Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Jehovah…

Calm

By Calm
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don’t trust ChatGPT, so asking nonLDS Christians here…

I assumed Jehovah was the modern English for God the Father for other Christians, but Chat says that is not quite accurate, it is better to say it is for God as a whole, meaning the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

Is that accurate and if so, does this mean you don’t really differentiate God into the Father and Son when reading the Old Testament?  Maybe another way to say it is ‘the focus of the OT is on God as “one being” and in the NT on the “three persons”’?

If it’s not accurate, how would you say it?  Is Jehovah another name for the Father or something else?

Edited by Calm
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted

In my experience most Christian faiths don’t regularly use it with the exception of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They use it as a term for the Father. Then Jesus is a god with a little ‘g’ to them. Something like the “little Jehovah” from the Book of Enoch which was popular but also pretty blasphemous to the Jews who read it.

From a historical standpoint the tetragrammaton (Jehovah is a loosely anglicized of it) didn’t refer to the Trinity or a part of it. The concept of the Trinity wasn’t ever a thing in Judaism and it wasn’t part of Christianity for some time. The philosophical framework for it didn’t exist when the books of the New Testament was written. You can argue that the Trinity is a correct conception of God but it is very difficult to argue that New Testament writers were consciously aware of it. The Christologies of the books in the New Testament vary. The Trinity is an attempt to smoosh them all together. A pretty impressive one. I don’t believe it but it is pretty clever.

2
ZealouslyStriving Veteran

ZealouslyStriving

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then Jesus is a god with a little ‘g’ to them. Something like the “little Jehovah” from the Book of Enoch which was popular but also pretty blasphemous to the Jews who read it.

I always understood JW's to believe that Jehovah is the one and only God and that Jesus was merely the Archangel Michael filling some assignment, not a God- big G or little g.

Edited by ZealouslyStriving
CV75 Grand Master

CV75

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t trust ChatGPT, so asking nonLDS Christians here…

I assumed Jehovah was the modern English for God the Father for other Christians, but Chat says that is not quite accurate, it is better to say it is for God as a whole, meaning the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

Is that accurate and if so, does this mean you don’t really differentiate God into the Father and Son when reading the Old Testament?  Maybe another way to say it is ‘the focus of the OT is on God as “one being” and in the NT on the “three persons”’?

If it’s not accurate, how would you say it?  Is Jehovah another name for the Father or something else?

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.

Edited by CV75
Navidad Grand Master

Navidad

Posted
Posted

The way I read your question is what do today's non-LDS Christians believe about Jehovah in the Old Testament, not what did or do the Jews believe about Jehovah. Therefore, I will try and answer the former, not the latter. The first part of my answer is what you might expect. Modern-day non-LDS Christians are a large and diverse group, not agreeing in unanimity with many concepts, including the answer to your question. I will not attempt to answer the question for modern-day non-LDS Catholic questions. There are others here to do that. 

I believe other modern LDS Christians, by and large, view Jehovah as the God of Israel, with a modern-day concept of Jehovah as focusing on who we would today deem as the Father. The Holy Spirit also is present in the Old Testament, but seemingly separate from Jehovah. Christ is  foretold in the Old Testament in a prophetic sense and is often seen in the Old Testament in an allegorical, but not literal sense. Some modern-day Christian trinitarian advocates see the trinity in Jehovah. They may see Christ in the burning bush, for example. It is not thought that Christ did not exist in OT times, in His pre-incarnate nature, but that He was not active (except perhaps in a trinitarian, allegorical, or prophetic sense) in Scripture until the incarnation, when He fulfilled the promises, prophecies, etc. of Jehovah. I'm in favor of Christ in the NT as Jehovah incarnate and active. Also the word "type" comes into play when talking about Christ in the OT. We believe that there were many illustrations, examples, allegorical predictions about Christ, that we define as "types." A type could be a person, a place, an animal, an object, all might be types of Christ in a foreshadowing sense and indeed separate from mentions of the very concrete God, Jehovah. The God (Jehovah) of the OT developed the plan. The birth, life, death, resurrection, and glorification of Christ was the plan to enable the plan of salvation to become a reality. I may not be clear enough here; I am simply trying to summarize without my usual wordiness. best, Navidad. 
"

2
teddyaware Grand Master

teddyaware

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t trust ChatGPT, so asking nonLDS Christians here…

I assumed Jehovah was the modern English for God the Father for other Christians, but Chat says that is not quite accurate, it is better to say it is for God as a whole, meaning the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

Is that accurate and if so, does this mean you don’t really differentiate God into the Father and Son when reading the Old Testament?  Maybe another way to say it is ‘the focus of the OT is on God as “one being” and in the NT on the “three persons”’?

