Mormon commercials

[robynjeanne]

Does anyone else see the commercials on TV where people tell a little about themselves and then say they are mormon? Question about that...there is one man on there who talks about having friends that are non-mormon and says that he doesn't mind that his friends worship a "different" God than he does. What exactly does he mean by "different" God?????

Just curious about your opinions about it.

Thanks.

[slamjet]

They probably had Godhead - Trinity arguments.

[Blackmarch]

Does anyone else see the commercials on TV where people tell a little about themselves and then say they are mormon? Question about that...there is one man on there who talks about having friends that are non-mormon and says that he doesn't mind that his friends worship a "different" God than he does. What exactly does he mean by "different" God?????

Just curious about your opinions about it.

Thanks.

Dunno.. but many christians ive run across adamantly claim i worship a different God... so i'd hazard a guess probably something those lines.

[john doe]

Since we're not mind readers here, you would have to ask him what he meant by it. I could speculate that just about every religion has different views of the nature of God, and that our definition of who and what God is differs from denomination to denomination. Baptists don't fully agree with Catholics, who don't fully agree with LDS, who don't fully agree with Jews, who don't fully agree with Muslims, who don't agree with Buddhists, who don't agree with Hindus on who or what God(s) is/are.

[applepansy]

Most people who claim Mormons worship a different God are parroting what their preacher/minister has said. They really don't know what we believe or that we are truly Christian.

Preachers/Ministers who claim Mormons worship a different God are usually trying to undermine our faith.... IF, they have done any research. Honest Religious scholors acknowledge we worship the same God but don't believe in the Trinity.

Because we don't believe in the Trinity as described by a 3rd (?) century committee but rather the God the Father and Jesus Christ, his son, as we find them in the Old and New Testament we get this label of believing in a different God. Personally, I sort of think they believe in a different God than the one found in scripture. A committee can't tell me who God is. The Scriptures can.

[Shelly200]

Most people who claim Mormons worship a different God are parroting what their preacher/minister has said. They really don't know what we believe or that we are truly Christian.

Preachers/Ministers who claim Mormons worship a different God are usually trying to undermine our faith.... IF, they have done any research. Honest Religious scholors acknowledge we worship the same God but don't believe in the Trinity.

Because we don't believe in the Trinity as described by a 3rd (?) century committee but rather the God the Father and Jesus Christ, his son, as we find them in the Old and New Testament we get this label of believing in a different God. Personally, I sort of think they believe in a different God than the one found in scripture. A committee can't tell me who God is. The Scriptures can.

It's actually the 4th century that is the most commonly used in explaining the beginnings of orthodox Christian doctrines. It was up to, and during, this century that the most basic doctrines were ironed out.

And y'all are right that many (not all, but many) Christian leaders who speak against the LDS church do not know much about it. And these leaders obviously impact the minds and opinions of their followers.

There are major doctrinal differences between the LDS church and the orthdox Christian faiths. This is simply true. And there are many people who, even after they learn a great deal about the LDS church, still believe that Mormons aren't "Christians." Usually this is just their way of saying that they aren't *orthodox* Christians. (Which, to most Christians, yes, means the Mormons aren't Christian at all... most have one basic definition of Christianity. And if you don't fall into that category, then you aren't Christian, end of story.) These people understand that the LDS church technically worships the same God as the rest of the Christians do, but from an orthodox perspective the LDS church has gotten so much "wrong" as to be a completely different church. (I'm thinking Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worshiping the same God is a good comparison here.) This can be debated at length, sure. But I doubt it will change the minds of most Christians. Just as an LDS missionary would go to a Baptist's house to convert him to the true church, a Baptist would have no qualms doing the reverse. Both sides believe the other side is wrong... or at least not as right as their own side.

I understand that this can be frustrating... but I think that Mormons are set apart from "normal" Christians. And I say, why not live it up? Be proud of who you are and don't try to conform yourselves to someone else's definitions of anything. If you're okay being Mormon, then be Mormon. If someone asks, explain your beliefs. But I wouldn't worry too much if people say you are or aren't Christians. As long as you know what you believe and who you are, then the rest doesn't matter.

...and to be the one Catholic in the room, it is a requirement for me to say.... the Catholic Church compiled the Bible. So... we kind of like to think we have a certain understanding of it. (Whether anyone here agrees with them or not, Catholics and Protestants *can* and *do* use Scripture to support their concepts of God. The same way the LDS church does. I think this is just a losing battle for both sides.)

