CV75

Yes, the name IWillBeWhatIWillBe is certainly subject to a lot of speculation, likely due to its being the earliest version of the name God revealed for Himself. For me, the name itself is not beyond description (by definition a name is the description), but the ultimate power and glory of the Being holding and living up to that name is certainly beyond a full and complete description, or ineffable in the sense of a full comprehension and description. Fortunately, we enjoy some level of perception and capacity to describe Him, otherwise we’d have no starting point for having faith in and loving Him, individually or collectively. This gets into what I was talking about regarding the cascade of theology, doctrine, witness (scripture and other forms of witness of The Word), practice, etc. and how different faiths and denominations vary. For example, "I am Who I Am" has been understood by Jews and Christians alike as God claiming to be the source of all existence (the theology). I think the specific teaching that He is the Source without a source is a good-faith doctrine incorporating the sense that we lack a full comprehension of what it means to be God. There ae many other doctrines serving this purpose. I likewise think the Restored Gospel began with and continues to develop good-faith theology, doctrine, etc. incorporating the witness and sense that we lack a full comprehension of what it means to be God. But He invites us through these means, and the ordinances and covenants and the various fruits of keeping them. Acts 17: 21 - 28 is one of my favorite passages and serves as the basis for many of my views on many gospel topics including this one. I am comfortable with God’s immeasurable grace and loving judgement (and other attributes exemplified in Jesus) advancing our good faith over our weakness.

I am comfortable with God’s grace and judgement advancing good faith over weakness. Which part of my comment (first paragraph) are you most uncomfortable with? I do not see these as examples of God lying, though I can see how and why someone might argue it that way. How do your conclusions affect your good faith in making and keeping the covenants? Yes, we have hell in our theology, but more accurately, we have punishment in our doctrine; see the long comment below. I don’t know what “an eternal conscious hell existing at all” means, though. Can you rephrase or explain it, and is it the same as our theology? Theology and doctrine as different things, with theology (study of religion, academic and/or metaphysical) serving as the basis for doctrines (teachings and applications, such as the afterlife and punishment), which leads to invention or revelation (scripture, creeds, etc.) about hell, and practices (such as ordinances and the covenants) to avoid it. Inaccuracy in any point of Church theology still allows room for the very real corrective effects of the keys, ordinances and covenants, most commonly expressed in the companionship of the Holy Ghost, which may lead to improved theology when it matters. But hell is an invention or revelation (depending), not the theology (afterlife and punishment), hence D&C 19 is a revelation expressly and explicitly about punishment, not hell. People can still conjure up all sorts of images about punishment such as notions of hell. So, an example of false doctrine is that there is no punishment, or by extension, no happiness. What associated ordinance or covenant denies either? They are not the kinds of covenants we administer in the Church. The traditional, Hellenistic-type hell, or there being none, has nothing to do with it. We live and study the religion until we get a good, inspired sense of what the afterlife, punishment and happiness are.

I see no reason to be against any of the translated names of God, except to assert that any of them were the original name. "IWillBeWhatIWillBe” seems the earliest and most accurate, and if any of the substitutes or translations are meant to convey that, I think they are fine to use. For me, "IWillBeWhatIWillBe” is as straightforward as the surnames that convey what a person does for a living. I think being what He will be is what God does for a living, and we learn what that is through Jesus Christ.

Yes, those who make and keep their covenants in good faith, regardless of the accuracy (closeness to truth) of their reasoning and premise, is good. God judges what a person’s good faith reasoning is. "False premises” only refers to a specific type of error where a result is incorrect – but given the principle of grace, where is the incorrect result (God’s condemnation) in making and keeping covenants in good faith reasoning? I think the problem is as much God ostensibly lying, with “ostensibly” being the operative word. The common example about the phrase “eternal punishment” having been used to lie: both the duration (eternal) and the moment (Endless) are equally motivating covenant-wise and we see the fruits of that over time. God wants us to work with the scriptures from where we stand, until we see the light. “Express” means explicit and direct, so is appropriate to use “eternal” in the scriptures because it always signified “from God” (see the thread about His name). So, I don’t see a retracted lie in D&C 19, but an express restoration of an early Christian truth that had been previously Hellenized. I am sure there are people who make and keep their covenants in good faith while believing false notions about hell, but if they keep at it, they will be corrected. Especially in context of latter-day scripture, I don’t see where God is the root of their former false belief.

