There is 'much to do about' determining what some have 'determined' to be the 'true name' of our Lord and God of the Christian world. In some cases it comes down to 'much to do about nothing' or at least 'nothing much'. It's like putting 'single quotes' within or without side of the period at the end of a sentence. For very good communicative meanings and inferences, to me it makes better sense to place some single quotes within the ending period of the sentence, especially when the single quoted material only extends to a fragmented part of the whole of the sentence and not the whole of the sentence. It makes real good sense to put the 'single quote' out side of the ending period when it applies to the 'whole of the sentence' or at least the major portion of the sentence. But when the single quotes applies to only one item 'in' the sentence, it actually seems to be 'counter communicative' to extend the single quote beyond the end of the sentence to include the end of sentence marker 'the period.' or 'the period'. Certainly the single qouted material DOES NOT apply to the 'whole of the sentence'. So why is the 'period' by the 'general law' of 'single quotes' including the end of sentence marker as if the single quote applies to the whole of the sentence when it 'DOES NOT.' So much for the 'Tom Foolery' of the English Language rules that just DO NOT make good common sense but just applies some many arbatary rules in such an illogical manner.

This seems to be a point in fact about the extended discussion and even arguments over 'THE' 'true name' of the Lord. And the silliest part of those discussions are that they are for the most part discussing 'translitterations' of various language forms into other unrelated languages from the original language of the scriptures—'HEBREW'.

Truth is, 'written ancient Hebrew' is written without 'vowels' and even a full set of such consonants as are in other languages into which the Hebrew is translated and/or transliterated. Get around the difference between those two words if you can—'translated and transliterated'. So where does a discussion go that speaks of whether 'the name' is truely to be begin with its first letter being 'I', 'J', or 'Y'? ['Y?' as if the the whole of the sentence applies to 'Y.' and not 'I' or 'J' nonsense.]

In ancient Hebrew there is no vowels so 'X' the 'I' to begin with. Yet Indiana Jones' dad would not have lived without that 'I.' ['I'.] Watch the movie! When the 'original' has no written vowels how is 'I' even a legitimate consideration but according to some unrelated language's 'transliterated' and/or 'translated' form of the word such as English. And then how does that one language's transliterated form of the word even 'translate' or 'transliterate' into all the other languages to be so considered the 'one true form of the word'? Come on you American English gurues or gurus, force your language form on the rest of the world.

ONE QUOTED BIT OF 'INFORMATION STATES: ***** Note that Joshua = Yoshua [Yeshua] or Yahushua [Yehushua] because ther is no "J" sound [or letter "J"] in Hebrew. The "J" with its "J" sound didn't come into the English language until about 500 years ago [2015-500=1515 works—better get his facts right*]. In fact, the [letter] "J" isn't even found in the original 1611 King James version.
* "The letter J was first distinguished from 'I' by the Frenchman Pierre Ramus in the 16th century, but did not become common in Modern English until the 17th century, so that early 17th century works such as the first edition of the King James Version of the Bible (1611) continued to print the name with an I."

And the truth as far as the diference between 'J' and 'Y' or 'I,' there is even less of any substancial discussion or agrument basis to stand on either. In the 'official' 1611 King James' version of the Bible the English language had no letter 'J' at all in the original book. So the Greek or Latin word beginning with 'I' would be found to begin such as 'Ieseos' or 'Iesus' etc. And it good Old Testament translation of 'Joshua' or 'Jehoshua' were to be properly followed according to the Hebrew, then those names would have been 'properly' translated with the letter 'Y' beginnings. Remember in 1611 Old English there just was NO COMMONLY USED LETTER 'J' in the original King James Bible! But that Bible did not exist during the time of the Crusades, so Indie saved daddy by using the 'i' of the Latin or Greek for 'IEHOVAH'?

Truth is 'the name' in Hebrew, when switch about allowing for Hebrew being read 'right to left' to being in the Enlish manner of reading 'left to right' is 'YHVH'. When left in the Hebrew order the letters are 'HVHY', which the Hebrews read the 'Y' first, then 'H', then 'V' and they 'H'. Follow that? Hebrew 'left to right' written and read order of—.

"And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it Jehovah-nissi:"
~ Exodus 17:15

This I suggest in application to today ought to be translated 'The Lord [Jehovah] is my Ensign'. Of course Moses would likely have written it in Hebrew as shown above in yellow. And it is the inspired text of Moses which may be used to point us to the true origin of the 'True Name of our Lord'. And in the accompanying testament vision of Zechariah, it can further be comfirmed as to when 'the name' was first installed. But it is a New Testament verse which pinpoints the likely actual exact occasion(s) of the giving of the name to our Lord and Redeemer, our Deliverer. And there is actual confirming testimony of an 'Early Christian Father' Eusebius of Ceasarea that can be used to frame the whole of it.

