What'S In A Name?

[Sargon]

A recent thread got me thinking a bit about the "name-titles" that we use to designate God the Father and God the Son. The 1916 declaration by the First Presidency reads, in part:

The purport of these scriptures is to the effect that God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title "Elohim," is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race.

This leads me to believe that it is not "official" LDS doctrine that God the Father's personal name is "Elohim." This word after all is simply a generic Hebrew word signifying a variety of things related to deity. It seems that this Hebrew word has been consciously adopted as a "name-title" for the Father, evidently different from just a "name."

Curiously, the name "Jehovah" which is so commonly applied to Jesus in his pre-mortal activities is not said to be a "name-title." Why is this? Can we assume that it also is? In D&C 109 we have Joseph Smith repeatedly referring to God the Father as "Jehovah":

29 We ask thee, Holy Father, to confound, and astonish, and to bring to shame and confusion, all those who have spread lying reports abroad, over the world, against thy servant or servants, if they will not repent, when the everlasting gospel shall be proclaimed in their ears;

30 And that all their works may be brought to naught, and be swept away by the hail, and by the judgments which thou wilt send upon them in thine anger, that there may be an end to lyings and slanders against thy people.

31 For thou knowest, O Lord, that thy servants have been innocent before thee in bearing record of thy name, for which they have suffered these things.

32 Therefore we plead before thee for a full and complete deliverance from under this yoke;

33 Break it off, O Lord; break it off from the necks of thy servants, by thy power, that we may rise up in the midst of this generation and do thy work.

34 O Jehovah, have mercy upon this people, and as all men sin forgive the transgressions of thy people, and let them be blotted out forever.

42 But deliver thou, O Jehovah, we beseech thee, thy servants from their hands, and cleanse them from their blood.

56 That their hearts may be softened when thy servants shall go out from thy house, O Jehovah, to bear testimony of thy name; that their prejudices may give way before the truth, and thy people may obtain favor in the sight of all;

So what exactly is the nature of these two names/name-titles? Do we believe that "Jehovah" (or YHWH) is literally the personal name of the pre-mortal Christ? Or, is this another case of a "name-title"?

[Doctor Steuss]

Just ot muddy the waters, in D&C 110 we have:

1 The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.

2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.

3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.

[Sargon]

Thanks Dr. Stuess.

There are obvious references in our scriptures to the Father as "Jehovah", but I don't know of one that refers to the Son as "Elohim", for what it's worth. In fact, I don't know if there is any passage that unambiguously refers to the Father as "Elohim."

[Doctor Steuss]

Thanks Dr. Stuess.

There are obvious references in our scriptures to the Father as "Jehovah", but I don't know of one that refers to the Son as "Elohim", for what it's worth. In fact, I don't know if there is any passage that unambiguously refers to the Father as "Elohim."

I had never really thought about that before, but I believe you're right. It seems (from briefly ruminating on the topic) that the source of that practice was Joseph (likely stemming from his Hebrew lessons).

[jadams_4242]

Just ot muddy the waters, in D&C 110 we have:

1 The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.

2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.

3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.

I wonder what the name jehovah means in ancient hebrew? could it possibly have a universality with both the son and the father?

[katherine the great]

I was under the impression that they both mean "God", but Elohim was the word used by the Northern Kingdom while Yahweh was the warrior God of Judah. I'm not sure there is really a true consensus on their actual meaning.

[structurecop]

I was under the impression that they both mean "God", but Elohim was the word used by the Northern Kingdom while Yahweh was the warrior God of Judah. I'm not sure there is really a true consensus on their actual meaning.

Bingo.

[volgadon]

Has it not crossed anyone's mind that Christ is sometimes refered to as the father?

Abinadi particularly sticks out.

Jehovah means he exists.

[structurecop]

Jehovah means he exists.

That's quite debatable.

[David T]

Isn't "He who causes to exist" closer, if still not 100% exact? (I understand that when he gave his name to Moses, he used the singular, "I cause to exist" - all those who are not Him use the Third Person version of the Name.)

[structurecop]

Isn't "He who causes to exist" closer, if still not 100% exact? (I understand that when he gave his name to Moses, he used the singular, "I cause to exist" - all those who are not Him use the Third Person version of the Name.)

Moses was told "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" which could mean a few things. I'm not familiar with this first or third-person context you refer to.

[volgadon]

Debatable?

The root for the words for existance present (not gift but time), and the verb to be. The y at the begining indicates a continuous action.

[structurecop]

Debatable?

The root for the words for existance present (not gift but time), and the verb to be. The y at the begining indicates a continuous action.

I'm out of reach of my ABD so this will have to do for now:

Exodus:

The etymology of YHWH is a matter of considerable scholarly dispute... More important for exegesis than the scholarly etymology is what significance the name was attached in ancient Israel...

