Jehovah…

[CV75]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

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.

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.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

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 am not particularly comfortable with this.

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

If you want to take the “ostensibly” part out God lies throughout the Old Testament. Starting with the “surely die” one the day you eat of it since they both lived for over 24 hours. You have God sending forth lying spirits. You have prophets prophesying military victory and then being defeated when the rival king sacrifices his son to call on the power of their own god.

The hellenization was an eternal conscious hell existing at all yet we still have it in our theology.

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

At which point why feel comfortable with any element of our theology as it doesn’t really matter if it is correct or not. You could even argue that teaching false doctrine that convinces people to make and keep covenants is holier than teaching truth that might be less convincing.

[Senator]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

i am not particularly comfortable with this.

If you want to take the “ostensibly” part out God lies throughout the Old Testament. Starting with the “surely die” one the day you eat of it since they both lived for over 24 hours. You have God sending forth lying spirits. You have prophets prophesying military victory and then being defeated when the rival king sacrifices his son to call on the power of their own god.

The hellenization was an eternal conscious hell existing at all yet we still have it in our theology.

At which point why feel comfortable with any element of our theology as it doesn’t really matter if it is correct or not. You could even argue that teaching false doctrine that convinces people to make and keep covenants is holier than teaching truth that might be less convincing.

D&C 19 is a pesky little fissure in my belief system's foundation.  And its curious that God would let us in on it.  I'm letting you know the gig is up!

[JVW]

On 12/1/2025 at 6:52 PM, 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.”

This is my favorite article about God's name and "I AM". Very illuminating. https://www.oneforisrael.org/the-name-of-god/

Edited December 3, 2025 by JVW
Added link

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

If you want to take the “ostensibly” part out God lies throughout the Old Testament. Starting with the “surely die” one the day you eat of it since they both lived for over 24 hours.

This is a tangent so feel free to ignore but I'm not seeing the 'on the day you eat of it' part of the equation and am wondering what reference you are using for that.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

i am not particularly comfortable with this.

If you want to take the “ostensibly” part out God lies throughout the Old Testament. Starting with the “surely die” one the day you eat of it since they both lived for over 24 hours. You have God sending forth lying spirits. You have prophets prophesying military victory and then being defeated when the rival king sacrifices his son to call on the power of their own god.

The hellenization was an eternal conscious hell existing at all yet we still have it in our theology.

At which point why feel comfortable with any element of our theology as it doesn’t really matter if it is correct or not. You could even argue that teaching false doctrine that convinces people to make and keep covenants is holier than teaching truth that might be less convincing.

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.

[3DOP]

23 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

Okay. I don't have a problem with that, if you will allow that IWillBeWhatIWillBe is subject to a lot more speculation than a mere surname like Baker, or Fletcher, or Smith. The Catholic Church says that unlike a lot of surnames, the name YWHW is beyond description (ineffable, however one translates it). The name is spoken, but the meaning of the name suggests many qualities. "I am Who I Am" has been understood by Jews and Christians alike as God claiming to be the source of all existence. He is the Source without a source. God is not a creation. He is not a contingent being, depending on existence from anything else.

I am aware that there is a lot of LDS philosophy invested in materialism. But you are a young church and have made many seachange moves regarding teachings that were previously non-negotiable. I doubt it will happen in our lifetimes, but I cannot see why a transcendent God, who is also very near to us should be so repugnant as it seems many of today's LDS seem to believe.

Is this not what Paul is testifying to (a transcendent God) while in Athens where he proclaims to the pagan philosophers the Unknown God? I do not mean pagan pejoratively. They only had natural revelation and some were groping towards the truth as Paul could recognize. 

(Now all the Athenians, and strangers that were there, employed themselves in nothing else, but either in telling or in hearing some new thing.)  But Paul standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious.  For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you:  God, who made the world, and all things therein; he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;  Neither is he served with men's hands, as though he needed any thing; seeing it is he who giveth to all life, and breath, and all things:

And hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times, and the limits of their habitation.  That they should seek God, if happily they may feel after him or find him, although he be not far from every one of us:  For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring.

