- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Out of respect to Orthodox believers and because of the way I was raised, I am pretty careful not to take the Lord’s name in vain. However, this is a doctrinal idea that I think is deeply misunderstood and we are probably taking a lot of offense where it is not needed. Based on my understanding of the Old Testament, the word “God” in the English translation was a placeholder for the name “Elohim” in Hebrew. “Lord” was a placeholder for “Yaweh” in Hebrew. The biblical prohibitions against taking the Lord’s name in vain seem to be against using those proper names in vain and not the titles of “God” and “Lord” the translators assigned. This became blatantly obvious to me when I was watching Studio C skits with my kids and there was a parody on Greek gods and they got extremely silly with the god of toilet paper, etc. How in the world is that OK but we shy away from any phrase that even resembles irreverence for God’s name? (Mormons rarely say things like “God willing”, “God only knows” or even “God bless”). On another note, this seems to be a relic of the way people viewed gods in ancient times, where they were to be feared and revered. People offered sacrifices and tried to appease gods not to incur their wrath. The Old Testament is all about introducing a new idea of God to the people of Israel in terms they could understand and made sense to them. This new god, Yaweh, was to be feared and revered (you didn’t take his name in vain, just like worshipers of Bael were not disrespectful to him or his name). But, Israel introduced new ideas about God that were radically progressive. I think we have just held on to the old idea that God will get really mad if we use his name disrespectfully.
I recognize that it’s one of the ten commandments and an important commitment in the temple, but I think we are misunderstanding the original intent. Furthermore, I’m not sure the God I believe in would really care how people used a title assigned to him (much like father, creator, etc.). I think he’s got bigger fish to fry. While I think it’s important to be respectful of believers and diety, we might want to take a little less offense when non-Mormons use the word “God” in every day speech.
I have a friend who blasphemes pretty frequently. I’ve actually told him that I’d prefer he uses the F or S words to doing that in front of me. On the other hand, some Jews go overboard and even write ‘G*d’ which as I have told them makes it look like a dirty word. The important thing here is that God and a god are differentiated in written English and can be worked out from context in speech. However, the constant use of “OMG” and “Oh my God!” by morons – usually young, and yes, I’m afraid female – is irritating.
YHWH is actually a profound name and concerns the nature of God’s existence.
Quote:Mormons rarely say things like “God willing”, “God only knows” or even “God bless”
They will say “Goodbye” though which is a corruption of “God be with you”.
There’s also the theory that taking the name of the lord in vain has more to do with professing to speak for and in behalf of god when you (knowingly) are not. Saying God’s name (as held by the Abrahamic religions) out of context is pretty rare. I think “OMG” and the like came about from people wanting to shock, or be impolite. And I believe impoliteness to be a sin, so I try to avoid it. Same reason I don’t swear. felixfabulous wrote:
This became blatantly obvious to me when I was watching Studio C skits with my kids and there was a parody on Greek gods and they got extremely silly with the god of toilet paper, etc.
This is because, when we see religion in others, we realize how ridiculous it is. Objectively, ALL religion is pretty silly. But our own personal religious convictions we take very seriously. TOO seriously, I think. If there is a God, I can’t see Him being petty enough to get offended by humans pointing out how ridiculous all of existance is. I like to think God has a sense of humor, and laughs even at Himself on a regular basis.
nibbler wrote:
There’s also the theory that taking the name of the lord in vain has more to do with professing to speak for and in behalf of god when you (knowingly) are not.
I’d go with this.As a story…on my mission I got scolded by one of the AP’s because when I got frustrated I would say…
“Oh, cheese and crackers!”
Because that sounded too much like “Jesus Christ”
And also, they explained if you are just substituting words but meaning the same thing…you are taking the name of God in vain in your heart…so it’s just as bad.
:wtf: …because religious folks like rules to be righteous, and also one ups-manship on being even more righteous by hedging against rules, and hedging against hedges…and on and on.
:angel: Random Thoughts: I don’t swear, but my husband does. I used to get on his case sometimes, but eventually I just settled into not being in the same room if he needed to swear at computers (not for the words themselves, but for the anger and loud expression of feeling that I found uncomfortable to be around). I would bring up periodically that our daughters were going to use the language he taught them… and pointedly did not say anything the few times the oldest has tried out some of those words… I’d like to think it was out of tolerance, but not really.
