John C. Bennett: Abortionist for Joseph Smith?

[_DonBradley]

Let's face it folks, the real issue here is how Sarah Pratt's testimony will affect Mitt's presidential race. This will only further confuse his position on abortion.

I'd also like to hear him comment on the General Authority teaching, "God doesn't care if we have a good time as long as nobody else finds out," and how this relates to his views on homosexuality.

Sorry Ray for the digression into US politics.

Don

[_Sethbag]

I'm interested in some kind of exposition of the doctrine that something becomes sinful only when it is discovered by others. Sort of like you're not guilty for doing it, you're only guilty for getting caught.

[_Dan Vogel]

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

I wouldn't dismiss Sarah Pratt too quickly. I find her to be a credible witness. However, I think she may have either misinterpreted what Bennett was doing, or Bennett lied to her to cover his own activity. Notice also Sarah doesn't report any clear statement by Bennett, only implied conversation. She was guessing about what the instrument was, and interpreting what Bennett alluded to, even at the time of the event. In her 1886 statement, she also said: "Bennett, who was of a sarcastic turn of mind, used to come and tell me about Joseph to tease and irritate." This was perhaps one of those times.

[_Dr. Shades]

She was guessing about what the instrument was, and interpreting what Bennett alluded to, even at the time of the event. In her 1886 statement, she also said: "Bennett, who was of a sarcastic turn of mind, used to come and tell me about Joseph to tease and irritate." This was perhaps one of those times.

Thanks to you, Dan, and Don for chiming in on this.

So, I guess I'm supposed to read her statement, "I 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" as mere hearsay?

[_Dan Vogel]

Ray,

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?

Now, come on. Don't exaggerate. Clearly, psychology is a soft science, but it does have value (except, perhaps, to those who might be positivists). It's not fair to compare it to mathematics, but why do you single it out from other disciplines in the humanities and social sciences? Don't you agree that if one is going to talk about human behavior and psychology, that it's better to have a disciplined and informed point of view, than one that is usually based on guesses and limited experiences? I'll also bet you are basing your judgement on a steriotype of Feudian psychoanalysis, instead of other varieties like behaviorism, family process, cognative, etc. Certainly, there is some competition between departments, but I have found that historians and sociologists employ psychological models of human behavior in their works without knowing it, which can be a problem. So I wouldn't be too quick to disparage psychology.

[Guest]

So, I guess I'm supposed to read her statement, "I 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" as mere hearsay?

Hi Doc,

You read the above observations on the strength of Sarah Pratt's testimony?

by the way, while "hearsay" is more a legal category than a historical one, and historian's do not automatically rule out the use of such evidence, Sarah Pratt's testimony on this point is what you appear to mean by "hearsay" and constitutes very tenuous evidence. Sarah Pratt first reports what Bennett supposedly told her--which makes it secondhand, and then reports what she "heard afterwards" from unidentified sources with an unidentified chain of connection to the alleged event. If that isn't what you mean by "hearsay," I'm not sure what would qualify.

However, the fact that Sarah Pratt's alleged information on this point is from unnamed sources is a relatively minor weakness compared with the totality of evidence against her credibility on Joseph Smith securing abortions for his wives.

by the way, I can tell you more about this subject when we get together.

Don

[_DonBradley]

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!

Ah, well, for soulmate purposes I'll definitely take the thinking one! But I wouldn't necessarily mind meeting a few "dumb blondes" along the way.

It would be fun to talk sometime. I don't know when I might ever get to Australia. Will you be coming to Zion?

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"!

Actually, I wasn't aware that well-educated persons might be so badly misinformed. I'm not talking about Freud and the like, who are now of primarily antiquarian interest. I'm talking about research psychology, which is essentially founded on research design and statistical methods worked out by Tarski-ite mathematicians.

But, on the surface, it seems you think this "method" is nevertheless acceptable? IE, to "bring people around" to your thinking?

No. I was merely pointing out that your suggested cynical interpretation of me doesn't really make sense. IF I were trying to play games to convert Latter-day Saints away from their faith--which I'm not, I'd like to flatter myself that I'd be too smart to do so by declaring myself an atheist "apostate" and asserting that their founding prophet was areligious.

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.

I don't see Latter-day Saints as the primary audience for my anticipated writings. They'll be addressed primarily to nonbelievers interested in Mormonism.

Naturally, I'll state my conclusions according to how strong I think the case for them is, placing some things as tentative and others as "nearly certain." I can't, of course, claim absolute knowledge like that claimed in a testimony.

by the way, isn't your rather absolute position on the truth of the Book of Mormon based on testimony? I'm uncertain from the above whether you see that as a good thing or a bad thing.

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

Definitely. In fact, this is a place where I think religion could learn a thing or two from secular scholarship.

[_The Dude]

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.

Is it really that hard to believe? He could have used Abraham for a rationale: sometimes God commands a father to kill his own children. Joseph Smith could have turned it into a private lesson (for the mother) about the atonement -- a fetus is surely without sin in Joseph's theology.

I think you are too confident in your view of Joseph Smith's true motives. At least, you haven't convinced me it would have been far out character.

I'm not saying he did, but I still think it's possible, even probable, if he ever decided after conception that it was better to erase the evidence of the affair. And John C. Bennett would have been immediately at his service.

[_Sethbag]

Agree with The Dude here. There is no reason at all why Joseph Smith can't have represented to the women in question that he wanted children, but secretly not wanted them. The professed desire to raise up seed could be looked at as the necessary fiction required to convince the women that this whole plural marriage scheme really was of God. In the event that a women did become pregnant by Joseph, and she wasn't already married to another man so that the pregnancy could simply be viewed by everyone as his and not Joseph's, Joseph could always work out some way to justify terminating it.

In fact, while making some lunch today I was thinking about this and decided I'd put out my hypothetical Joseph Smith rationalization for terminating a pregnancy that he had supposedly professed to want, and I'd do it in "D&C Challenge" form. Don says that Joseph Smith professed to desire to have a child with Melissa Lott. Assuming this is true, and imagining a hypothetical situation where she has in fact become pregnant by Joseph, and he wants her to see Dr. Bennett as Sarah Pratt mentions the practice above, here is the hypothetical "revelation" justifying the abortion.

'Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. My daughter Melissa, thou wast commanded by my servant Joseph to take him unto thee, that he may raise up seed unto me through thee in righteousness. This hast thou done, and it is counted unto thee for righteousness, for behold thou hast harkened unto my servant Joseph's counsel.

Behold, in my wisdom I have seen that wicked men lie in wait, yea, even ravenous wolves lie in wait to devour my servant Joseph, and to destroy him. I have seen that they would scheme to use the knowledge of that which thou bearest in thy womb to plot the destruction of my servant Joseph, and thereby bring about the overthrow of my kingdom on earth. Therefor I do not require you to bring forth that which thou bearest, but command thee to hearken to the counsel which Joseph hath delivered unto thee concerning this matter, that the schemes of wicked and designing men may be thwarted, for thou hast truly been tested, and hast offered up thyself as thou wast commanded. And I the Lord smile upon thee, and shall someday bring forth through thee countless generations in righteousness, according to thy desires.

Therefor, hearken unto the counsel which my servant Joseph hath given thee concerning this matter, and know that I, Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, even Jesus Christ, have seen thy heart, and what thou hast offered up unto my servant Joseph by my word, and it is counted for righteousness before mine eyes. And so let it be done, amen."

[_The Dude]

...and presto! Another divine rationalization.