---Acts 17:21-28

Most commentators assert that Paul is quoting favorably from well-known Greek poets and philosophers using their own words to show the Athenians that their own scholars have implied that they discard their idols and seek this unknown God, who reveals his existence to all. It seems to me that they come very close to saying the same things about God as may be plausibly claimed by YWHW. There is nothing that does not come from God. He is seen as the source of all existence. The Source without a source, whose existence transcends matter.

What could be so bad about that? Nothing, if it is in Him that we live, and move, and have our very being. We are His offspring! GodWillDoWhatHeWill! Clearly, He wills to be with us, and to teach us that adoration of Him Who Is, is all fulfillment to all creatures (especially us). 

Edited December 4, 2025 by 3DOP

[CV75]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Okay. I don't have a problem with that, if you will allow that IWillBeWhatIWillBe is subject to a lot more speculation than a mere surname like Baker, or Fletcher, or Smith. The Catholic Church says that unlike a lot of surnames, the name YWHW is beyond description (ineffable, however one translates it). The name is spoken, but the meaning of the name suggests many qualities. "I am Who I Am" has been understood by Jews and Christians alike as God claiming to be the source of all existence. He is the Source without a source. God is not a creation. He is not a contingent being, depending on existence from anything else.

I am aware that there is a lot of LDS philosophy invested in materialism. But you are a young church and have made many seachange moves regarding teachings that were previously non-negotiable. I doubt it will happen in our lifetimes, but I cannot see why a transcendent God, who is also very near to us should be so repugnant as it seems many of today's LDS seem to believe.

Is this not what Paul is testifying to (a transcendent God) while in Athens where he proclaims to the pagan philosophers the Unknown God? I do not mean pagan pejoratively. They only had natural revelation and some were groping towards the truth as Paul could recognize. 

(Now all the Athenians, and strangers that were there, employed themselves in nothing else, but either in telling or in hearing some new thing.)  But Paul standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious.  For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you:  God, who made the world, and all things therein; he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;  Neither is he served with men's hands, as though he needed any thing; seeing it is he who giveth to all life, and breath, and all things:

And hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times, and the limits of their habitation.  That they should seek God, if happily they may feel after him or find him, although he be not far from every one of us:  For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring.

---Acts 17:21-28

Most commentators assert that Paul is quoting favorably from well-known Greek poets and philosophers using their own words to show the Athenians that their own scholars have implied that they discard their idols and seek this unknown God, who reveals his existence to all. It seems to me that they come very close to saying the same things about God as may be plausibly claimed by YWHW. There is nothing that does not come from God. He is seen as the source of all existence. The Source without a source, whose existence transcends matter.

What could be so bad about that? Nothing, if it is in Him that we live, and move, and have our very being. We are His offspring! GodWillDoWhatHeWill! Clearly, He wills to be with us, and to teach us that adoration of Him Who Is, is all fulfillment to all creatures (especially us). 

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.

[3DOP]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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 see your point about the name and ineffability. Perhaps I was straining to defend the exact wording of the catechism, which could be tweaked more satisfactorily.

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

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?

Making and keeping covenants under false pretenses.

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

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?

If those don’t count as God lying then I don’t think there is any plausible way in general to show that God lied. 

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

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?

I use eternal to talk about the duration of it and conscious to separate it from places like the old Sheol of Judaism which sounds hellish but you go there and aren’t in a state to feel it is good or bad. Conscious means you know it is bad. Admittedly the Church walked back a lot of the doctrine of hell taught in the Book of Mormon and made it eternal for only a few but for some it is eternal or maybe there is some end that God can’t or won’t share.

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

Yet when I go with the “trust nothing” approach other members look at me oddly and back away slowly.

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

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 have been in the Church for a long time and I have almost no idea what the afterlife involves. We know almost nothing about it and have a few barebones statements about it that came by revelation that are often ambiguous or unclear. Then we have heaps and heaps of speculation about it. Some of it ‘feels’ good but that is a horrible indicator of truth.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I see your point about the name and ineffability. Perhaps I was straining to defend the exact wording of the catechism, which could be tweaked more satisfactorily.

