agenda further. And oh boy...will they.
Star Wars, of course, hasn't introduced gay characters.....yet.... but the franchise still stands as a shining example of Disney's SJWism taking the lead. Everything about the new Star Wars doesn't stink, of course. There are aspects that are great. But it's nothing to what it could be. Why is it nothing to what it could be? Because the top priority seems to be diversity and women's power instead of staying true to the property and telling great stories that people actually relate to and care about. Even the pretty-good of the new inject this nonsense. I'll grant, they could still stay true to the property AND tell great stories AND inject some level of SJWism...and that would, actually, be much more clever of them. Thank goodness they aren't that clever...yet. I have no doubt they'll get there. They have a pretty smart fella leading them. And I'm not talking about Bob Iger.
Then some more "toe-dipping" that wasn't actually toe-dipping. Black Panther! The "black" movie. Instead of standing on its own merits, in which case it rests firmly somewhere in the bottom end in the rankings, it's consistently rated as "the" best Marvel movie. Unlike Star Wars, they won the battle on that one, pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. "What a great movie." "So meaningful and powerful." Except...it wasn't. It was shallow and silly and didn't make much sense. And it had crappy CGI rhinos in it and supposedly extra-civilized people who expanded their lips out to over a foot in diameter with discs. Believable. Is the success of Black Panther a problem in and of itself, despite the fact it doesn't really deserve that success? Not really? But in the SJW's mind, who will be making future Marvel/Disney movies does it matter? Oh yeah. They'll take the success to mean everything it doesn't along with what it kind of does, and twist it all up to further their agendas. If only those agendas were really about equality and fairness. They are not. They're about division, power, immorality, control and oppression.
So now, surprise, surprise, we get Disney's Jungle Cruise with their first openly gay character! Yay. Didn't see that coming, now, did we? Will Jungle Cruise be hurt by this financially? Will it succeed or fail? Will they get the formula right for an actually great movie that has SJWism in it too and knock it out of the box-office park? Here's the thing. It doesn't matter. They continue down this path either way. If Jungle Cruise flops because everyone boycotted it due to the SJWism they wouldn't get the message. They don't with anything else. Take Solo. The fans were explicit. Take the SJW stuff out of Star Wars. We aren't interested in that and we aren't going to see your movies any more. They didn't just speak with their wallets, making Solo an actual honest-to-goodness flop, they explicitly said what they thought. How did Lucasfilm/Disney respond? They blamed the fans for being bigots and opined that shows with white male leads may not be able to succeed any longer.
Are you kidding me?
But fans are fickle. It wouldn't surprise me if Episode IX does quite well even leaving the SJW stuff in (it would be hard to take out at this point). But, once again, it doesn't matter. Even if E9 flops Disney won't stop. They won't get the message. They'll keep poking away at it until they've numbed everyone enough, or convinced them, or hidden it well enough, or what-have-you, and they'll keep shoving their agenda down our throats, and we'll keep buying it, and keep believing them more and more...because...you know.....movies...and emotion...and love...and crying...and swelling music...and....
So now comes Captain Marvel. The character was made female in the 70's feminist movement. So...kind already has that SJWism built into it. Will it be a hit? Probably. Why? It's a Marvel Movie. Will Disney assume that means the world's ready for more SJWism? Of course.
How long should we keep giving our money to these people who are actively trying to destroy us and our children? I don't know. They're pretty good at the subtlety. And even I...yep, ultra-conservative little-ol' me...have bought into an awful lot of it. Have since I was a kid and wrote off some sex scene or bad language in my favorite TV show as "not that big of a deal".
And I'm addicted to entertainment. That's sort of our world, right? Aren't most of us?
Satan's got us right where he wants us. He's ready to drive the sword of SJWism home -- and we're not even fighting back. We just keep paying into the devil's kingdom. Here's your taxes sir. Now please corrupt my soul further. Thank you sir. May I have another?
Well, I'm looking forward to the animatronic gay pirates kissing each other at Disneyland someday. Aren't you?

I struggle with the idea that the three persons having one purpose makes them one God. Yet, I understand that LDS believe this, and can accept that it is yet another step away from strict monotheism, but that even Trinitarian teaching seems such to Jews and Muslims. What I find difficult is the doctrine of exaltation. If faithful, covenant-keeping LDS can become as God is then it stills seems more like henotheism. Is it because no LDS member will ever be a god to him/herself, and will never look to fellow exalted members as such? 

I just want to take a second to say that this thread has been successful in helping me (and probably @MaryJehanne as well) to better understand the LDS belief on this, so thank you all for taking the time to explain and articulate your thoughts. Much appreciated! 
There are (at least) two things standing in the way of me fully understanding the LDS belief on this issue:
1) LDS people disagree on some points of belief, just as any faith does, so understanding Person A's belief doesn't necessarily mean that you understand Person B's belief
2) Because we are from different faith backgrounds (LDS, Catholic, Protestant, etc.) most of the "theology" words mean different things from different perspectives. So, often when we think we are talking about the same thing, we really aren't. Learning each other's terminology goes a long way!

I doubt we actually disagree.  We are emphasizing different points and perspectives coming at the same thing from different angles trying to explain something which appears (from this thread) incomprehensible to those not of our faith.  I can't say I technically disagree with what other members (of the Church) have said in this thread, I just sometimes think there's another way to explain what they said that might work better.

I just want to take a second to say that this thread has been successful in helping me (and probably @MaryJehanne as well) to better understand the LDS belief on this, so thank you all for taking the time to explain and articulate your thoughts. Much appreciated! 
There are (at least) two things standing in the way of me fully understanding the LDS belief on this issue:
1) LDS people disagree on some points of belief, just as any faith does, so understanding Person A's belief doesn't necessarily mean that you understand Person B's belief
2) Because we are from different faith backgrounds (LDS, Catholic, Protestant, etc.) most of the "theology" words mean different things from different perspectives. So, often when we think we are talking about the same thing, we really aren't. Learning each other's terminology goes a long way!