Jump to content

Talk:Children of Joseph Smith/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Allegations against Sarah Pratt dismissed as "highly improbable" and "slander" by reliable sources

The allegations made about Sarah Pratt on this page—that she was John C. Bennett's lover, that she was unreliable, and more—are all dismissed as "highly improbable" and "slander" by reliable sources. See:

Andrew Smith's account of the methods in which Joseph and Hyrum Smith used threats and slander against Sarah Pratt and others is given pages 81–83 (text provided below). Andrew Smith himself quotes the Mormon historian Richard S. Van Wagoner who concludes that the scandalous charges made against Sarah Pratt were "highly improbable" and "slander." The couple on which these allegations are based, Stephen H. and Zeruiah Goddard, say that they did so because

"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.'" (Smith 1971, p. 82.)

Sarah Pratt may well have been a "disaffected member of the church," but only because she refused to submit to Joseph Smith's demand that she become his plural wive and threatened to expose him, resulting in Smith's attempt to destroy her reputation, which some carry on to this day on this very talk page. The bottom line is that there is absolutely no verifiable basis for the despicable POV slander committed against Sarah Pratt here. She is a reputable source, and a reputable witness. If someone believes otherwise, then WP:PROVEIT with a reliable source, if there are any. And no, excerpts from Smith's propaganda mouthpiece rag the Nauvoo Wasp don't count as reliable sources. Highly plausible allegations reported in reliable sources that Smith's plural wives had abortions has a very direct impact on his progeny, which obviously deserves brief mention in this summary article. Please stop the POV campaign to delete and suppress highly relevant facts reported in reliable sources, and desist the thoroughly despicable practice of slandering people whose eyewitness accounts may challenge the integrity your faith or family background. Here is an excerpt of the account from Andrew Smith (my emphasis in bold):

Extended excerpt

“According to Smith, Bennett informed her "that promiscuous intercourse between sexes was lawful and no harm in it, and requested the privilege of gratifying his passions; but she refused in the strongest terms, saying that it was very wrong to do so." Bennett then "told her that men in higher standing in the Church than himself not only sanctioned, but practice the same deeds." Bennett claimed that Smith "both taught and acted in the same manner, but publicly proclaimed against in consequence of the people" and for fear of trouble in his own house with his wife Emma Smith. Bennett succeeded with this ploy and seduced "a respectable female by lying, and subjected her to public infamy and disgrace." Smith, "seeing the folly of such an acquaintance, persuaded Bennett to desist; and, on account of his continuing his course, finally threatened to expose him if he did not desist." This threat had the desired effect, "and the acquaintance between them was broken off." Bennett was not, according to Smith, "contented with what he had already done, he made the attempt on others, and by using the same language, seduced them also."

Bennett was also accused of having had an adulterous relationship with Sarah Pratt, the wife of Orson Pratt. At the time, Pratt was one of the Twelve Apostles engaged in missionary work in England. Sarah Pratt occasionally boarded with the Smith family while her husband was abroad. She took up sewing as a means to supplement her meager income, and Joseph Smith hired her to help with his family's sewing needs. Smith introduced her to Bennett, saying that Bennett wanted some sewing done and that she should do it for him. Bennett paid her for her services.

Stephen H. Goddard and his wife, Zeruiah, stated under oath that they had taken Sarah Pratt and her son into their house on October 6, 1840. The Goddards reported that from the first night, Bennett "was there as sure as the night came." For two or three nights he left at nine o'clock in the evening, but after that "he remained later, sometimes till after midnight." During this time Bennett and Pratt "sat close together, he leaning on her lap, whispering continually or talking very low." On one occasion Bennett came to the house at midnight "and sat on or beside the bed where Mrs. Pratt was and cursed and swore very profanely at her; she told me next day that the Dr. was quick tempered and was mad at her; but gave no other reason. I concluded from circumstances that she had promised to meet him somewhere and had disappointed him." Zeruiah Goddard reported that on another occasion she "came suddenly into the room where Mrs. Pratt and the Dr. were; she was lying on the bed and the Dr. was taking his hands out of her bosom; he was in the habit of sitting on the bed where Mrs. Pratt was lying, and lying down over her." Zeruiah Goddard asked Bennett "what Orson Pratt would think, if he should know that you were so fond of his wife." Bennett replied that "he could pull the wool over Orson's eyes."

