Dr. Peterson, why no mention of Joseph Smith's other wives on website?

[_mms]

Dr. Peterson,

Thanks for your response (which I have quoted below) on the thread re the church's omission of part of the Wentworth letter.

I am not sure if you have answered this before, but why do you think the church has chosen to omit mention of Joseph Smith's wives other than Emma on the official Joseph Smith website at http://www.josephsmith.net?

For example, don't you think that mention of these wives would have been appropriate under the "Life of the Prophet" section. A search (in the provided search box) of the website comes up zero for "plural marriage" or "polygamy". Does the Church deem Joseph's intoroduction of polygamy and polyandy to the Church to be not a very significant part of Joseph Smith's life? Even though it was so significant that it, in part, led to his death, among other things, and even to this day causes the church to have to put out press release after press release running away from those doctrines? Really, why do you think the Church has omitted this but included clearly lesser significant matters on the site?

Here was DCP's response re omitting part of the Wentworth letter:

I have no insider knowledge of the motivations of the writers and editors and, thus, can't comment with any authority.

That said, I've also noted that the Joseph Smith manual is an anthology of quotations, not an anthology of entire texts, so I'm not surprised or offended by finding only a partially quoted text in it.

I haven't looked at the manual regarding this matter, so don't know why the statement about Mr. Bastow was included, as it apparently was.

Had I been involved in compiling the anthology of quotations, I probably would have omitted the portion about geography because I don't believe that Joseph claimed revealed knowledge of Book of Mormon geography and because I believe, in light of that, that citing a geographical speculation of his in a Church manual would carry more weight than it ought to carry, and would distort contemporary discussion of Book of Mormon geography. (I understand that some here will immediately accuse me of seeking to suppress evidence that conflicts with my preferred view of the geography of the Book of Mormon, but that is not the case: I would insist on the statement being included in any discussion of the subject -- which the Joseph Smith manual is not -- and have no desire whatever to see the statement "suppressed." I'm forlornly certain that my position on this will be pounced on and distorted, but there it is.)

[_bcspace]

We've already established that you didn't look very hard.

[_mms]

Please do tell, bc, find a MENTION ON THE WEBSITE THAT JOSEPH SMITH HAD MORE THAN ONE WIFE and link us to that mention ON THE WEBSITE. You certainly wouldn't intend to just come in and IMPLY something that is not the case, would you? I mean, no Mormon would do that, right? lol

(by the way, don't be an idiot and suggest that a mention of a "wife" without mention that she was, in fact, his wife has anything to do with what I am talking about, here--try your best to actually provide a straight forward reference to Joseph Smith having wives other than Emma, and don't provide a page that has a link to another website that discusses it)

[_bcspace]

Please do tell, bc, find a MENTION ON THE WEBSITE THAT JOSEPH SMITH HAD MORE THAN ONE WIFE and link us to that mention ON THE WEBSITE. You certainly wouldn't intend to just come in and IMPLY something that is not the case, would you? I mean, no Mormon would do that, right? lol

I left the proof to the students because it took me less than a minute to find it. Some of them gnashed their teeth, but most C and D average students have a difficult time finding things anyway.

[_mms]

BC reminds me of one of the things that caused me concern when I first started having questions. I saw the inability of the "defenders" of the faith to admit the obvious. Rather, many of them, would find these amazingly complicated (or uncomplicated but clearly absurd) ways to somehow continue to deny the obvious.

Here, for example, it is entirely obvious that those responsible for the content on the Joseph Smith website intentionally chose to steer clear of any mention of Joseph Smith's introdution and practice of plural marriage. I am interested in DCP's view of what motivated (and continues to motivate) this glaring omission.

BC comes in and denies the obvious and then will point to some footnote link to somewhere (I predict) and claim that the issue is addressed when he knows very well that there is an intentional omission of this issue on the site. By doing so, BC makes the point of the obvious omission seem to be one that should trouble us, because he is going out of his way to deny it.

But, back to the point of my op, DCP, why do you think, when there are 50 other websites that will discuss this issue in a light unfavorable to the Church, that the Church chooses not to deal with the issue in one of the most obvious places to deal with it in a way favorable to the church?

[_bcspace]

Here, for example, it is entirely obvious that those responsible for the content on the Joseph Smith website intentionally chose to steer clear of any mention of Joseph Smith's introdution and practice of plural marriage.

BC comes in and denies the obvious

mms' strawman.

I never denied that. I do deny that one cannot find a reference to Joseph Smith's other wives on the site.

Notice mms' ORIGINAL statement:

Please do tell, bc, find a MENTION ON THE WEBSITE THAT JOSEPH SMITH HAD MORE THAN ONE WIFE and link us to that mention ON THE WEBSITE.

And now he's changed that to say that somehow I am denying that the site puts the plural wives on the backburnner.

BC comes in and denies the obvious and then will point to some footnote link to somewhere (I predict) and claim that the issue is addressed when he knows very well that there is an intentional omission of this issue on the site. By doing so, BC makes the point of the obvious omission seem to be one that should trouble us, because he is going out of his way to deny it.

mms already knows that the reference is there; but it suits his dishonest purpose to flip from the reference to Joseph Smith's other wives to the wives being on the backburnner and argue that they are one and the same.

This simply cements the fact that most, if not all, anti Mormons like mms have to lie to get their point across.

[_mms]

Thanks for clearing that up, BC, so now that you agree with me that there was an intentional omission of this topic on the website, why don't you tell us what you think motivated the Church to intentionally omit this material?

Oh, and I said "mention" - not "reference." Are YOU moving the goal posts? Just post the link already and quit playing your stupid games.

(by the way, anti-mormon liar...so original.)

[_bcspace]

Thanks for clearing that up, BC

And now mms blithely skips over it as if nothing was wrong. He/she will happily use this technique again.

(by the way, anti-mormon liar...so original.)

As original as can be..... John 8:44

[_scripturesearcher]

I agree with mms.

I am also not finding any references to Joseph Smiths other wives or even on polygamy.
Your search for polygamy has returned 0 results in JosephSmith.net.
Your search for plural marriage has returned 0 results in JosephSmith.net.

The results related to the search for wife are all mentioning Emma.
There seems to be a lot of information about Emma.

Unless BC would like to clear this up by posting the url, it would appear that mms is correct with the statement in the OP.

[_harmony]

Thanks for clearing that up, BC

And now mms blithely skips over it as if nothing was wrong. He/she will happily use this technique again.

(by the way, anti-mormon liar...so original.)

As original as can be..... John 8:44

*sigh*... bcspace, we've been through this before. Try to be a little bit more accurate... PLEASE! mms is as Mormon as you are!