Worshipping False Gods

[let’s roll]

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’ve thought about this perspective for some time.  Typically in the context of either a discussion when someone says “the God I worship…” or when or I’m pondering the boundaries of what God would have me understand in mortality, including the circumstances attendant to having a perfect knowledge of God in this life.

The former is pretty straightforward.  I’m not reticent to admit there are things I don’t know about God.  So when someone professes certainty about what He would never do, i.e., “the God I worship would never…”  I find it odd that mortals would deign to dictate to God and I admit that I view such as worshiping their own idea of god, rather than God Himself.

The latter instance is akin to the reference in the podcast to the parable of the talents.  To start, I’ve always believed that the reference in the parable to the number of talents given need not always be understood as a one time event…that is, we can be endowed with talents/knowledge/gifts/power in an iterative fashion and are invited to increase all of those through our faith and diligence.  Doing so doubtless increase our understanding of God but one of the things I admit I don’t yet know about God is whether it is appropriate to ask to know Him perfectly in mortality and, if it is appropriate, when is it appropriate to ask. My working assumption is that since He knows my heart, He will prompt me if, and when, needed.

[let’s roll]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Agreed.  It’s about our wanting His will, not ours (to the extent it conflicts with His), to be done.  Not to satisfy His ego but because we come to understand, as He already knows, that to be able to join Him in His work, work that exalts through a process of agency that also results in suffering and damnation.  A process that produces both bliss and sorrow, even Godly sorrow.

 

[let’s roll]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

 

It’s fair to characterize a correct view of God as exaltation.   For this is life eternal, to know Thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.

(I posted this before I had read the entire thread, so now realize this point has already been raised).

Edited October 31, 2025 by let’s roll

[longview]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

No they didn’t. 

True followers of God should advocate for a "different God". Which is contrary to teachings of all the world's denominations and creeds and religions. When Moses came down from the Mount with his face shining super glorious, the people could not tolerate that and requested Moses to cover his face with a handkerchief. A true follower would not allow himself to be afraid but to fully embrace the experience of gazing upon a glorious prophet and to be willing to exercise himself in living by every word spoken by God (whether by Himself or through His prophets).

Jesus in His great intercessory prayer (John 17) emphasized the importance of becoming ONE with the Apostles, with Jesus, and with God the Father. The reason is to NOT only be able to abide the Celestial Kingdom but to be able obtain the TRUST of God to eventually preside over the next generation of the Gods for implementing another round of the Plan of Happiness for another host of intelligences (infinite number never ending Eternal Rounds) to become spirit children.

To become ONE with God is to come to truly know God. If we live the Gospel for wrong reasons then Jesus would be forced to pronounce our unworthiness by saying "I never knew you" (Mat 7:23). During mortality we cannot be completely ONE with God or to fully know God but if we are striving to be ONE and to know God better and better and staying on the Covenant Path, then we will be better positioned in the next world with the power and grace of the Atonement.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

It’s fair to characterize a correct view of God as exaltation.

I would say a “perfectly correct” view of God as exaltation.   I would also say a mortal’s correct view of God takes them towards exaltation.

Being mortal, we can only be moving in the correct direction of understanding, growing in understanding and knowing God, not there yet though, imo.  Our mortal view of God will always be incomplete because there are incomprehensible aspects about him (incomprehensible to limited beings, not inherently).

I think we might run into trouble if we start using “correct” as a description of our possible understanding at this point, applying it to mortality because so many see that word in absolute terms (fully correct), but even if every idea we have of God is correct in and of itself—which is highly unlikely and possibly impossible because ideas have meaning in relationship to other ideas, imo, those ideas will be incomplete due to the inherent nature of mortality (a view exists between us and God).

 I think we can have a righteous POV of God in that enough of our view keeps us moving in the right direction even if the view has some false ideas about it.  However, even in that case I think we can have individual ideas that are sinful, they just aren’t preventing us from progressing overall, so eventually we will have the opportunity to correct those false ideas as we progress in our relationship with God (and others).

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

True followers of God should advocate for a "different God".

Because true followers don’t care about others understanding them correctly?

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Excuse me, a "false god".

6:52 "the spirit can teach me about my false gods, like what are the gods that I put before God"

This is a key point where "priorities" are explicitly renamed "false gods" for a new context.

7:10-7:15 "if that thing takes priority, for all intents and purposes, that has become my God in that moment."

Elevates any competing priority to the status of a different deity.