[HEthePrimate]

Does anyone else see the commercials on TV where people tell a little about themselves and then say they are mormon? Question about that...there is one man on there who talks about having friends that are non-mormon and says that he doesn't mind that his friends worship a "different" God than he does. What exactly does he mean by "different" God?????

Thor? Zeus? Could be a Trinitarian thing, but I do know pagans and witches who quite literally worship different gods.

And of course, some people accuse us (perhaps not without reason) of worshipping a different god than the one mainstream Christianity worships.

Edited February 7, 2012 by HEthePrimate

[Guest]

But see, I think the issue is not the non-LDS call our God a "different" God. The issue in that commercial is that an LDS person is calling non-LDS God a "different" God. I think that was an idiotic thing to say and I don't know why the Church would allow it to be in a commercial.

[Leah]

It's actually the 4th century that is the most commonly used in explaining the beginnings of orthodox Christian doctrines. It was up to, and during, this century that the most basic doctrines were ironed out.

And y'all are right that many (not all, but many) Christian leaders who speak against the LDS church do not know much about it. And these leaders obviously impact the minds and opinions of their followers.

There are major doctrinal differences between the LDS church and the orthdox Christian faiths. This is simply true. And there are many people who, even after they learn a great deal about the LDS church, still believe that Mormons aren't "Christians." Usually this is just their way of saying that they aren't *orthodox* Christians. (Which, to most Christians, yes, means the Mormons aren't Christian at all... most have one basic definition of Christianity. And if you don't fall into that category, then you aren't Christian, end of story.) These people understand that the LDS church technically worships the same God as the rest of the Christians do, but from an orthodox perspective the LDS church has gotten so much "wrong" as to be a completely different church. (I'm thinking Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worshiping the same God is a good comparison here.) This can be debated at length, sure. But I doubt it will change the minds of most Christians. Just as an LDS missionary would go to a Baptist's house to convert him to the true church, a Baptist would have no qualms doing the reverse. Both sides believe the other side is wrong... or at least not as right as their own side.

I understand that this can be frustrating... but I think that Mormons are set apart from "normal" Christians. And I say, why not live it up? Be proud of who you are and don't try to conform yourselves to someone else's definitions of anything. If you're okay being Mormon, then be Mormon. If someone asks, explain your beliefs. But I wouldn't worry too much if people say you are or aren't Christians. As long as you know what you believe and who you are, then the rest doesn't matter.

...and to be the one Catholic in the room, it is a requirement for me to say.... the Catholic Church compiled the Bible. So... we kind of like to think we have a certain understanding of it. (Whether anyone here agrees with them or not, Catholics and Protestants *can* and *do* use Scripture to support their concepts of God. The same way the LDS church does. I think this is just a losing battle for both sides.)

The Catholic Church compiled their version of the Bible. It differs from the Protestant version. The Catholic Bible has seven books and parts of two others in the Old Testament that are not found in Protestant Bibles. So the understanding you have is of your version of the Bible, not of 'the' Bible.

[Shelly200]

The Catholic Church compiled their version of the Bible. It differs from the Protestant version. The Catholic Bible has seven books and parts of two others in the Old Testament that are not found in Protestant Bibles. So the understanding you have is of your version of the Bible, not of 'the' Bible.

Everyone used the same Bible until Luther. Therefore it was The Bible. It still is. Catholics have not altered it since its compilation.

So Catholics do not have a 'version' of the Bible; they have The Bible. Reformers such as Luther looked at The Bible and did some editing. They have a 'version' of The Bible. Thomas Jefferson edited down his own version too. None of these people sat down with all ancient sources on Judaism and Christianity and compiled a new Bible; they sat down with The Bible (the one the Catholics compiled), and then chipped away at it. If anyone has a 'version' of the Bible it's Protestants; Catholics maintain the original Bible in its ancient form.

Honestly, I would think that a religion that believes 'plain and precious truths' had been removed from the Bible and Christian understanding might have something to say about using a Protestant, shortened version of The Bible, in which books and chapters were removed from it. ...Or would use any version of The Bible at all, since it was compiled during the Great Apostasy.

[Vort]

While engaged in his Bible translation (better thought of as a redaction and revelatory interpretation), Joseph Smith asked God specifically about the so-called "Apocrypha". God's response in D&C 91 was that there were many correct things in it, and also many uninspired interpolations, and that if a person read it with the Spirit, s/he would be edified; otherwise s/he would not. Bottom line was not to translate it.

