Why humans are born handicapped and minorities

[_Themis]

I really don't care what people believe. One can believe in vampires, as long as they don't turn into Buffy the Vampire Slayer that belief is between them and their conscience.

So you do have a "as long as". That's what I have been talking about the whole time. Beliefs have consequences. Many beliefs will have a "as long as". Joseph creating beliefs has consequences. The FLDS, who you condemn, are the consequences of Joseph's beliefs he created who you do not condemn but defend.

I don't have a problem with talking with people about almost any subject they want. Albeit somethings I know more about than other things. I'm the worlds foremost expert on what I believe

Everyone is the expert on what they believe. People shouldn't confuse that with what their religion or religious founder teaches. I haven't told you what you believe other then to suggest you do care as you demonstrate above with your "as long as".

It is right there is in D&C 132. He held others to the same standard. By commandment. That some took the authority on their own to become polygamous is not the fault of Joseph Smith.

Joseph certainly did not hold others to the same standard, and BY's polygamy would not exists without Joseph actions. The FLDS would not exist without Joseph's actions. Again, you want to condemn the FLDS for things you know Joseph did, but won't condemn him for it. The bias of the believer.

D& C 132 is Joseph making up rules and not following them. He makes it look like the women have to agree to other wives but then writes a loophole in to get around it. Most of these women didn't even know about each other.

Believe me I know very well that some choose to manipulate and control others. To play into people's emotions rather than the intellect is a time worn trait of demagogues and tyrants alike. Joseph Smith was neither.

Joseph certainly did. You need to learn more Mormon history not taught in SS. I would add to that how people who use peep stones to look for treasure need to manipulate their audience. Joseph learned from a young age how to manipulate people.

That is a trait common to many including those that abuse religion for their own sexual gratification(Some Hindu beliefs about sex withstanding). What is very rare is for them to marry them, and thus incur all the financial obligations attendant to marriage.

Marriage is not the uncommon and is used to justify their actions as being from God. Even the ones who don't marry them will try to get them to believe it is God's will. Just like Joseph's angel with a burning sword. He didn't really want to marry these girls.

by the way Joseph never did incur any financial obligations for his many wives. The man married two young sisters who he had adopted to take care of and were living with him. What kind of Man does this? It wasn't even the first time he had sex with a teenager living with him and Emma.

I object to anyone lying, but it needs to be tempered by circumstance. There is no good answer when a wife asks if "Does this dress make me look fat?" by the way Emma was present at least some of the polygamous marriage ceremonies.

You have yet to object to Joseph's lies, and are even trying to suggest circumstances without giving us what circumstances really justify his lies. Emma was never a fan of polygamy and even when Joseph got caught he never told her about all of them. She only reluctantly agreed with condition she could have another man. Maybe she hoped this would stop Joseph. She knew only a few and the two sisters marriage she was present at Joseph didn't have the decency to say this marriage to them will be the second one. This one is just a sham not to tell you I had already married them. She also lied her whole life about Joseph's polygamy.

It was the law to murder, and/or drive from the state the LDS. Do you really expect the LDS to follow that law?

I have already said there were unfair things done to the Mormons. They also did some unfair things as well.

Whether you believe it or not is up to you. As for me and my house we will follow the Lord's servants.

yes lots of people in other religions believe they are following the Lords' servants.

[_The CCC]

I really don't care what people believe. One can believe in vampires, as long as they don't turn into Buffy the Vampire Slayer that belief is between them and their conscience.

So you do have a "as long as". That's what I have been talking about the whole time. Beliefs have consequences. Many beliefs will have a "as long as". Joseph creating beliefs has consequences. The FLDS, who you condemn, are the consequences of Joseph's beliefs he created who you do not condemn but defend.

I don't have a problem with talking with people about almost any subject they want. Albeit somethings I know more about than other things. I'm the worlds foremost expert on what I believe

Everyone is the expert on what they believe. People shouldn't confuse that with what their religion or religious founder teaches. I haven't told you what you believe other then to suggest you do care as you demonstrate above with your "as long as".

