Anddenex

The challenge with a non-historical Book of Mormon is that Joseph had the plates. 3 witnesses were shown the plates by an angel and had the voice of God testify it was true. 8 witnesses received a secular testimony with no angel or voice of God, but still leafed through the plates.
Joseph made a claim that he translated the plates. God was very clever and backed up Joseph's account with additional secular and spiritual witnesses to appeal to both camps.
So perhaps there were plates but Joseph made up the translation - but then we have the angel showing the plates and the voice of God confirming its truth. So I'm compelled to turn to the supernatural to explain it. God or the devil. If the devil, then the book is not what it purports to be (another testimony of Christ) and I have no problems with it being non-historical.
If it is from God though, then we have God creating a set of plates to convince 12 people that this is the real deal. That's highly suspect. Or the plates were real enough, but Mormon and Moroni made up a great story and God then preserved the plates with the false narrative and gave power to Joseph to translate it. My credulity is straining.
I feel compelled to accept the book for what it claims to be - a record of a fallen civilization that historically existed, as compiled by prophets.

Is the Book of Mormon historical???? Compared to what?  There is no ancient text, no ancient artifacts, absolutely nothing other than the Book of Mormon that is specifically identified as a remint of the Nephite civilization.  Even the geography (except for places described prior to leaving the Arabian Peninsula are unknown.  Plus anything written prior to Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey is by definition – pre-historic or pre-history.  Note that the Book of Mormon begins in 600BC and parts (Ether) is almost 2,000 years prior to that. 
The question is itself a gross misunderstanding of the term “historic”.  As a side note – all information in the Book of Mormon that references places on the Arabian peninsula (including at least 100 references to places unknown in any Western Civilization – American continent) at the time of Joseph Smith – are 100% accurate and rivals even current publications.
 
The Traveler

A purely self-serving moral perspective does not necessarily even care about the survival of one's species.

You know, this debate is funny.  The argument I am hearing is "God doesn't exist because the God (or Gods) described do not fit my moral standards, and therefore He cannot exist."  But that's like saying, I don't like the rules of the IRS, therefore the IRS does not exist.

When did I declare children are better off dead. I merely replied to your lack of knowledge and understanding of Mormon theology while trying to outwit with "My temple president said so." I shared the actual doctrine that children who die before the age of accountability, whether in war, through disease, or any other tragedy are indeed exalted. This was your error, I merely corrected it.
Lay leadership teaching false doctrine, that is simple, moral agency. No need to have any further discussion on this topic. This is why we have been instructed to be studied in gospel principles ourselves, and forewarned of these events occurring. Search the scriptures, search the prophets, so that you may not be deceived. I don't have any problem with people believing what they believe as long as when shown correct doctrine they are willing to change, if not, then there are ways to protect ourselves. Not concerning at all.
The last question isn't worth responding to and doesn't come from a sincere heart; otherwise, it wouldn't have been even asked (i.e. the moral thing to do is let the baby drown?) These are merely gotcha type questions, and why would that be the moral thing to do in light of children dying before age of accountability they are saved. It would be the same pathetic question if someone asked, "Well, since babies are saved, exalted, then it would be the moral thing to do for all Mormon members to kill their babies right"? It really doesn't take an honest or sincere heart to ask or address this question; although it is definitely the heart of the archetypes for today's world emphasized in Sherem and Korihor.
 