I think where some may stumble is the prioritization of ineffability over what we can and do know. For some reason that gets a lot of attention. Not that I think this is what is going on in the Catechism; I think documents like this catalog and thus serve to increase what we can and do know as we nurture our relationship with God. This I why I think things like "tweaking" -- good word!  --, correcting and building (deepening, expanding, advancing, etc.) upon previous and current a priori reasoning and experience are expressions of God's grace rather than the basis for criticism and punishment. After all, God "winks"! And then when we are ready, reveals more and even commands us to repent (which is not criticism or punishment either). 

[CV75]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Making and keeping covenants under false pretenses.

If those don’t count as God lying then I don’t think there is any plausible way in general to show that God lied. 

I use eternal to talk about the duration of it and conscious to separate it from places like the old Sheol of Judaism which sounds hellish but you go there and aren’t in a state to feel it is good or bad. Conscious means you know it is bad. Admittedly the Church walked back a lot of the doctrine of hell taught in the Book of Mormon and made it eternal for only a few but for some it is eternal or maybe there is some end that God can’t or won’t share.

Yet when I go with the “trust nothing” approach other members look at me oddly and back away slowly.

I have been in the Church for a long time and I have almost no idea what the afterlife involves. We know almost nothing about it and have a few barebones statements about it that came by revelation that are often ambiguous or unclear. Then we have heaps and heaps of speculation about it. Some of it ‘feels’ good but that is a horrible indicator of truth.

I would also say that tenure is a horrible indicator of truth, and irrespective of what we don’t know, we can say we collectively know some things, even if they are working models for the time being. The things we know, even vaguely or inaccurately, and act upon in good faith will bring blessings of progress and advancement. So, the doctrine that there are happiness and punishment, both here and now and in the afterlife, produces a stronger practical motivation than imagery about heaven and hell, depending on how deep we allow these things to sink (back to the previous sentence).

I agree that the “trust nothing” approach is a false one 😊.

I see how an endless duration of hell can be interpreted from the scriptures and the header to D&C 76. The use of “eternity” does indicate that we teach it within the narrow scope of Perdition: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/sons-of-perdition?lang=eng “Hell” in D&C 76 comes across as temporary while in D&C 29 it comes across as never-ending. So, we build upon the revelations. I’m not seeing any particular teaching, then or now, impeding our making and keeping covenants (other teachings and overriding personal spiritual experience support that), so if someone is focused on hell in a detrimental way, I believe the Lord will lead them out of it.

As I asked earlier, how do your conclusions that God is lying affect your good faith in making and keeping the covenants?

Regarding making and keeping covenants under false pretense, I spoke of “false premises.” Making and keeping covenants in good faith requires me to accept an array of premises, some of which may be an erroneous assumption or misunderstanding on my part, or doctrinally incorrect through no one’s fault (does that include what we teach about hell?). God does not condemn me for that, for correcting myself later, or even for someone tricking me into making and keeping covenants, for whom there is a special place in hell (oops!).

[JVW]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

As I asked earlier, how do your conclusions that God is lying affect your good faith in making and keeping the covenants?

To be fair, the story of the Fall is a very confusing story, the same type of confusing as trying to understand the Trinity or the Godhead. There are some things that logically make sense but I can't quite fit all of the puzzle pieces together.

As far as I understand it, the translation of "on this day you shall surely die" means "today" and "physical death" not "sometime in the next 1000 years" and/or "spiritual death". Which, at least on the surface, means that God is lying and the serpent (who allegedly is Satan, but only because we believe in LDS stuff) is telling the truth.

As much as I hate to say it (because I don't really like this friend all that much) the best theory I've heard about how to make the Fall make sense is that it is a priesthood ordinance. His view is that on every other Earth God administers the fruit to that Earth's respective Adam and Eve and they make the choice to accept, and that the devil got punished because he put himself in God's place through deception and blasphemed the ceremony.