If it’s not accurate, how would you say it?  Is Jehovah another name for the Father or something else?

Most Latter-Day Saints are unaware of the fact that the church acknowledges t=there are instances in the scriptures when the sacred name Jehovah is applied to God the Father. Psalms 110:1 provides a perfect example of when this occurs:

1) The LORD (Jehovah) said unto my Lord (Christ), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstools. (Psalms 110)

‘Many members may be surprised to learn that the Latter-Day Saint Bible’s Topical Guide includes a reference section under the heading “God the Father, Jehovah,” and another reference section under the heading “Jesus Christ, Jehovah.” Included under the heading “God the Father, Jehovah,” are also verses that speak of Christ as being the Father of Heaven and Earth and the Father of our salvation.  From the Topical Guide…

God the Father, Jehovah

  • my God … my father’s God, Ex. 15:2.

  • Lord God of Israel our father, 1 Chr. 29:10.

  • father of the fatherless … is God, Ps. 68:5.

  • his name shall be called … The mighty God, The everlasting Father, Isa. 9:6 (2 Ne. 19:6).

  • thou, O Lord, art our father, Isa. 63:16.

  • My father, thou art the guide of my youth, Jer. 3:4.

  • I am a father to Israel, Jer. 31:9.

 

Edited by teddyaware
1
  • Popular Post
JLHPROF Grand Master

JLHPROF

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
51 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Most Latter-Day Saints are unaware of the fact that the church acknowledges t=there are instances in the scriptures when the sacred name Jehovah is applied to God the Father. Psalms 110:1 provides a perfect example of when this occurs:

Most Latter-Day Saints are unaware that our theology concerning the Godhead has changed and adjusted many times over the course of Church History.  Or that in the 200 year history of the Church our current Godhead understanding is only about 100 years old.

Imagine what we may believe in another century.

5
CV75 Grand Master

CV75

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Most Latter-Day Saints are unaware of the fact that the church acknowledges t=there are instances in the scriptures when the sacred name Jehovah is applied to God the Father. Psalms 110:1 provides a perfect example of when this occurs:

1) The LORD (Jehovah) said unto my Lord (Christ), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstools. (Psalms 110)

‘Many members may be surprised to learn that the Latter-Day Saint Bible’s Topical Guide includes a reference section under the heading “God the Father, Jehovah,” and another reference section under the heading “Jesus Christ, Jehovah.” Included under the heading “God the Father, Jehovah,” are also verses that speak of Christ as being the Father of Heaven and Earth and the Father of our salvation.  From the Topical Guide…

God the Father, Jehovah

  • my God … my father’s God, Ex. 15:2.

  • Lord God of Israel our father, 1 Chr. 29:10.

  • father of the fatherless … is God, Ps. 68:5.

  • his name shall be called … The mighty God, The everlasting Father, Isa. 9:6 (2 Ne. 19:6).

  • thou, O Lord, art our father, Isa. 63:16.

  • My father, thou art the guide of my youth, Jer. 3:4.

  • I am a father to Israel, Jer. 31:9.

 

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".

Edited by CV75
2
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, CV75 said:

Here is a place to start, the name of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah

I want to get to nuances that don’t get conveyed in the wiki entry and likely can come only from believers as they talk because I don’t yet know the language for what I am thinking about. 
 

Also, this is about nonLDS Christians’ concept of Jehovah, not Jewish as I am focusing on the phrase Chat used, “God as a whole”, which is a new way of describing the Trinity to me and it feels off, like it is somehow diminishing how believers view the relationship between the persons of God in the context of the one being of God.  “God as a whole” seems to be missing something that I don’t know, but only feel….thus lacking the language.

I am familiar with the development of the name, that it was misinterpreted by Christians, etc, so no need to go into that for me, though interesting as was the info on LDS development, which I always think is a good topic to get mentioned.  We need to remember our theology is developing and is not particularly systematic.

