Worshipping False Gods

[bluebell]

I was listening to a podcast called Gospel Chats (which is a couple of institute directors/teachers in St. George Utah.  They have an excellent series on the temple and now are going through the ten commandments.  I like their stuff because it's fairly short.  Like 30 minutes to an hour in total.  

In one of their latest podcasts they discussed the concept of having no gods before God the Father.  They did the usual take on it, which was taking it in context with the pagan and polytheistic gods that existed in the OT and also talking about all the ways that we worship other gods now like our phones or sports or whatever.

But then they took it in a direction that I had never thought about before, where they discussed that when we have an incorrect understanding or view of who God and Christ are, then we are essentially worshipping a false God. 

They used the parable of the talents as an example, where the slothful servant explains that the reason he buried his talent was because he knew that his Master was a hard and demanding master.  But if the Master is Christ, He is none of those things.  So in that sense, the slothful servant didn't actually know his master at all, he just thought he did. And that misconception about who his master was is what caused him all the problems later.

One of the presenters says that "maybe one of the false gods that most of us worship is our own interpretation of God" and asks the other presenter what some of his incorrect understandings of God had he worshipped over the years. 

He lists a few, one of which is "a god of perfectionism rather than a God that perfects."  I think there are probably many of us in the church who have worshipped that false god while believing we were worshipping Christ.  

With that perspective as a background, the scriptures talking about us knowing God, and Pres. Nelson's constant pleas for us to really learn who God is, stand out.  The need to be intentional in actually spending time and effort getting to know the God you worship, and the reason for the first commandment in the ten commandments, makes so much more sense to me.  

Thoughts?   Is this a new perspective on this commandment for you or is it something you've already been considering?  Is it useful to apply the worshipping of false gods to the different ways we worship God the Father and Jesus Christ?

[Pyreaux]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was listening to a podcast called Gospel Chats (which is a couple of institute directors/teachers in St. George Utah.  They have an excellent series on the temple and now are going through the ten commandments.  I like their stuff because it's fairly short.  Like 30 minutes to an hour in total.  

In one of their latest podcasts they discussed the concept of having no gods before God the Father.  They did the usual take on it, which was taking it in context with the pagan and polytheistic gods that existed in the OT and also talking about all the ways that we worship other gods now like our phones or sports or whatever.

But then they took it in a direction that I had never thought about before, where they discussed that when we have an incorrect understanding or view of who God and Christ are, then we are essentially worshipping a false God. 

They used the parable of the talents as an example, where the slothful servant explains that the reason he buried his talent was because he knew that his Master was a hard and demanding master.  But if the Master is Christ, He is none of those things.  So in that sense, the slothful servant didn't actually know his master at all, he just thought he did. And that misconception about who his master was is what caused him all the problems later.

One of the presenters says that "maybe one of the false gods that most of us worship is our own interpretation of God" and asks the other presenter what some of his incorrect understandings of God had he worshipped over the years. 

He lists a few, one of which is "a god of perfectionism rather than a God that perfects."  I think there are probably many of us in the church who have worshipped that false god while believing we were worshipping Christ.  

With that perspective as a background, the scriptures talking about us knowing God, and Pres. Nelson's constant pleas for us to really learn who God is, stand out.  The need to be intentional in actually spending time and effort getting to know the God you worship, and the reason for the first commandment in the ten commandments, makes so much more sense to me.  

Thoughts?   Is this a new perspective on this commandment for you or is it something you've already been considering?  Is it useful to apply the worshipping of false gods to the different ways we worship God the Father and Jesus Christ?

I agree with everything said accept how the principles are related. I won't adopt the language of my oppressors, not understanding God can be just as bad but I will resist the slide into saying that this equals worshiping a "different God." That phrasing carries a lot of theological baggage from Evangelical anti-LDS rhetoric ("Mormons worship a different Jesus"), and importing it into our own discourse risks muddying LDS doctrine.