As for the Bible itself, our leaders have long said what a marvelous thing it was that the early Catholic Church and its members worked so hard to preserve the Bible. BYUtv recently aired a historical account of how the King James Bible came forth. The Book of Mormon's own stated purpose is to bear witness of the Bible and its truths. So whatever you may suppose about how a restorationist church might view the Bible, the way the Latter-day Saints do view it is well-established.

[RMGuy]

I think we all believe in the same God, we all just have a slightly different understanding of Him...

Reminds me of:

"Most people believe in a supreme being, even though they may call him by different names. We know that God lives......"

-RM

[Shelly200]

While engaged in his Bible translation (better thought of as a redaction and revelatory interpretation), Joseph Smith asked God specifically about the so-called "Apocrypha". God's response in D&C 91 was that there were many correct things in it, and also many uninspired interpolations, and that if a person read it with the Spirit, s/he would be edified; otherwise s/he would not. Bottom line was not to translate it.

As for the Bible itself, our leaders have long said what a marvelous thing it was that the early Catholic Church and its members worked so hard to preserve the Bible. BYUtv recently aired a historical account of how the King James Bible came forth. The Book of Mormon's own stated purpose is to bear witness of the Bible and its truths. So whatever you may suppose about how a restorationist church might view the Bible, the way the Latter-day Saints do view it is well-established.

I guess I'm just wondering how anything can be trusted that came during the time of apostasy, when Christ's church was absent from the Earth. How was it even possible for any truths to remain on Earth if the Church and Priesthood were gone? If the priesthood could no be conferred from the Apostles to any other men, then how can we trust what those non-priesthood-holding men decided? The same councils that were called to compile The Bible were also called to iron out the doctrine of the Trinity and other basic orthodox doctrines, so how can we trust that The Bible was compiled (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? I'm not sure what the LDS thought on this is... can the Holy Spirit inspire the lives of these men if the Church had fallen away?) correctly (or nearly so), but that the doctrines of the Trinity, Mary as Theotokos, the Creeds, etc. were incorrect?

[Dravin]

How was it even possible for any truths to remain on Earth if the Church and Priesthood were gone?

So in the event of an apostasy you expect Judaism and any shades of Christianity to disappear off the earth? I'm unsure what it is about an apostasy that is going to vaporize all copies of extent scripture or prevent the transmission of any light and knowledge. I see how it could happen, but I'm not sure why it's a given that it must happen.

If the priesthood could no be conferred from the Apostles to any other men, then how can we trust what those non-priesthood-holding men decided?

Personal revelation. I've had this discussion with other Catholics before. I don't accept the Bible as true because the Catholics compiled it and any supposed authority they had to do so. I accept it because I've received personal revelation of truths contained there in. Though most certainly what books I considered were influenced by the Catholic Church's compilation.

If by trust you mean trust that the Catholic list of books contains only scripture? I don't, Vort mentioned the apocrypha and the Joseph Smith translation notes the Song of Solomon is not an inspired work. And if you mean trust that they 'got it all', I don't. The idea that they missed some works that should have been included (either because they decided against them or because they were lost prior to consideration) doesn't bother me in the least. I have the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, the idea of canon outside of the Catholic list is obviously not something that would bother me.

I think the core of your disconnect is the idea that people might be imperfectly inspired (that is to say when inspired their products or fruits are not flawless) or that one may be inspired in one endeavor but not inspired into another (when selecting books of scripture and no so much when defining the Godhead). As a Catholic and someone who believes in their authority it doesn't jive for you. Their authority is the same for both events, if it 'worked' in one but not for the other what gives? Thing is from our perspective it wasn't their authority that 'worked'. And I know I can be inspired in some things and not in others. It depends on how loudly the Lord is trying to speak with me, how closely I'm listening, and how important it is I hear.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Dravin

[Guest SexWithPlantsIsFun]

I like LSD, where can I get more? My local dealer just died.

[RMGuy]

I like LSD, where can I get more? My local dealer just died.

Hmm, perhaps you need come down off of the first high before you look for the next one....unless you are from Star Trek

-RM

[Vort]

I guess I'm just wondering how anything can be trusted that came during the time of apostasy, when Christ's church was absent from the Earth. How was it even possible for any truths to remain on Earth if the Church and Priesthood were gone? If the priesthood could no be conferred from the Apostles to any other men, then how can we trust what those non-priesthood-holding men decided? The same councils that were called to compile The Bible were also called to iron out the doctrine of the Trinity and other basic orthodox doctrines, so how can we trust that The Bible was compiled (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? I'm not sure what the LDS thought on this is... can the Holy Spirit inspire the lives of these men if the Church had fallen away?) correctly (or nearly so), but that the doctrines of the Trinity, Mary as Theotokos, the Creeds, etc. were incorrect?

