John C. Bennett: Abortionist for Joseph Smith?

[_DonBradley]

So, because "bias" can be a convenient way to dismiss something legitimate, there is no such thing as bias, or it is not relevant to historical inquiry? How does this follow?

While LDS apologists often use charges of bias in their pseudo-inquiries into the work of 'critics,' more evenhanded scholars seek to assess levels of bias in their genuine inquiries. Bias is particularly relevant where we are relying on the testimony of a particular witness, since the witness' testimony is likely to be shaped by his or her biases. Bias can not only color the witness' interpretation of events, it can also lead him or her to consciously falsify information to lead readers or hearers to a certain conclusion and/or serve personal ends, such as hiding one's own wrongdoings.

If you'd care to post Sarah Pratt's testimony here, we could examine it and see if we can agree on whether it evidences bias, and what the cues to bias or evenhandedness might be.

As for the rape analogy, it is inapt. No one claims that Joseph Smith aborted Sarah Pratt's child; so her testimony is not analogous to that of a rape victim against her accuser. And, in answer to your question, yes, a rape victim could be considered biased against her attacker when testifying about other things she supposedly knew against him. To have reason for revenge just is to be biased, since it introduces a strong motive other than truthfulness into one's testimony.

However justified Sarah Pratt's hostility toward Joseph Smith, it is, by definition, a bias, and adds to the several other reasons to doubt the accuracy of her testimony.

Why anyone would think that Sarah Pratt's lone, late, and overtly hostile testimony was good reason to believe Joseph Smith procured abortions for his wives is beyond me. It fails to meet even basic criteria of historical weight.

Don

[_Seven]

Great topic and one I have wanted to learn more about.

In Comptons book, VanWagoner's and "Mormon Enigma", I can't recall Joseph Smith and the other insiders to polygamy preaching the "raising of seed" in their proposals/ coersions of the ladies. I had the impression that the women were convinced of plural marriage as a restoration of all things and the Patriarchal order/submission to man reasoning, along with the promise of exaltation for sacrificing themselves. The only scripture at the time of Joseph's teachings on "Celestial Marriage" that mentions raising seed through plural marriage was Jacob 2:30 and the interpretation of that verse is not clear. I was unable to find any writings of the polygamous Prophets referencing that scripture in their polygamy sermons.
Did the 19th century Mormons use that scripture to justify polygamy or did that come much later?

Did Joseph reveal 132 of the D and C to the women before he gave it to Emma? I thought the members of the church weren't aware of that revelation until many years after polygamy was in full force.

I don't believe the evidence of abortion is very strong. I find it more likely that a few children were born and hidden during the time of secrecy. I also find it more possible that birth control was used by all the insiders to polygamy until they were isolated in Utah and safe to practice it in the open.

[_Dr. Shades]

If you'd care to post Sarah Pratt's testimony here, we could examine it and see if we can agree on whether it evidences bias, and what the cues to bias or evenhandedness might be.

I posted her testimony in the opening post of this thread.

[_guy sajer]

So, because "bias" can be a convenient way to dismiss something legitimate, there is no such thing as bias, or it is not relevant to historical inquiry? How does this follow?

While LDS apologists often use charges of bias in their pseudo-inquiries into the work of 'critics,' more evenhanded scholars seek to assess levels of bias in their genuine inquiries. Bias is particularly relevant where we are relying on the testimony of a particular witness, since the witness' testimony is likely to be shaped by his or her biases. Bias can not only color the witness' interpretation of events, it can also lead him or her to consciously falsify information to lead readers or hearers to a certain conclusion and/or serve personal ends, such as hiding one's own wrongdoings.

If you'd care to post Sarah Pratt's testimony here, we could examine it and see if we can agree on whether it evidences bias, and what the cues to bias or evenhandedness might be.

