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

[_ludwigm]

If bcspace can not post the link and quit playing his stupid games then I produce You another interesting one.

What do You think, who were the polygamist ones of the
"Presidents of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" page?
(http://www.LDS.org/churchhistory/presidents/leaders.jsp)

Look at the Significant Events for every president.
(LDS Home > Church History > History of the Church > Presidents of the Church > XXXX - Significant Events")

If there is any paragraph about wife and/or children then this pres. was not polygamist (from G. A. Smith on).
If - according to Significant Events - he had no wife, then he had many (from Brigham Young to Heber J. Grant).

You know, at that time the wives were not too significant objects.

[_Yoda]

OK, BC, to use your own words, why do you feel that the introduction of plural marriage, and the simple names of Joseph's plural wives were "put on the back burner"?

On a factual website concerning the life of Joseph Smith, I find it odd that the Church would be disinterested in giving factual information to set speculation straight. The fact that the Church DOES continue to place these issues on the back burner is what causes frustration and questions from faithful members who are confused about this issue.

I would be very interested in Dr. Peterson's take on this as well.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I am also not finding any references to Joseph Smiths other wives or even on polygamy.

Same with me -- I didn't see anything. Is bcspace referring to a link on the site that, if connected, discusses Joseph Smith and polygamy? What exactly is bcspace claiming?

[_Inconceivable]

You know, at that time the wives were not too significant objects.

Excellent observation, Ludwigm.

This, in my opinion, is the most revealing of all comments upon the subject.

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

[_Yoda]

I have PM'd Dr. Peterson with the sincere hope that he will respond to my request.

Please, guys, do me a favor, and don't shoot the messenger when he responds. I really would like to hear what the man has to say.

As far as BC goes....

My dear, BC, I remember the footnote you gave as a reference before concerning this site. (So much for "C" "D" student routine).

You chose to ignore the question I posed in that thread. Let's see if you have the decency and lack of arrogance to respond this time around.

[_Ray A]

If you do a family search on Joseph Smith (individual) at the Church's website you come up with This.
Twenty-four wives are listed.

It's not obvious. And no one would find it unless they did an individual family search.

For a longer list, go HERE

[_Yoda]

Thanks for the information, Ray.

It still, however, does not answer the question of why members

1. Have to go through gymnastics to find this information.

2. Why this information isn't included in an obvious, straight-forward manner on a site about Joseph Smith's life published by the Church.

[_Ray A]

It still, however, does not answer the question of why members

1. Have to go through gymnastics to find this information.

2. Why this information isn't included in an obvious, straight-forward manner on a site about Joseph Smith's life published by the Church.

I agree, Liz. I gave my theory a bit earlier, which I've felt for quite a while. As Pres. Hinckley said, "it's behind us". This is now almost an embarrassment. Look at the Joseph Smith site, it paints Joseph and Emma as loyal monogamists deeply in love. That, of course, is the modern image consistent with the Church's current teachings. It may be deceptive from a historical point of view, and I can see how it would upset members to find out the real story, and it's a great formula for sowing the seeds of apostasy. Perhaps there should be some acknowledgement of polygamy on the Joseph Smith site, but there's nothing I can see, and all references to polygamy are very general on LDS.org. No one would ever know the truth unless they did some thorough searching. You know what Mc Murrin said? All organisations, including churches, do this. It's the nature of organisations to portray their best image to the public, even if it's not entirely true. And this is where I've maintained that individuals need to do their own searching for truth. I don't see any other option, given the nature of organisations, especially religious ones.

There has been, and will continue to be consequences for the way the Church portrays itself. Maybe going on the Internet will be the only way for people to discover the facts, and make their decisions before joining the Church. I hate to paint it so simplistically, but that's life. The Church is feeding criticism by doing this, however, and former members will diligently try to inform investigators of what they're "buying".

The real irony of all this is that the Book of Mormon teaches monogamy. Yet some members still insist on hanging to ONE verse in Jacob 2 to justify polygamy, when there are numerous other verses calling polygamy "an abomination" (contrary to D&C 132). This is one factor that also split the Church apart, and eventually led to the death of Joseph Smith. Joseph knew it was coming, and allegedly told William Marks that it was a mistake, and "will be the ruin of the Church". Polygamy was the final straw that turned William Law against Joseph Smith, and to the production of the Nauvoo Expositor.

In 1978, when the awful "black ban" was lifted, Mc Conkie used the Book of Mormon as a defense, "ah, it was there in 2 Nephi 26:33 all the time", that God doesn't do this sort of thing. So now we can "forget" everything that was said in the past by "fallible men", and move on. You'd think they would have learned the lesson about polygamy from the Book of Mormon. Maybe they are - slowly.

[_mms]

I maintain my interest in DCP's view of what, precisely, motivated the church to leave the information off of the website. I ask because I do believe that DCP's informed and generally well-thought-out and reasoned responses are about as close as I can get to getting an answer from the Church itself. The omission of this information bothers me much because I still believe that part of my present struggle might have been avoided had the Church not whitewashed/correlated its presentation of its history and this happens to be a current, blatant example of such whitewashing. But what can be the motivation TODAY--when a simple google demonstrates the omission from the website? How can the Church be so fearful of presenting this information (if it is fear that motivates it) that it would not choose to present the facts in as favorable a light as possible to counter the others who present it not so favorably? Rather, the others can simply say "Your church does not want you to know this. Take a look at its website on JS--it is still in denial and the old white men don't have a clue--they just think you will read their stuff and be ignorant of the real truth...blah blah blah." The "anti's" could not be happier that this information is absent from the website. I simply do not get it and when I see this and the omission from the Wentworth letter and other oimissions in the Joseph Smith manual, it truly looks as if the Church is admitting that it has much to lose by people knowing the facts and this is not supportive of the claim that it is the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth. I know there are lurkers who must feel the same way.

[_Pokatator]

Dr. Pederson has been posting all over the place since this thread was started. He has no intention of addressing this or Adam/God or any other indefensible issue. BC must be one DCP's L-skinny little surrogates, simply a pathetic display.