The Goddards claimed that Dr. Robert Foster furnished Sarah Pratt a house in November, although others claimed that Bennett had the house built for her or that he owned it. The Goddards contended they visited her there several times late in the evening and found Bennett and Sarah Pratt together, "as if they were man, and wife." Two or three times they discovered the child "lying on the floor and the bed apparently reserved for them." In June 1841 Sarah Pratt was turned out of the house and returned to the Goddard's home. Purportedly, "the Dr. came also as before."

This relationship supposedly continued even after Orson Pratt returned from England in the summer of 1841. Jacob B. Backenstos, a relative of the sheriff of Hancock County, attested that during the winter of 1841–42 Bennett had "illicit intercourse with Mrs. Orson Pratt, and some others." When Backenstos reproached him, Bennett replied "that she made a first rate go."

When Stephen and Zeruiah Goddard's testimonial was published, 'Sarah Pratt purportedly went straight to their home. Stephen ran out the back door, but Sarah confronted Zeruiah. "It is not my fault," sobbed Zeruiah. "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." The Mormon historian Richard S. Van Wagoner concluded that the Goddard's statements about Bennett's nightly attentions to Sarah Pratt during the month of October 1840 were highly improbable. Van Wagoner also believed that J. B. Backenstos's affidavit stating that Bennett continued the adulterous relationship with Sarah Pratt after Orion Pratt returned from England could "be dismissed as slander."

Bennett offered a decidedly different story. He claimed that Joseph Smith was attracted to Sarah Pratt and intended to make her "one of his spiritual wives for the Lord had given her to him, and he requested me to assist him in consummating his hellish purposes." Bennett told him that he "would not do it—that she had been much neglected and abused by the church during the absence of her husband in Europe, and that if the Lord had given her to him he must attend to it himself." Smith stated there was no harm in it if her husband should never find it out. "Bennett called on Sarah Pratt and warned her "that Joseph contemplated an attack upon her virtue, in the name of the Lord and that she must prepare to repulse him in so infamous an assault." According to Bennett, she retorted, "Joseph cannot be such a man: I cannot believe it until I know it for myself or have it from his own lips: he cannot be so corrupt." Bennett replied that she would soon see, unless Smith changed his mind. A few days later Smith asked Bennett to join him on a journey to Ramus, a small Mormon community not too far from Nauvoo. They started from Smith's house about four in the afternoon, rode into the prairie a few miles, and then returned to Nauvoo. They then proceeded to Sarah Pratt's house, and Joseph Smith commenced his discourse as follows: "'Sister Pratt, the Lord has given you to me as one of my spiritual wives. I have the blessings of Jacob granted me, as he granted holy men of old, and I have long looked upon you with favor, and hope you will not deny me[.]' She replied: 'I care not for the blessings of Jacob, and I believe in NO SUCH revelations, neither will I consent under any circumstances. I have one good husband, and that is enough for me."

According to Bennett, Smith then went off to visit another woman at the home of the widow Delcena Sherman. Smith remained there an hour or two, and then they started out for Ramus again. They arrived in Carthage at early breakfast, proceeded to Ramus, and then returned to Carthage that night, where they lodged "at the house of Esq. Comer." They returned to Nauvoo the following day, and Bennett called on Sarah Pratt. He asked her what she thought of Smith, and she replied, "He is a bad man beyond a doubt." According to Bennett, Smith made three additional attempts on Sarah Pratt's virtue. Finally, she told him, "Joseph, if you ever attempt any thing of the kind with me again, I will tell Mr. Pratt on his return home. I will certainly do it." Smith replied, "Sister Pratt, I hope you will not expose me; if I am to suffer, all suffer; so do not expose me. Will you agree not to do so?" "If," said she, "you will never insult me again, I will not expose you unless strong circumstances require it." In mid-January 1842, according to Bennett, Smith approached and kissed Sarah Pratt—months after Orson Pratt had returned home. She confided in her husband, "who was much enraged and went and told Joe never to offer an insult of the like again.—Joe replied, 'I did not desire to kiss her, Bennett made me do it!'" A few months later Bennett laughingly claimed that he had set "a trap in getting Joseph to attempt to kiss Mis Pratt."