It is right there is in D&C 132. He held others to the same standard. By commandment. That some took the authority on their own to become polygamous is not the fault of Joseph Smith.

Joseph certainly did not hold others to the same standard, and BY's polygamy would not exists without Joseph actions. The FLDS would not exist without Joseph's actions. Again, you want to condemn the FLDS for things you know Joseph did, but won't condemn him for it. The bias of the believer.

D& C 132 is Joseph making up rules and not following them. He makes it look like the women have to agree to other wives but then writes a loophole in to get around it. Most of these women didn't even know about each other.

Believe me I know very well that some choose to manipulate and control others. To play into people's emotions rather than the intellect is a time worn trait of demagogues and tyrants alike. Joseph Smith was neither.

Joseph certainly did. You need to learn more Mormon history not taught in SS. I would add to that how people who use peep stones to look for treasure need to manipulate their audience. Joseph learned from a young age how to manipulate people.

That is a trait common to many including those that abuse religion for their own sexual gratification(Some Hindu beliefs about sex withstanding). What is very rare is for them to marry them, and thus incur all the financial obligations attendant to marriage.

Marriage is not the uncommon and is used to justify their actions as being from God. Even the ones who don't marry them will try to get them to believe it is God's will. Just like Joseph's angel with a burning sword. He didn't really want to marry these girls.

by the way Joseph never did incur any financial obligations for his many wives. The man married two young sisters who he had adopted to take care of and were living with him. What kind of Man does this? It wasn't even the first time he had sex with a teenager living with him and Emma.

I object to anyone lying, but it needs to be tempered by circumstance. There is no good answer when a wife asks if "Does this dress make me look fat?" by the way Emma was present at least some of the polygamous marriage ceremonies.

You have yet to object to Joseph's lies, and are even trying to suggest circumstances without giving us what circumstances really justify his lies. Emma was never a fan of polygamy and even when Joseph got caught he never told her about all of them. She only reluctantly agreed with condition she could have another man. Maybe she hoped this would stop Joseph. She knew only a few and the two sisters marriage she was present at Joseph didn't have the decency to say this marriage to them will be the second one. This one is just a sham not to tell you I had already married them. She also lied her whole life about Joseph's polygamy.

It was the law to murder, and/or drive from the state the LDS. Do you really expect the LDS to follow that law?

I have already said there were unfair things done to the Mormons. They also did some unfair things as well.

Whether you believe it or not is up to you. As for me and my house we will follow the Lord's servants.

yes lots of people in other religions believe they are following the Lords' servants.

There isn't enough of a correspondence between thoughts and actions to make that determination at more than a very general nonspecific level. Did you ever see the movie "Minority Report"?

I don't condemn the FLDS for their polygamy. I really don't care how many wives they have. That is between consenting adults. I condemn them for the welfare fraud, marrying of children, and their treatment of teenage males. Joseph Smith didn't invent polygamy. It has been around for thousands of years. Whatever your beliefs about a god, polygamy is throughout the Bible. Nor is it exclusive to the LDS. Martin Luther recommended it. I doubt, very seriously, Martin Luther was LDS.

As I've already said. Believe or don't believe as you want. "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

To claim that Emma didn't know D&C 132 and the Book of Mormon's stance of polygamy is disingenuous, at best. I know quite well that Emma didn't like it. Her 19th Century American Protestant sensibilities would quite naturally come into play. But she knew about it, and in fact was present at some of those polygamous wedding ceremonies.

How often do you have to tell some one what you're going to do, and have them object. Before you just stop telling them?

Sunday School really isn't the best place to learn Church History. Nor are blogs on the internet. A good place to start is "Joseph Smith Rough Rolling Stone" by Richard Lyman Bushman. Another good place to start are the collected works of Hugh Nibley. For the avid reader there is also the "History of the Church" and the "A Comprehensive History of the Church".

