LeSellers

You're right, LeSellers. Thanx for the awesome insights!
The reason why I used the term gave referring to the power Jesus got from His Father is because of the scripture in John 5:25: "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in hilmself".

We can, since "Judeo-Christian" predates either Jesus' birth or Judah's — it goes back to Adam.
And you have evidence that what we're doing is "improving"? How? What? Who decides it's "improving" and not "regressing"?
You seem to be suffering from a severe case of chronocentrism and, specifically, presentism.
Lehi

I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton for the main following reasons:
1) Her solution for our lagging economy is more taxes and more government programs that will cause even more poverty and government intrusion into our lives.
2) She said she wants Australia gun control laws here in the United States.  That would effectively destroy all of our 2nd Amendment liberties.
3) Her Clinton "Charity" is nothing more than a slush fund for her and her family.  It is full of fraud and deceit.
4) There are many questionable and very suspicious deaths of people surrounding the Clintons.  I cannot trust someone who murders.
5) Her open disdain for obeying the law was shown with her intentional deletion of classified e-mails.  Anyone who was not a lord of Washington D.C. would already be incarcerated by now for these actions.
Edit: Miss Clinton will also pick a Supreme Court Justice that will do even more damage to the United States Constitution.  The Supreme Court is currently half packed with Justices that believe the solution for many problems in America is more government intrusion into State power and into the lives of Americans.

"Spew" is a bit prejudiced.
If what we're seeing in the run up is indicative, that spew should be interesting, indeed. One can only hope that those who vote for a living care at all about security and such. It might also be fun to see how they react to the leaked DNC files showing the DemoComm Party is far more racist than the Ferguson, MO, police department where three or four eMails were enough to burn the city down and fire the police chief.
Lehi

When you reply with quote, you can copy/paste the quoted box by clicking the upper left corner and doing a Ctrl+C.  I just paste it over and over, deleting out everything but the text I'm responding to.
Well, that's how you see it, which is fine, but I'd advise you not to assume that's how everybody sees it.  Morality is the code by which we determine right vs. wrong.  You're insisting that somehow for a person to be moral they have to have enough wisdom to understand the meanings behind the rules.  It's nice to have that understanding, but it isn't necessary to practice morality.
Sure, as the child matures they gain a deeper understanding of the wherefores behind the rules but it doesn't mean they aren't expected to obey them in the meantime.  It's still morality.  Some people never achieve that level of understanding but we don't excuse them from acting morally.
Either way, Western civilization is based on Judeo-Christian mores.  Spoiler alert: Those also tend to be the parts of the world where human rights are valued the most.  By your logic, that's pure coincidence.
Except that wasn't the point I made.  The point is that your insistence that civilization evolves a higher morality on its own is demonstrably untrue.  This isn't a matter of corner cases.  After thousands of years of development we're still fighting wars, beheading each other and justifying torture.  That's everywhere.
You could mention that, but you'd be wrong.  That's one of the big falsehoods I often hear from people who have an axe to grind against religion.  Add up all the casualties from holy wars in history and compare that to the casualties from the two World Wars, the deaths from Stalin's and Mao's policies and the Holocaust.  None of that had anything whatsoever to do with religion.
Slavery still exists in some parts of the world. Education is not universal worldwide at all, and in some places certain groups are outright forbidden to be educated. People die in poverty every single day, even in the United States And dude, seriously... Religion is holding us back from morality?  In the same paragraph where you wrote that you bragged about how we ended slavery.  Spoiler alert:  Slavery was ended in Western culture because of Christian values.  If you disagree with that then I challenge you to go study your pre-Civil War history.  That universal education you bragged about doesn't actually exist but the closest we can come to it is in... you guessed it... the West, which is influenced by Judeo-Christian values.  Churches donate massive amounts of money, time and other resources to helping the poor... far more than secular based organizations.
It's been debunked as far as I'm concerned.  You can hold onto that if you want to but dude, it's shockingly arrogant to claim superior morality than the Creator of the universe and it's fairly rude to write a sentence like that last one among a bunch of Mormons.  You don't believe it, fine but we do and that was pretty insensitive.  If you're going to say things like that then fine, but don't ever complain about people being rude to you on here.
I mean, do you honestly think anyone's going to take you seriously when you claim a superior morality to God?
You honestly think the result would be the same?  That speaks volumes of your understanding of the point of all of this, bro.
The results would NOT be the same.  Returning to Heaven is pointless if we learned nothing while on the Earth, which is what we're here for. 