7:58-8:03 "are we serving priorities or gods ahead of the god we profess to worship?"

Poses the choice as serving a "god" other than the true one.

13:10-13:20 "what I found with false gods that I worship is that they are incredibly fickle."

Directly refers to things that take priority over God as "false gods" and contrasts their nature with the true God's.

19:48-20:00 "But you went to this other god who told you what you wanted to hear with your itching ears..."

Compares a poor choice (a destructive priority) to choosing a "different god" who offers false comfort.

20:30-20:35 "worshipping some of these other false gods that are that will have massive generational repercussions."

Warns of the consequences of following "other false gods," meaning harmful priorities or misaligned focus.

20:46-20:49 "your choices to follow those gods will lead to a cursed life."

Directly connects poor choices to following "gods" other than the true one.

21:48-21:52 "They chose other gods. And there's a package deal that comes with those other gods."

Uses the phrase "other gods" as a direct substitute for the wrong choices of previous generations.

23:37-23:45 "sometimes I do choose other gods and that has effects on my children..."

A presenter personally confesses to choosing "other gods" by indulging in things like scrolling on his phone or watching too much TV.

25:08-25:13 "We live in a world of an infinite number of gods."

Broadly claims that the world is full of things competing for devotion, all of which are categorized as "gods."

25:15-25:44 "No, these false gods are powerful... they can for lack of a better word bless your life... they can give what appears to be really good things into your life..."

Explicitly attributes power to the "false gods" (i.e., priorities), making them seem like true deities. These examples demonstrate the presenters use the Evangelical polemical category of "false god," "other god," or "different god" to describe any priority, distorted understanding, or misapplied focus that competes with the true God of the gospel. I am concerned that this language, while aiming to emphasize the seriousness of misplaced priorities, inadvertently validates the rhetorical categories used by critics who accuse LDS members of worshipping a "false God." 

Quote

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.

The servant's failure wasn't idolatry; it was paralysis by misconception. The over-application of the term "idolatry" or "false gods" is not about denying that these things can be wrong, but its using these specific, high-stakes theological terms so broadly. If not meant to condemn, there is a loss of gravity of one of the most serious offenses in scripture. Broadly labeling all "misplaced priority" (too much TV), it loses its spiritual and scriptural weight. It creates a false equivalence between serious sin and minor habit. If scrolling on a phone is "idolatry," then what term do you use for apostasy, covenant-breaking, or deliberately worshipping another deity?

If it is condemning, true idolatry is an act of worship (bowing down, sacrificing). Telling a person struggling with perfectionism or social media use that they are an "idolater" can induce the very exaggerated fear you noted in the parable of the talents (believing God is "a hard man"). Every daily struggle is now a fight against a "false god" the path of discipleship appears too steep, leading people to give up.

Then is how Evangelicals think we are serving a different entity all together by not knowing the true characteristics of God. The Evangelicals argue that because the Saints believe in a figure so fundamentally different from the Nicene God of historical orthodoxy, they conclude, we are literally, not figuratively, worshipping a "false god" and exclude members of the Church from the category of Christian. LDS members risk validating those critiques if we adopt the very terminology they use to undermine the faith, lending credence to the idea that the problem is the object of worship rather than the quality of that worship.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

If not meant to condemn, there is a loss of gravity of one of the most serious offenses in scripture. Broadly labeling all "misplaced priority" (too much TV), it loses its spiritual and scriptural weight.

Good point. 
 

Even if I am very fond of the fluid nature of language and playing with words in new ways, there are certain words I disagree with using for other purposes than their primary definition because the boundaries get softened when they shouldn’t be, imo.  Using Nazi in phrases like grammar Nazi, emotional rape for manipulation, maybe blasphemy when used in a flippant way for criticizing  something someone is fond of.

Edited October 31, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Excuse me, a "false god".

6:52 "the spirit can teach me about my false gods, like what are the gods that I put before God"

This is a key point where "priorities" are explicitly renamed "false gods" for a new context.

7:10-7:15 "if that thing takes priority, for all intents and purposes, that has become my God in that moment."

Elevates any competing priority to the status of a different deity.

7:58-8:03 "are we serving priorities or gods ahead of the god we profess to worship?"

Poses the choice as serving a "god" other than the true one.

13:10-13:20 "what I found with false gods that I worship is that they are incredibly fickle."

Directly refers to things that take priority over God as "false gods" and contrasts their nature with the true God's.