So "lying" to someone about a personal action that will hurt their little fee-fee and advocating the murder of a people are equally unfair in your mind?

[_Themis]

There isn't enough of a correspondence between thoughts and actions to make that determination at more than a very general nonspecific level. Did you ever see the movie "Minority Report"?

It's not wise to source fictional stories for real world issues. All actions are preceded by thoughts. An example is the recent shooting at PP. His actions are based on beliefs. Beliefs he got from others. These people may never have acted the way he did, but they created an atmosphere of hate and promoted beliefs that help to create this unfortunate event.

I don't condemn the FLDS for their polygamy. I really don't care how many wives they have. That is between consenting adults. I condemn them for the welfare fraud, marrying of children, and their treatment of teenage males.

I never said you did condemn them for polygamy. What you condemn them for is what Joseph did as well. You don't condemn him though. Believers bias. Also I think the FLDS welfare is legal while maybe not ethical. Their treatment of teenage males is what has to happen to protect this system. No doubt this would have to go on during BY's time as well. Joseph also broke the law yet you don't condemn him for it. He lied about while telling the world it was wrong and that he believed in following the law.

To claim that Emma didn't know D&C 132 and the Book of Mormon's stance of polygamy is disingenuous, at best. I know quite well that Emma didn't like it. Her 19th Century American Protestant sensibilities would quite naturally come into play. But she knew about it, and in fact was present at some of those polygamous wedding ceremonies.

I didn't claim Emma was ignorant of this. I said she didn't know about most of Joseph's wives. The one marriage she did know about, she didn't know Joseph had already married her and her sister before Emma found out about his polygamy and then staged new marriages after. Sounds like a real stand up guy right? Marrying sisters they had taken in after there parents had died. What a stand up guy.

Joseph Smith didn't invent polygamy. It has been around for thousands of years. Whatever your beliefs about a god, polygamy is throughout the Bible. Nor is it exclusive to the LDS. Martin Luther recommended it. I doubt, very seriously, Martin Luther was LDS.

How does the fact it has been around a long time or that you think Martin Luther advocated for it make it right?

I know quite well that Emma didn't like it. Her 19th Century American Protestant sensibilities would quite naturally come into play. But she knew about it, and in fact was present at some of those polygamous wedding ceremonies.

And that makes it right? She was never in favor of it. She always hated it. She did not know about it for some time. Joseph meant to keep it from her but he got caught. She never knew the full extent of it.

How often do you have to tell some one what you're going to do, and have them object. Before you just stop telling them?

Please tell me this is not the lame excuse you want to use for Joseph's lies? Joseph tried not to tell people about polygamy other then those he wanted involved in it.

[_Gunnar]

Applying Ockham's razor, by far the simplest and most likely answer to the question of "why humans are born handicapped and minorities" that accounts for all the known facts is that there is simply no all powerful entity that cares a whit about the circumstances under which people are born or the random factors that determine them. Problem solved!

[_subgenius]

Applying Ockham's razor, by far the easiest and most likely answer to the question of "why humans are born handicapped and minorities" that accounts for all the known facts is that there is simply no all powerful entity that cares a whit about the circumstances under which people are born or the random factors that determine them. Problem solved!

Congratulation you consider your conclusion rather remarkable...even though, as usual, your thought is less than original....but i am sure you actually had a point other than perpetuating the incorrect "application" of the razor.....

Job 34:19
[God] who shows no partiality to princes and does not favor the rich over the poor, for they are all the work of his hands?

Leviticus 19:15
"'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

Deuteronomy 10:17
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.

2 Chronicles 19:7
Now let the fear of the LORD be on you. Judge carefully, for with the LORD our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery."

Acts 10:34
Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism

Romans 2:11
For God does not show favoritism.

1 Corinthians 1:28
God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are,

Galatians 2:6
As for those who were held in high esteem--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism--they added nothing to my message.

