bytebear

You are asking two questions... one in your subject line and one in your post.
Our sense or morality is defined by what we accept as true.
If we accept that all we have in life is from our birth to our death then our morality will of course be defined in terms that maximize life and living now.
If we accept that we had existence before birth and existence after death then our morality will of course include maximizing this life as well but it will be tempered by what we think we might need to do to secure a good life-after death as well.
As for God... if we accept that he exist then we have accept he has a bigger and even larger picture to frame morality...  If to God this mortal existence is like a dental visit... Generally unpleasant but for our benefit.  Then the idea of God allowing someone that is finished get pulled out of the chair (die) and leave the office (got to heaven) while having others say in the chair (live) for more work is not a big deal.
 
The problem we get is when we try to cross the morality streams without also taking on the accepted foundation.
To someone that doesn't accept continued existence after death has almost by default also rejected the foundation to understand God's morality.
 

Anti-mormons rely on spinning, half-truths, strawmen arguments, downright lies, or other falsehood methodology.  A person can be critical of the church, but still be factual and honest, though these people are generally less common (it is human tendency to polarize).

I don't see the spirit world as being that different than the world we are in now.  We don't get a chance here and/or a chance there.  We have the same attitudes and beliefs going from one world to the next, and we ultimately will decide if we are willing to live the covenants of God fully knowing the consequences.  We won't be duped into rejecting the gospel, but we may be stubborn in our beliefs, or we may just never have learned enough about compassion, love or forgiveness in time to change.  And accepting the gospel doesn't just come to an atheist because he discovers there is an afterlife.  He still must change his heart and become Christlike.  So consider the journey as a whole, and not just what is here and now.  Even on Earth, we change over time, and what we believe today will evolve (hopefully for the better).

I don't see the spirit world as being that different than the world we are in now.  We don't get a chance here and/or a chance there.  We have the same attitudes and beliefs going from one world to the next, and we ultimately will decide if we are willing to live the covenants of God fully knowing the consequences.  We won't be duped into rejecting the gospel, but we may be stubborn in our beliefs, or we may just never have learned enough about compassion, love or forgiveness in time to change.  And accepting the gospel doesn't just come to an atheist because he discovers there is an afterlife.  He still must change his heart and become Christlike.  So consider the journey as a whole, and not just what is here and now.  Even on Earth, we change over time, and what we believe today will evolve (hopefully for the better).

Answer:  No.
However, some individuals were commanded to do it, so for them, it is maybe leaning toward yes.  Or at least, they will miss out on promised blessings.

I think it's partially just common usage.  At the time, "hot drinks" only comprised of coffee and tea, and they are the only two "hot drinks" that people drink habitually (addictively).

I think it's partially just common usage.  At the time, "hot drinks" only comprised of coffee and tea, and they are the only two "hot drinks" that people drink habitually (addictively).

I would consider picking up a Bible. King James Version if you can, as a companion to the Book of Mormon. If you can get an LDS published version, it will also have related footnotes and cross references.  For the Bible, I would start with the Gospels (New Testament:  Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and then go on with the rest of the New Testament).  You will find some correlation since both books are testaments of Jesus Christ.

Slight correction.  We don't just become LIKE God.  We can BECOME God.
This is where the ONE God teaching becomes important in distinction.

"Mormonism" is not a REJECTION of Christianity.  It's a RESTORATION.  When you restore Christianity, you don't have intensions of becoming non-Christian.
As far as Buddhism being a rejection of Hinduism that is not why Buddhism exists.  The founder rejected Hinduism, true.  But Buddhism doesn't exist as a restoration of Hinduism or even in exchange of Hinduism.  Buddhism, as founded, is simply a collection of philosophies of good living that the founder believes leads to enlightenment.  Hinduism and Buddhism are not mutually exclusive.

When I was in high school (maybe college) I had a very strong premonition as to when the second coming would be.  Year and month.  It has now been about 15 years since.  I pretty much just decided not to try to second guess the Lord.  I'm out.

When I was in high school (maybe college) I had a very strong premonition as to when the second coming would be.  Year and month.  It has now been about 15 years since.  I pretty much just decided not to try to second guess the Lord.  I'm out.

Are you serious?  I've hung out with techies and watched videos for two decades, and I've never ever heard someone pronounce a wireless router 'rooter'.   Like, hundreds of it people in 5 different states and 4 countries.  

The current Gregorian calendar was adopted in 1582, so I really don't take stock in dates, since people keep changing them.

I think it's interesting that when the concept of sealings was introduced, people were being sealed to Joseph Smith a lot, men and women, and in the case of Helen Kimball, the child of an apostle.  The concept of sealing yourself to the prophet continued even after his death, as people were sealed to him even in Utah.  I think it took enough time for Joseph's passing, and eventually church mandate, that people stop requesting to be sealed to church leaders.  I suppose I could request that I be sealed to Gordon B. Hinkley as a son, but I don't think it would fly.

The current Gregorian calendar was adopted in 1582, so I really don't take stock in dates, since people keep changing them.

I think it's interesting that when the concept of sealings was introduced, people were being sealed to Joseph Smith a lot, men and women, and in the case of Helen Kimball, the child of an apostle.  The concept of sealing yourself to the prophet continued even after his death, as people were sealed to him even in Utah.  I think it took enough time for Joseph's passing, and eventually church mandate, that people stop requesting to be sealed to church leaders.  I suppose I could request that I be sealed to Gordon B. Hinkley as a son, but I don't think it would fly.

Think about this.  For about $500, which is equivalent of a few weeks pay at minimum wage, you can buy a plane ticket to the most exotic destination on the planet, whatever you deem that to be.  And you can get there in less than a day.  That's absolutely astonishing.

It's not just how much you make in comparison to your parents.  It's how much you can get for what you pay.  Fact is, today we have gadgets that surpass anything every dreamed of a generation ago.  We generally live in bigger houses with nicer amenities and have better household goods that cost far less than they did a generation ago.  We don't make our own clothes.  We don't bake our own bread, or grow our own vegetables.  We are absolutely, without question far better off economically than the previous generation, and you only have to go back a few generations to see that our lifestyle is something that in their generation was not even achievable by royalty.

I challenge the premise that wealth inequality is a bad thing.  The fact is, world poverty has dropped dramatically, largely due to rich people wanting to get even more rich.  And while we lament that poverty exists in the world, it has dropped from 70% to less than 10%.  We are at the wealthiest, most prosperous time in world history, and we should be grateful for that.
 

No, this is not US-centric.  The US Constitution IS the template for a government that will foster the environment where the restored gospel can be freely applied.

I remember visiting the Seattle temple, and they had a small sitting area in the garden that was just picturesque.  I would say, find a nice quiet place on the grounds of the temple.

This is the topic of one of the church's essays on lds.org.
"Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo": https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng
(underlining mine)

Yeah, I'm going with the Apostle.

To be clear the Catholic doctrine of Immaculate Conception is the notion that Mary was conceived and born without sin, making her worthy to carry the Son of God.  It is not about the virgin birth of Christ.    Carry on.