I would say that false doctrine, even if not intentionally false, or a mistake or an assumption made in ignorance, is that which leads someone away from the covenants by proper authority. Factual errors may also provide a neutral working model conducive to the next step in for making those covenants by properly authority, or for improved understanding and revelation.

Exodus 3:14 in original Hebrew is: אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה (transliteration: EhyehAsherEhyeh). This phrase can be translated in several ways, most commonly as "I AM WHO I AM" or more accurately as "IWillBeWhatIWillBe.” https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.3.15?lang=bi&aliyot=0 Since God reveals His name to Moses as EhyehAsherEhyeh, why does Catechism #206 [ https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/catechism/#!/search/205-211 ] use “YHWH” instead? From #206, “In revealing his mysterious name, YHWH ("I AM HE WHO IS", "I AM WHO AM" or "I AM WHO I AM"), God says who he is and by what name he is to be called.” How are these names “ineffable”? The original (and its translations in the Bible) may be hidden or secret to some (just as God Himself is), but is revealed to prophets like Moses and Abraham and openly written in the original texts. From # 206, “This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is — infinitely above everything that we can understand or say: he is the "hidden God", his name is ineffable, and he is the God who makes himself close to men.”

Here's what I got from ChatGPT (see below, Subheading 2); to your point, "Christian theology usually sees YHWH as the name of the one God, Father, Son, and Spirit..." BUT FIRST this is what I got from AI Google: "In summary, while the belief in "the one God" is foundational to all of Christianity, the descriptive phrase itself is not a formal technical term; the formal term for this concept is monotheism, which in mainstream Christianity is understood through the lens of the doctrine of the Trinity." AI Google: "The One God" is not a specific, formal technical term in mainstream Christian theology, but rather a descriptive phrase used to affirm the core Christian belief in monotheism. The formal theological concept that describes this belief is monotheism, which states that there is only one true God. Mainstream Christian doctrine, largely defined by the ecumenical councils of the 4th century, elaborates on this oneness through the doctrine of the Trinity, which holds that the single divine being (essence or substance) of God eternally exists as three distinct persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Key points regarding the usage and related terms: Monotheism: This is the overarching formal term for the belief in a single, undivided God, a belief Christianity inherited from Judaism (specifically the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4: "The Lord our God, the Lord is one"). Trinity: This is the central Christian dogma that defines the nature of the one God as a tri-personal being, where each person (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is fully God, yet there is only one God overall. The Nicene Creed, a foundational statement of faith, affirms belief in "one God, the Father, the Almighty" and also in "one Lord, Jesus Christ... true God from true God," integrating both concepts. "The One God" as a phrase: This phrase is commonly used in sermons, prayers, and theological discussions to emphasize the unique and sole nature of the divine being, but it is an explanatory or descriptive expression rather than a technical doctrinal term like "Trinity," "Incarnation," or "Atonement". Nontrinitarian Views: A small minority of Christian groups, such as Oneness Pentecostals and Unitarians, use the phrase "the Oneness of God" to describe their specific theology, which rejects the concept of three distinct persons within the Godhead, often viewing "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" as different modes or manifestations of one singular person. In this specific context, "Oneness" can function as a more formal term for their particular doctrine. In summary, while the belief in "the one God" is foundational to all of Christianity, the descriptive phrase itself is not a formal technical term; the formal term for this concept is monotheism, which in mainstream Christianity is understood through the lens of the doctrine of the Trinity. _______ ChapGPT: Prompt: what do Christians mean when they use the name/title Jehovah? ChatGPT said: When Christians use the name/title “Jehovah,” they are referring to the personal name of God as it appears in the Old Testament—specifically a vocalization of the four Hebrew letters YHWH (called the Tetragrammaton). Here’s what that means, and why the name appears the way it does: 1. Origin of the name “Jehovah” In Hebrew, God’s covenant name is written YHWH. Ancient Hebrew was written without vowels, and eventually Jewish tradition avoided pronouncing the name out of reverence. Readers would instead say “Adonai” (“Lord”). When medieval Christian scholars added Hebrew vowel points to the text, the vowels of Adonai were combined with the consonants YHWH, producing the hybrid form: ➡️ YeHoWaH → Jehovah in older English spelling. This form isn’t how ancient Israelites actually pronounced the name, but it became widely used in English-speaking Christianity. 2. What Christians mean when they say “Jehovah” Christians who use the name typically mean: A. God’s personal covenant name The God who: created the world, spoke to Moses, delivered Israel, and made covenants. B. “The LORD” of the Old Testament Most English Bibles translate YHWH as LORD (all caps). “Jehovah” makes the name explicit. C. The eternal, self-existent God The name YHWH is connected to God’s statement in Exodus 3: “I AM WHO I AM” indicating God’s self-existence and eternal nature. D. In some traditions, Jesus is included under the name Jehovah Some Christian groups—such as Jehovah’s Witnesses or some older Protestant writers—apply “Jehovah” in specific theological ways, but mainstream Christian theology usually sees YHWH as the name of the one God, Father, Son, and Spirit. 3. Who actually uses the name “Jehovah”? Usage varies by group: Older Protestant traditions (e.g., 1800s hymns: Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah) Jehovah’s Witnesses (who emphasize this name strongly) Some English Bible translations (American Standard Version, some editions of KJV, etc.) Modern scholars and most churches prefer “Yahweh” as a more historically accurate pronunciation, but many still understand “Jehovah” as meaning the same God. In short “Jehovah” is an English form of God’s Old Testament name YHWH, expressing God’s personal, covenant identity. It’s not the original pronunciation, but it has a long history in Christian language and worship. If you want, I can also explain: the difference between Jehovah and Yahweh, why the name appears thousands of times in the Old Testament, or how different Christian denominations view the name.