Ephesians 6:9
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:25
Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

Job 10:3
Does it please you to oppress me, to spurn the work of your hands, while you smile on the plans of the wicked?

Job 12:21
He pours contempt on nobles and disarms the mighty.

Job 13:10
He would surely call you to account if you secretly showed partiality.

Job 32:21
I will show no partiality, nor will I flatter anyone;

[_The CCC]

There isn't enough of a correspondence between thoughts and actions to make that determination at more than a very general nonspecific level. Did you ever see the movie "Minority Report"?

It's not wise to source fictional stories for real world issues. All actions are preceded by thoughts. An example is the recent shooting at PP. His actions are based on beliefs. Beliefs he got from others. These people may never have acted the way he did, but they created an atmosphere of hate and promoted beliefs that help to create this unfortunate event.

I don't condemn the FLDS for their polygamy. I really don't care how many wives they have. That is between consenting adults. I condemn them for the welfare fraud, marrying of children, and their treatment of teenage males.

I never said you did condemn them for polygamy. What you condemn them for is what Joseph did as well. You don't condemn him though. Believers bias. Also I think the FLDS welfare is legal while maybe not ethical. Their treatment of teenage males is what has to happen to protect this system. No doubt this would have to go on during BY's time as well. Joseph also broke the law yet you don't condemn him for it. He lied about while telling the world it was wrong and that he believed in following the law.

To claim that Emma didn't know D&C 132 and the Book of Mormon's stance of polygamy is disingenuous, at best. I know quite well that Emma didn't like it. Her 19th Century American Protestant sensibilities would quite naturally come into play. But she knew about it, and in fact was present at some of those polygamous wedding ceremonies.

I didn't claim Emma was ignorant of this. I said she didn't know about most of Joseph's wives. The one marriage she did know about, she didn't know Joseph had already married her and her sister before Emma found out about his polygamy and then staged new marriages after. Sounds like a real stand up guy right? Marrying sisters they had taken in after there parents had died. What a stand up guy.

Joseph Smith didn't invent polygamy. It has been around for thousands of years. Whatever your beliefs about a god, polygamy is throughout the Bible. Nor is it exclusive to the LDS. Martin Luther recommended it. I doubt, very seriously, Martin Luther was LDS.

How does the fact it has been around a long time or that you think Martin Luther advocated for it make it right?

I know quite well that Emma didn't like it. Her 19th Century American Protestant sensibilities would quite naturally come into play. But she knew about it, and in fact was present at some of those polygamous wedding ceremonies.

And that makes it right? She was never in favor of it. She always hated it. She did not know about it for some time. Joseph meant to keep it from her but he got caught. She never knew the full extent of it.

How often do you have to tell some one what you're going to do, and have them object. Before you just stop telling them?

Please tell me this is not the lame excuse you want to use for Joseph's lies? Joseph tried not to tell people about polygamy other then those he wanted involved in it.

Over-specificity is the hobgoblin of a narrow mind. Of course all actions, by people, are preceded by thoughts. But all thoughts do not precede actions. IE; Flying by men had been a dream(thought) for thousands of years. Pushing a man off a cliff to see if he'd fly is a different action. If you don't see the difference it is a mighty strange dangerous world you love in.

There was no governmental welfare as we know it in the early 1800's in the US. I was in a Junior in High School when marriage to 13 year old's was perfectly legal, and there is no indications for, and plenty of indications against the idea that polygamy as practiced by Joseph Smith mistreated teenage males. No believers bias on my part. I don't care how many husbands or wives a consenting adult has. I don't like it either, but I see no legally binding moral argument against it for consenting adults. There are good sociological reasons for it to be limited in scope.