[SOAPBOX] I just refuse to bow into the female stereotype that I am responsible for improving my husband. I think that it is a HUGE stereotype that hurts everyone involved – females don’t need that executive functioning pressure, and males don’t need to think that “they are off the hook” and have the expectation that their wife will tame them. In my heart of hearts, it’s because I barely have a grasp on my own self improvement path, and don’t have the resources to police his choices as well as mine. I do encourage him to be his best self, and he finds motivation in being a better spouse to me. So the self-improvement is there, but it is a side benefit of personal enlightenment, not the cause of it. I also strive to thoughtfully and meaningfully connect and counsel with him as a partner in our family for our survival – not to look good or one-up-man-ship anyone.
My in-laws made the mistake of encouraging me to police their son’s behavior once (not in a bad way) about 2 years into our marriage – but after the wonderful, polite, and very direct conversation we had, they understood that I was never going to deliberately try to “improve”, manipulate, or corral their son’s behavior deliberately in those traditional female domains. I was happy to set up a good environment for us, and counsel with him regarding the consequences of choices as I see it, but that was as far as it goes. They did not expect that type of thinking and understanding, so it took some getting used to on their behalf. However, the consensus from what they tell me is that it was the best practice to implement in family life for their son. [END SOAPBOX].
Since my faith transition, I no longer even give lip service to caring about swear words in general. I don’t use them mostly because I don’t find them precise enough to mean what I want to say – and I don’t want to start my girls using those words until they are old enough to understand some of the connotations of the words (if ever). I request my husband avoid sexual-type swearing in my presence because I feel it defiles something we are trying to make and keep sacred. But currently, I no longer care about other types of words because it doesn’t matter anymore. If there is swearing regarding computers or something else not going well for my husband, I recognize that it is a way for him to vent some of the emotions he is feeling in a relatively neutral way – and if there is a lot of it or at a louder volume I still head out of the room.
I try to use all proper names as proper nouns only. It never made sense to use them any other way. I truly don’t have any issues with using names for deity in context of talking about deity. I highly doubt they are so sensitive they can’t handle it.
I came across this excellent post which makes some great points https://credohouse.org/blog/taking-the-lords-name-in-vain-what-does-it-really-mean God is not God’s name. It’s a placeholder or title, like calling someone a person. This commandment is about more than just the proper name for God as a swear word.
nibbler wrote:
There’s also the theory that taking the name of the lord in vain has more to do with professing to speak for and in behalf of god when you (knowingly) are not.
.
This seems to be a pretty solid theory. Look at the state of religion at the time of the Old Testament, nations invoked the name of God for all kinds of things, saying different things were God’s will or that their God would help them prevail in battle. Is God telling people not to do this? Are they turning right around and violating this commandment when they invoked his name in telling exaggerated battle stories about defeating their enemies and conquering the land of Canaan?
Should we be really careful about invoking God’s name and attributing his hand to different natural or human events? What about presuming to know the mind and will of the Lord and saying as much when we’re not really sure?
felixfabulous wrote:
Should we be really careful about invoking God’s name and attributing his hand to different natural or human events?
oh, god…no!
Heber13 wrote:
felixfabulous wrote:
Should we be really careful about invoking God’s name and attributing his hand to different natural or human events?
oh, god…no!
This opens up a WHOLE can of worms. Because, even if there is one “true” religion, just about ALL Abrahamic religions lay claims to revelation, and they all contradict one another. So ALL religious leaders, except maybe a select few (which ones, does anybody know?), are guilty of taking the Lord’s name in vain. They might even be guilty of giving God a name in the first place, or attributing anything to Him.
In fact, God and our views on God have changed DRASTICALLY over the centuries. If there is any consistent attributes which can be applied to God, who can honestly say what they are?
I have appreciated the discussion. Thanks! When dealing with words, I always like to start with actual meanings. In that light: “Vain” means “excessively proud of or concerned about one’s own appearance, qualities, achievements, etc.; conceited: proceeding from or showing pride in or concern about one’s appearance, qualities, etc.; ineffectual or unsuccessful; futile: without real significance, value, or importance; baseless or worthless: senseless or foolish.”
“In vain” means: “without effect or avail; to no purpose; in an improper or irreverent manner”.
Each definition is somewhat subjective, but each also is common. I find it interesting that the original commandment is NOT to avoid using God’s name vainly (like the first few, most common definitions) but, rather, “in vain” (like the last definitions that focus on effect, purpose, and manner). The commandment appears to be more about what someone claims to do by using God’s name and less about pride – although I understand there often is a direct connection between the two and they often overlap. To me, this ties directly into the command to “swear not at all” – which has absolutely nothing to do with “swear words” and everything to do with making promises with regard to things outside of one’s control in the name of God.
Interestingly, the D&C treatise on unrighteous dominion addresses BOTH definitions of citing authority vainly and in vain. I like the combination.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.