And apparently, at least one woman.
In point of fact, we don't know that.  The weight of the evidence is that the brown seer stone was used after the lost pages incident; but not necessarily before.  Lucy Mack Smith recalled Joseph's use of the Nephite interpreters, and it seems there may have been at least one other seer stone involved too.  Moreover, the testimony of the Three Witnesses states that they heard God Himself vouch for the accuracy of the translation Joseph produced as it related to the engravings on the actual plates.
Spencer W. Kimball didn't think so, FWIW.  He read "Thou shalt deny me thrice" as prescriptive, not predictive, in nature--in other words, under this theory, Peter denied Jesus because Jesus Himself had told him to.
I'm not sure how much credence I give to the idea, but it at least keeps me from getting too strident with my criticisms of Peter.
 

"If only the plan could be such that everyone was saved.  God has the power, why doesn't he save everyone?"

I am thinking of situations like where a Lion will kill the cubs of a competitor.  Or hierarchical systems where you literally have to kill off all the other alphas to become king.   Those are hardly moral choices.  But they are beneficial if you want to preserve your genetic lineage.

When I lived in Moscow, I had a Mormon friend who (with her husband) had gone very, very inactive.  They had both been life-long members and had been sealed in the temple, and then something (I don't know what) happened and they drifted away and then some.  (They were never "anti", just not living their covenants.)  Anywho, one day she and I were having a conversation about church stuff, and in the middle of the conversation I came to realize that she had forgotten a great deal - more, I think, that would be accounted for by normal memory loss.  I didn't say anything to her, but this concept was what came to mind:
Doctrine and Covenants 1:33 And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts.
For some people, not being able to (correctly) recall the truth may simply be loss of the Spirit; for others, it seems to clearly to be something else.  Meanwhile, I'm happy to report my friend and her husband came back with a bang and before I left, she was the RS President of our branch.

No they are subjective.  Life of who?  Life of our children at the expense of strangers?  The life of our race over the slavery of another race?  Totally subjective.  We just happen to live in a culture that has evolved to accept that all humans are worthy of life.  But that's certainly not a historical belief.  It's not even a biological reality.

You can't define morality.  You can define your own intended goals, and you can speculate on others (including God), but you can't define morality,at least not universally.  That is, unless there is a God, and that God has a specific plan.  Then there is one universal morality.

By whose standard?  Who decides what those objective morals are?

No worries.  I know you've been juggling multiple conversations.
By what standard?  Your own personal one?  Some philosopher's?
Why?  I teach my kids right from wrong long before they're mature enough to understand the reasoning.
I don't know if you have kids or not, but that hasn't been my experience.  People (especially children with weak impulse control) don't magically become moral just because they understand the reasoning.  Having the understanding alone isn't enough.  One also has to desire to behave morally.  A kid can understand completely why it's wrong to act like a hellion in a restaurant but if they don't want to behave then they won't unless there's a consequence.
What you call secular morality is just rebranded Judeo-Christian values from centuries past.  The argument that somehow morality naturally evolves as a consequence of human social development is demonstrably untrue.  It's 2016 and we still have genocide happening today even after thousands of years for modern man to learn to get his act together.  If what you're saying here is true then violence, rape and war should be things that have trended downward as we look at the span of human history.  That has not been the case.  In today's secular "enlightened" culture we don't see things being better at all.
Morality isn't simple at all.  The source of it is.
I'm not sure why you're still pushing this argument when it's already been debunked as being "My sense of morality is superior to God's."  You're literally saying that your sense of right and wrong is more highly developed than a being whose intellect, wisdom and experience is so vast as to be beyond human understanding.  Can't you see how absurd that is?

Ah, Alma 30:48. I love seeing the scriptures come to life.

"good of the people" 
That's the problem.  Which people?  All people?  Just you? The Chosen People?  White people?  The unborn?
Morality is very dependent on what your end goals are, and they are different for virtually every individual, and every clan.  But if there is a god, and he has a plan for humans, then his morality will fit his goals, just as with anyone else.