Whatever her personal thoughts it is right there in D&C 132. She was present at at least one of those polygamous marriages ceremonies. I don't condemn Emma for her personal thoughts. She was in a very hard place, and did what she thought was right. I'll leave it up to God to judge her, and her beloved Joseph. It was common in the 19th Century that when the mother died a wet nurse was employed. While not as common it wasn't unknown that they sometimes married their employer. Who is not being stand up there?"

I didn't say it made it right, and I didn't say that it made it wrong. The same arguments can be used in either direction. All I have said is that I don't like it, and there are good sociological reasons for it to be limited in scope. IE; Without outside females coming in the whole thing becomes unworkable pretty fast.

What law was Joseph found guilty of violating?
SEE http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/P ... _in_Nauvoo
Joseph Smith could not have been properly convicted of adultery under the law of Illinois in 1844. Illinois law only criminalized adultery or fornication if it was "open". Had Joseph lived to face trial on this charge, he would have had good reason to expect acquittal because his relationships with his plural wives were not open, but were kept confidential and known by a relative few. Given a fair trial on this indictment, Joseph could have relied on several legal defenses.
M. Scott Bradshaw

But the good citizens of Missouri decided to murder Joseph and his brother to keep them from going to trial.

Damn strange way of hiding it. It was/is in the publicly available Book of Mormon and D&C 132. In fact some of the men who practiced the unauthorized version were publicly excommunicated and were involved in murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

[_Gunnar]

Applying Ockham's razor, by far the easiest and most likely answer to the question of "why humans are born handicapped and minorities" that accounts for all the known facts is that there is simply no all powerful entity that cares a whit about the circumstances under which people are born or the random factors that determine them. Problem solved!

Congratulation you consider your conclusion rather remarkable...even though, as usual, your thought is less than original....but i am sure you actually had a point other than perpetuating the incorrect "application" of the razor.....

Job 34:19
[God] who shows no partiality to princes and does not favor the rich over the poor, for they are all the work of his hands?

Leviticus 19:15
"'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

Deuteronomy 10:17
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.

2 Chronicles 19:7
Now let the fear of the LORD be on you. Judge carefully, for with the LORD our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery."

Acts 10:34
Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism

Romans 2:11
For God does not show favoritism.

1 Corinthians 1:28
God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are,

Galatians 2:6
As for those who were held in high esteem--whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism--they added nothing to my message.

Ephesians 6:9
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:25
Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism.

Job 10:3
Does it please you to oppress me, to spurn the work of your hands, while you smile on the plans of the wicked?

Job 12:21
He pours contempt on nobles and disarms the mighty.

Job 13:10
He would surely call you to account if you secretly showed partiality.

Job 32:21
I will show no partiality, nor will I flatter anyone;

None of the scriptures you cited detract even the slightest bit from the validity of my argument. Neither does the fact that my conclusion is not original with me. Impersonal and random chance and/or genetics is still the most obvious and likely explanation for why some people are born handicapped and others are not. If God is actively choosing what people are to be born handicapped and who will not, he is obviously showing partiality toward some over others which directly contradicts the scriptures you cited. Besides that, you can't provide any empirical justification for concluding that the Bible is any more likely to be the revealed word of God than any other "holy scripture" that has ever been written.

[_Themis]

Over-specificity is the hobgoblin of a narrow mind. Of course all actions, by people, are preceded by thoughts. But all thoughts do not precede actions. IE; Flying by men had been a dream(thought) for thousands of years. Pushing a man off a cliff to see if he'd fly is a different action. If you don't see the difference it is a mighty strange dangerous world you love in.

I said all actions are preceded by thoughts, not that all thoughts lead to action. That doesn't change the fact that, when people act, they will act on some of the things they think and believe. The more they think and believe something the more likely they are to act on it. This is what keeps people joining groups like Daesh or al-Qaeda. It what got a kid to kill black people at a church, or the recent shootings at PP.

Whatever her personal thoughts it is right there in D&C 132. She was present at at least one of those polygamous marriages ceremonies.

