Jason Bourne wrote:1) not drinking alcohol and caffeine..I don't think it has anything to do with moral values
I agree accept if one drinks alcohol to excess and destroys their life and/or family. That is immoral.
That's not the teachings of the Church. Whatever one does to oneself is not immoral unless it affects others negatively. If one overeats to the point they are unhealthy, and that negatively impacts their family that too is immoral. But for Church members to think they are being moral because they don't drink at all, is nonsense.
2) getting married and having kids..again nothing to do with moral values
Certainly not the act of just marrying and having children. However, getting married and having children and then investing the time required to raise decent members of society is reflective of moral values.
The world has 6 billion people, China is having to limit families to one child..since when is having children a moral act?
3) not being homosexual..again nothing to do with moral values.
Depends on your point of view.
No it doesn't depend on point of view. What others do privately is no business of any one else's unless it can be shown to be detrimental to others.
4) accepting callings..again nothing to do with moral values.
Serving and giving time to one's chosen faith system reflects good moral values. It is called contributing to society. It is valid form of public service and charity which in most peoples world reflects good morals.
It's not necessarily contributing to society. It's contributing to perpetuation and growth of an organization. Do you consider Hell's angel members performing callings to be moral, or Mafia member callings to be moral? It depends on what those callings are and the purpose of the organization. Because an organization claims religous status does not mean that anything it teaches is true or necessarily good. A good part of religious teachings is a waste of resource of time. Look at the Book of Mormon all that time spent reading it, debating who wrote it etc...all on a fraudulent work..a fictious story passed off as sacred text and historical at that. [/quote]
your list:
"staying chaste until marriage"...again nothing to do with moral value. In fact I think couples should definitely have sex and more than once to determine is they are sexually compatible.
For most of this nations history sexual activity was considered immoral. Marg's view her is a recent redrawing of the line in the sand. She is wrong and in spite of our apparent lose society most view sexual promiscuity as immoral.
What you have to look at is who does it hurt. One of the reasons premarital sex was discouraged historically is before the birth control pill, there were not good birth control methods and women were dependent on men financially due to unequal jobs and pay available. Now a days the concern is sexually transmitted diseases but that's a concern for those who get married as well, in other words precautions, medical checks can be performed to control for that. I certainly do not think couples need to be married before having a sexual relationship. White House on earth is getting hurt if they do? Why do you wish to negative judge others who are causing you and others no harm?
"giving service, time, talents and money to the building up of the Kingdom", ...if the Kingdom is a fraud it's a waste of time isn't it?
Your opinion of the LDS Church as a fraud is simply that. Not fact as much as you state it as such. All religions have flaws yet they offer valuable community service and benefits and those things are reflective of good morals.
This is like the emperor has no clothes and people don't want to say anything. Jason it is so obvious the Book of Mormon is a fictional story using King James english to sound ancient that it doesn't even need to be debated. Of course it's a fraud, you have to be either heavily indoctrinated or pretty darn naïve to think otherwise.
"taking care of the widows and orphans"...Ok that's good, yes that shows good morals but what about the widows and orphans outside the system.
Does it matter if they are in or out of the system? It is still serving them.
Well if a religious organization is only concerned with its own then it's not really doing the service because of ethical reasons, the motivation is to help their own, which ultimately helps the organization. It's a good thing except the motivator is not truly about being moral.
"helping out in times of disaster" ..that is good moral value except my impression of the Mormon church is that relative to the billions of dollars it takes in it gives out a very very small percentage in charity. It gives out less percentage wise than the corporate world which are not charities.
Once again marg demonstrates her ignorance of things LDS. I will here not as I have many times on this board that you, in your statement above, make the same mistake as others by focusing on simply disaster and humanitarian aid. You ignore the program in the LDS Church called fast offering. It is the method the LDS Church uses to feed the poor, pay their rent, utilites and so on. I have conservatively estimated that the income and out flow on an annual basis for world wide welfare assistance through fast offering funds to be $500 million annually.
I see so you have personally estimated.
So what have you estimated is the total income they receive per year in tithing? What do they receive on the income of their investment assets per year? What do they receive as income on their businesses per year?
What is their total asset value? And then what percentage to they pay out per year in charity relative to their total yearly income and relative to their Total net worth?
I'm part of a blues society. We raise money at christmas and the entire amount is donated to the local community service office for the poor. We don't need to worship, we aren't interested in promoting a particular in group/tribe.
Wonderful. LDS Fast offering funds by the way go 100% to the needy. There is 0 overhead for it.
So this fast offering is given to fellow Mormons in need and is above and beyond what the church takes in in tithing? by the way, the funds we raise go directly to the charity, in fact we allow them to control the intake at the door and to take the money directly. But we don't specified that people must belong to any organization to receive the money. In other words we don't place a requirement on people that they must hold certain beliefs to qualify, nor does the community service program.
That's not to take away from the good a church organization may do, but there are many organizations which do good which have nothing to do with religion.
Nobody makes that claim at all. That does not make what LDS people do fr charity through the LDS Church any less moral.
It is to some extent less moral when there are requirments imposed upon recipients that they hold the same beliefs and the Church.
The Mormon Church is a business, providing livlihood to church employees.
The Mormon Church is a religous organization that provides religious activity to millions. Of course a large organization like the LDS Church in our modern world will employee people that run it. That does not make in less moral nor the moral things it does for society any less positive.
My point is that were it not for the financial gain enjoyed by religious organizations many wouldn't exist. The popes used to sell indulgences to gain money and the people with money would buy off their sins.
I think the prime consideration of the Mormon church is money and power.
Well then you are certainly wrong.
Why don't they release financial records?
And of that list above, most of them have nothing to do with indicating good moral values if followed.
Actually as I have now demonstrated most of them do indicate good morals.
No you not demonstrated any such thing, you've demonstrated a lack of understanding of what constitutes good ethics. For example why on earth should having children when the world is being depleted of resources, being polluted..constitute having good morals?
I am not one to argue that non believers in God are not moral people. But based on your post above Marg you seem to have an odd definition of what is and is not moral. At least that is what I think.
I see so you negatively judged people who are homosexual, those who have premarital sex, those who choose to not have kids, those who drink alcohol, as having poor morals. And then you positively judge those who promote and perpetuate a fraudulent organization started up by a promiscuous con man, as having good morals.