Edited by Calm
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I always understood JW's to believe that Jehovah is the one and only God and that Jesus was merely the Archangel Michael filling some assignment, not a God- big G or little g.

I have had several Jehovah’s Witnesses tell me that Jesus is a “little g god”. It is colloquial but fits the theology they are trying to get out of the Bible.

1
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Navidad said:

The way I read your question is what do today's non-LDS Christians believe about Jehovah in the Old Testament, not what did or do the Jews believe about Jehovah. Therefore, I will try and answer the former, not the latter. The first part of my answer is what you might expect. Modern-day non-LDS Christians are a large and diverse group, not agreeing in unanimity with many concepts, including the answer to your question. I will not attempt to answer the question for modern-day non-LDS Catholic questions. There are others here to do that. 

I believe other modern LDS Christians, by and large, view Jehovah as the God of Israel, with a modern-day concept of Jehovah as focusing on who we would today deem as the Father. The Holy Spirit also is present in the Old Testament, but seemingly separate from Jehovah. Christ is  foretold in the Old Testament in a prophetic sense and is often seen in the Old Testament in an allegorical, but not literal sense. Some modern-day Christian trinitarian advocates see the trinity in Jehovah. They may see Christ in the burning bush, for example. It is not thought that Christ did not exist in OT times, in His pre-incarnate nature, but that He was not active (except perhaps in a trinitarian, allegorical, or prophetic sense) in Scripture until the incarnation, when He fulfilled the promises, prophecies, etc. of Jehovah. I'm in favor of Christ in the NT as Jehovah incarnate and active. Also the word "type" comes into play when talking about Christ in the OT. We believe that there were many illustrations, examples, allegorical predictions about Christ, that we define as "types." A type could be a person, a place, an animal, an object, all might be types of Christ in a foreshadowing sense and indeed separate from mentions of the very concrete God, Jehovah. The God (Jehovah) of the OT developed the plan. The birth, life, death, resurrection, and glorification of Christ was the plan to enable the plan of salvation to become a reality. I may not be clear enough here; I am simply trying to summarize without my usual wordiness. best, Navidad. 
"

This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you.  I would also love to hear a Catholic POV (hint, hint @MiserereNobis or @3DOP or any other Catholic who drops by)

In addition to that, I am looking for advice on phrasing….

In your view, is ChatGPT’s wording “God as a whole” appropriate to describe the Trinity?  Is it too shallow or simplistic or is it sufficient?  Or something else.  I doubt if I will start using the phrase frequently, but I can see it might be useful in a few situations, but only if it can convey the correct sense.  I don’t want to oversimplify the Trinity (is “God as a whole” even interchangeable with “the Trinity” or does it mean something else?) or perhaps the phrasing somehow demystifies the belief for me and that’s what is bothering me.  Seems disrespectful if so.

Edited by Calm
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Many members may be surprised to learn that the Latter-Day Saint Bible’s Topical Guide includes a reference section under the heading “God the Father, Jehovah,

Not me! ;) 

1
CV75 Grand Master

CV75

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Calm said:

I want to get to nuances that don’t get conveyed in the wiki entry and likely can come only from believers as they talk because I don’t yet know the language for what I am thinking about. 
 

Also, this is about nonLDS Christians’ concept of Jehovah, not Jewish as I am focusing on the phrase Chat used, “God as a whole”, which is a new way of describing the Trinity to me and it feels off, like it is somehow diminishing how believers view the relationship between the persons of God in the context of the one being of God.  “God as a whole” seems to be missing something that I don’t know, but only feel….thus lacking the language.

I am familiar with the development of the name, that it was misinterpreted by Christians, etc, so no need to go into that for me, though interesting as was the info on LDS development, which I always think is a good topic to get mentioned.  We need to remember our theology is developing and is not particularly systematic.

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.

 
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Here's what I got from ChatGPT

But the impetus for this thread is I don’t trust Chat so I want to get it from people who actually hold the belief of the Trinity.  I appreciate your efforts and realize I was vague to being with so your first post makes sense to me, but asking Chat and getting similar info was what got me wondering in the first place.

Chat can only regurgitate what gets put into it, it can’t tell me the lived experience, which is what I am wanting here.