Our perceptions of God deeply affect our relationship with Him. A false view of His character can lead to fear, discouragement, or pride. President Nelson did call to "know the Savior" and "learn who God is" is about shedding misconceptions that distort our discipleship. Wrong ideas about God distort worship, but they don’t necessarily mean you’ve switched deities.

The phrase "worshipping a false God" when applied to misunderstanding God is rhetorically dangerous because it confuses misunderstanding God, something all humans do to some degree, with worshipping a different being or actual idolatry or other theological substitution.

LDS worship God the Father, but we may misunderstand him, but that doesn’t mean we’re worshipping Baal, Zeus, or a "different Jesus." Paul’s warning about those preaching "another Jesus" (2 Cor 11:4) wasn’t about imperfect understanding of the same Jesus, it was about deliberate replacement of the true Christ with a false one. In contrast, People who are sincerely striving to know God may be in error at times, but they’re still reaching toward the same God.

Adopting Evangelical polemical categories like "different Jesus" or "a false god" against our own members plays directly into anti-LDS framing. It trains us to use language of condemnation rather than correction, with heresy-hunting, and internalize the notion that any nonstandard thought means you’ve left the faith.

Edited October 30, 2025 by Pyreaux

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I agree with everything said accept how the principles are related. I won't adopt the language of my oppressors, not understanding God can be just as bad but not the same as worshiping a different God. Don't do that people.

Can you clarify?  I'm not sure what you are trying to say.  How is the idea that we can worship a false God when we make God in our own image, for example, adopting the language of an oppressor?

[Pyreaux]

I edited it while you were asking.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

I agree with everything said accept how the principles are related. I won't adopt the language of my oppressors, not understanding God can be just as bad but I will resist the slide into saying that this equals worshiping a "different God." That phrasing carries a lot of theological baggage from Evangelical anti-LDS rhetoric (“Mormons worship a different Jesus”), and importing it into our own discourse risks muddying LDS doctrine.

Our perceptions of God deeply affect our relationship with Him. A false view of His character can lead to fear, discouragement, or pride. President Nelson did call to "know the Savior" and "learn who God is" is about shedding misconceptions that distort our discipleship. Wrong ideas about God distort worship, but they don’t necessarily mean you’ve switched deities.

The phrase "worshipping a false God" when applied to misunderstanding God is rhetorically dangerous because it confuses misunderstanding God, something all humans do to some degree, with worshipping a different being or actual idolatry or other theological substitution.

LDS worship God the Father, but we may misunderstand him, but that doesn’t mean we’re worshipping Baal, Zeus, or a “different Jesus." Paul’s warning about those preaching “another Jesus” (2 Cor 11:4) wasn’t about imperfect understanding of the same Jesus, it was about deliberate replacement of the true Christ with a false one. In contrast, People who are sincerely striving to know God may be in error at times, but they’re still reaching toward the same God.

 

I think I understand what you are saying.  How does it work with the talks and lessons given in the past about how smoking, TV, drugs, our phones, other relationships, can be an example of us worshipping a false god?  None of those examples imply an actual deity or even a true theological substitution, yet we hear them all the time at church.  

Do you dislike those examples as well, or is it just the idea that an incorrect interpretation of God the Father can constitute worshipping a false god that you disagree with?

Quote

Adopting Evangelical polemical categories like "different Jesus" or "a false god" against our own members plays directly into anti-LDS framing. It trains us to use language of condemnation rather than correction, with heresy-hunting, and internalize the notion that any nonstandard thought means you’ve left the faith.

I see what you mean about the different Jesus idea.  Rather than apply it against our own members (or other people), is it ever reasonable to apply it to ourselves?

I disagree that the concept has anything to do with the underlined part, probably because I listened to the podcast and heard the discussion in context.  These church CES workers (or whatever they are called now), were not at all implying that incorrect understandings of Jesus mean someone has left the faith. Nor did they even come close to the idea that we should be applying this concept to anyone else other than ourselves, as an exercise to help us always be moving closer to worshipping Him in truth.

