Like Earnest, pizzahut2023, I thank you for the details you are providing. The org leaders could care less about the theology of the sources they cite on the divine name. They do not grasp even the rudiments of biblical scholarship, and they view mostly all printed matter on the Bible as roughly equal: newspaper editor Benjamin Wilson (Emphatic Diaglott) = a Cambridge/Oxford professor.
They pick, like a hen pecks at food on the ground, at whatever morsels they stumble across, and then cite them to an audience already 100% eager to believe whatever they are told. The idea that the historical context of these medieval works they cite would matter is irrelevant.
SBF:
When one appreciates just how thoroughly Trinitarians changed the text of scripture and the early writings of the church to conform to the later Trinity doctrine it’s somewhat a miracle that non-Trinitarian material has survived at all from the early period. For every description of Jesus as the first creation of God in early Christianity that managed to cling on in the manuscript tradition there were probably many other examples that were blotted out.
Yes, it's like those early church onomastica, and the fathers who quote them, that still testify to Iao/Yaho as the living non-magical pronunciation for the Father in Second Temple Period Judaism among the masses. Remarkable that such testimony has survived at all.