As for the rape analogy, it is inapt. No one claims that Joseph Smith aborted Sarah Pratt's child; so her testimony is not analogous to that of a rape victim against her accuser. And, in answer to your question, yes, a rape victim could be considered biased against her attacker when testifying about other things she supposedly knew against him. To have reason for revenge just is to be biased, since it introduces a strong motive other than truthfulness into one's testimony.

However justified Sarah Pratt's hostility toward Joseph Smith, it is, by definition, a bias, and adds to the several other reasons to doubt the accuracy of her testimony.

Why anyone would think that Sarah Pratt's lone, late, and overtly hostile testimony was good reason to believe Joseph Smith procured abortions for his wives is beyond me. It fails to meet even basic criteria of historical weight.

Don

Your post appears to counter an argument that bias is irrelevant. I don't see anyone who has made such a claim. I think I was rather clear in stating that bias does matter, but a charge of bias by itself it is not sufficient to discredit someone. There needs to be, I think, some kind of corroborating evidence sufficient to reasonably conclude that someone's testimony is tainted by bias and, therefore, the degree to which it ought to be discounted.

Nor do I see that the rape analogy is necessarily inappropriate. It was intended purposively as an extreme example to demonstrate that bias, even very strong bias, does not necessarily discredit someone's testimony. One can, in other words, be highly biased (or have very strong motivation to be highly biased) and still give accurate testimony. I think that's the rather simple point that Sethbag was trying to make. And I agree with it.

Again, bias, and its degree, can matter, and it should be considered when assessing someone's testimony. I don't think anyone is denying this, but it needs to be evaluated in context and in addition to other considerations.

I am happy to evaluate Sarah Pratt's words to assess her credibility. I have no emotional attachment to her charges, and I don't find them convincing anyway. I am not saying that her bias does not or cannot cloud her judgment, taint her memory, or give her incentive to distort the truth, I am saying that with the very cursory review I gave of the information, I don't see evidence there sufficient for me to breezily dismiss her affidavit due to her bias. On a more careful reading, I might change my mind, but then I have more important things to do than to carefully deconstruct her affidavit and search out the historical record. I was making a general point and referring to an argument tactic I see all the time and merely commenting that I find the argument, as typically used, to be simplistic and not convincing.

[_DonBradley]

I think I was rather clear in stating that bias does matter, but a charge of bias by itself it is not sufficient to discredit someone.

Then I have to wonder whether you read my arguments to which you're purportedly responding. I've never argued that palpable bias in itself renders Sarah Pratt's testimony of little value. Rather, I've observed that Sarah Pratt's testimony is valuable but argued that her evident bias is one of several factors weakening her testimony, particularly on the issue under consideration.

There needs to be, I think, some kind of corroborating evidence sufficient to reasonably conclude that someone's testimony is tainted by bias and, therefore, the degree to which it ought to be discounted.

A testimony is not innocent until proven guilty. It needn't be believed until shown to be false. And bias itself is prima facie reason to question the validity of a testimony.

That said, you're right that testimonies can be credited by degrees, and can serve as evidence even in the presence of bias and other weakening factors. While Sarah Pratt's testimony is, as you also acknowledge, insufficient to establish Joseph Smith's use of abortion with substantial probability, it is nevertheless evidence, pointing, albeit weakly, in the direction of that practice on Smith's part.

Nor do I see that the rape analogy is necessarily inappropriate. It was intended purposively as an extreme example to demonstrate that bias, even very strong bias, does not necessarily discredit someone's testimony. One can, in other words, be highly biased (or have very strong motivation to be highly biased) and still give accurate testimony. I think that's the rather simple point that Sethbag was trying to make. And I agree with it.

There has been a rather bizarre pattern on this thread of persons quibbling over trivia and taking me to task for things I've never argued. It's tiresome.

Where have I argued that a biased person can't tell the truth? Of course they can. The question is what kind of evidentiary weight should be given to someone's testimony. And where someone is clearly biased, less weight should be accorded their testimony--a lower probability of its accuracy. Dealing in mere possibility may help us create exotic fantasies of the past, but only properly assessing probability can give us the actual past with any degree of plausibility.