In the future, unless you are curious yourself and think others besides me may be interested, save yourself some work if I start a conversation with “I don’t trust Chat”.  This means I have been using Chat, but don’t believe it’s giving me a complete picture or couldn't check its accuracy for some reason or it’s incapable of giving me what I want, the POV of an actual person.  Iow, putting up a response from Chat—or wiki for that matter as personal POVs/impressions, etc are not supposed to be included iirc—is likely to get a bit of an eye roll from me when I say “I don’t trust Chat”.  :) 

2 A and 2 D came closest for me, but still not quite on target, but I almost didn’t read those two points because scanning through the bulk of it led me to believe it was irrelevant to my question clutter as I already knew all that.

I can be patient for answers when I make special requests.  People don’t need to post to make me feel listened to. :) 

Edited by Calm
1
Stargazer Grand Master

Stargazer

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 11/30/2025 at 4:41 AM, Calm said:

I don’t trust ChatGPT, so asking nonLDS Christians here…

I assumed Jehovah was the modern English for God the Father for other Christians, but Chat says that is not quite accurate, it is better to say it is for God as a whole, meaning the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

Is that accurate and if so, does this mean you don’t really differentiate God into the Father and Son when reading the Old Testament?  Maybe another way to say it is ‘the focus of the OT is on God as “one being” and in the NT on the “three persons”’?

If it’s not accurate, how would you say it?  Is Jehovah another name for the Father or something else?

Obviously, I'm not nonLDS, but I have to chime in here in a general sense.

Don't trust any AI. Or, rather, trust but verify.

As you know I have been cataloging pro-LDS YouTube channels. I've found a few anti-channels, too, and a few odd channels that mention Mormons or Mormonism occasionally or frequently. One of them is called The Solvanae. It says this about itself: "Your trusted source for documentary-style religious education and comparative theology. We explore Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Mormonism, and world religions with honesty, respect, and depth. No bias, no propaganda—just facts, history, and understanding." Nice, I guess. The channel started in mid-August 2025 and posts every day. As of this moment it has 67 videos out there. But 26 videos out of that 67 concern LDS matters -- 39% of the output. The most recent one as of my post has the title "The Warlord Who Ate Hearts vs. The 8 Missionaries Who Refused to Leave".  <-- It's a completely AI-generated video that uses some of the fictional story (and characters) from the Book of Mormon satirical musical, combined with some actual historical tragedies that occurred in Liberia. I didn't watch the whole thing, so there may be other items crammed into it from some other thing available on the web.

If you want to be amazed, check out the channel. At first I thought the channel was fairly serious, and started to put together a response to one of their videos, but have since realized I'd be wasting my time. I can't wait to see what else the AI making the content comes up with, and considering the reliability of the information I've seen so far, I expect to be surprised.

Don't trust ChapGPT. At least not further than you can throw it.

Edited by Stargazer
1
Stargazer Grand Master

Stargazer

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Most Latter-Day Saints are unaware that our theology concerning the Godhead has changed and adjusted many times over the course of Church History.  Or that in the 200 year history of the Church our current Godhead understanding is only about 100 years old.

I don't find this problematic at all. If one tries to imagine who God really is, and no matter how sophisticated one might think one's thinking on it might be, one is going find in the end that one's understanding was comparable to an ant's understanding about the solar system. When Paul wrote about seeing through a glass, darkly, he was not kidding. Even with the spirit of prophecy we only see the rudiments. If our theology concerning the Godhead appears to be evolving, nothing could be truer, because line upon line, precept upon precept, we are still learning as a people who God is. I get really annoyed when my fellow Saints try to tell me that something Elder Widtsoe, President Joseph Fielding Smith, or any other general authority wrote or said a hundred years ago is the uttermost or final word about who God is. What did President Nelson say? The Restoration is ongoing; it has not reached its endpoint. We will continue to learn, as the Lord continues to teach us. There is more to know, corrections and expansions to be made -- but these will not occur until we are ready for them. 

Alma told Zeezrom that receiving further light and knowledge depends upon the heed and diligence we give to what has already been given (Alma 12):

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

And thus we progress and know more. The opposite is the case for those who reject what they have received, until they know nothing. Which is the fate of some of those whom we encounter who deny, dispute, and accuse. Alma goes on in verse 11:

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. [emphasis added]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Imagine what we may believe in another century.

I look forward to it -- though if this goes on for another century, I'll either be dead or translated.

