DiscussMormonism.com

I'm sure many of you have seen or read this before, but I thought it might be interesting to some of you nevertheless.

The following is the complete affidavit made by Sarah M. Pratt, wife of apostle Orson Pratt, on May 21, 1886. As background information, keep in mind that in a previous affidavit she related how Joseph Smith had proposed polygamous marriage to her while her husband was away on a mission, but she rebuffed him. This is a follow-up affidavit.

W[ilhelm] [von]Wy[meta]l, Mormon Portraits I (Salt Lake City: Tribune Printing & Pub., 1886), pp. 60-63. Retrieved July 02, 2007 from <http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1886WWyl.htm#pg060a>. Boldfacing added, italics in original:

----------[BEGIN]----------

[page 60] "I have told you that the prophet Joseph used to frequent houses of ill-fame. Mrs. White, a very pretty and attractive woman, once confessed to me that she made a business of it to be hospitable to the captains of the Mississippi steamboats. She told me that Joseph had made her acquaintance very soon after his arrival in Nauvoo, and that he had visited her dozens of times. My husband (Orson Pratt) could not be induced to believe such things of his prophet. Seeing his obstinate incredulity, Mrs. White proposed to Mr. Pratt and myself to put us in a position where we could observe what was going on between herself and Joseph the prophet. We, however, declined this proposition. You have made a mistake in the table of contents of your book in calling this woman "Mrs. Harris." Mrs. [G. W.] Harris was a married lady, a very great friend of mine. When Joseph had made his dastardly attempt on me, I went to Mrs. Harris to unbosom my grief to her. To my utter astonishment, she said, laughing heartily: "How foolish you are! I don't see anything so horrible in it. Why, I AM HIS MISTRESS SINCE FOUR YEARS!"

"Next door to my house was a house of bad reputation. One single woman lived there, not very attractive. She used to be visited by people from Carthage whenever they came to Nauvoo. Joseph used to come on horseback, ride up to the house and tie his horse to a tree, many of which stood before the house. Then he would enter the house of the woman from the back. I have seen him do this repeatedly.

"Joseph Smith, the son of the prophet, and president of the re-organized Mormon church, paid me a visit, and I had a long talk with him. I saw that he was not inclined [page 61] to believe the truth about his father, so I said to him: 'You pretend to have revelations from the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord to tell you what kind of a man your father really was?' He answered: 'If my father had so many connections with women, where is the progeny?' I said to him: 'Your father had mostly intercourse with married women, and as to single ones, Dr. Bennett was always on hand, when anything happened.'

It was in this way that I became acquainted with Dr. John C. Bennett. When my husband went to England as a missionary, he got the promise from Joseph that I should receive provisions from the tithing-house. Shortly afterward Joseph made his propositions to me and they enraged me so that I refused to accept any help from the tithing-house or from the bishop. Having been always very clever and very busy with my needle, I began to take in sewing for the support of myself and children, and succeeded soon in making myself independent. When Bennett came to Nauvoo, Joseph brought him to my house, stating that Bennett wanted some sewing done, and that I should do it for the doctor. I assented and Bennett gave me a great deal of work to do. He knew that Joseph had his plans set on me; Joseph made no secret of them before Bennett, and went so far in his impudence as to make propositions to me in the presence of Bennett, his bosom friend. Bennett, who was of a sarcastic turn of mind, used to come and tell me about Joseph to tease and irritate me. One day they came both, Joseph and Bennett, on horseback to my house. Bennett dismounted, Joseph remained outside. Bennett wanted me to return to him a book I had borrowed from him. It was a so-called doctor-book. I had a rapidly growing little family and wanted to inform myself about certain matters in regard to babies, etc., -- this explains my borrowing that book. While giving Bennett his book, I observed that he held something in the left sleeve of his coat. Bennett smiled and said: 'Oh, a little job for Joseph; one of his women is in trouble.' Saying this, he took the thing out of his left sleeve. It was a pretty long instrument of a kind I had never seen before. It seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one end. I [page 62] heard afterwards that the operation had been performed; that the woman was very sick, and that Joseph was very much afraid that she might die, but she recovered.

"Bennett was the most intimate friend of Joseph for a time. He boarded with the prophet. He told me once that Joseph had been talking with him about his troubles with Emma, his wife. 'He asked me,' said Bennett, smilingly, 'what he should do to get out of the trouble ?' I said, 'This is very simple. GET A REVELATION that polygamy is right, and all your troubles will be at an end.'