Again, bias, and its degree, can matter, and it should be considered when assessing someone's testimony. I don't think anyone is denying this, but it needs to be evaluated in context and in addition to other considerations.

Do you think that on this thread I've ignored context and failed to assess other considerations than bias?

I was making a general point and referring to an argument tactic I see all the time and merely commenting that I find the argument, as typically used, to be simplistic and not convincing.

I sympathize with your frustration over the use of bias as a discrediting tactic. Charges of bias are frequently used a polemical bat with which to smack one's "opponents."

I'd suggest, however, that you chose the wrong thread to make an example of this dubious tactic. It hasn't been used here, leastways not by me.

If you see me as a polemecist attempting to protect Joseph Smith's reputation, you've gotten me quite wrong; and might benefit from reading the thread from the beginning. I'm a nonbelieving historian interested in discerning what actually happened to the best of my ability, and doing so using the canons of historical evidence.

Don

P.S. Are you coming to Sunstone again?

[_Dan Vogel]

Hi Dan,

Those are definitely some interesting thoughts. My take differs but isn't terribly far off. While I'm not sure Joseph Smith sought children by plural wives, I think he would have been quite willing to welcome them, though their births while polygamy was to be kept secret were quite problematic. So, he may have taken steps to delay the births of children, and he certainly took steps to hide them.

In arguing that Smith was unlikely to have procured abortions for his plural wives, I'm not suggesting that his personal motives were purely procreative. I'm not sure they were procreative at all, though, as stated above, I think he would likely have welcomed children, particularly under the right circumstances. Rather, one of my arguments was that Smith used a procreative rationale to persuade others of polygamy, whatever his motives may have been; and that his use of this rationale was a poor fit with the practice of aborting his 'spiritual babies.'

Certainly, this wasn't his only rationale, as the Nancy Rigdon letter shows. But procreation appears more often as a rationale in the extant documents and accounts than does pleasure, and the Rigdon letter may well have been somewhat exceptional in its persuasive rhetoric. In this case, Smith couldn't very well be explicit about procreation, because, as a written argument, it could well have fallen into the wrong hands (as it did!). And the letter suggests that in the case of Nancy Rigdon, Smith didn't feel he needed to strong arm the woman into marrying him. He appears to have believed that she wanted to marry him but felt that such pleasures were forbidden: this is the view to which the letter responds.

I was unaware of the long history of birth control, and the availability of the condom in the US as early as 1840. Perhaps John C. Bennett, with his cutting edge knowledge of sexuality, could have introduced Joseph Smith to this device, or to some other method or methods of birth control.

I'm still not certain that birth control probably was used, for the reasons I gave earlier in the thread. But knowing that it was likely quite available in some form or forms certainly makes it seem more probable.

by the way, just out of curiosity, is Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy an area you intend to do specific work on in the future?

Don

No, but I don't think there has been enough focus on the sociological aspects polygamy.

[_guy sajer]

I think I was rather clear in stating that bias does matter, but a charge of bias by itself it is not sufficient to discredit someone.

Then I have to wonder whether you read my arguments to which you're purportedly responding. I've never argued that palpable bias in itself renders Sarah Pratt's testimony of little value. Rather, I've observed that Sarah Pratt's testimony is valuable but argued that her evident bias is one of several factors weakening her testimony, particularly on the issue under consideration.

There needs to be, I think, some kind of corroborating evidence sufficient to reasonably conclude that someone's testimony is tainted by bias and, therefore, the degree to which it ought to be discounted.

A testimony is not innocent until proven guilty. It needn't be believed until shown to be false. And bias itself is prima facie reason to question the validity of a testimony.