Oh boy, read up little more, key phrase, "According to my temple president," that should have been your first clue.  Here are some more helpful quotes to smooth out your rough patches of memory as the first ones didn't set in.
"Among all the glorious gospel verities given of God to his people there is scarcely a doctrine so sweet, so soul satisfying, and so soul sanctifying, as the one which proclaims—Little children shall be saved. They are alive in Christ and shall have eternal life. For them the familyunit will continue, and the fulness of exaltation is theirs. No blessing shall be withheld. They shall rise in immortal glory, grow to full maturity, and live forever in the highest heaven of the celestial kingdom—all through the merits and mercy and grace of the Holy Messiah, all because of the atoning sacrifice of Him who died that we might live."
Another invitation, read up on what it means to have "eternal life" and a "fulness of exaltation." Two invitations given to help increase your understanding of what you have missed now. More knowledge for your rough patches of memory:
"Little children are little children and they are all alive in Christ, and all are saved by him, through and because of the atonement. …
“They are saved through the atonement and because they are free from sin. They come from God in purity; no sin or taint attaches to them in this life; and they return in purity to their Maker. Accountable persons must become pure through repentance and baptism and obedience. Those who are not accountable for sins never fall spiritually and need not be redeemed from a spiritual fall which they never experienced. Hence the expression that little children are alive in Christ. …"
"Even though little children will be saved, does that mean they will have eternal life? Elder McConkie explained: “Eternal life is life in the highest heaven of the celestial world; it is exaltation; it is the name of the kind of life God lives. It consists of a continuation of the family unity in eternity. … children will be saved in the celestial kingdom. Salvation means eternal life; the two terms are synonymous; they mean exactly the same thing. Joseph Smith said, ‘Salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses and in nothing else.’ (Lectures on Faith,pp. 63–67.)"
President Joseph Fielding Smith added: “The Lord will grant unto these children the privilege of all the sealing blessings which pertain to the exaltation.
“We were all mature spirits before we were born, and the bodies of little children will grow after the resurrection to the full stature of the spirit, and all the blessings will be theirs through their obedience, the same as if they had lived to maturity and received them on the earth.
The first thought about children one should recognize is that they are "pure" meaning they are unspotted of the sins of this world. They are clean. They are received by their Maker after death. That isn't bottom or second tier. 
Again, I am OK with you not believing; however, please smooth out your rough patches of memory, otherwise it appears as if you are being obtuse, insincere, and outwardly dishonest even if you aren't trying. 

Absolute certainty cannot exist, while making an absolute statement? Always intriguing how a person can make an absolute statement while stating it can't exist. You have declared you have an absolute certainty that absolute certainty can not exist...just a tad bit of irony possibly.
The last paragraph, I was wondering when this standard feign of frustration would come out. This isn't the first thread you have entered into with LDS. This isn't going to be the last, as you seek to garner evidence for pre-conceived ideas, and you will probably make a similar feign, "Oh my, I am a tad frustrated......" What you actually witnessed is individuals specifying we don't know, one day we will know, and one day you will know with absolute certainty and will claim with absolute certainty that God is just. If you want to believe as you believe, feel free to, but please don't feign frustration when people have been providing you with answers you just don't want to accept, and that is OK, you don't have to accept -- no one on this thread believed you would. They simply answered your question.

My dad once pointed out that the things he always heard atheists rejecting were the erroneous or incomplete teachings of other Christian denominations, and that had they learned the truth before hardening their hearts, things might be very different.  From the context in which I hear pretty much everyone other than Mormons use the word "faith", they think it means either "religion" or "weak belief in something which cannot be tested".  This is unfortunate as everyone who acts in any way does so by faith, they just don't know it.
I think we've served our purpose.
Meanwhile, nice avatar - not nearly so grumpy or girly.

I'm not saying I know things like the below factor in--I don't--but before we speak in simple platitudes, consider:
What if that child's name is Adolf Hitler?
Again, I'm not saying that one of the victims of Ammonihah necessarily included a budding fascist.  But I am suggesting that there's far, far more to this calculus than the mere pathetic image of a suffering child. 

I think you need to study Moral Relativism.   Your notion of what is moral is not universal by any means.  So you cannot put your judgements on morality in any meaningful context.

Apologies if this point has already been made. 
Simplest answer:  Yes.
The caveat is that for morality to have any meaning it must be objective.  This is why moral relativism is a crock.  If all moral codes are of equal value then none have any value at all, since they're subject to the shifting ideas and whims of the individual.
So why is God necessary for morality?  Because only a source of morality external to humanity can be objective.  If whatever moral code you follow comes from human thought then it may be a perfectly fine code of conduct and set of ethics, but morality?  No. 
 