"The only 'wives' of Joseph that lived in the Mansion House were the Partridge girls. This is explained by the fact that they were the servants in the hotel kept by the prophet. But when Emma found out that Joseph went to their room, they had to leave the house.

"I remember Emma's trip to St. Louis. I begged her to buy for me a piece of black silk there.

"You should bear in mind that Joseph did not think of a marriage or sealing ceremony for many years. He used to state to his intended victims, as he did to me: 'God does not care if we have a good time, if only other people do not know it.' He only introduced as marriage ceremony when he had found out that he could not get certain women without it. I think Louisa Beeman was the first case of this kind. If any woman, like me, opposed his wishes, he used to say: 'Be silent, or I shall ruin your character. My character must be sustained in the interests of the church.' When he had assailed me and saw that he could not seal my lips, he sent word to me that he would work my salvation, if I kept silent. I sent back that I would talk as much as I pleased and as much as I knew to be the truth, and as to my salvation, I would try and take care of that myself.

"In his endeavors to ruin my character Joseph went so far as to publish an extra-sheet containing affidavits against my reputation. When this sheet was brought to me I discovered to my astonishment the names of two people on it, man and wife, with whom I had boarded for a certain time. I never thought much of the man, [page 63] but the woman was an honest person, and I knew that she must have been forced to do such a thing against me. So I went to their house; the man left the house hurridly when he saw me coming. I found the wife and said to her rather excitedly: 'What does it all mean?' She began to sob. 'It is not my fault,' said she. 'Hyrum Smith came to our house, with the affidavits all written out, and forced us to sign them. 'Joseph and the church must be saved,' said he. We saw that resistance was useless, they would have ruined us; so we signed the papers.'"

----------[END]----------

Hi Doc,

This is one of the few historical claims about Joseph Smith's polygamy that I doubt. There are several reasons why I reject it:

1) Sarah Pratt makes this claim some four decades after the fact. In the discipline of history, a witness who testifies too long after the fact is sometimes no longer still regarded as a primary source, since the potential for corruption of his or her testimony is so great. Sarah Pratt would be only a marginal primary source of what Bennett had said and shown her.

2) Sarah Pratt was not one of Smith's single, pregnant wives, and did not claim to have observed any of these abortions. She was thus only a secondhand witness to the alleged practice.

3) Pratt's own alleged source was the more-than-dubious John C. Bennett, who had a tendency to hide his own misdeeds and attribute them to Smith.

4) While Sarah Pratt had obvious reason to be bitter, there can be no doubt from her tone and interpretations that she was quite bitter. Like the many Saints who nearly worshipped Smith, she is clearly and strongly biased.

5) That Smith used a procreative rationale (that of "raising up seed to the Lord") for his polygamous marrying is extensively documented. And, in fact, in the case of his 19-year-old wife Melissa Lott, Smith apparently gave his desire to have a child with her as his reason for approaching her for sex. To abort the children who provided the very rationale for polygamy and the accompanying sex would have undermined Smith's credibility even with his own inner circle and plural wives, and jeapordized his ability to obtain such sex.

6) None of Smith's actual wives reported having been given abortions, even when attempting to explain why they never had children by Smith. This failure was likely not because abortion was taboo, since, in the mid-19th century, it generally was not. At that time, the fetus was not considered to be living until birth or some late point in the pregnancy--the time of "quickening." Even Brigham Young ascribed to the "quickening" theory, which can be found in his sermons in the Journal of Discourses. The view that life began at conception gained ground and came to dominate only in the late 19th century--e.g. when Sarah Pratt offered her testimony.

7) Sarah Pratt is the only source for the claim that Smith had his wives receive abortions.


Thus, the only testimony for this claim is the secondhand testimony of a biased sources reporting what she claimed to learn from an even more dubious source, comes four decades after the fact and at a time when the claim would have been particularly damaging (i.e., when abortion was coming to be viewed as murder), and contradicts the very rationale Smith is known to have used for his polygamous practice.

In short, the claim that Joseph Smith secured abortions for his wives is very likely not true, and even if it were, the Sarah Pratt testimony would not give us remotely enough reason to believe it.

Don

Don,

I'm glad Dr. Shades brought this up, since I've been wondering myself ever since I read "No Man Knows My History". I don't recall if Brodie came right out and stated this theory, but enough hints were offered to leave me wondering.