"Illness" is a disease of individuals, while "epidemic" is a disease of groups. Just because there is an epidemic afoot does not mean that every individual you meet is a carrier.

Similarly, "personal apostasy" is a disease of individuals, while "the great apostasy" was a worldwide disease. When the "great apostasy" took place, that did not mean that every last person was in a state of personal apostasy, fighting against God. I would imagine that, as a percentage of population, there were just about as many good, decent people in the Mediterranean area at around AD 600 as there were at around AD 60. (You could make strong arguments otherwise, but it would have to do much more with the collapse of Rome than with the apostasy from true Christianity.) The good works of decent people do not cease to be good just because the world is in a state of apostasy.

[Shelly200]

"Illness" is a disease of individuals, while "epidemic" is a disease of groups. Just because there is an epidemic afoot does not mean that every individual you meet is a carrier.

Similarly, "personal apostasy" is a disease of individuals, while "the great apostasy" was a worldwide disease. When the "great apostasy" took place, that did not mean that every last person was in a state of personal apostasy, fighting against God. I would imagine that, as a percentage of population, there were just about as many good, decent people in the Mediterranean area at around AD 600 as there were at around AD 60. (You could make strong arguments otherwise, but it would have to do much more with the collapse of Rome than with the apostasy from true Christianity.) The good works of decent people do not cease to be good just because the world is in a state of apostasy.

I mean, I understand that there were good people living and doing good works. But that's not the same thing as maintaining doctrinal legitimacy. According to LDS beliefs -so far as I understand them - the truth that Christ brought to the world vanished with the death of the last Apostle, leaving the Church nowhere and making it impossible for people to be saved and reach Heaven. This is why Smith was needed; to restore the church and make it possible to fully worship God and be with Him again in Heaven. I'm just confused as to why God would allow this to happen in the first place (why send Christ to Earth to redeem men of their sins... and then have men not be able to be properly redeemed of their sins for almost 2,000 years?), and how anything that happened in that time can be trustworthy.

Okay, so there was a remnant of good people. Sure. But how do we know these people were properly inspired by the Holy Spirit in their goodness? How do we know *which* people were right and about *what*? Surely Joseph Smith did not have a revelation concening the validity or falsehood of every doctrine claimed between that time. So, unless Smith had a specific revelation about a specific doctrine, that doctrine could possibly still be true, right? Are Joseph Smith's revelations the litmus test for doctrinal legitimacy with pre-resoration Christianity? What about doctrines that Smith is silent on?

I'm asking honestly, not trying to be difficult. We, as Catholics, believe in apostasy too, sure. But not total apostasy, which is what I have always been told is the LDS view. For Catholics, there is always a remnant. And the remnant is what keeps the Church alive, even if the majority sure fall away.

And for that matter, if Joseph Smith thought the Song of Solomon was not an inspired book, why is it still included in the LDS version of the KJV Bible? Is this book taught about in LDS Sunday school classes and such?

[Vort]

Okay, so there was a remnant of good people. Sure. But how do we know these people were properly inspired by the Holy Spirit in their goodness? How do we know *which* people were right and about *what*? Surely Joseph Smith did not have a revelation concening the validity or falsehood of every doctrine claimed between that time. So, unless Smith had a specific revelation about a specific doctrine, that doctrine could possibly still be true, right? Are Joseph Smith's revelations the litmus test for doctrinal legitimacy with pre-resoration Christianity? What about doctrines that Smith is silent on?

Actually, I believe that is pretty much what happened. Joseph Smith was weaned on the Bible, and he received a revelation (testimony) of its truthfulness. When he received and translated the Book of Mormon, it was a divine witness of the Bible. So the efforts of good men, even if not clothed with divine authority, to collect and safeguard the sacred writings of ancestors were not wasted.

[Just_A_Guy]

I mean, I understand that there were good people living and doing good works. But that's not the same thing as maintaining doctrinal legitimacy. According to LDS beliefs -so far as I understand them - the truth that Christ brought to the world vanished with the death of the last Apostle, leaving the Church nowhere and making it impossible for people to be saved and reach Heaven. This is why Smith was needed; to restore the church and make it possible to fully worship God and be with Him again in Heaven.