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

That phrasing carries a lot of theological baggage from Evangelical anti-LDS rhetoric ("Mormons worship a different Jesus"), and importing it into our own discourse risks muddying LDS doctrine.

That is the same thing that struck me.  It comes too close to being damned for not believing the right theology no matter the intent of our heart and mind and charity of our acts.

Find a different way to put it and I can probably enthusiastically get on board.  

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How does it work with the talks and lessons given in the past about how smoking, TV, drugs, our phones, other relationships, can be an example of us worshipping a false god?  None of those examples imply an actual deity or even a true theological substitution, yet we hear them all the time at church.  

I think these can work…though I am still not fond of the phrasing…because the category of false gods presented are completely separate from God the Father so the correct idea of what is damaging about the relationship is being conveyed, as in they have obviously replaced the Father in people’s hearts, they are obviously not seeking God when they seek these things first.

However, it is not clear when it’s said we worship a different Jesus or Heavenly Father that the problem is we have replaced the God we should seek after with an idol of our own choosing rather than just misunderstanding who God truly is because of false teachings or just putting the pieces we have together in the wrong way, but still have a pure intention to follow God.  

The false gods we choose to follow are a result of us choosing to mold God into our own image rather than choosing to place ourselves into his hands to be molded.  We may do this in ignorance, but it will still get in the way of us developing a pure relationship with God over time because we are responding to ourselves as we are rather than who God is.

Edited October 30, 2025 by Calm

[Tony uk]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I was listening to a podcast called Gospel Chats (which is a couple of institute directors/teachers in St. George Utah.  They have an excellent series on the temple and now are going through the ten commandments.  I like their stuff because it's fairly short.  Like 30 minutes to an hour in total.  

In one of their latest podcasts they discussed the concept of having no gods before God the Father.  They did the usual take on it, which was taking it in context with the pagan and polytheistic gods that existed in the OT and also talking about all the ways that we worship other gods now like our phones or sports or whatever.

But then they took it in a direction that I had never thought about before, where they discussed that when we have an incorrect understanding or view of who God and Christ are, then we are essentially worshipping a false God. 

They used the parable of the talents as an example, where the slothful servant explains that the reason he buried his talent was because he knew that his Master was a hard and demanding master.  But if the Master is Christ, He is none of those things.  So in that sense, the slothful servant didn't actually know his master at all, he just thought he did. And that misconception about who his master was is what caused him all the problems later.

One of the presenters says that "maybe one of the false gods that most of us worship is our own interpretation of God" and asks the other presenter what some of his incorrect understandings of God had he worshipped over the years. 

He lists a few, one of which is "a god of perfectionism rather than a God that perfects."  I think there are probably many of us in the church who have worshipped that false god while believing we were worshipping Christ.  

With that perspective as a background, the scriptures talking about us knowing God, and Pres. Nelson's constant pleas for us to really learn who God is, stand out.  The need to be intentional in actually spending time and effort getting to know the God you worship, and the reason for the first commandment in the ten commandments, makes so much more sense to me.  

Thoughts?   Is this a new perspective on this commandment for you or is it something you've already been considering?  Is it useful to apply the worshipping of false gods to the different ways we worship God the Father and Jesus Christ?

I certainly appreciate this post and the context. 

In my own view, over time. People may have attempted to give an image of God, that may have suited there own thoughts process. Rather than the God the father, who Jesus taught, and spoke about. Some people may prefer to go with the God of anger, retribution and damnation.

[Pyreaux]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think I understand what you are saying.  How does it work with the talks and lessons given in the past about how smoking, TV, drugs, our phones, other relationships, can be an example of us worshipping a false god?  None of those examples imply an actual deity or even a true theological substitution, yet we hear them all the time at church.  

Do you dislike those examples as well, or is it just the idea that an incorrect interpretation of God the Father can constitute worshipping a false god that you disagree with?

I see what you mean about the different Jesus idea.  Rather than apply it against our own members (or other people), is it ever reasonable to apply it to ourselves?