There are a number of ways in which I could present this 'evolution' of the name of the Lord. Since I am but mortal man and consumed by the order of the ages of time, I will attempt to present it chronologically from the beginning. When one stays to the chronology of the events it does take one outside of the order of when the scriptures which reference the events have been written and given to man. That is to say the chronological order of events is not the same as being in scriptural order of scripture books, chapters and verses.

The 'Firstborn' spirit son of God the Father [Elohim] was Jehovah, also known as the Word. He was the 'firstborn of every creature' (Colossians 1:15 (4-20)). In his Ecclesiastical History of the Christian Church, Bishop Eusebius of Ceasarea puts it together very well (EHC Book 1 Chapter 2 Paragraph 2). As the 'Firstborn', Jehovah was the rightful heir of the Father and the logical son of God to stand in the stead of the Father in all things (Lev. 16:32) as was a part of the type-shadowings of the ancient temple/tabernacle performances.

When it came time for the Father to set out the Father's Plan of Happiness for his children, the Father, being already a Celestial God on High, would select one from amoung his spirit children to act in the name of the Father and perform the Acts of Redemption of all the children of God who would accept the Father's plan (D&C 130:5). The Father would formally asked the body of his children, 'Who shall I send.' And Jehovah responded, 'Here am I, send me.' Further details of that selection process and the events surounding it may be had by a study of the scriptures (Abraham 3:27-28; Moses 4:1-4; 1 John 4:14; Hebrew 1:1-14; and other scripture references of the standard works). Thus Jehovah was selected to be the redeeming Savior of all mankind, that is of those who kept their first estate. He would be the 'Deliverer' to who God's children would look to for their salvation.

It was then and there in Heaven that the Father did 'foreordain', anoint, consencrete and empower Jehovah to stand in his stead in all things pertaining to this temporal creation. And this was done before the foundation of the world, before the world was created, as is was Jehovah the anointed who under the direction of the father did so create it. (1 Peter 1:20 (10-20); Acts 10:42 (-43); Romans 8:28-34; Ephesians 1:3-12; 2 Timothy 1:9; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; Acts 4:27; etc.) The then spirit son Jehovah was endowed with the power of God and by that 'divine investiture' of the priesthood and power of God would/did Jehovah create the heavens and the earth under the direction of the father. (See: ECH Eusebius, Book 1, Chapter 2 Paragraphs 3 & 4)

It would likely have been in connection with these events of the selection and anointing of Jehovah that the first extending 'naming' of our Lord did take place. Jehovah had been selected and anointed to be the Redeemer, Savior and Deliverer of God's children in from their fall to the temporal world, which also Jehovah was empowered to create. It is purely logical the the his name became 'Jehovah-Delivered' and/or 'Jehovah-Savior', the combined form being that of Jehoshua meaning Jehovah - Deliverer or Jehovah - Savior and has thence been elaborated as being 'Jehovah is Salvation'. That name Jehoshua would be in short form that of Joshua and/or such as Jeshua etc. [One may put in the 'Y' instead of the English 'J' according to one's own language preference. Chances are that all such language variations are not exactly what the Adamic language was at any rate as all the languages were 'babeled' at the time of 'Babel'.]

And it was by this anointing and empowerment that the Spirit God Jehovah, working under the direction of the Father, did proceed to create the heavens and the earth. Those events are so well known and atested to throughout the scriptures that no particular references are here given. But to Bishop Eusebius' historical testimony of how it was, was so well known to him that he included it in his Ecclesiastical History are just previously referenced and linked. Over that times of creation did Lucifer, who rebelled against God and His Christ, Lucifer being of the nature of a 'firebrand' against the authority of God, did persuade others to follow him in his war of words against God. And thus the next confirming event also took place.

Lucifer opposed God's selection of Jehovah, even though Jehovah was the rightful heir of the Father, he being the Firstborn son in the spirit. And due to the manner of his opposition Lucifer began known by the name of Satan or the accuser or opposer. Thus when the earth had been completed in its creation preparation, it came time to 'determine' the fate of Lucifer and his followers and to reconfirm the Father selection and appointment of Jehovah as 'Jehoshua'. There is a vision given to Zechariah to see and write the event of that preexistent Council of Determination and/or Proclamation. It is found in Zechariah Chapter 3 and may be read there. As most people attempt to do, the then Jews adapted Zechariah's vision to themselves and performed it as one of their performances. If they understood that Jehoshua was Jesus Christ and not the current priest of the temple Joshua, we may have had less of directly determinable understanding of it actually being of the preexistent event envolving God, Jehovah and Lucifer.