Paul said it best, IMO (JST included, emphasis mine):
More seems pointless.

This discussion has evolved in a way that is a bit theoretical for my tastes; but speaking generally--I don't think God's ultimate view of morality or status as a moral Being derives primarily from His ability or willingness to alleviate human suffering in this life.  God's ultimately view of morality--and the reason we accept Him as moral--is because we accept three fundamental points at which Estradling has already hinted:  1)  That God created us, 2)  that God, while having no obligation to do so, subjected Himself to a great deal of misery in order to implement a plan that would maximize each individual's potential for happiness in the life to come; and 3) that mortal life is a short-term state that is necessary to effectuate the long-term aims of God's plan.
Speaking generally--not knowing exactly precisely how each vicissitude of life effects a particular individual's chances for eternal happiness, I simply can't definitively judge God as a moral being in any objective sense.  I can certainly speculate--as I will do below, re the slaughter of the believers in Ammonihah--but really, all I can do is to look at my own, individual experiences with God.  I see Him shaping my life, I see my own circumstances improving as I trust Him and act on what I think He is saying to me, and conclude that He is dealing justly with me; and then I take it on faith that He is also dealing justly with everyone else.  But as for everyone else--they will each have to judge God's morality on their own through that same process on an individual basis.
With regard to the martyrs in Ammonihah, there's a little more to Alma's explanation than what you have cited.  It's not just that God's laying the groundwork for the destruction of those who are persecuting the believers.  It's that "behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory".  In other words:  The plan is working.  The sufferings of the innocent now, will be consecrated for their joy in the ultimate consummation of God's plan.  And as for the perpetrators:  Whether they actually had the opportunity to perpetrate their horrors or not--they would have done them, given the chance.  So, they were already in such a severe state of rebellion that God simply couldn't offer them the same sort of reward that was available to the righteous.  All that is left is for God to ease their pain in any way He can--which in this particular case, seems to have included making sure that they would know exactly why they were losing that reward.  This may sound like cold comfort, but consider this real-life example:  as an attorney I have represented both parents who did understand why their kids were being taken away from them; and parents who did not understand it.  I can attest that the latter form of hell is far, far more excruciating. 

I very much answered your question... but you don't want to hear it.  We can understand God's morality... But we have accept certain givens...
This mortal life is not the end all and be all of existence.
That God has put us here for our "well being" and growth but that or mortal existence has a determined end (Also for our "well being" and growth).
That death is not the end of our "well being" and growth.
When we understand this.. The idea of God killing someone (or allowing them to die) is no more detrimental to their "well being" and growth and in fact might be beneficial.  Therefore God allowing some one to die becomes no more immoral then a parent calling their child home at the end of the day.
 
 