I disagree that the concept has anything to do with the underlined part, probably because I listened to the podcast and heard the discussion in context.  These church CES workers (or whatever they are called now), were not at all implying that incorrect understandings of Jesus mean someone has left the faith. Nor did they even come close to the idea that we should be applying this concept to anyone else other than ourselves, as an exercise to help us always be moving closer to worshipping Him in truth.

It's a slippery slope. I have heard many LDS lessons like that, trying to make old texts apply to us, that idolatry today can apply to anything we put before God; habits, media, pride, work, relationships. Those lessons made sense because they seemed like they were clear that they were stretching "idolatry" metaphorically to describe misplaced priorities, devotion or loyalty we should reconsider.

What feels different to me in your description of the podcast’s framing is that it shifts from misplaced priorities to misplaced identity of God Himself. Once we start calling a misunderstanding of God "a different god," that’s a pretty significant theological charge. It’s not the same as saying "maybe I'm idolizing my phone using it so much."

I get that the presenters meant it introspectively, not accusingly, but it’s still a slippery slope to add to our worship dialogue. We’ve seen that "different god" language before, so I just think it’s unwise to mirror that framing even if its back onto ourselves. I don’t dislike the modern-idolatry narrative per se, I just think "worshipping a false god" doesn't fit well when it’s about imperfect understanding of the same God we’re all striving to know better.

Edited October 30, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

It's a slippery slope. I have heard many LDS lessons like that, trying to make old texts apply to us, that idolatry today can apply to anything we put before God; habits, media, pride, work, relationships. Those lessons made sense because they seemed like they were clear that they were stretching "idolatry" metaphorically to describe misplaced priorities, devotion or loyalty we should reconsider.

What feels different to me in your description of the podcast’s framing is that it shifts from misplaced priorities to misplaced identity of God Himself. Once we start calling a misunderstanding of God "a different god," that’s a pretty significant theological charge. It’s not the same as saying "maybe I'm idolizing my phone using it so much."

I get that the presenters meant it introspectively, not accusingly, but it’s still a slippery slope to add to our worship dialogue. We’ve seen that "different god" language before, so I just think it’s unwise to mirror that framing even if its back onto ourselves. I don’t dislike the modern-idolatry narrative per se, I just think "worshipping a false god" doesn't fit well when it’s about imperfect understanding of the same God we’re all striving to know better.

I like how you have expressed this.  I think it’s clearer and more comprehensive than my attempt.

Edited October 30, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

That is the same thing that struck me.  It comes too close to being damned for not believing the right theology no matter the intent of our heart and mind and charity of our acts.

Find a different way to put it and I can probably enthusiastically get on board.  

what is the different way you would put it?

I find it interesting, the idea that it would be at all connected to an idea of damnation. That was not something that the presenters touched on or that came to my mind.

 

[the narrator]

A God who cares that much what others think of Him/Her/It isn't worthy of worship, IMO.

One of my biggest fears is dying and discovering that God as described by most Mormons (or the cosmic reality he is bound by) is real--though I have much of that same fear of dying and discovering there is an infinite and unending afterlife. Truly, the most horrifying of cosmic horrors.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, the narrator said:

A God who cares that much what others think of Him/Her/It isn't worthy of worship, IMO.

One of my biggest fears is dying and discovering that God as described by most Mormons (or the cosmic reality he is bound by) is real--though I have much of that same fear of dying and discovering there is an infinite and unending afterlife. Truly, the most horrifying of cosmic horrors.

Sure, if you believe that the reason that God cares about what we think of Him has anything to do with Him or His ego.

But what if the reason that God cares if you understand His character is because when we don’t understand His love and His mercy we feel really bad about ourselves because of our sins, and we experience a lot of shame, and we cut ourselves off from being able to experience His peace, and we can’t feel His love for us, and we don’t seek forgiveness for our sins and instead carry the weight of them around with us for a lifetime?

 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, the narrator said:

God who cares that much what others think of Him/Her/It isn't worthy of worship, IMO.