A ceremony which was a sham. Joseph was deceiving her even then. He could even keep the rules he made up in Sec 132.

I don't condemn Emma for her personal thoughts. She was in a very hard place, and did what she thought was right. I'll leave it up to God to judge her, and her beloved Joseph.

I don't condemn her. It's your inconsistency in condemning Joseph while condemning others for doing the same thing that is the problem. I understand it is believers bias.

It was common in the 19th Century that when the mother died a wet nurse was employed. While not as common it wasn't unknown that they sometimes married their employer. Who is not being stand up there?"

Joseph and you. Thus has to be one of the more despicable justifications for Joseph's marrying young girls living with him.

I didn't say it made it right, and I didn't say that it made it wrong. The same arguments can be used in either direction. All I have said is that I don't like it, and there are good sociological reasons for it to be limited in scope. IE; Without outside females coming in the whole thing becomes unworkable pretty fast.

More evidence that it was never from God. At least Muslims had more controls on how many a man could marry and very few were in a position to. Not that it should be considered moral in any way.

What law was Joseph found guilty of violating?

Interesting way to phrase the question. I suspect you want to suggest that because Joseph may not have been convicted of something he was therefore innocent. This is not a court of law. We are looking at historical facts to see if Joseph was breaking the Law. He was breaking the bigamy laws in the state he was practicing polygamy.

But the good citizens of Missouri decided to murder Joseph and his brother to keep them from going to trial.

I wouldn't condemn a whole group of people not involved in Joseph's murder.

Damn strange way of hiding it. It was/is in the publicly available Book of Mormon and D&C 132. In fact some of the men who practiced the unauthorized version were publicly excommunicated and were involved in murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

The Book of Mormon condemns it quite strongly and only gives a vague loophole. Funny that the Book of Mormon condemns David and Solomon but later on Joseph decides to praise their polygamy of the ones he believes are given of God. It was not publicly available in the D&C/book of commandments. It stated one man and one woman. D&C 132 came out much later, and the church assumes on no evidence an early date for it. Many of those excommunicated were those who came under Joseph's wrath, and we don't have good evidence of who was in the mob. It wasn't really made up of all those former members. It wasn't Joseph's religion that got him murdered. There was a lot more going on that lead up to this event.

[_subgenius]

None of the scriptures you cited detract even the slightest bit from the validity of my argument. Neither does the fact that my conclusion is not original with me. Impersonal and random chance and/or genetics is still the most obvious and likely explanation for why some people are born handicapped and others are not. If God is actively choosing what people are to be born handicapped and who will not, he is obviously showing partiality toward some over others which directly contradicts the scriptures you cited. Besides that, you can't provide any empirical justification for concluding that the Bible is any more likely to be the revealed word of God than any other "holy scripture" that has ever been written.

1. The first "detraction" is that you apply the razor incorrectly. You assume that the razor is whatever is the "easiest" or simplest solution must be the correct solution. Yet the more accurate application is to recognize that it is a principle of parsimony which resolves competing hypotheses by measuring which has fewer assumptions. Your hypothesis, while obviously not a hypothesis at all, assumes the same as its opposite. For example, the assumption that there is a God is countered with your assumption that there is not a God.

2. No one is claiming that God has predestined persons to be handicap or not. The nature of His design for the human being may offer the opportunity for a body to exhibit what you may consider handicap today while others may consider it an adaptation tomorrow. Your basic "assumption" is flawed.

3. The origin of the scriptures provided is irrelevant as they were provided as a means to discount the originality of your conclusion in as much as they pre-date your conclusion - by your own admission above these scriptures do not detract from your argument - and they were not intended to detract fro your argument, rather they quite simply prove that your argument is an echo of their sentiment. The unequivocally support your statement of how impartial God is towards your handicap.

[_The CCC]

Over-specificity is the hobgoblin of a narrow mind. Of course all actions, by people, are preceded by thoughts. But all thoughts do not precede actions. IE; Flying by men had been a dream(thought) for thousands of years. Pushing a man off a cliff to see if he'd fly is a different action. If you don't see the difference it is a mighty strange dangerous world you love in.