Sixteen years later Sarah Pratt's neighbor, Mary Ettie V. Smith, recalled that "Sarah ordered the Prophet out of the house, and the Prophet used obscene language to her" declaring that he had found Bennett in bed with her. After Bennett's version was published in July 1842, Joseph Smith purportedly proclaimed publicly that "Mrs. Pratt, the wife of Mr. 0. Pratt, had been a —— from her mother's breast." (The unmentionable word removed from the Sangamo Journal's account is thought to have been whore.) Forty-four years later Sarah Pratt essentially supported Bennett's version of the story. She added that Bennett told her that Joseph Smith had invented a revelation permitting plural marriages to 'shield his attentions to numerous women."” Smith, Andrew F. (1971). The Saintly Scoundrel: The Life and Times of Dr. John Cook Bennett. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. p. 81–83.

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Here is a citation and link to Richard S. Van Wagoner's journal article on Sarah Pratt and her experiences with Joseph Smith and John C. Bennett, in which Van Wagoner dismisses charges against Pratt as "highly improbable" and "slander."
Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
If you're trying to say that there wasn't an accusation in 1841 that Sarah Pratt was Bennett's lover, and this was one of the charges in his excommunication (in 1842), and that leading church members at the time swore affidavits as to the liaison, and that Pratt herself didn't deny the relationship...well...what can anyone who reads the original sources say to you? A Sniper (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT. Where's your reliable source? Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to hang a lot on "reputable sources" and Andrew F. Smith plays the leading role at the moment for you. In researching this scholar I found the following:
"Andrew Smith is a writer and lecturer on food and culinary history. He serves as the general editor for the University of Illinois Press’s Food Series, and teaches Culinary History and Food Writing courses at the New School University. He is the author of 16 books and numerous articles in both scholarly and popular journals. Smith has delivered over 1500 presentations at regional, national and international conferences and has frequently been interviewed in publications, radio and television. He is a consultant on culinary history."
I don't mean to quibble, but is a scholar on culinary history really the definition of "reputable" that we are to hang our hat on this issue? It would seem like we could find actual scholars who specialize in the subject area rather than those who make it a hobby and best. This just seems strange to me. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it's "reliable source." As pointed out by Descartes1979 here, "the book did win the John Whitmer Historical Society 1997 Award for the Best Book, and the Mormon History Association’s Ella Larsen Turner Award for Best Biography in 1997." Andrew Smith's clearly satisfies Wikipedia's standards for being a reliable source. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, there were no slanderous statements about Pratt on the version you reverted. Rather that version represents a consensus work by several editors - in fact the comments you seem to be bothered by were removed by User:Alanyst already. On the other hand, the version you reverted to (besides being one more example of your total disregard for WP:3RR) misuses the Newell reference, reintroduces redundancies in the footnotes, and gives undue weight to something that only appears tangentially in only one reliable, peer-reviewed source (Smith's biography of Bennet) but not in any biography of JSJr. We were in the process of creating a consensus version until you blanket reverted twice in less than an hour in what is beginning to look a lot like WP:OWN. --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because all mention of Sarah M. Pratt was deleted and dismissed based upon the acceptance of you and other editors of the slanders made against her in the nineteenth century Mormon press. As thoroughly detailed above these despicable allegations made against Pratt's reputation are dismissed as "highly improbably" and "slander" by the Mormon historian Richard S. Van Wagoner link. It appears that you have read nothing of this account, as it appears in not one but three reliable sources writing about the early Mormon movement:

