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

[_Inconceivable]

..William Law said that Emma and Joseph deserved each other. They were worthy of each other. Emma covered his infidelities, and even later denied that he practised polygamy.

A modern day example that most resembles their disfunction would be that of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

The similarities are staggering.

[_Inconceivable]

..Particularly second wives (and so on), the presidents' dogs have received as much attention.

Dogs?

"I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow, and if you want to build up the kingdom you must take more wives." - Apostle Heber C. Kimball

Dogs, Cows..

Anyone that the prophets think do not deserve the honor of mention or their proper place in history.

It is a shameful commentary.

[_Pokatator]

Polygamy is possibly the most horrendous mistake Joseph Smith ever made.

..or the most blatantly wicked.

The hierarchy doesn't print about it because most simple folk like myself see it as it is:

A crime against nature
Deplorable
Immoral
Covenant breaking
Malevolent
Self absorbed
A Violence
Evil
Disease spreading
Anti social
Home wrecking
An abomination
Heart breaking
Inocence stealing
Faith destroying
Trust diminishing
Faith denying...

Only lost/heathen cultures continue to practice this woman demeaning violence.

There is no civilized nation upon earth that will accept this abomination.

The Mormon church is embarrassed of their God and His character when they discover His true nature (as Hinckley revealed in his interviews several years ago). The hierarchy hasn't the faith and conviction necessary to walk their talk and defend Him in all of His horrible glory after they come to know Him.

Inc, this is the perfect post. It can't be stated any better.

[_harmony]

The hierarchy hasn't the faith and conviction necessary to walk their talk and defend Him in all of His horrible glory after they come to know Him.

I don't see it that way. I see our current leaders as too cowardly and too proud to admit that Joseph led the church leaders astray. And once Brigham got the entire group a thousand miles into the wilderness, he forced the rank and file to follow the leaders' evil.

Of course there were some willing participants. Zina comes to mind immediately.

[_Joey]

And I have no doubt that, for good or for ill, the Church website was trying to escape controversy -- which, apart from some small websites such as this one, it has probably largely succeeded in doing.

This is wishful and/or self-serving thinking at best.

How does one reach this conclusion when we just witnessed, on a national basis, an otherwise qualified presidential candidate, generate so much concern and distrust from the American public because of his affiliation with what they obviously find (right or wrong) as a controversial church and belief system.

The controversies, which very much exists beyond this website, that the LDS church has created has been created from within it's own ranks with a history of partial truths, lack of full disclosure, and damage control "revelations"!

But make no mistake, right or wrong, the LDS Church website has done nothing to quell or mitigate its own controversies.

[_mms]

And I have no doubt that, for good or for ill, the Church website was trying to escape controversy -- which, apart from some small websites such as this one, it has probably largely succeeded in doing.

This is wishful and/or self-serving thinking at best.

How does one reach this conclusion when we just witnessed, on a national basis, an otherwise qualified presidential candidate, generate so much concern and distrust from the American public because of his affiliation with what they obviously find (right or wrong) as a controversial church and belief system.

The controversies, which very much exists beyond this website, that the LDS church has created has been created from within it's own ranks with a history of partial truths, lack of full disclosure, and damage control "revelations"!

But make no mistake, right or wrong, the LDS Church website has done nothing to quell or mitigate its own controversies.

I'm pretty sure Dr. P was referencing controversy caused by the website www.josephsmith.net exclusively; not the matter of plural marriage in whole.

[_Jason Bourne]

One or more of several reasons might be at play.

For one thing, Latter-day Saints on the whole and the institutional Church in particular are uncomfortable with, even embarrassed and hypersensitive about, the topic of polygamy, and particularly with pre-Utah polygamy. They find it awkward.

Not only that I wholly believe in my own speculations they wish it would never have happened. I believe they also understand that much of the apparent unseemly side of the introduction of the practice contained is a testimony shaker for some. One must really be convinced that God told Joseph Smith to do this other wise he comes off looking pretty bad in the process.

(Partly, I suspect -- but not entirely -- because of the on-going problem of schismatic polygamist sects.) My own personal preference would be that we be, within the strong constraints of the historical data, more open and forthright about this topic. I think we would be better off all around if we were so.

No doubt. But remember many of the top LDS leaders believe that truths that make the founders look bad are not useful.

Another possible factor is simply that the historical information about Joseph's plural marriages is more than a little murky,

I do not agree with that. It seems we have a lot of information on this especially from many of his plural wives and the 19th century LDS leaders that defended polygamy and it origination with Joseph and this in light of the position of the RLDS that it was from Brigham and not Joseph.

whereas the story of the relationship of Joseph and Emma is much more clear, much more public, and much more relevant to and integrated into the overall historical narrative of Joseph's biography and of formative Church history.

Yet polygamy is a huge issue in Smith's life. To leave it out leaves a huge hole as well as a gap in one of the basis for the doctrine of eternal marriage. Such pass over comments about polygamy, like the one in the intro in the current priesthood/Relief Society manaul seem to border on disingenuous at best.

And I have no doubt that, for good or for ill, the Church website was trying to escape controversy -- which, apart from some small websites such as this one, it has probably largely succeeded in doing.

And preserve tender testimonies that are built on less then full information about the person we are supposed to have a testimony about.

[_collegeterrace]

Jason,

I take it that you believe in "eternal marriage" which LDS theology claims to be the only authority on.

You do realize that the temple ceremony that you and your dear wife participated in to enable this exclusive "sealing authority" over your marriage, came from Smith's practice of polygamy and his attempts to hide it?

[_Jason Bourne]

I take it that you believe in "eternal marriage" which LDS theology claims to be the only authority on.

I take it you really do not know what I do and do not believe. You don't pay much attention to what I post here as you get so much about me wrong.

You do realize that the temple ceremony that you and your dear wife participated in to enable this exclusive "sealing authority" over your marriage, came from Smith's practice of polygamy and his attempts to hide it?

Gee I think I implied that did I now?


Did I not say: Yet polygamy is a huge issue in Smith's life. To leave it out leaves a huge hole as well as a gap in one of the basis for the doctrine of eternal marriage. Such pass over comments about polygamy, like the one in the intro in the current priesthood/Relief Society manual seem to border on disingenuous at best.



I think I am more than likely more know more about the history of the LDS temple endowment than you do. So what is you point?

[_collegeterrace]

I take it that you believe in "eternal marriage" which LDS theology claims to be the only authority on.

I take it you really do not know what I do and do not believe. You don't pay much attention to what I post here as you get so much about me wrong.

You do realize that the temple ceremony that you and your dear wife participated in to enable this exclusive "sealing authority" over your marriage, came from Smith's practice of polygamy and his attempts to hide it?

Gee I think I implied that did I now?


Did I not say: Yet polygamy is a huge issue in Smith's life. To leave it out leaves a huge hole as well as a gap in one of the basis for the doctrine of eternal marriage. Such pass over comments about polygamy, like the one in the intro in the current priesthood/Relief Society manual seem to border on disingenuous at best.



I think I am more than likely more know more about the history of the LDS temple endowment than you do. So what is you point?

My point is LDS Inc has you by the short hairs that stick through your bottom garmies that you continue to wear.