Okay - let's take this one issue at a time.
My name is not 'dad', but my kids use 'dad' with me as if it were my name. It is a title that specifies our relationship, likewise with 'God'. It is used as a name is used to identify our relationship with Him, but it is a title.
That's right. Your name is not dad - it's what you are to your kids and the roll you play in your family. Elohim is what God is, Jehovah is His name. The following names for God are found in the Old Testament. Who is it?
El-Shaddai, Adonai, Jehovah-jireh, Jehovah-rophe, Jehovah-nissi, Jehovah-M'Kaddesh, Jehovah-shalom, Jehovah-tsikdenu, Jehovah-rohi, Jehovah-shammah
Many of the terms used to reffer to Heavenly Father can also be used in reffering to Christ as well. It is by convention that we use Elohim to reffer to Heavenly Father and we recognize that this is not a convention used at all time by every previous writer. Nor was this convention used right from the start among us at all times. And yet you can't see any issues. You're speaking volumes here.
Well, that is how some people take it to indicate.
That is how the Hebrew language works. Elohim is what God is. I hope you can see what your leaders are doing here.
"That's right. Your name is not dad - it's what you are to your kids and the roll you play in your family. Elohim is what God is, Jehovah is His name."
None of this is counter to my position. As I said before, it is not incorrect to reffer to Jehovah (Christ) as Elohim (God). Am I to take the above as meaning that we now agree that Christ is Jehovah, and that 'God' (or 'Elohim') is a title that indicates his status and relationship to us, not a proper name.
"The following names for God are found in the Old Testament. Who is it? "
I'm no expert on Hebrew, but my understanding is that El-Shaddai and Adonai were titles the Jews used in place of Jehovah,
Jehovah-jireh - “The Lord will provide, or will see.” The name given by Abraham to the place where he offered Isaac (Gen. 22: 14).
Jehovah-nissi - "The Lord is my banner." Name given by Moses to the altar erected after the victory at Rephidim (Ex. 17: 15).
JEHOVAH-SHALOM - "The Lord is peace." Name given by Gideon to altar he erected at Ophrah (Judg. 6: 24).
JEHOVAH-SHAMMAH - "The Lord is there." In English, the name of the New Jerusalem in Ezekiel’s vision (Ezek. 48: 35).
I am not familar with the others, but I assume that like Jehovah-nissi etc., they are the names of places or things that contain a refference to the Lord (Jehovah).
I fail to see how any of this is relevant however. Your contention was that church doctrine at one time had Jesus Christ and Jehovah as two separate beings. I showed you that in the BoM itself, that pre-dates the church, it is clearly taught that Jesus is Jehovah, I linked you to articles that show clear statement from church leaders back to the begining of the church that state Jesus is Jehovah, and I dealt with the supposed evidence of some kind of difference between today's doctrine and that of the past. If you have nothing new to offer on this topic, can't you just admit the accusation is false?
If you wish to discuss a new issue, that of the existance of Heavenly Father as a sperate being from Christ, then I would suggest you start getting an idea of our reasons for this at this link:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/oneness.shtml
Or you could start by answering my question about John 20:17
"And yet you can't see any issues. You're speaking volumes here. "
Come on now, this is nothing more than the verbal equivilent to shaking your head and rolling your eyes. If you have a point, make it. We belive that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are two separate beings, and that there is very little about them that diferentiates them from each other.
"That is how the Hebrew language works. Elohim is what God is."
All languages known to man are imperfect. I agree that Elohim is what God is, but I don't agree that the way Elohim is used in the Bible to reffer to Jehovah is in conflict with our doctrine.
It is (was?) your interpetation that 'Elohim' is a proper name and that the fact that it is a plural form has no significance. Were my kids to write about me, some person could just as easily point to their words to argue that my name is 'dad', and the dismissal of the significance of the plural form is something you do to reconcile it with your opinon of the meaning of other parts of the scriptures. The text itself doesn't say Elohim is not a title or explain why the plural was used.
Just to finish with the whole JoD thing, I assume you now agree that the JoD is not cannon?