That said, you're right that testimonies can be credited by degrees, and can serve as evidence even in the presence of bias and other weakening factors. While Sarah Pratt's testimony is, as you also acknowledge, insufficient to establish Joseph Smith's use of abortion with substantial probability, it is nevertheless evidence, pointing, albeit weakly, in the direction of that practice on Smith's part.

Nor do I see that the rape analogy is necessarily inappropriate. It was intended purposively as an extreme example to demonstrate that bias, even very strong bias, does not necessarily discredit someone's testimony. One can, in other words, be highly biased (or have very strong motivation to be highly biased) and still give accurate testimony. I think that's the rather simple point that Sethbag was trying to make. And I agree with it.

There has been a rather bizarre pattern on this thread of persons quibbling over trivia and taking me to task for things I've never argued. It's tiresome.

Where have I argued that a biased person can't tell the truth? Of course they can. The question is what kind of evidentiary weight should be given to someone's testimony. And where someone is clearly biased, less weight should be accorded their testimony--a lower probability of its accuracy. Dealing in mere possibility may help us create exotic fantasies of the past, but only properly assessing probability can give us the actual past with any degree of plausibility.

Again, bias, and its degree, can matter, and it should be considered when assessing someone's testimony. I don't think anyone is denying this, but it needs to be evaluated in context and in addition to other considerations.

Do you think that on this thread I've ignored context and failed to assess other considerations than bias?

I was making a general point and referring to an argument tactic I see all the time and merely commenting that I find the argument, as typically used, to be simplistic and not convincing.

I sympathize with your frustration over the use of bias as a discrediting tactic. Charges of bias are frequently used a polemical bat with which to smack one's "opponents."

I'd suggest, however, that you chose the wrong thread to make an example of this dubious tactic. It hasn't been used here, leastways not by me.

If you see me as a polemecist attempting to protect Joseph Smith's reputation, you've gotten me quite wrong; and might benefit from reading the thread from the beginning. I'm a nonbelieving historian interested in discerning what actually happened to the best of my ability, and doing so using the canons of historical evidence.

Don

P.S. Are you coming to Sunstone again?

Ok, let's let it go at that. I think that we agree more than we disagree. I don't see the need to debate the point further.

Although I'm not sure I agree that bias is prima facie reason to question someone's testimony. I guess it depends on what you mean by "question." If it means something on a scale from negligible to substantial, then probably I agree. If it means that it implies necessarily a healthy dose of skepticism, then I disagree. But we can disagree on this point without it meaning much.

It will help to clarify Don that I was not taking issue with your post, or the content, in particular, but rather it served as a convenient point of departure to make a general comment. I don't have the inclination to go back and re-read carefully, so I'm happy to take you at your word.

Again, I see much more agreement than disagreement, so I'll leave it there.

I don't see you as a polemicist trying to salvage Joseph Smith's reputation. I've stated that I don't find S. Pratt's testimony by itself compelling enough evidence to conclude Bennett was Joseph Smith's abortionist, or that Joseph Smith used abortion as a method of birth control among his harem (used to imply attitude of Joseph Smith not the status of the women whom he manipulated into his bed), so if I recall your arguments, we are in agreement on this point.

I've been to Sunstone only once before, in DC about 8 years ago. I doubt I'll go this year. Though I find it interesting discussing and reading about Mormon issues as a respite from work (believe it or not, I'm working right now on Sunday night), I am not interested enough in it to devote much more time than occasional participation on this board.

[_Dan Vogel]

Don,

A testimony is not innocent until proven guilty. It needn't be believed until shown to be false. And bias itself is prima facie reason to question the validity of a testimony.

That said, you're right that testimonies can be credited by degrees, and can serve as evidence even in the presence of bias and other weakening factors. While Sarah Pratt's testimony is, as you also acknowledge, insufficient to establish Joseph Smith's use of abortion with substantial probability, it is nevertheless evidence, pointing, albeit weakly, in the direction of that practice on Smith's part.