I understand context Omega, and you tend to share the same example type. In this scenario you share a young married woman. In another thread you shared a teenager (bishop's daughter) with the same example (caffeinated drinks). How we respond is more important than what they say, and how we respond shows more about who we are than the person speaking. The individual isn't wrong. We should be examining ourselves. My response would simply be, "Yes, we should be examining. What have the prophets said, and in this case she isn't correct. But if she feels that will draw here closer to God, then great." In both scenarios you and I would respond differently. There is absolutely no reason to loose ourselves and belittle a person for doing what they feel is right before the Lord (especially a teenager who is trying to understand everything in relation to the gospel and what they have been taught by parents, that isn't self-righteous). The title of "self-righteousness" is so often abused in our Mormon culture it is saddening. I remember on my mission when coming across addictive substances and teaching the thoughts of drinking caffeine and explaining to people we should keep this counsel. There was no self-righteousness in my expression and invitation to examine ourselves. Now, I know I was not in-line, but if a person considered my summary judgement had any hint of self-righteousness that would speak more volumes about them than me, as I was doing my best with the knowledge I had at that time.
I understand "summary judgement" is what you were specifying and still in order to judge the speaker we ourselves must make a "summary judgement" also. Why is your summary judgement any better than theirs? They believe something, whole heart, and want to share what they have felt. Great. If they tell me to examine my life, OK, I will examine myself, test what they say, and allow God to lead me. I won't think they are self-righteous, because again, the title of self-righteousness is often misused and abused in our Mormon culture.
As you are unaware of the full context of the speaker in my ward, I can understand why you think it would be different. She indeed was specifying that everyone should follow the code of dress she was expressing, which then implies disparaging anyone who does not follow. I understood your context, which is why I shared this example. I disagree with her sentiments, doesn't make her a MM. Doesn't make her self-righteous, and she could be right. The Lord may possibly be backing her up, as to my knowledge, I would disagree. I think it is great though she is willing to share her thoughts, could it have been said in a different way....sure, but it wasn't. My wife on the other hand now changes her clothes in connection with this speaker. She would before this sometimes change into other clothing and sometimes not. Now, anytime she is in this clothing, and we need to go out, she changes. The invitation spoke differently to my wife, and for me, well...I don't think she needs to but if she feels that is right before the Lord, than great!
As to "my own little world" Omega needs to better explain himself because you have used the same example in multiple threads and from what you have shared I don't appear to be wrong in how you think, but openly admit I could be, but it doesn't appear so, when someone makes a statement, (paraphrased) "When she (the teenager) shared about caffeine and we all need to stop and listen to the prophets...I [ignored] gave a deaf ear to the rest of her talk." That doesn't leave much to the imagination on how you think Omega.
 
 

So...because you DON'T want to hear it, they CAN'T share it because it hurts your happy bubble (a drawn line in the sand), and if they do they are MM or PPs? Ya, that makes sense. Just make sure then you don't share anything at all, because you will eventually break your own line and become a PP yourself.
A young married woman in sacrament shared some principles, applications, they choose regarding dress code. 1) I think it is great that they are willing to share their thoughts and what they do. 2) Why be bothered, unless you (general) feel some guilt. 3) If they speak a truth, I had better be listening otherwise we are held accountable for truth we dismiss so frivolously. 4) I didn't agree with everything she shared, but she has the same right to share and express what she feels is following God as anyone else (oh but shame on her for sharing...what a self-righteous MM -- sarcasm intended) without a person in the audience, self-righteously (irony) specifying they are PPs.
From your definition, my goodness, Nephi was the biggest PP ever. He did. He shared (his brothers didn't like it). And he repeated the cycle. He did. He shared. His brothers didn't like it.
 

Indeed... we have two factors at play with this...
What the person/speaker intends...
and
what the person/listener takes away.
 
There are some people who put on a display of self-rightousness
And there are some people who feel attacked/shamed/guilty at the slightest hint and deflect/attack back
the two are not always connected

Or a person can think to themselves, "That is awesome. A person seeking to do what they feel is right and they are willing to share it." I have a friend who has decided to not watch pg-13 movies and I think it is awesome. Why do we as a people want to bring someone down who is trying to better themselves in an area they feel will help them be closer to God?
Edit: This is the principle YM are being taught in Duty to God: Learn, Act, Share; however, for some it appears it should only be Learn - Act - Don't Share.

I've never understood this. So what if this man doesn't allow caffeine in his home? So what if someone chooses to not see a PG13 or R movie? Why do their private choices mean they are being self righteous or even that their private choices make them wrong/unworthy/etc.?
I really don't get it. I choose to not eat anything that I know has added alcohol in it. Does that mean I never consume things with alcohol? No, there are times when it is either unavoidable or I don't know they've added it. But, how does my choice make other people think I'm being self righteous or even unworthy? I'm not telling you to not choose beer battered shrimp....I'm just not ordering it. What you choose to do is your business and between you and the Lord. I may think you are wrong, but it's not my place to tell you that or judge you for that. 