Anyways, addressing your question that was not to me, I was immediately reminded of this verse in Enos that struck me a few weeks ago, (Enos 1:5-6) "And there came a voice unto me, saying: Enos, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou shalt be blessed. And I, Enos, knew that God could not lie; wherefore, my guilt was swept away." According to this verse knowing, or believing, that God can't lie is actually an integral part of repentance and accessing the atonement of Jesus Christ, or God's power. So believing that God has lied absolutely will impact anyone's faith journey or walk on the "covenant path".

Edited December 4, 2025 by JVW

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, JVW said:

To be fair, the story of the Fall is a very confusing story, the same type of confusing as trying to understand the Trinity or the Godhead. There are some things that logically make sense but I can't quite fit all of the puzzle pieces together.

As far as I understand it, the translation of "on this day you shall surely die" means "today" and "physical death" not "sometime in the next 1000 years" and/or "spiritual death". Which, at least on the surface, means that God is lying and the serpent (who allegedly is Satan, but only because we believe in LDS stuff) is telling the truth.

As much as I hate to say it (because I don't really like this friend all that much) the best theory I've heard about how to make the Fall make sense is that it is a priesthood ordinance. His view is that on every other Earth God administers the fruit to that Earth's respective Adam and Eve and they make the choice to accept, and that the devil got punished because he put himself in God's place through deception and blasphemed the ceremony.

Anyways, addressing your question that was not to me, I was immediately reminded of this verse in Enos that struck me a few weeks ago, (Enos 1:5-6) "And there came a voice unto me, saying: Enos, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou shalt be blessed. And I, Enos, knew that God could not lie; wherefore, my guilt was swept away." According to this verse knowing, or believing, that God can't lie is actually an integral part of repentance and accessing the atonement of Jesus Christ, or God's power. So believing that God has lied absolutely will impact anyone's faith journey or walk on the "covenant path".

Yes, believing that God has lied could impact an individual’s making and keeping covenants in good faith, or in bad faith, for that matter. As with your example of the story about the Fall, I think beliefs are formed with the influence of semantics, perceptions and bias, both in sending and receiving the information, none of which are inherently evil (when not intentionally evil by the user), just a function of our mortal weakness. They are also formed with the influence of the Holy Ghost, and impacted by other beliefs, priorities and foci. Can the person who concludes that God has lied, or lies, also believe He has not lied, sufficient to make and keep covenants in good faith? [Yes] Can he hear the voice of forgiveness and blessing, and know it is God’s, and assume this is a lie? [Yes] This is why I think personal experience, personality (in the broad sense) and agency trumps even the soundest theology, doctrine, witness and practice.

Edited December 4, 2025 by CV75

[3DOP]

A friend of mine sent me a pdf file of a book that perhaps others of you would find interesting. It is called Tetragrammaton: Western Christians and the Hebrew Name of God, From the Beginnings to the Seventeenth Century, by Robert J. Wilkinson. If anyone is interested, here is a link to a site where the book may be purchased that provides helpful information about the book.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Tetragrammaton_Western_Christians_and_th.html?id=1xyoBgAAQBAJ

[Calm]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

As I asked earlier, how do your conclusions that God is lying affect your good faith in making and keeping the covenants?

If you believe God lies, why would you trust that there is good reason to keep covenants? 

 God might be a parent telling us what we are capable of using to progress, he may be limited by our nature rather than by his own…maybe there is no other way to mature our spiritual brains just as mortal parents can’t speed up a toddler’s neural development so the kid can comprehend why they shouldn’t do certain things and should do other things.

Or

God may be a very twisted entity who intends that we all suffer excruciatingly in the future because he feeds off of others’ pain and giving some of us hope is simply because it will intensify our pain. (Seems like if there was such a being it could do a better job at removing inconsistencies to remove doubt.)

[Calm]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

God does not condemn me for that, for correcting myself later, or even for someone tricking me into making and keeping covenants, for whom there is a special place in hell (oops!).

Or so you hope.

As do I.

Quote

even for someone tricking me into making and keeping covenants, for whom there is a special place in hell

Why would there be a special place in hell for them if God doesn’t punish you?