It is obvious that Sarah Pratt is biased, and since a long time passed before this testimony was recorded, it is not reason enough to believe Joseph Smith ordered abortions to hide his affairs. I agree with that. Your point #5, however, assumes that Joseph Smith was not cynically manipulating people when he used a procreative rationale for polygamy. Don't we agree that he would cynically manipulate them with stories of angels and flaming swords....? I don't know, but it sounds kinda' pollyannaish to say there were issues with Joseph Smith's character or true personal beliefs that would keep him from crossing this (or any!) line.

Is it true that Bennett was an abortionist? Has it been established that he practiced abortions before, during, or after the time he was associated with Joseph Smith? If we know he was active in Nauvoo, then it seems reasonable to wonder if Joseph Smith might have asked for his services. Not saying he did, but is it reasonable to say that he might have?

Hi Dude,

Thanks for your response. I may not have made my point #5 very clear. I don't think what Joseph Smith said in the field of religion ever necessarily reflects his own views. I doubt that he was personally devout at all.

What I meant was that if Smith used a procreative rationale for polygamy with his wives and prospective wives, it would be an awkward about-face for him to have the "seed" that polygamy was supposedly about aborted. Let's take, for instance, the case of Melissa Lott. Smith is supposed to have had sex with her just once, and to have explained his reason as wanting 'to have a child by her.' Had Melissa Lott conceived and Smith secured an abortion for her, this would have revealed his reason for having sex with her, and, indeed, for marrying her in the first place, as a mere cover for his less acceptable, sexual motives.

Given that Smith's use of the procreative rationale can be documented from quite a number of sources--including his revelations recorded in D&C 132 and in the marriage ceremony for his sealing to Sarah Ann Whitney, procuring abortions for his wives would have been a dangerous and counterproductive practice that might have alienated his wives, denied him the sexual access he desired, and threatened to expose his secret practices. While pregnancy carried its own dangers for Smith, it's difficult to believe he could have gotten away with using abortion as a means of birth control, and it's just as difficult for me to believe that he would have been foolish enough to undermine his own sought-after ends in this way.

Plus, for whatever it's worth, Joseph Smith, though only very dubiously pious, does appear to have been genuinely fond of children, perhaps because he resonated with their natural playfulness. On the whole, he likely welcomed new polygamous children, but tried to keep their births secret.


John C. Bennett is a different matter! Bennett operated as a medical doctor, and even--seriously--published a treatise or two on gynecology. The female reproductive system was his area of greatest experience. There can be no question that he knew how to perform abortions, and several Nauvoo sources claim that he did so. No extant source of which I'm available describes Bennett using a procreative rationale for his free-love practices. Quite the contrary, Bennett appears to have consistently justified sexual pleasure on its own merits.

Indeed, while a counselor in the First Presidency he offered this gem that many an LDS young man would like to see added to the church's "For the Strength of Youth" standards:

"God doesn't care if we have a good time, as long as nobody else finds out."

Abortion was just a way of ensuring that 'nobody else found out.'

Don

DonBradley wrote: I don't think what Joseph Smith said in the field of religion ever necessarily reflects his own views. I doubt that he was personally devout at all.

Don, you've made some sensible comments on this thread, but I don't quite understand what you mean by the above. Could you elaborate?

Hi Ray,

To lay out the reasons for my conclusions on this point would be beyond the scope of a message board post. And I'd rather save those for publication anyway. So, rather than argue for my conclusion, I'll just state it a little more clearly:

I do not now believe that Joseph Smith was either a prophet; a sincere but deluded visionary; or a pious fraud. I think, as of quite recently, that he was cynical about religion, believing it to be something used by religious professionals to advance their own interest (i.e. "priestcraft"). Seeing this as the nature of religion, he also sought to use it--to advance his own interests, those of his family, and, sometimes, those of a larger group, such as the nation to which he belonged. I believe his motives were personal, familial, and political, rather than pious.

I don't expect the bald statement of these views to change anyone else's perspective. But I have what I see as quite compelling reason to hold them; and from the nonbelieving perspective, I think they make more sense than does pious fraud theory.

by the way, just to be clear, my point certainly isn't to slam or condemn Joseph Smith. Over the past two weeks, both here and on RfM, I've put several hours into defending Joseph Smith from charges of pedophilia, rape, and (now) complicity in abortions.

My point is to understand and to express part of my understanding of Joseph Smith.