I feel that the only person in this dispensation who knew who God really is was Joseph Smith. But he was not only not allowed to tell us who He is, I don't think he even had the words to be able to do so. In my opinion, his King Follett discourse was the closest he could come to in trying to explain it. And since the text we have from it was not tape-recorded, but cobbled together from various hearers, we may not have it all in its particulars.

The Apostle Paul probably saw what Joseph saw:

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. [2 Cor 12:2-4]

But Paul was not allowed to tell what he saw; that was apparently something given to Joseph Smith to tell. Because the people then were not ready for it, and wouldn't be ready for it, since the Apostasy was even then oncoming.

 

3
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

rather, trust but verify.

No, I would say ‘don’t trust, but use and verify and if you can’t verify, don’t use or use with disclaimer’….because you know, I don’t do ‘short and to the point’ that often.

There are, imo, too many common errors to trust as in making stuff up about sources when the source doesn’t say or acting like there is a source and then when asked for one, there’s nothing.  I don’t think I have had one not brief response without an error.  That’s not trustworthy in my view.  Or since it’s a ‘machine’, I should say not reliable.  Very useful still.

Quote

Don't trust ChapGPT. At least not further than you can throw it.

Most definitely 

Edited by Calm
3DOP Grand Master

3DOP

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, Calm said:

This is exactly what I was looking for, thank you.  I would also love to hear a Catholic POV (hint, hint @MiserereNobis or @3DOP or any other Catholic who drops by)

In addition to that, I am looking for advice on phrasing….

In your view, is ChatGPT’s wording “God as a whole” appropriate to describe the Trinity?  Is it too shallow or simplistic or is it sufficient?  Or something else.  I doubt if I will start using the phrase frequently, but I can see it might be useful in a few situations, but only if it can convey the correct sense.  I don’t want to oversimplify the Trinity (is “God as a whole” even interchangeable with “the Trinity” or does it mean something else?) or perhaps the phrasing somehow demystifies the belief for me and that’s what is bothering me.  Seems disrespectful if so.

Hey Calm...

See the Catechism, #'s 205-209. YHWH, the Tetragrammaton is the answer God gives to Moses inquiry as to God's name, after He commissions Moses to go to His people in Egypt for deliverance. 

This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery, It is at once a name revealed and not a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is - infinitely above everything 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.

---CCC #206, with footnotes referencing Isa. 45:15; Judg. 13:18

3
CV75 Grand Master

CV75

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Hey Calm...

See the Catechism, #'s 205-209. YHWH, the Tetragrammaton is the answer God gives to Moses inquiry as to God's name, after He commissions Moses to go to His people in Egypt for deliverance. 

This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery, It is at once a name revealed and not a name, and hence it better expresses God as what he is - infinitely above everything 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.

---CCC #206, with footnotes referencing Isa. 45:15; Judg. 13:18

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.”

Edited by CV75
3DOP Grand Master

3DOP

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.”

CV75, hi.

I kind of didn't want to study much about it. I was just the reporter. I believe it of course. Anyway, thanks for the homework! I am sure it will be a good exercise 💪 😉 hi

 

 

 

JLHPROF Grand Master

JLHPROF

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I don't find this problematic at all. If one tries to imagine who God really is, and no matter how sophisticated one might think one's thinking on it might be, one is going find in the end that one's understanding was comparable to an ant's understanding about the solar system. When Paul wrote about seeing through a glass, darkly, he was not kidding. Even with the spirit of prophecy we only see the rudiments. If our theology concerning the Godhead appears to be evolving, nothing could be truer, because line upon line, precept upon precept, we are still learning as a people who God is. I get really annoyed when my fellow Saints try to tell me that something Elder Widtsoe, President Joseph Fielding Smith, or any other general authority wrote or said a hundred years ago is the uttermost or final word about who God is. What did President Nelson say? The Restoration is ongoing; it has not reached its endpoint. We will continue to learn, as the Lord continues to teach us. There is more to know, corrections and expansions to be made -- but these will not occur until we are ready for them. 

This being the case what right do we have to claim what we teach on God is true?

In the Lectures on Faith they said the Holy Ghost wasn't a personage. That was official Church doctrine.  In Brigham's day Orson Pratt and Bishop Bunker both suffered disciplinary actions for teaching AGAINST Adam-God.  Christ wasn't officially identified as Jehovah in the Old Testament until Jesus The Christ was published (although there was speculation prior).  There have been many many changes in how we view the Godhead in the Church.

