They can speculate but I am not permitted to explain

[_mms]

On LDS.org, the "search" feature yields the "Gospel Topics" section as the first result for the term "polygamy." It states that Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage:

LOAP, how's it going? Long time no chat. Yes, I know it is on LDS.org. Do you think it was merely an oversight on josephsmith.net? I mean, the 32 other wives were not nearly as important as, say, the day they started teaching the Native Americans or other items mentioned on the significant events list. I wonder if the 32 other wives think their marriages to Joseph Smith were as insignificant as the Church apparently does. Just admit it, LOAP, it was not an oversight; it was intentional. Why? I will read your blog post.

[_mms]

I talk to a lot of folks about books and I've never once heard anyone say RSR should be avoided for any reason. I'm not doubting you have, I can take your word for it, but I wanted to emphasize that it may not be as prevalent as you might fear.

Just ask Richard Bushman if he has heard it. Of course, he writes in his "On the Road With Joseph Smith" (title?) book about receiving a letter from at least one General Authority expressing his irritation that Bushman would write such a book (RSR). From there, it's not hard to believe, is it, that many members of the Church would feel the same way and express this. Why do you think the GA felt this way (assuming you have read the book)?

[_GoodK]

Have you tried to talk to him and see what happens?

Of course I have.

[technically the words are "through" Heavenly Father's plan]

Yes you are right, my bad. What's even scarier is that I knew that much of the song by heart...

[_mms]

Interesting blog post, LOaP. Pretty thorough. Don't you think http://www.josephsmith.net would be a good place to discuss Joseph Smith's plural marriages? I dunno, just seems like an appropriate place to discuss it to me, I guess, seein' as how it's a website about his life and all. But I could be way off.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

LOAP, how's it going? Long time no chat. Yes, I know it is on LDS.org. Do you think it was merely an oversight on josephsmith.net? I mean, the 32 other wives were not nearly as important as, say, the day they started teaching the Native Americans or other items mentioned on the significant events list. I wonder if the 32 other wives think their marriages to Joseph Smith were as insignificant as the Church apparently does. Just admit it, LOAP, it was not an oversight; it was intentional. Why? I will read your blog post.

Going well, thanks.

I didn't even remember that the josephsmith.net website even exists, actually! Good catch.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Just ask Richard Bushman if he has heard it. Of course, he writes in his "On the Road With Joseph Smith" (title?) book about receiving a letter from at least one General Authority expressing his irritation that Bushman would write such a book (RSR). From there, it's not hard to believe, is it, that many members of the Church would feel the same way and express this. Why do you think the GA felt this way (assuming you have read the book)?

He also notes letters from GA's who really liked the book. Again, I don't doubt there are people who don't like his more scholarly and historically rigorous approach, but others do.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Interesting blog post, LOaP. Pretty thorough. Don't you think http://www.josephsmith.net would be a good place to discuss Joseph Smith's plural marriages? I dunno, just seems like an appropriate place to discuss it to me, I guess, seein' as how it's a website about his life and all. But I could be way off.

I think that site would be a good place to place a discussion on plural marriage and Joseph Smith, yes.

[_moksha]

Mms, I have let go of my need to have it all be 'oh so true'. This will ultimately leave you in a quandary. Instead, I look toward the capability of the Church in meeting my spiritual needs. So far, that has worked well for me, since they have been meeting my spiritual needs.

Could this work for you?

[_mms]

I didn't even remember that the josephsmith.net website even exists, actually! Good catch.

Well, if you google "Joseph Smith" as one might if one is looking for information on, say, Joseph Smith, you will see that the first result is www.josephsmith.net

So, I make the logical leap, that if the Church was interested in helping people learn about the life of Joseph Smith, which apparently it was interested enough to create an official Joseph Smith website and optimize it in such a way that it Trump's any other website about his life, it should not leave out significant events simply because it still hopes people don't associate him with such events. Fair? I think so. And apparently you do. Why is the Church not on board? It seems in many things, the Church is behind the times, not in front of them. Surprisingly many things.

[_GoodK]

I never understood why polygamy was such a big deal.

I never personally was surprised or had issues with the early church leaders doing this.

I just don't know what the implication is - besides that the Church doesn't really advertise it.