Others have answered this but I'll add my 2 cents' worth.
So from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe in God then yes, a morality based on religion is just as subjective as any other... But that's my point.  From an atheistic worldview any moral code is subjective.  So what's the point of calling it morality if it's no better or worse than the next guy's?  What does it matter if a moral framework came from God, Richard Dawkins or random letter arrangement in your breakfast cereal?
It doesn't.
So the notion of morality itself  then becomes an illusion, a construct used to constrain behavior for the good of the community.  But then it's really no different than a law that isn't enforced by the Government.
So for morality to have any meaning at all it cannot originate from humans.  It must come externally.  Now if that means it comes from God, space aliens or the mystical spirits of the waterfall it's at least an anchor that isn't subject to the whims of human culture.
20 years ago, it was generally considered immoral for people of the same sex to sleep together.  Say that now and suddenly you're a homophobe.  Humans are fickle.  We need morality precisely because it mitigates the shifting around.

Growing up, we had fast offerings collected door to door by the deacons every fast Sunday after church.  I am sure in Utah (where the stats come from), it's not uncommon to have a much higher percentage of people donate. 

A darn good one...just not here.  Still, I would never listen to a missionary too afraid to stand for what he or she believes

I'll repeat what I said in an earlier post, which doesn't seem to have been noticed considering some of Eric's complaints about people not trying to respond to the original question.
Morality MUST come from a source external to humanity.  Otherwise morality is subjective and therefore meaningless.  It's that simple.

You assume that G-d is supernatural – I would submit that such a theory of G-d is flawed.  That anything that occurs without explanation at the time would be seen or thought to be supernatural.  I do not believe in a supernatural G-d and that anything that dose happen can be made to happen by engaging the same parameters.  I see no reason to assume that G-d has done or will do anything that has not happened or cannot happen within the laws and principles in which things that do and can occur do occur.
The problem is not if G-d does or does not exist as much as it is that we have a correct and true understanding of the attributes of G-d and the means by which G-d can and does act.  Rarely do I debate the existence of G-d with someone rejecting the idea that has a grasp of evolving intelligence and what is possible.  My point is that given today what we know of the universe that the possibility of an intelligence greater than mankind is likely and probable.  Coupled with the fact that intelligence is known to evolve – by logical induction there is no limit in time to how far intelligence can evolve.
Fractals and Chao Theory are used to prove that endangered species that are allowed to become extinct will alter a complex system even when things are not directly engaged.   Do you understand – or do you require more explanation.
The Traveler

I beg to differ. I wrote this (and others have posted similar thoughts):
How do you know what is moral?
Atheists cannot know that anything is moral. You may imagine you do, but you do not.
Why not murder if the only thing that matters is your personal survival? Why not steal if the only thing that matters is your personal comfort? Why not rape if the only thing that matters is propagating your DNA?
The only thing that matters to an atheist is this life. Honor, courtesy, honesty, unless they advance one's personal life/comfort/progeny, they are of no value at all.
You can claim you wouldn't want to harm anyone, but why not? What about another person makes not harming him to enrich yourself valuable to you?
You can choose to be moral, but why? How is acting morally "better", because it may very well be that your "morality" is not objectively better than anyone else's.
Lehi
 

When I quoted your own words, you were a bit techy, fer shure. You accused me of cherry picking, but as far as I could tell, there wasn't any other reasonable way of interpreting your statement.
And you have yet to answer the question, how do you know your morality is objectively moral, truly moral, the quintessence of morality, whatever-term-you-like morality?
Lehi

Not merely pay for them, but enjoy it.
Lehi

This really bugs me.
The Church did not disagree with Trump.  They don't do that.  The Catholic Pope did not disagree with Trump either.  That is simply YOUR interpretation of what they said.  The Church commented on the issue of the day - Immigration and Refugees and gave their thoughts as guidance.
Now explain to me how the Church's stance do not align with Trump's platform.  A temporary Muslim ban while we straighten out our immigration process does not conflict with the Church's stance.  Mormons must know this as they voted for Cruz who has a more extreme platform than Trump on immigration and aligns with him on the Refugee crisis.
Trump is simply hateful?  You gotta love political correctness and how if one is not following PC guidelines one is considered hateful.

Fact Check: I made no such claim that god helped me find anything, let alone my keys. Omega at random made the claim, "God didn't help you find your car keys". If he is going to make the claim, fine prove his claim is accurate, otherwise you and he are expressing your "opinions" and sadly nothing more.
the onus is on you to demonstrate the truth of the claim you're making. - correct! "A classic argument from ignorance" - oops, let me know how your foot tastes as we see who really was speaking from a position of ignorance.
p.s. My post isn't meant to be rude, I just got a kick out of someone trying to toss something in my face, call me ignorant and watching their perceived intellectual superiority backfire.