19:48-20:00 "But you went to this other god who told you what you wanted to hear with your itching ears..."

Compares a poor choice (a destructive priority) to choosing a "different god" who offers false comfort.

20:30-20:35 "worshipping some of these other false gods that are that will have massive generational repercussions."

Warns of the consequences of following "other false gods," meaning harmful priorities or misaligned focus.

20:46-20:49 "your choices to follow those gods will lead to a cursed life."

Directly connects poor choices to following "gods" other than the true one.

21:48-21:52 "They chose other gods. And there's a package deal that comes with those other gods."

Uses the phrase "other gods" as a direct substitute for the wrong choices of previous generations.

23:37-23:45 "sometimes I do choose other gods and that has effects on my children..."

A presenter personally confesses to choosing "other gods" by indulging in things like scrolling on his phone or watching too much TV.

25:08-25:13 "We live in a world of an infinite number of gods."

Broadly claims that the world is full of things competing for devotion, all of which are categorized as "gods."

25:15-25:44 "No, these false gods are powerful... they can for lack of a better word bless your life... they can give what appears to be really good things into your life..."

Explicitly attributes power to the "false gods" (i.e., priorities), making them seem like true deities. These examples demonstrate the presenters use the Evangelical polemical category of "false god," "other god," or "different god" to describe any priority, distorted understanding, or misapplied focus that competes with the true God of the gospel. I am concerned that this language, while aiming to emphasize the seriousness of misplaced priorities, inadvertently validates the rhetorical categories used by critics who accuse LDS members of worshipping a "false God." 

The servant's failure wasn't idolatry; it was paralysis by misconception. The over-application of the term "idolatry" or "false gods" is not about denying that these things can be wrong, but its using these specific, high-stakes theological terms so broadly. If not meant to condemn, there is a loss of gravity of one of the most serious offenses in scripture. Broadly labeling all "misplaced priority" (too much TV), it loses its spiritual and scriptural weight. It creates a false equivalence between serious sin and minor habit. If scrolling on a phone is "idolatry," then what term do you use for apostasy, covenant-breaking, or deliberately worshipping another deity?

If it is condemning, true idolatry is an act of worship (bowing down, sacrificing). Telling a person struggling with perfectionism or social media use that they are an "idolater" can induce the very exaggerated fear you noted in the parable of the talents (believing God is "a hard man"). Every daily struggle is now a fight against a "false god" the path of discipleship appears too steep, leading people to give up.

Then is how Evangelicals think we are serving a different entity all together by not knowing the true characteristics of God. The Evangelicals argue that because the Saints believe in a figure so fundamentally different from the Nicene God of historical orthodoxy, they conclude, we are literally, not figuratively, worshipping a "false god" and exclude members of the Church from the category of Christian. LDS members risk validating those critiques if we adopt the very terminology they use to undermine the faith, lending credence to the idea that the problem is the object of worship rather than the quality of that worship.

Sounds like you aren’t a fan of the podcast. Fair enough!

[longview]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Because true followers don’t care about others understanding them correctly?

Hence the advocation. Of course WE care. Why else would we send missionaries?

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, longview said:

Hence the advocation. Of course WE care. Why else would we send missionaries?

Paul talked to those he reached out to in their own language, in their understanding to bring them to a greater understanding.

[ZealouslyStriving]

I think the missionary experiences of Ammon and Aaron should definitely be part of this discussion.

They didn't tell Lamoni or his father that their "Great Spirit" God was a false or different God- they just acknowledged their belief in God and taught them the truth about that God.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I think the missionary experiences of Ammon and Aaron should definitely be part of this discussion.

They didn't tell Lamoni or his father that their "Great Spirit" God was a false or different God- they just acknowledged their belief in God and taught them the truth about that God.

In practice this leads to syncretism and the Church is usually not fond of it. Catholics were much more forgiving of it.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I think the missionary experiences of Ammon and Aaron should definitely be part of this discussion.

They didn't tell Lamoni or his father that their "Great Spirit" God was a false or different God- they just acknowledged their belief in God and taught them the truth about that God.

Agreed. I think the podcasters would agree as well that when teaching the gospel it’s usually good to find common ground and built from that.

The podcast is really more about personal reflection about our relationship with God than anything else.  It’s definitely not about judging other people’s relationship with God. 

Edited October 31, 2025 by bluebell

[JVW]

21 hours 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.

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.