Just a small point about bias. I think it's problematic to call Sarah Pratt biased. On what basis do you conclude her biased? Is it because she gave negative testimony about Joseph Smith? Does her rejection of Joseph Smith's advances make her a biased witness? Does a victim or a whistle-blower automatically become a biased witness? She didn't have a long-standing feud with Joseph Smith prior to her claims about him. Before her rejection of polygamy, she was a believer. A Baptist minister's testimony about Joseph Smith might be biased, but how is Sarah Pratt's?

[Guest]

Hey Guy,

As general observations about the use of charges of bias in polemics, I think your views expressed on the thread are on target. And I think we're actually on the same page. I don't see historical sources as coming in two varieties--trustworthy and untrustworthy. They all rest on a continuum, and even when purposely lying, a source can give unintentional evidence of the truth. Bias is one of the factors determining where a source belongs on this continuum, and does not simply invalidate the source. It can, however, in some cases be a deciding factor in whether a testimony is and should be believed.

by the way, I believe I met you at the 'ZLMB' dinner at Sunstone a couple years ago. If you're the person I think, the conversation was quite interesting. That's why I was wondering if you'd be there this year.

Don

[_DonBradley]

Just a small point about bias. I think it's problematic to call Sarah Pratt biased. On what basis do you conclude her biased? Is it because she gave negative testimony about Joseph Smith? Does her rejection of Joseph Smith's advances make her a biased witness? Does a victim or a whistle-blower automatically become a biased witness? She didn't have a long-standing feud with Joseph Smith prior to her claims about him. Before her rejection of polygamy, she was a believer. A Baptist minister's testimony about Joseph Smith might be biased, but how is Sarah Pratt's?

Hi Dan,

That Sarah Pratt hated Joseph Smith seems quite clear to me. While this hatred is probably quite justified, it constitutes a bias, suggesting that the putative facts, as well as the presentation, of her testimony may well have been shaded by intense and vengeful feelings.

Sarah Pratt also reports dubious and likely exaggerated negative claims not supported from other sources, e.g., that Joseph Smith frequently visited houses of prostitution, that Smith's wife Lucinda Harris described herself as his "mistress," that Smith's dictation of revelation justifying polygamy to Emma was prompted by a suggestion from Bennett (and that prior to this Smith had only slept with women without a ceremony), and that Smith proposed only to sleep with her--not to marry or be sealed to her.

In some of these cases, Pratt appears to conflate Smith with Bennett, attributing to Smith Bennett's practice of free love and his well known seduction teaching "God doesn't care if we have a good time as long as nobody else finds out." Sarah Pratt had been been publicly accused by Smith of having an affair with Bennett, and therefore had reason to downplay Bennett's scandalous behavior while exagerrating that of Smith. Pratt, for instance, fails to mention an attempted seduction by Bennett, although circumstances, the intimacy of her conversations with the man, and the broader pattern of his behavior make it almost certain that he would have attempted to do so (perhaps successfully).

That Sarah Pratt's testimony should be regarded with greater suspicion than that of someone whose deep emotions and reputation were less entangled in the situation seems to me self-evident.

That said, I don't simply dismiss her testimony. I recognize that she may have been accurate even on the points where her testimony seems dubious or possibly motivated by vengefulness or self-defense, though I would need other favorable evidence to support her testimony on these points in order to find the evidence sufficient.

On other points, I think her testimony is sufficiently plausible to stand on its own merits. I don't doubt that she sewed for Bennett. I think Bennett, in some context, probably did show her an instrument for the performance of aboritions. And I suspect that she's accurate when she claims that Joseph Smith promised to "work her salvation" if she'd keep quiet. Smith made other promises of salvation for compliance with his desires, and is known to have, in desperate circumstances, attempted to make a deal with a dissenter (e.g., William Law). Sarah Pratt provides believable testimony on a number of other points as well, and even where her testimony is not necessarily accurate, it still serves as evidence that a careful historical 'detective' might use to piece together what happened.

Don