I said all actions are preceded by thoughts, not that all thoughts lead to action. That doesn't change the fact that, when people act, they will act on some of the things they think and believe. The more they think and believe something the more likely they are to act on it. This is what keeps people joining groups like Daesh or al-Qaeda. It what got a kid to kill black people at a church, or the recent shootings at PP.

Whatever her personal thoughts it is right there in D&C 132. She was present at at least one of those polygamous marriages ceremonies.

A ceremony which was a sham. Joseph was deceiving her even then. He could even keep the rules he made up in Sec 132.

I don't condemn Emma for her personal thoughts. She was in a very hard place, and did what she thought was right. I'll leave it up to God to judge her, and her beloved Joseph.

I don't condemn her. It's your inconsistency in condemning Joseph while condemning others for doing the same thing that is the problem. I understand it is believers bias.

It was common in the 19th Century that when the mother died a wet nurse was employed. While not as common it wasn't unknown that they sometimes married their employer. Who is not being stand up there?"

Joseph and you. Thus has to be one of the more despicable justifications for Joseph's marrying young girls living with him.

I didn't say it made it right, and I didn't say that it made it wrong. The same arguments can be used in either direction. All I have said is that I don't like it, and there are good sociological reasons for it to be limited in scope. IE; Without outside females coming in the whole thing becomes unworkable pretty fast.

More evidence that it was never from God. At least Muslims had more controls on how many a man could marry and very few were in a position to. Not that it should be considered moral in any way.

What law was Joseph found guilty of violating?

Interesting way to phrase the question. I suspect you want to suggest that because Joseph may not have been convicted of something he was therefore innocent. This is not a court of law. We are looking at historical facts to see if Joseph was breaking the Law. He was breaking the bigamy laws in the state he was practicing polygamy.

But the good citizens of Missouri decided to murder Joseph and his brother to keep them from going to trial.

I wouldn't condemn a whole group of people not involved in Joseph's murder.

Damn strange way of hiding it. It was/is in the publicly available Book of Mormon and D&C 132. In fact some of the men who practiced the unauthorized version were publicly excommunicated and were involved in murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith.

The Book of Mormon condemns it quite strongly and only gives a vague loophole. Funny that the Book of Mormon condemns David and Solomon but later on Joseph decides to praise their polygamy of the ones he believes are given of God. It was not publicly available in the D&C/book of commandments. It stated one man and one woman. D&C 132 came out much later, and the church assumes on no evidence an early date for it. Many of those excommunicated were those who came under Joseph's wrath, and we don't have good evidence of who was in the mob. It wasn't really made up of all those former members. It wasn't Joseph's religion that got him murdered. There was a lot more going on that lead up to this event.

Then punish the action of joining ISIS or murdering people in church are actions worthy of punishment. Believing in 20 gods, or no God at all, is between the individual and their own conscience. What they do is between them and the law.

That is your belief that it was a sham. The women and men involved didn't believe or act as if it were.

Joseph didn't do the same thing. Again what consenting adults do between the bed-sheets is none of my concern.

They weren't young girls. !4 was well within the legal age of consent to marry in the US of the early 19th Century.
SEE https://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/case-studies/230

Last I heard you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, at least in the US. But I guess in your biased mind an accusation is better than a conviction in a court of law.

It was Missouri Gov, Lilburn Boggs who issued the Extermination Order. I hold responsible the Carthage Gray's incited by the Nauvoo Expositor for Joseph and Hyram's killings.

Polygamy is all through the Bible.
For a non LDS source SEE http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/exegesi ... ave-wives/

The exemption in the Book of Mormon is quite specific in LDS doctrine. The President/Prophet of the Church is the only one with the authority to give revelation as to if, when and how polygamy is to be practiced.