Except "LORD" in KJV (1611) Psalm 110:1 is translated from the Tetragrammaton, a substitute for the name of God, which pronunciation became taboo in Judaism due to reverence, and which true pronunciation is now lost to history (though most likely "Yahweh" or something similar, and not "Jehovah"). The verse should be read, "...Yahweh said to my lord/master..." Today, in Jewish tradition, the name is often replaced by substitutes like Adonai ("my Lord") or HaShem ("the Name"). In Christianity, the name "Jehovah" was developed over time from a medieval Christian hybrid of the Hebrew consonants YHWH and the vowels of the word "Adonai". The earliest English use of "Jehovah" in a Psalm 110:1 translation was by Henry Ainsworth in 1612, a year after the KJV. Joseph Smith used the name "Jehovah" to refer to God the Father and this was commonly used and adopted by his successors until 1916, when "Jehovah" began to be used as the name for the premortal Jesus Christ, and Elohim as the name for God the Father, per the First Presidency: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng The verses listed under the heading of the Topical Guide entry, "God the Father, Jehovah" with extremely few (if any) exceptions are about the ways Jesus Christ is the Father. Notably, Psalm 110:1 is not listed there. nor under the heading, "Jesus Christ, Jehovah".

Since the sensations of pain, pleasure and the absence of pain are processes occurring in the same brain region, and the same neural networks that register pain can be trained to register pleasure or painlessness, I think it plausible that the process can be the same without the sorrow. But since it is also plausible that the creation of spirit children by heavenly parents occurs differently than mortal reproduction, those neural networks might trained or applied for different purposes.

Using the word "subject" to mean a branch of knowledge, and the words "know" and "believe" as practical/virtual synonyms for this purpose, no one needs to know/believe anything to be resurrected (salvation in that sense). However, we cannot help but know/believe, sooner or later, that Jesus Christ resurrected/will resurrect/resurrects us. We do need to know/believe Jesus and His invitation to follow Him, repent and be baptized, involving the baptism by fire spoken of by John the Baptist, to be freed from sin (salvation in that sense).