Edited December 4, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

To be fair, the story of the Fall is a very confusing story, the same type of confusing as trying to understand the Trinity or the Godhead. There are some things that logically make sense but I can't quite fit all of the puzzle pieces together.

 

It helps to look at the Fall and other Bible stories as not one story, but two or more as well as it is humans interpreting what they have learned from others about God, anything in the Old Testament is not a story that came straight to us from a prophet’s pen, but it’s gone through a mass of editors, some inspired, others not.  New Testament might have fewer editors between us and the original writers, but not all writers were who they claimed to be and not all the writings are necessarily inspired…even some of the authors state they are giving their opinion at times.  Plus someone chose what to gather as the Bible and there is no guarantee that I am aware that all the choices were inspired,

Therefore, don’t try to harmonize it, even in the individual stories, imo.  Instead, accept the fractures and take each tidbit that inspires you on its own.  The complete picture is meant to be you, not scriptures, imo.  Scriptures are a path for the Spirit to reach out to you.  Scripture doesn’t have to be inspired for the Spirit to inspire you any more than the mundane or traumatic events of our life have to be inspired in order for the Spirit to teach us through them.

This isn’t to say all scripture is uninspired.  I do believe there’s quite a bit of it that is, especially modern scripture, but even much*** of the D&C was pieced together by others besides Joseph.

***have no clue of the percentage or how much was done after Joseph’s death or what the approval process was as they didn’t have Correlation back then.

Edited December 4, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

According to this verse knowing, or believing, that God can't lie is actually an integral part of repentance and accessing the atonement of Jesus Christ, or God's power. So believing that God has lied absolutely will impact anyone's faith journey or walk on the "covenant path".

If one accepts that Scripture is not God breathed, but transmitted through men that get things messed up and can even lie themselves or who could just be clueless (for example, not realizing a scroll was not one story but two because those who saved the stories thought both had value and stuck them in the same scroll for safe keeping), one can believe God never lies, but still recognize that scripture has cases where men have presented him as lying.

I prefer to approach scripture with the question “what might this teach me today?” rather than “what must I learn from it?”.

Edited December 4, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If you believe God lies, why would you trust that there is good reason to keep covenants? 

 God might be a parent telling us what we are capable of using to progress, he may be limited by our nature rather than by his own…maybe there is no other way to mature our spiritual brains just as mortal parents can’t speed up a toddler’s neural development so the kid can comprehend why they shouldn’t do certain things and should do other things.

Or

God may be a very twisted entity who intends that we all suffer excruciatingly in the future because he feeds off of others’ pain and giving some of us hope is simply because it will intensify our pain. (Seems like if there was such a being it could do a better job at removing inconsistencies to remove doubt.)

I'm realizing this question is a good example of semantics, perceptions and bias, both in sending and receiving the information. I intended it to be a direct question to The Nehor so I could better understand his view and personal experience. But I can see how it comes across as academic, or even rhetorical, depending on the reader. And I'm making my own assumptions in the question, that he likely does not believe God lies in the overall scheme of things.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Or so you hope.

As do I.

Why would there be a special place in hell for them if God doesn’t punish you?

Sometimes faith and hope are so strong we say "know" -- I hope that's another topic!

I said, "oops!" as an attempt at humor. I think God does punish people, per D&C 19. I'm saying that God would not punish me (in the D&C 19 sense, not the story of the Fall sense) for being tricked into making and keeping covenants, but He would punish someone for tricking me into making and keeping covenants. I see the story of the Fall showing God punishing Satan for beguiling Eve, and the so-called "punishment" of Adam and Eve as a starting point for their mortal pathway to redemption (and better than even redemption because the merits of Christ place them far ahead of what they had in Eden).

I'm not sure how this or the belief that God lies relates to His name, but I'll put my thinking cap on!  I guess we being what we are opposes God being what He is if it were not for Jesus Christ.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

He would punish someone for tricking me into making and keeping covenants

Even if they had good intentions?  Such as they thought someone would be better off?

Curious, not challenging as I believe there are consequences to not telling the truth though I wouldn’t phrase it as God punishes because I don’t see the need for God to punish us in most, if not all cases as natural consequences will eventually catch up to people, whether in this life or the next.  Lying even with good intentions may prevent someone from having the close type of relationships they actually want because they can’t trust others because they know they themselves are not trustworthy on all levels, for example.