Deletion or suppression of this reliable source history based upon a slanderous attack on Sarah Pratt's reputation is illegitimate, as I explained. That is why I reverted these edits. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's (once again) silly. In your POV quest to use 40 year old hearsay against Smith you turn your back on affidavits, church publications, local newspapers, etc. in an effort to clear the name of Sarah Pratt. You pick and choose what Mormon sources you rely upon, dismissing wholesale anything from the actual period of the 1840s. A Sniper (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, affidavits based on threats from the Smith brothers. Di you even read the Goddard's reason for signing the affidavit presented to them by Hyrum Smith,

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's actually only one reliable source - Smith. You are citing Newell to support statements that Bennett performed abortions for Joseph Smith's plural wives. However, nowhere does this appear in the Newell text - therefore, a misuse of that resource. Anyone reviewing this can easily check the link, look at the text, and see that this is the case. So the Newell reference is out. And since Smith is quoting Wymetal, counting them as separate sources is duplicitous. Also, Wymetal is not a peer-reviewed, nor a modern source - and hence fails as reliability for historical fact, and is closer to a primary source. Wymetal may be a reliable source that these allegations and hearsay existed, but not the abortions are historical fact. The silence on this issue of reliable, secondary sources by notable historians who write on JSJr's life is deafening. Again, most of the information was removed due to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, not because of some grand conspiracy to suppress anything. And again, you're the one that is perpetuating the edit war, disregarding WP:3RR, attempting to own the article (consistently reverting the work of several different editors to your preferred version), and not working with other editors towards a consensus. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you didn't even bother to read Newell:

"pregnancy would be taken care of with an abortion. When refused, Bennett stated that he came with Joseph's approval." (Newell 1994, p. 111)

So Newell does link Smith's second-in-command Bennett with performing abortions for Smith, contrary to what you wrote. Please read the sources before commenting. The reliable sources I cite treat Wymetal as reliable. If you believe that he's unreliable, provide your own reliable source to WP:PROVEIT, as we've been asking over and over and over. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ; all the stating that he is reliable does not make him reliable; all it means is that YOU insist his reputable. He is a journalist, not a historian and not a neutral party. Further, his test was never a peer reviewed text and as such could be considered a primary text, which should not be used on Wikipedia. I have supplied several quotes that cast doubt on the reliability of Wyl, which you immediately chose to disregard claiming the source was not peer reviewed. Please WP:PROVEIT that Wyl was peer reviewed. If not, desist from using the source. Live by the same standards you are setting for everyone else! --Storm Rider (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Since we appear to be misunderstanding one another, let me try this more clearly.
Claims for which Newell is cited as a reference:
  1. "...as well as the alleged abortions of Smith's polygamous children by his close associate Dr. John C. Bennett."
  2. "...allege that Bennett performed abortions on Smith's (single) plural wives whenever they would become pregnant."
  3. "If the women [the context of the article implies that these were Smith's plural wives] refused, Bennett stated that he came with Joseph's approval."
  4. "Bennett's indiscretions "rocked [Nauvoo] with tales that connected Joseph with Bennett's scandals,""
Newell's actual statement:
But, unhampered by any moral or theological framework, Bennett approached women with his own rationale: where there was no accuser, there was no sin; pregnancy would be taken care of with an abortion. When refused, Bennett stated that he came with Joseph's approval.
Going back to the claims:
  1. Not supported - Newell does not tie Bennett's actions to Smith's polygamous wives or children
  2. Not supported - same as #1
  3. Misrepresentation of source - Newell is referring to the women Bennett was trying to seduce, not Joseph Smith's plural wives as your text implies
  4. Misrepresentation of source - the indiscretions of Bennett that Newell mentions have nothing to do with JSJr's possible polygamous children
You have provided a single reliable source (Smith), which merely quotes Wymetal but makes no judgement or comment as to the veracity of the allegations, that ties Bennett and his abortions to JSJr and possible polygamous offspring. In the version you blanket reverted, the allegations were mentioned and given about as much space as modern historians of JSJr give them. However, since we appear to be at an impasse on this, I would recommend getting an neutral, outside opinion on this. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Children_of_Joseph_Smith/Archive_2&oldid=643295217"