Here is a place to start, the name of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah I think it gets complicated when trying to determine who God is, which version gets the appellation, where, when and why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God, "In the Judeo-Christian tradition, "the Bible has been the principal source of the conceptions of God". That the Bible "includes many different images, concepts, and ways of thinking about" God has resulted in perpetual "disagreements about how God is to be conceived and understood". Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Bibles there are titles for God, who revealed his personal name as YHWH (often vocalized as Yahweh or Jehovah). One of them is Elohim. Another one is El Shaddai, translated 'God Almighty'. A third notable title is El Elyon, which means 'The High God'.[134] Also noted in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles is the name "I Am that I Am". When reading the Old Testament text, the following might be a good basis for understanding their comprehension of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism , "...the Hebrew God is portrayed as unitary and solitary; consequently, the Hebrew God's principal relationships are not with other gods, but with the world, and more specifically, with the people he created. Judaism thus begins with ethical monotheism: the belief that God is one and is concerned with the actions of humankind..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Judaism, "...Jews believe in a monotheistic conception of God ("God is one"), characterized by both transcendence (independence from, and separation from, the material universe) and immanence (active involvement in the material universe)." However, latter-day revelation helps us view Jehovah as the premortal Jesus Christ, in whatever scripture we find the name correctly applied.

I have seen your points of view on these points of doctrine many, many times throughout my life. What is the most salient point of all those you reviewed in your post, upon which hinges humanity's salvation?

RE: the teaching in Doctrines of Salvation, the operative phrase in his conclusion is, "I take it that..." indicating it is his opinion, specifically his understanding that if someone lacks marriage or the power of procreation, they are [effectively] neither male nor female in that narrow regard. We can assume his beliefs allow for a resurrection of the proper and perfect form and perfect frame, if not the full powers of perfect function according to the glory by which we are quickened. It is correct that the "so-called Christian world" concludes that resurrected people are unmarried and neither male and female because: 1. the scripture states (a) there is no marriage and (b) the former spouses are as angels. 2. their interpretation of an angel is that of a spiritual being. 3. their conceptualization/philosophy of spiritual renders the angels neither male nor female. The dead former spouses are as the angels (spiritual according their concept) regardless of their resurrection theology. Some of this seems to have its roots in pre-Christian beliefs in natural and/or supernatural forces, which have no material form or humanity about them whatsoever, being explained in terms of angels doing God's (or the devil's) work.

A stick can be read to mean a scroll, a tablet, or a rod of any material with a symbol etched on it. In any case, from Ezekiel we get the reunification of the kingdoms. The Book of Mormon says that the Bible (which came by way of the Jews) and the Book of Mormon (which came by way of the remnant of Joseph), together, are crucial in gathering Israel. I think over the decades the Church has moved away from the shortcut interpretation that the sticks refer directly to these two books to a more stepwise interpretation that balances the knowledge the Book of Mormon and Bible scholarship provide. The use of "can" seems to serve as an acknowledgment of this balance, and if anyone disagrees with any particular interpretation, the basic doctrine from these sources is that the Bible and Book of Mormon provide mutually supportive testimony of the gathering of Israel under Christ and His kingdom. The Bible and the Book of Mormon testify of and support the gathering of Israel and Ezekiel's teaching of the reunification of the kingdoms, whatever Ezekiel meant by "stick(s)", how he thought his parable or prophecy should be interpreted and fulfilled, or what prophets have said and how correlated material taught these concepts over the years.

Yes, hence I'm an activist for the 2nd Coming!

I would characterize the scriptural passages as being general in principle, metaphorical as well as literal in content, adaptable to circumstances, moderated and co-moderated by other scriptures concerning what to ask for and how, regulated and co-regulated by other laws we don't know about or acknowledge co-operate with any given law, what God's ultimate blessings are, and subject to the overriding law that God determines the form, degree and timing of interim blessings along the way in a way designed for us to obtain His ultimate blessings.

Animal sacrifice was an ordinance. Latter-day scriptures attest that he was made a High Priest and entered celestial marriage; these are two ordinances. Since we also learn from these scriptures that he was exalted, any other applicable ordinance would apply, reasonably including the temple ordinances of his day and any he likely received from Melchizedek (such as the bread and wine and blessing in Genesis 14). Some believe since baptism is so foundational and other patriarchs such as Adam and Enoch baptized and were baptized, he too was baptized.

Probably to focus on the keys of sealing and the practice of plural marriage which was restored, and not on the practice of concubinage, which was not part of the social structure in which the gospel was restored and the sealing keys used.