I don’t see it as God caring in that way, but preferring us to commit to something that helps us grow rather than stagnant so we can have a better life (speaking generally including postmortality) like most parents. 

 And I don’t see us being punished by God for stagnating outside of not being able to benefit from new growth earlier rather than later, suffering because the errors we make cause suffering rather than additional punishment is applied (cheating leads us to not being knowledgeable about a subject and so we make mistakes in our work later where we wouldn’t have if we hadn’t cheated as opposed to being made to stand in a corner or kicked out of school).  I believe God’s punishments are based on eternal law, which to me aren’t artificial constructs like man’s laws that attach different number of years in jail based on how bad they see the crime being, but more like the laws of nature…if we walk off a cliff, the punishment is when we fall and hit the ground because we have to live in the world of gravity, thermal dynamics, biology, etc.

[the narrator]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Sure, if you believe that the reason that God cares about what we think of Him has anything to do with Him or His ego.

But what if the reason that God cares if you understand His character is because when we don’t understand His love and His mercy we feel really bad about ourselves because of our sins, and we experience a lot of shame, and we cut ourselves off from being able to experience His peace, and we can’t feel His love for us, and we don’t seek forgiveness for our sins and instead carry the weight of them around with us for a lifetime?

 

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t see it as God caring in that way, but preferring us to commit to something that helps us grow rather than stagnant so we can have a better life (speaking generally including postmortality) like most parents. 

 And I don’t see us being punished by God for stagnating outside of not being able to benefit from new growth earlier rather than later, suffering because the errors we make cause suffering rather than additional punishment is applied (cheating leads us to not being knowledgeable about a subject and so we make mistakes in our work later where we wouldn’t have if we hadn’t cheated as opposed to being made to stand in a corner or kicked out of school).  I believe God’s punishments are based on eternal law, which to me aren’t artificial constructs like man’s laws that attach different number of years in jail based on how bad they see the crime being, but more like the laws of nature…if we walk off a cliff, the punishment is when we fall and hit the ground because we have to live in the world of gravity, thermal dynamics, biology, etc.

In that case, it's really not about correct or incorrect views of God but rather about our moral living and relationships with others, which ought to be regardless of whether or not there is a God. If our beliefs about God are relevant, it's perhaps because our beliefs about God are generally derived from and reflective of our own moral perspectives.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, the narrator said:

If our beliefs about God are relevant

If God is relatively passive, I believe I agree with you.

If God is more proactive and is reaching out to us and teaching us who he is, then I think it matters whether or not we are open to that teaching as opposed to reasoning out the attributes of God on our own from what we see as morally important even if our reasoning is in the direction of God.

The relationship matters.  One can be a good person and want to help humanity and give away one’s wealth etc through great organizations, but that is a different experience than getting out and developing personal relationships with a particular person in need where you work with them personally to help them make a better life for themselves, even if it’s just sitting and listening to them.  There is a different type of growth that occurs with each behaviour.

Edited October 30, 2025 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

what is the different way you would put it?

I find it interesting, the idea that it would be at all connected to an idea of damnation. That was not something that the presenters touched on or that came to my mind.

Maybe not us, but you have heard or read other non-LDS people suggest that by not knowing the character of God means never knowing the true God in a very condemning sense that sends people to hell. I think we are trying to match the Higher Law's tone, extolling virtues least vice ultimately lead to sin and damnation. Lust is adultery... in the heart, and not checking your thoughts is a path to making it reality. I don't want the Evangelical condemnatory use and LDS moral-expansive use, to use similar language.

I'm certain when these LDS teachers thought to use language like "false gods", they’re just trying to raise the moral standard like we usually do. Caution still matters, it's just like rhetoric that has historically been used against Saints. Borrowing the phrase "a different god," or "different Jesus" from a condemning theological tradition can slowly import its tone, even if unintentionally. Language shapes thought.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, the narrator said:

 

In that case, it's really not about correct or incorrect views of God but rather about our moral living and relationships with others, which ought to be regardless of whether or not there is a God. If our beliefs about God are relevant, it's perhaps because our beliefs about God are generally derived from and reflective of our own moral perspectives.