The fulness of the truth disappeared; but pieces remained.

I'm just confused as to why God would allow this to happen in the first place (why send Christ to Earth to redeem men of their sins... and then have men not be able to be properly redeemed of their sins for almost 2,000 years?), and how anything that happened in that time can be trustworthy.

Being a believer in proxy work for the dead and missionary work in the spirit world, I would respectfully disagree with your idea that men during that 2,000 year period could not be "properly redeemed". Moreover (please forgive any condescension in the following), the fact that something is not as good as it could be does not mean it is not worth having.

Okay, so there was a remnant of good people. Sure. But how do we know these people were properly inspired by the Holy Spirit in their goodness? How do we know *which* people were right and about *what*? Surely Joseph Smith did not have a revelation concening the validity or falsehood of every doctrine claimed between that time. So, unless Smith had a specific revelation about a specific doctrine, that doctrine could possibly still be true, right? Are Joseph Smith's revelations the litmus test for doctrinal legitimacy with pre-resoration Christianity? What about doctrines that Smith is silent on?

I think you pretty much have it right--we believe in the Bible as interpreted and clarified by Joseph Smith and his successors, who we believe had the same fulness of the spirit as did the Bible's individual authors. Mormonism does allow for the "power" of the Holy Ghost or the "Light of Christ" inspiring people to righteousness even in the absence of an institutional, divinely-led Church. What we believe to have been missing were the "gift" of the Holy Ghost (the Holy Spirit's constant companionship), direct revelation (by which I think we generally mean personal visitations or visions that are intended to be for the benefit of a wider audience than the recipient) from God to man, and he proper priesthood authority for the establishment and building up of God's kingdom on the earth.

I'm asking honestly, not trying to be difficult. We, as Catholics, believe in apostasy too, sure. But not total apostasy, which is what I have always been told is the LDS view. For Catholics, there is always a remnant. And the remnant is what keeps the Church alive, even if the majority sure fall away.

I think Mormons would point to what we believe to be the lack of apostolic authority, the vagaries of the human memory, the difficulty of preserving the written word, and inevitable disagreements about ambiguous scriptures (all in conjunction with enormous external pressure from a variety of sources) as pitfalls that could and did confuse even the best of people once that direct line of revelation and the fulness of the Gift of the Holy Spirit ceased operating.

And for that matter, if Joseph Smith thought the Song of Solomon was not an inspired book, why is it still included in the LDS version of the KJV Bible? Is this book taught about in LDS Sunday school classes and such?

I don't think any Church curriculum lessons quote from it, but our own Doctrine and Covenants quotes from it at least three or four times (I'm thinking specifically of a line that, as I recall, goes "fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as . . ." [i forget the rest and am too lazy to look it up at the moment]. Under those circumstances, I'm not sure I'd take Smith's statement at face value here. The LDS Bible Dictionary entry on the Song of Solomon may add some perspective.

[HEthePrimate]

But see, I think the issue is not the non-LDS call our God a "different" God. The issue in that commercial is that an LDS person is calling non-LDS God a "different" God. I think that was an idiotic thing to say and I don't know why the Church would allow it to be in a commercial.

Maybe the LDS Church is trying something new by actually allowing its members to speak for themselves, without every little thing being censored.

It's easy to see why people would think we worship a different god, given that we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings. Not only that, but we believe we have a Heavenly Mother, and that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have become gods (D&C 132:37). Essentially, Mormons are polytheists (of the henotheistic variety).

I'm not saying that's bad a bad thing--in fact, I prefer the LDS point of view--just that it's understandable why people would say we worship a different god.

[Guest]

Maybe the LDS Church is trying something new by actually allowing its members to speak for themselves, without every little thing being censored.

Uh, it's a commercial made by the Church to promote the Church.

It is pretty bad form when WE object when non-LDS Christians tell us we have a different God when we ourselves tell THEM they have a different God... OFFICIALLY... in an LDS promotional commercial.

It's easy to see why people would think we worship a different god, given that we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate beings. Not only that, but we believe we have a Heavenly Mother, and that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob have become gods (D&C 132:37). Essentially, Mormons are polytheists (of the henotheistic variety).

I'm not saying that's bad a bad thing--in fact, I prefer the LDS point of view--just that it's understandable why people would say we worship a different god.

Sure, we understand why people would say we worship a different god. I don't understand why WE say THEY worship a different god.

[RMGuy]

Personally, I'm just not a big fan of advertising religion in general.

-RM