The ordinances that set the gospel covenants in Abraham's day may not look exactly the same today, but I would say at the very least, circumcision. The Priesthood, or the power of God delegated to the prophets, was the same then as it is today. The priesthood organization (nation) is the medium through which the priesthood (substance manifest the power of God) is authoritatively manifest on earth and in heaven through ordinances and covenants. Some of His servants (royalty) administer in earth and some in heaven, but they are not intermediaries. Jesus Christ is the only Intermediary between God and mankind, individually and collectively. He determines the ordinances and covenants of each dispensation, and how they are administered. Yes, I believe women are covered in the statements about believers in 1 Peter 2. As lively stones, they are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. They are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that they should shew forth the praises of Him who hath called them out of darkness into His marvellous light. They are the people of God and follow the kind of counsel Peter gave. The term "royal priesthood of [all] believers is a theological doctrine that I do not see specifically expounded upon in 1 Peter 2, but Jesus Christ covers all people and His Priesthood is the means by which He fully joins with them in His covenant, some sooner and some later, but eventually all have the opportunity since there is no other Intermediary.

There are three layers of implication, as you point out, and that is one way of putting it all together. But to put it all together well, all three layers must be integrated or reconciled in Christ. Abraham was a High Priest who held the priesthood right to administer priesthood ordinances, though not the keys of this gospel promise known as the gospel of Abraham, a principle under the gospel of Jesus Christ who ultimately holds the keys to direct the gospel of Abraham (Christ delegated the keys for this work to Elias). It was by this arrangement Abraham received or was administered the covenant. His seed who are men may also hold these priesthood rights. Women may hold these priesthood rights for temple service, but most generally draw upon the power of God (priesthood) as they make and keep covenants with God administered to them by those who have the right to do so. Children are born into the covenant as administered by those who have the right to do so (the men and women who are their parents) or adopted into the covenant as administered by those men who have the right to do so in the temple. Very broadly speaking, every human being can draw upon the power of God by virtue of the light of Christ, and while this is outside the narrower scope of the Abrahamic Covenant or gospel of Abraham, it leads those who abide in it to Christ and into the covenant. Elijah held the sealing keys to make these covenant promises binding in heaven and on earth. So, the gospel of Abraham is administered under Abraham's promise, which right is authorized under is under the keys of Elias. Thus, women are included since Abraham 2:11 is also "seed" in the sense of "Priesthood". Abraham’s literal seed is indeterminate these days, but by faith we believe they can be found all over the earth by now, highlighting the importance of gathering Israel for the purpose of fulfilling the gospel of Abraham by sealing up literal and adopted seed alike under the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 110, which gives some basic background for D&C 124).

I thunk some more and you diagrammed it out! Puzzle over gospel challenges - parable with yearnings in - desire (to overcome challenges together as one) holy matrimony for the highest blessings in the Celestial Kingdom - "with," not over.

I thunk and thunk and thunk and I cannot answer this riddle -- please divulge the answer before I sic Delilah on you

It is Ok by me too, and your opinion does matter since it contributes to an edifying conversation and offers insight into in leading us to Christ, keeping His covenants and understanding His ways. I see many the many interpretations as equally valid and useful.

I think many views, traditional and historical or not, are coherent with the broader doctrine and serve a purpose in leading us to Christ, keeping His covenants and understanding His ways. What do you think of "like unto the Son of Man" referring to the spirit version of His yet-to-be-confirmed future, "sent" manifestation, "the Son of Man" in the flesh? Or of speaking in behalf of Jesus (could have been Michael, or one body of those sustaining Jesus' plan), and so "answered like unto the Son of Man"?

Where the name Michael means "who-like-God" it seems he is the character in Abraham 3:24, not verse 27. Abraham 3:24 – 27 v. 24: “like unto God” (Michael) -- Michael may have been delegated to conduct the council session, or simply stood as one among them taking a turn to speak or speak in behalf of his caucus. In any case, this character is not preeminent among the G/gods, referring to someone else as the "Lord their God." v. 25: the Lord their God / Lord (Father) v. 27: Lord (Father); like unto the Son of Man (Jesus, using this title in the Book of Daniel sense, as a God ruling in the form of a man on earth, and consistent with our understanding of "Man [of Holiness]" being one of God's names). Moses 4:1, presumably received in vision and recorded much later than Abraham renders the characters thusly: Lord God (Father); Only Begotten / Beloved Son / Beloved and Chosen (Jesus Christ). This would support Abraham 3:27 as referring to Jesus, not Adam or Michael and these two accounts referring to the same event.