As in many such visions taken from the all seeing eye of God, Zechariah had a messenger guide showing him the vision and what to take notice of. He was shown Jehovah as Jehoshua and Lucifer as Satan standing before God the Father. God the Father rebukes Satan and condemns him and it would be immediately after this council determination that Lucifer and his angels would be cast out of heaven down to earth without ever to receive a body of flesh and bone. The Father then would review through the plan of Jehovah taking upon himself the sins of the world and what would be required of him to successfully perform to bring it about even down to the daily of the Lord, the Millennium' and to also include the empowerment of the finally judgment of the Father's children.

It would be then at this time that 'man would be created'. That is Jehovah under the direct direction and afiliation of Elohim, as it would seem, would create man, that is the temporal tabernacle of man's spirit for the spirit to dwell in', in the image of 'us' Gods. (Gensis 1:26-27). Verse 26 uses the plural pronouns of reference of 'us' and 'our' as both Jehovah and Elohim were present. To Mahonri Moriancumr, Jehovah discloses that he created the body of man after the image of his spirit, for at the time he was a God of Spirit, not having received his temporal body yet at that time (see Ether 3). And thus we learn that our spirit is what its 'glove' looks like 'head, sholders, knees and toes; eyes, ears, mouth and nose.'

In reverence to the Lord, his 'name' was not often used in common daily language though we do know that he did use the name of Jehovah. But there are a number of names by which he is/was also known by which happened to also be given to man. The name David means beloved and it was Jehovah who was the 'Beloved' son of God before the name was given to David. The name 'Melchizedek' was also one of the title names of Jehovah the 'King of Righteousness', which was given to the man, the leader of the people of the earlier Jerusalem, the 'city of peace', to whom Abraham paid his tithes. Further it is not Jesus being named after Joshua, but rather it is Moses who renamed Oshea the son of Nun by that holy name of Jehovah, Jehoshua (Numbers 13:16). And further, according to Eusebius, even Aaron was given one of the names of Jehovah is that he was 'the aointed' of Moses. (See also EHC, Eusebius, Book 1, Chapter 3, Paragraph 2 and 4)

We have established what the 'Hebrew' transliterated 'name' is, that being Jehoshua or Jahoshua or Yehoshua etc. And we now fast forward to the other such names as are also in use. Our New Testament record states that Joseph and Mary were commanded to name their son JESUS. But Jesus is a Greek/Latin name that has been further transliterated into and English form. In Hebrew the name JESUS is Joshua or more formally 'Jehoshua' [both still being transliterations]. But even in the Greek and the Latin forms the name began with the letter 'I' because the letter 'J' was yet to be born into the English language.

Futher the name Christ is but the rough language equivalent of the word and meaning of Messiah in Greek. But yet both being 'transliterated' into their English forms again. But to all of that, one must come to the conclusion that all languages since the tower of Babel are not the original laguage of Adam and/or God. So when Joseph Smith gave us the inspired vision of the book of Moses what was he to do? For certainly Moses in those writings did name the Lord by his proper names of meaning Jehovah the Deliverer/Saviour and 'the anoited one'. So would Joseph be given the Adamic names to use? Nope. Joseph just used what would be most readily understood in the language of the people, English. And he used Jesus and Christ.

So what is the 'true' name of our Lord and God? Well he has many and many transliterations and translations into many languages of those names and titles. I've identified over 1500 so far and I really haven't gotten into all of the languages per-say. To that I conclude that a 'rose' is a 'rose' and should smell as sweet by any such name given. Oh, and the ancient Hebrew name of Jehoshua is:

Just be sure to read the HEBREW characters names from right to left or you will be saying those names backwards—as if you could read Hebrew and not know that already. And try to change Jehovah and Jehoshua into Yehovah and Yehoshua or you'll offend a modern Jew or someone who thinks they are thinking like a Jew. Actually faithful Jews do not appreciate you saying or using the name at all. And don't become to confused because if you are a 'true' Christian and not a 'JW', then God is the same being as Jesus, but if you are Catholic they are different 'persons' but not in the standard difinition of 'persons' that you would normally understand them as being. And for sure watch out for us Mormons, we like to give Jesus a Father, but we call him Elohim and do believe Jesus and Jehovah are the same God and Lord. What else? Oh, don't forget the 'I'. Not the 'iota' one, but the Greek and Latin one or you'll not be able to help Harrison save his daddy Sean.

In truth and kidding aside, I believe that God appreciates you calling him by any appropiate name associated with him as long as you do it sincerely and not in vain. Pray to him every day and often. He is real and hears your prayers of the heart. It is the false pride of men that fail to believe in him and think themself as his better. And sadly those who contend one against the other over his name are often just as prideful and think they know more than they do, which 'we' do not.