Don

DonBradley wrote:Hi Ray,

To lay out the reasons for my conclusions on this point would be beyond the scope of a message board post. And I'd rather save those for publication anyway. So, rather than argue for my conclusion, I'll just state it a little more clearly:

I do not now believe that Joseph Smith was either a prophet; a sincere but deluded visionary; or a pious fraud. I think, as of quite recently, that he was cynical about religion, believing it to be something used by religious professionals to advance their own interest (I.e. "priestcraft"). Seeing this as the nature of religion, he also sought to use it--to advance his own interests, those of his family, and, sometimes, those of a larger group, such as the nation to which he belonged. I believe his motives were personal, familial, and political, rather than pious.

I don't expect the bald statement of these views to change anyone else's perspective. But I have what I see as quite compelling reason to hold them; and from the nonbelieving perspective, I think they make more sense than does pious fraud theory.

by the way, just to be clear, my point certainly isn't to slam or condemn Joseph Smith. Over the past two weeks, both here and on RfM, I've put several hours into defending Joseph Smith from charges of pedophilia, rape, and (now) complicity in abortions.

My point is to understand and to express part of my understanding of Joseph Smith.

Don

No worries, Don. You've clarified sufficiently for a message board (look forward to your essay). This seems like another step "beyond Vogel" (who does not share "crude" rabid anti-Mormon interpretations of Joseph Smith), and I don't mean that cynically. So Joseph was not a prophet, "pious fraud", or a "deluded visionary" but "self-interested", and created Mormonism out of self-interest. Have I got you right?

Okay, now admittedly I do mean this somewhat cynically: Aren't efforts like this sort of like "moving the goalposts"? Mormons are not going to accept the "pious fraud" or "deluded" tags, but some might find the "self-interested" idea more appealing? I realise this may be your genuine conclusion, now anyway, and I offer leeway for anyone to revise opinions. I also understand this is a personal journey for you, and you're only sharing ideas. Or, maybe you're absolutely and finally convinced? I know you believe that Mormonism has entirely "naturalistic origins", and you seek to express this idea as well as you can. I diagree, and believe that Mormonism has supernatural origins, but maybe we can debate this some more later.

I appreciate your objective rebuttals to the charges of Joseph Smith's supposed pedophilia (based on a "lack of evidence", not Joseph's character), but it only takes a modicum of objectivity to see this isn't true, which, unfortunately, the folks on RFM don't have.

Hi Ray,

I'm glad to note the friendliness of our discussion, but I do need to point out that you've yet to locate my soulmate for me in Australia--or at any rate she hasn't arrived yet. How do you explain this? I thought we were friends.

In any case...you are right that I see Joseph Smith's religious career as motivated by self-interest. But I don't see it motivated by self-interest alone. In addition to self-interest, he appears to me to have also been motivated by concern for his family and by his attachment to certain political ideals. While Smith may not (in my view) have been a devout religionist, he was a devout republican (with a small "r').

by the way, I doubt very seriously that Latter-day Saints would accept a non-pious, or impious, Joseph Smith more readily than they would accept one who was a pious fraud. The pious-fraud view evokes some sympathy from believers, since it accepts the basic sincerity of Smith's claims. This view also garners one the label of "LDS apologist" among the strident Ex-Mos at RfM. And the Community of Christ appears to be evolving in the direction of viewing Joseph Smith as a pious fraud, not as impious.

One of the findings of modern research psychology is that people are more likely to be persuaded by a view that is close to their present view than by one that is distant from it: the closer the new proposed view is to the existing view, the more persuasive it is likely to be; and the more distant it is from the present view, the less persuasive it is likely to be. Thus the pious fraud view, being closer to present LDS belief (i.e., in that it accepts Joseph Smith's pious motivation and the possibility that God could have worked through his piously motivated career), is considerably more likely to persuade LDS believers than is the more alien view that Smith was opportunistically and otherwise temporally (nonpiously) motivated.

Were I to select my own views on Joseph Smith with an eye to persuading others, I'd be a fool to choose views so perfectly at odds with LDS belief. And I certainly wouldn't be, and present myself as, an atheist. I'm not sure whether you're aware of this, living in Australia, but in the United States "atheist" generally seen as a perjorative term, only about 2% of the population self-identifies this way, and social science surveys show that atheists are the least trusted religious category in the country. People trust Mormons, Jews, Christian fundamentalists, and even "Moonies" far more than they trust atheists.

It really should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway:

My conclusions on the existence of God, the truth of Mormonism, and the aims of Joseph Smith are motivated by the same concern that motivates my conclusions on Book of Mormon historicity, evolution, and global warming: I want my beliefs to match reality. I want the truth.