Unless a correct view of God can help us be more moral, have better relationships, and do more good in the world.  

 

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Maybe not us, but you have heard or read other non-LDS people suggest that by not knowing the character of God means never knowing the true God in a very condemning sense that sends people to hell. I think we are trying to match the Higher Law's tone, extolling virtues least vice ultimately lead to sin and damnation. Lust is adultery... in the heart, and not checking your thoughts is a path to making it reality. I don't want the Evangelical condemnatory use and LDS moral-expansive use, to use similar language.

 

Yes, that is a familiar sentiment.  I can appreciate the need for nuance when discussing or teaching John 17:3--

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

--But I'm not comfortable conceding the verse to those who would use it to condemn us.  Since it is a scriptural teaching, why can't we discuss the negative consequences of not knowing God?  

I can see what you are saying about familiar language, and we probably just disagree on this topic, which is completely fine of course. 

For myself, I am comfortable with the dichotomy that comes with almost all gospel principles and doctrines:  how they can be used for both good and evil.  Just because some in the EV community use that verse to condemn us doesn't mean, from my perspective, that we have to tippy toe around the gospel principle the verse is teaching.   

 

Quote

 

I'm certain when these LDS teachers thought to use language like "false gods", they’re just trying to raise the moral standard like we usually do. Caution still matters, it's just like rhetoric that has historically been used against Saints. Borrowing the phrase "a different god," or "different Jesus" from a condemning theological tradition can slowly import its tone, even if unintentionally. Language shapes thought.

 

 

 

I'm not certain of that, and I've listened to the full podcast. 

I think their purpose in focusing on the 'no false gods' part of the ten commandments is to help their institute students (and the rest of us), understand some ways it can apply to us in this day and age when worshipping pagan deities is not relevant anymore. I don't think God is worried about you and me praying to wooden statues, but He is still worried about us worshipping false gods.  I think it's smart to ask ourselves why? 

I like how they the podcasters have come up with one possible way by tying it back to John 17:3 and also Pres. Nelson's plea for us to be intentional with our relationship with God and Christ, because not knowing them has consequences.

But, I get that your mileage on the best way to approach this topic is different and I've enjoyed the discussion about our differing perspectives.  

Edited October 30, 2025 by bluebell

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

can see what you are saying about familiar language, and we probably just disagree on this topic, which is completely fine of course. 

I think if we make it clear we are not talking about one Fundamentalist view of ‘incorrect knowledge of God means damnation’, then going on to use the same language is much less likely to cause confusion.  I have to say though I personally would be reluctant to use that language unless I had immediate feedback that they were clear on the difference, which would be impossible in a podcast setting. 

The scriptures don’t use the language “a different God” or “a different Jesus”.  I think if we avoid that particular phrase, talk about the verse without using what may amount to a religious dogwhistle for some, we are further ahead in communicating what we intend. 

Edited October 30, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

Out of curiosity, did they use the phrases “different God” or “different Jesus”?

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

 

In that case, it's really not about correct or incorrect views of God but rather about our moral living and relationships with others, which ought to be regardless of whether or not there is a God. If our beliefs about God are relevant, it's perhaps because our beliefs about God are generally derived from and reflective of our own moral perspectives.

Following the light of Christ given to all that come into the world.

Edited October 30, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

Out of curiosity, did they use the phrases “different God” or “different Jesus”?

No they didn’t. 

[blackstrap]

Hang on. I have a quibble with the OP commentary. The Master in the parable admits that he is a tough boss, so apparently the servant did know the Master's personality. The servant was admonished because he did not even make the slightest attempt to make money in the safest way. 

This also has a modern connection to our society.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Hang on. I have a quibble with the OP commentary. The Master in the parable admits that he is a tough boss, so apparently the servant did know the Master's personality. The servant was admonished because he did not even make the slightest attempt to make money in the safest way. 

This also has a modern connection to our society.

Good catch!