Good stuff.

[Sargon]

OK, so back to the original question.

What exactly is the nature of these two names/name-titles according to "official" LDS doctrine?

Do we believe that "Jehovah" (or YHWH) is literally the personal name of the pre-mortal Christ? Or, is this another case of a "name-title"?

[katherine the great]

OK, so back to the original question.

What exactly is the nature of these two names/name-titles according to "official" LDS doctrine?

Do we believe that "Jehovah" (or YHWH) is literally the personal name of the pre-mortal Christ? Or, is this another case of a "name-title"?

I don't think official LDS doctrine addresses that exact question. I think the important thing is that we know that the Father and the son are two distinct beings.

[David T]

I don't think there is an official position. I believe it's a Name-Title, designating a specific aspect of the Authority of The Father (or 'Elohim'). I also believe it's highly possible at times that, by delegation, other individuals took upon themselves the name of Jehovah/YHWH to deliver a message in His Name.

In some cases, where it says "YHWH" or The Angel of YHWH said or did something in the Old Testament, for example, it may have been Michael delivering the message clothed with the power and authority of YHWH, who in turn received HIS authority and title from "Elohim".

so sometimes the following patter occured:

1) Elohim spoke a message under the YHWH aspect of His power and authority.

2) The Premortal Jesus Christ, holder of the keys of the Name of YHWH, had the directive to promulgate the message.

3) The YHWH keyholder delegated the assignment of message bearing to one of the angels under His direction, to proclaim the message in His Name.

4) The angel, clothed in the Name of YHWH, delivers the message to a Prophet.

The following would then all be accurate:

1) The message was spoken by Elohim

2) The message was spoken by YHWH

3) The message was spoken by the Angel

4) The message was spoken by the Prophet

Elohim is always YHWH, but YHWH is not always Elohim.

[katherine the great]

so sometimes the following patter occured:

1) Elohim spoke a message under the YHWH aspect of His power and authority.

2) The Premortal Jesus Christ, holder of the keys of the Name of YHWH, had the directive to promulgate the message.

3) The YHWH keyholder delegated the assignment of message bearing to one of the angels under His direction, to proclaim the message in His Name.

4) The angel, clothed in the Name of YHWH, delivers the message to a Prophet.

The following would then all be accurate:

1) The message was spoken by Elohim

2) The message was spoken by YHWH

3) The message was spoken by the Angel

4) The message was spoken by the Prophet

Elohim is always YHWH, but YHWH is not always Elohim.

That is truly confusing.

[David T]

Let me rephrase:

Elohim is always YHWH, but the personage representing YHWH is not always Elohim.

corollary:

Adam is Michael, but Michael doesn't always have to be Adam.

Noah is Gabriel, but Gabriel doesn't always have to be Noah

Adam at times holds the title Ancient of Days, but the Ancient of Days does not always have to be Adam.

[structurecop]

That is truly confusing.

I prefer to imagine El, Asherah, Ea, and Ba'al all fighting and carrying on up there...

[David T]

When an ordinance is performed 'In the Name of Jesus Christ', Jesus Christ Himself is not there physically performing the ordinance. It is performed by an individual under the direction of the keyholder of that ordinance in their geographical region, who received the keys from the President of the Church, who recieved them down the line to Jesus Christ.

Thus, the ordinance was performed by the Authority and in the Name of Jesus Christ, but Jesus Christ did not physically perform the ordinance. On Earth as it is in Heaven.

D&C 36:2, "And I will lay my hand upon you by the hand of my servant Sidney Rigdon"

[David T]

I have really come to believe that in dealing with the Divine, it is not important to pay too much attention to the details of the labels made up of characters and sounds we call 'names'.

Name, in a Divine sense, always refers to Characteristics, Power, and Authority. The symbols and words 'Deacon', 'Teacher', 'Priest', and 'Elder' are not significant in and of themselves. What is significant is the portion of power and authority those symbols represent.

Every action, sign, and word in the Gospel is simply a symbol representing abstract power or authority. In the words of Doc Brown, We're often "not thinking 4th Dimensionally!"

When we get caught up on the symbols, we tend to completely get off track in understanding what is represented by them. This was one of the key problems of the Jewish sects during the Second Temple period, up through the time of Christ. They still had the symbols, but the stories and understandings behind them were completely separated. The symbol became the substance.

Even though 'Jehovah' isn't an historically accurate way of pronouncing the Hebrew divine Name of YHWH, it doesn't matter. The Lord in this dispensation has authorized and accepted that particular form of the Symbol to represent the Divine Name. This is why translations of ordinances are just as valid as the english in which we recieved them in the D&C. Symbols and Key Words are authorized to represent aspects or actions of the Divine.

This often is the same case with names of Divinity.

[David T]

(double post)