Don

DonBradley wrote:Hi Ray,

I'm glad to note the friendliness of our discussion, but I do need to point out that you've yet to locate my soulmate for me in Australia--or at any rate she hasn't arrived yet.

We have a smorgasbord, Don. It depends on whether you want a "dumb blonde" or a thinking one (my apologies to the PC brigade). By the way, you are most welcome to visit with me if you ever visit the "sunburnt land". I can see our conversations going into the early morning hours!

DonBradley wrote:You are right that I see Joseph Smith's religious career as motivated by self-interest. However, I don't see it motivated by self-interest alone. In addition to self-interest, he appears to me to have also been motivated by concern for his family and by his attachment to certain political ideals. While Smith may not (in my view) have been a devout religionist, I do believe he was a devout republican (with a small "r').

With respect, Don, my reading of Joseph Smith's personal diaries do not convince me of this. Maybe you'll expand on this in your essays/books. And since I don't believe he wrote the Book of Mormon, nor believe he was sophisticated enough to do so, any small "r" ideas in said book do not, for me, reflect his thinking.

DonBradley wrote:by the way, I doubt very seriously that Latter-day Saints would accept a non-pious, or impious, Joseph Smith more readily than they would accept a pious fraud. The pious-fraud view evokes some sympathy from believers, since it accepts the basic sincerity of Smith's claims. This view also garners one the label of "LDS apologist" among the strident Ex-Mos at RfM. And the Community of Christ appears to be evolving in the direction of viewing Joseph Smith as a pious fraud, not as impious.

Point taken. I was not aware of the CoC "evolution". I'll have to look into this some more.

DonBradley wrote:Note also that one of the findings of modern research psychology is that people are more likely to be persuaded by a view that is close to their present view than by one that is distant from it: the closer the new proposed view is to the existing view, the more persuasive it is likely to be; and the more distant it is from the present view, the less persuasive it is likely to be. Thus the pious fraud view, being closer to present LDS belief (I.e., in that it accepts Joseph Smith's pious motivation and the possibility that God could have worked through his piously motivated career), is considerably more likely to persuade LDS believers than is the more alien view that Smith was opportunistically and otherwise temporally (nonpiously) motivated.

Well I'm only a humble and despised cab-driver, but it doesn't take world-beating intelligence to work that out. Sorry if I sound a bit haughty. You're probably aware that psychology departments in universities are often seen as little better than people who believe in Big Foot or, hell, "UFO abductions"! The mind boggles! Ask mathematicians like Tarski what they think of mumbo-jumbo psychology. But, on the surface, it seems you think this "method" is nevertheless acceptable? IE, to "bring people around" to your thinking?

DonBradley wrote:Were I to select my own views on Joseph Smith with an eye to persuading others, I'd be a fool to choose views so perfectly at odds with LDS belief. And I certainly wouldn't be and present myself as an atheist.

Which is what I said - your views may perfectly be your own. But obviously you'd like to convince others. But if you use flattery, or stating as objective, "final truths" things you cannot be 100% certain of, you're no better than "testimony bearing" Mormons.

DonBradley wrote:I'm not sure whether you're aware of this, living in Australia, but in the United States "atheist" is a perjorative term; and social science surveys show that self-identified atheists are the least trusted religious persuasion in the country. People trust Mormons, Jews, Christian fundamentalists, and even "Moonies" far more than they trust atheists.

I am aware of this. I am also aware that one of Elder Sterling W. Sill's (former LDS GA) favourite writers was the atheist/agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll. Elder Sill mentions this in his autobiography. I'm not sure what his peers thought of that, but as far as I know he was not censured for his opinion on Ingersoll. Sill, of course, read Ingersoll not because he agreed with atheism, but because he extracted what he found worthwhile, sometimes cynically, perhaps. President McKay also stood up for one of the Church's most well-known agnostics - Sterling McMurrin. Don't tell this to those who think Mormonism is "repressive", and allows no alternative thought.

DonBradley wrote:My conclusions on the existence of God, the truth of Mormonism, and the aims of Joseph Smith are motivated by the same concern that motivates my conclusions on Book of Mormon historicity, evolution, and global warming: I want my beliefs to match reality. I want the truth.

In the field of academia everything should be subject to revision, including global waming. And Book of Mormon historicity. Gravity is okay, it can stay.