We do worship a different Jesus though? It may be an attempt to smear the LDS but the God of traditional Christianity is different from the God of LDS. Even how we view Jesus is different. Some examples of this (LDS differences):

• The Fall was a good thing.
• Dead babies aren't going to hell.
• Gethsemane was really important.
• Jesus is only excluding perdition from receiving God's glory (i.e. everyone is going to heaven, no fear based preaching).
• All will have equal opportunity to accept Jesus even if they die without hearing of Him.
• Jesus requires us to participate in ritual ceremonies under His authority.
• Only one church has God's full authority, not just authority borrowed from the Holy Bible, which is a very abrasive claim to make.
• Jesus has expectations of us.

In the parable of the 10 virgins (Matthew 25:12 Jesus says, "Verily I say unto you, I know you not." Joseph Smith reinterpreted that verse as saying, "Verily I say unto you, Ye know me not."

In Matthew 7:22-23 Jesus says, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord have we not ... in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." And again Joseph Smith reinterpreted that verse as saying, "And then will I say, Ye never knew me"

One thing that I've really appreciated that the Evangelical community focuses on and highlights is the "relationship" aspect of discipleship. Where they may miss the mark is in how to build that relationship, or even who they are building a relationship with. I am speaking generally, not specifically, and this problem is a human problem, not an Evangelical one.

My initial takeaway when receiving my endowment in the temple was, "I feel like the temple is designed to remove the mysticism and magical feeling from God and instead try to help me understand what plain reality actually is." That's kind of been the journey of my life. As I grow older with a focus on faith in Jesus Christ and seeking truth my view of reality and things as they actually are becomes more clear.

My vision of God began in a very supernatural way, and in my initial steps of discipleship I was growing the wrong way. So God cut me down, brought me back to myself (revealing a myriad of weakness) and step by step has been patiently adjusting the lenses of faith with which I view life in order to see who He is slightly more clearly. If I am on a quest to dwell with Him forever, I better know exactly what I'm getting myself into, and whether or not God is someone I would get along with for that long! But ultimately, God has never changed, He has changed me, and as I change I find myself liking God more over time.

I am reminded of this (Greek Orthodox) quote that I've been reflecting on often since I heard it a couple of weeks ago. If "By their fruits ye shall know them." then this quote resonates with me about what qualities I should look for in someone who knows the One True God.

Quote

Brothers and Sisters, do you know that the devil is not afraid of our intellect, nor of our knowledge? He has more of both. He is not even afraid of our good deeds. He has more of those, too. There is only one virtue he does not have-and it is the one that kills him and saves us. Which virtue is that?

Once, having achieved something. I proudly went to my elder. The moment he saw me, he immediately perceived that I had slipped, and without waiting for me to say a word, he said: "Why are we so proud, my son? Of what works do we boast? That we fast, that we eat little? The devil fasts more than us-he never eats. That we keep vigil, that we sleep little? The devil keeps greater vigil-he never sleeps. That we practice restraint? That we preserve our virginity? The devil is more virgin than us: even if he wanted to fornicate, he could not-he has no body."

I could not believe my ears. Whatever virtues we may possess, the devil possesses them as well. Whatever virtues we might acquire, even those the devil once had as an archangel-we shall never attain them. And yet, all these virtues will be wasted. Why? Because he lacks one virtue. We must strive to acquire that one virtue in order to be saved. The devil does not tempt us only with sins. He tempts us with virtues even more than with sins. Sins we can see and avoid. But virtues-we strive to attain them.

One holy man once said: "Do you want to fast? The devil will help you. Do you want to give alms? The devil will help you. Do you want to build a church? The devil will help you. Why? Because he knows that if you succeed in all that, you will grow proud - and lose everything."

We must acquire the virtue he does not have. Be humble!

-Elder Nikon of the Holy Mountain - Excerpt from homily

 

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, JVW said:

 

My initial takeaway when receiving my endowment in the temple was, "I feel like the temple is designed to remove the mysticism and magical feeling from God and instead try to help me understand what plain reality actually is." That's kind of been the journey of my life. As I grow older with a focus on faith in Jesus Christ and seeking truth my view of reality and things as they actually are becomes more clear.

My vision of God began in a very supernatural way, and in my initial steps of discipleship I was growing the wrong way. So God cut me down, brought me back to myself (revealing a myriad of weakness) and step by step has been patiently adjusting the lenses of faith with which I view life in order to see who He is slightly more clearly. If I am on a quest to dwell with Him forever, I better know exactly what I'm getting myself into, and whether or not God is someone I would get along with for that long! But ultimately, God has never changed, He has changed me, and as I change I find myself liking God more over time.