If in addition to being active in the Church – if someone is also in great physical condition because they eat clean and healthy (no sugar little carbs) and work out regularly.  Then at church social function, they turn down unhealthy snacks – would they not be criticized in some hearts?  Also add to that – that they are financially well to do having spent a life time of disciplined saving and investments.   How are such members viewed????
Heaven forbid that such an individual or couple would ever offer anyone good sound advice about anything of personal improvement.  Even worse – if their children are all active and good examples – obviously something deep below the surface is very wrong!!!  Who is not anticipating with glee for the first flaw to show up.
I am describing my own parents.  And as soon as I could I moved from Utah to Maryland where no one knew my parents or would compare me to them or expected me to work in my father’s business.  Not so I could be less active just for once myself.  I wonder – maybe this is the reason so many of us were anxious to fall and be on our own in this life. And when we come to our senses it is so good to go back home and realize we have been missed.
 
The Traveler  

Very interesting, this week I had the same conversation with my wife. Molly Mormon and Peter Priesthood are often interchanged with the notion of being self-righteous. When did it become self-righteous to do the right thing, or seek to better oneself? President Uchtdorf is right, pride is at its root. We should be rejoicing when someone is trying to do what is right, not belittling, but unfortunately this is not the case.

I am a fairly new member.  Sorta.
I was baptized in 1983.  I was a college grad with a job when I joined.  I went on my mission in 1984.  I quit my job, sold my things and went on my mission at the age of 24.
After my mission, I went to law school.  In my last year of law school, 1989, I left the church.  I became a very vocal ant-Mormon.
For 26 years, I fought against the Church.  Then, thru a series of amazing miracles, I was rebaptized in 2015.  
I then quit my 6-figure managing attorney position in Texas and, because I believe God wanted me to, I moved to SLC.
In May of this year, my blessings were restored.  I attended the Temple for first time in 29 years.  I am a Gospel Doctrine Teacher.
I love the Church.  I am so glad to be back.

I have only heard the terms used negatively.  If I've heard them actually directed at someone since my teen years, I don't remember it.  From those years, an example of use would be:
Mormon Friend: "Want a Coke?"
Me: "I don't drink Coke."
Mormon Friend: "Don't be such a Molly Mormon."
Shortly* before Satan and his followers where cast out?  (Where "shortly" must be defined from an eternal perspective rather than mortal.)
  People do that! (Just teasing - really I just wanted to use that emoji.)  On a slightly more serious note, once you've got your home inside the can, how do you get in and out? (OK, there was no seriousness in that at all.)
Yes and yes.  And I think this is one which sometimes gets subtle criticism from inside the church, and often from outside.  I do not have to go and read material written by enemies of the church, or even factual histories depicting the details of Joseph Smith's flaws, and experience that "opposition" or "doubt" before I can know with absolute, 100% certainty* that Joseph Smith is a prophet.  (*Some will even find fault with my absolute certainty, claiming I cannot know, that I really just believe strongly, as if they were inside of me and could know whether I know.  I tell you, I know.)  One does not know the things of the Spirit by analytical analysis of competing viewpoints, nor only through overcoming opposition.  One knows the things of the spirit by revelation (JST on v11 required).
I think pride does not always look like we expect pride to look, and yet, I think it's probably pride all the same (if we consider the prideful behaviors in that quote from President Uchtdorf).  The suspected motivations I'm about to describe are, I think, not always conscious, but learned and applied subconsciously: some people need to pull others down to feel better about themselves. some are too lazy to work that hard and therefore must find fault in working hard so that they can feel like there's nothing wrong with their own laziness.
I say, if someone is mocking you as a Molly Mormon, be exceeding glad.

I suspect it's a kind of jealousy, or defensive ploy: I'm not doing that, and she isn't any better than me, so she must be "cheating" somehow.
That's the better of two explanations. The other is those who call people this kind of name are not converted, and imagine everyone else to be a hypocrite, the same as they are.
Lehi

This.