Edited December 4, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Even if they had good intentions?  Such as they thought someone would be better off?

Curious, not challenging as I believe there are consequences to not telling the truth though I wouldn’t phrase it as God punishes because I don’t see the need for God to punish us in most, if not all cases as natural consequences will eventually catch up to people, whether in this life or the next.  Lying even with good intentions may prevent someone from having the close type of relationships they actually want because they can’t trust others because they know they themselves are not trustworthy on all levels, for example.

Good point, God would need to judge these finer situations and eventually punish the unrepentant (in the D&C 19 sense).

I'm trying to think of a real-life situation where some accountable person would have evil intentions and intentionally lie to get someone else to make and keep covenants in good faith. Whatever I come up with are real rabbit holes/threadjacks, but just might make a good Tubi movie plot!

Funny how we moved from interpretations of God's name to false doctrine and lying to this  !

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, JVW said:

To be fair, the story of the Fall is a very confusing story, the same type of confusing as trying to understand the Trinity or the Godhead. There are some things that logically make sense but I can't quite fit all of the puzzle pieces together.

As far as I understand it, the translation of "on this day you shall surely die" means "today" and "physical death" not "sometime in the next 1000 years" and/or "spiritual death". Which, at least on the surface, means that God is lying and the serpent (who allegedly is Satan, but only because we believe in LDS stuff) is telling the truth.

The explanation I sometimes hear is that God changed His mind but that has its own problems.

And yeah, identifying the serpent with Satan came later and is probably extrabiblical. They call Satan “the snake” in the Apocalypse but that is probably a reference to Leviathan and not the snake in the Garden. 

7 hours ago, JVW said:

As much as I hate to say it (because I don't really like this friend all that much) the best theory I've heard about how to make the Fall make sense is that it is a priesthood ordinance. His view is that on every other Earth God administers the fruit to that Earth's respective Adam and Eve and they make the choice to accept, and that the devil got punished because he put himself in God's place through deception and blasphemed the ceremony.

One theory I had was that humanity was supposed to progress normally in a Terrestrial environment and then partake of the fruit when they were ready. The equivalent of the end of the Millenium when those born during it are tested. This time the plan failed or was ‘hacked’ deliberately as a rescue mission for fallen spirits (i.e. us). I don’t really hold to it anymore.

Now I see the story as a story about a snake that thought it was clever and a God who needs better agricultural planning. Don’t put the stuff you don’t want the kids to eat in the middle of all the stuff you do want them to eat. Idiot.

That and a metaphor.

7 hours ago, JVW said:

Anyways, addressing your question that was not to me, I was immediately reminded of this verse in Enos that struck me a few weeks ago, (Enos 1:5-6) "And there came a voice unto me, saying: Enos, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou shalt be blessed. And I, Enos, knew that God could not lie; wherefore, my guilt was swept away." According to this verse knowing, or believing, that God can't lie is actually an integral part of repentance and accessing the atonement of Jesus Christ, or God's power. So believing that God has lied absolutely will impact anyone's faith journey or walk on the "covenant path".

It has certainly impacted mine.

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Good point, God would need to judge these finer situations and eventually punish the unrepentant (in the D&C 19 sense).

I'm trying to think of a real-life situation where some accountable person would have evil intentions and intentionally lie to get someone else to make and keep covenants in good faith. Whatever I come up with are real rabbit holes/threadjacks, but just might make a good Tubi movie plot!

Funny how we moved from interpretations of God's name to false doctrine and lying to this  !

Ugh, I know I am going to hell but if Stanley is there it will be intolerable. Gotta make sure Stanley ends up anywhere else!

There was a really stupid Christian made a few years back called “Nefarious” that includes a demon that basically preaches the far-right evangelical gospel to try to get his manifesto published but it made no sense. The demon was really stupid. All the characters come across as stupid actually since they were too busy preaching to make anything make any sense.

Edited December 5, 2025 by The Nehor