 

As God has shown me where my ideas about Him have been false, I have been amazing at how much beginning to understand who He truly is changes everything else.  It changes every gospel principal, every gospel doctrine, every scripture, every inspired or revealed thought...just everything.

I understand better now why we have to know God, and better what that actually means, and I get why Pres. Nelson and other prophets have begged us to do the work to learn who He is.  I thought I knew God and I really really didn't.  I don't think I do now, but I know more than I did and it has put everything previous to that tiny bit of knowledge into shadow.

 

Edited October 31, 2025 by bluebell

[MustardSeed]

I am certainly coming to a greater understanding of how actually everybody who criticized Mormon Jesus was right. 

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I am certainly coming to a greater understanding of how actually everybody who criticized Mormon Jesus was right. 

Oh, but the big question is, if they are right, is it literally equal to idolatry worthy of death or effects our saving faith in God? Then if the allegation cuts both ways. Will we be justified saying they worship a Greek god, not merely intellectually, but in a manner that condemns them in their ignorance or invalidates their personal faith in God?

Edited October 31, 2025 by Pyreaux

[longview]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

Paul talked to those he reached out to in their own language, in their understanding to bring them to a greater understanding.

Yep. Exactly what happened. Paul explained why the pagan gods were defective and explained the true glory of an actual Creator of Heaven and Earth.

7 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

They didn't tell Lamoni or his father that their "Great Spirit" God was a false or different God- they just acknowledged their belief in God and taught them the truth about that God.

That was their starting point. To establish common ground. THEN they directed their listeners to the scriptures and engaged in an expansive dialogue to increase their understanding.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, longview said:

That was their starting point. To establish common ground. THEN they directed their listeners to the scriptures and engaged in an expansive dialogue to increase their understanding.

I would suggest you include this kind of info in your comments.  When you start at your end position and don’t include how you get there, it looks more uncommunicative than it probably is when you engage with others face to face if you adopt the same process as you describe above.

Edited October 31, 2025 by Calm

[longview]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would suggest you include this kind of info in your comments.  When you start at your end position and don’t include how you get there, it looks more uncommunicative than it probably is when you engage with others face to face if you adapt the same process as you describe above.

This approach does NOT work for all the world's denominations and creeds and religions. The preacher has to have real authority in the priesthood, be called of God, and to invoke the Spirit which is ACTUALLY felt/experienced by the listeners.

[Rain]

20 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I’ve thought about this perspective for some time.  Typically in the context of either a discussion when someone says “the God I worship…” or when or I’m pondering the boundaries of what God would have me understand in mortality, including the circumstances attendant to having a perfect knowledge of God in this life.

The former is pretty straightforward.  I’m not reticent to admit there are things I don’t know about God.  So when someone professes certainty about what He would never do, i.e., “the God I worship would never…”  I find it odd that mortals would deign to dictate to God and I admit that I view such as worshiping their own idea of god, rather than God Himself.

How do you know they are dictating to God and not expressing testimony of what they have come to know through the Spirit?

20 hours ago, let’s roll said:

The latter instance is akin to the reference in the podcast to the parable of the talents.  To start, I’ve always believed that the reference in the parable to the number of talents given need not always be understood as a one time event…that is, we can be endowed with talents/knowledge/gifts/power in an iterative fashion and are invited to increase all of those through our faith and diligence.  Doing so doubtless increase our understanding of God but one of the things I admit I don’t yet know about God is whether it is appropriate to ask to know Him perfectly in mortality and, if it is appropriate, when is it appropriate to ask. My working assumption is that since He knows my heart, He will prompt me if, and when, needed.

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Yep. Exactly what happened. Paul explained why the pagan gods were defective and explained the true glory of an actual Creator of Heaven and Earth.

That was their starting point. To establish common ground. THEN they directed their listeners to the scriptures and engaged in an expansive dialogue to increase their understanding.

I thought that's what I said.

[longview]

13 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I thought that's what I said.

Right. But @Calm keeps going in circles around us?

[CV75]

On 10/30/2025 at 1:14 PM, 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 think no matter where we begin in ignorance (and even rebellion), if we are not willing to be open to correction through the means God has provided, we are worshipping a false god (ourselves, principles, etc.). Of course, we can be open to correction of even that!