Yet if anyone questions the current teaching they are considered to believe "false doctrine".  Yet continuing revelation could prove our current teaching to be false doctrine.  It's mighty arrogant to assume current Church teachings are all completely true.

3
CV75 Grand Master

CV75

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This being the case what right do we have to claim what we teach on God is true?

In the Lectures on Faith they said the Holy Ghost wasn't a personage. That was official Church doctrine.  In Brigham's day Orson Pratt and Bishop Bunker both suffered disciplinary actions for teaching AGAINST Adam-God.  Christ wasn't officially identified as Jehovah in the Old Testament until Jesus The Christ was published (although there was speculation prior).  There have been many many changes in how we view the Godhead in the Church.

Yet if anyone questions the current teaching they are considered to believe "false doctrine".  Yet continuing revelation could prove our current teaching to be false doctrine.  It's mighty arrogant to assume current Church teachings are all completely true.

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.

Edited by CV75
1
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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.

By this standard any reasoning that gets people to make and keep covenants is good even if the premises of the reasoning are false.

You hit the problem of God ostensibly being a God of Truth who cannot lie. Then again, on the other hand, there are plenty of times in the Old Testament where God specifically lies or instructs others to lie on His behalf. Even in the Doctrine & Covenants the rationale for describing hell as endless as a scare tactic is acknowledged as being misleading by God but was allowed to stand because it worked on our minds to produce a good result even though it was supposedly a misunderstanding.

And to make things more confusing the concept of hell wasn’t around in early Christianity. In the gospels and early Pauline stuff the relatively rare cases where the result of disobedience are discussed the fate of the ‘wicked’ is annihilation and not ongoing conscious torment.

The only book of the New Testament that provides a lot of the current stuff Christianity in general believes about hell is Revelation. And those portions read more like the revenge fantasies of the writer who is understandably very upset about all the Christians being killed and wants God to dish out some suffering. It reads like the lament in Psalms that blesses the person who kills Babylonian infants by smashing them against stones. I get that the writer is angry but I am not sure the punishment they want to dish out is somehow good or holy or should be taken as commentaries on eternity. The modern versions of hell seem to owe more to stories of the afterlife coming from other parts of the Greco-Roman world than to early Christianity (or Judaism).

3
3DOP Grand Master

3DOP

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.”

Hi CV, 

i found an online Jewish resource that explains a little about this. It seems to me to coincide with the Catechism. I seldom use the words/names Yahweh, Jehovah, or YHWH. I thought the former words/names provided additional letters to make the "tetragrammaton" (YHWH) more easy to pronounce. Do you think there is a reason to be against this YHWH? Here is the link to that Jewish page. Let me know what you think: 

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-tetragrammaton/

I hope to get to ineffability later. Thanks for your patience.

2
CV75 Grand Master

CV75

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

By this standard any reasoning that gets people to make and keep covenants is good even if the premises of the reasoning are false.

You hit the problem of God ostensibly being a God of Truth who cannot lie. Then again, on the other hand, there are plenty of times in the Old Testament where God specifically lies or instructs others to lie on His behalf. Even in the Doctrine & Covenants the rationale for describing hell as endless as a scare tactic is acknowledged as being misleading by God but was allowed to stand because it worked on our minds to produce a good result even though it was supposedly a misunderstanding.

And to make things more confusing the concept of hell wasn’t around in early Christianity. In the gospels and early Pauline stuff the relatively rare cases where the result of disobedience are discussed the fate of the ‘wicked’ is annihilation and not ongoing conscious torment.

The only book of the New Testament that provides a lot of the current stuff Christianity in general believes about hell is Revelation. And those portions read more like the revenge fantasies of the writer who is understandably very upset about all the Christians being killed and wants God to dish out some suffering. It reads like the lament in Psalms that blesses the person who kills Babylonian infants by smashing them against stones. I get that the writer is angry but I am not sure the punishment they want to dish out is somehow good or holy or should be taken as commentaries on eternity. The modern versions of hell seem to owe more to stories of the afterlife coming from other parts of the Greco-Roman world than to early Christianity (or Judaism).

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.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...