John C. Bennett: Abortionist for Joseph Smith?

[_DonBradley]

Seth,

I've felt like we've been talking past one another, and your latest response confirms this. More below.

I don't assume that Joseph Smith had abortions. My main point, in response to your posts specifically, is just that I don't believe that using the abortion angle to cast doubt on the reliability of the Sarah Pratt account is a very strong argument.

<Picture a very puzzled looking icon here> What?? This thread is about "the abortion angle." Sarah Pratt's testimony was brought up only in that context.

And I didn't 'use' the abortion claim to cast doubt on Sarah Pratt's testimony. Rather, I pointed out that the late, biased, and otherwise problematic nature of Sarah Pratt's testimony, combined with her being the lone source for Joseph Smith procuring abortions and the uneasy fit between his alleged use of abortion and his procreative rationale for polygamy, lessen the value of her testimony, particularly on this point.

For whatever it matters, I consider Sarah Pratt a valuable source. But, like all sources, what she had to say must be used carefully as evidence rather than relied on as an "authority."

That's all I'm saying. He may have used abortion a few times, or he may not. But saying that Pratt's account is unreliable because she mentioned that Joseph Smith used abortion, and you believe it is unlikely that Joseph Smith used abortion, and therefor Pratt's account is contradicted by low probability, is weak in this case, because something or set of things accounts for Joseph Smith's relatively low baby count considering all the women he probably slept with, and I think I've shown, or at least argued well, for abortion being as likely, or at least not unlikely, as a lot of other things that it could also have been. I don't think Pratt's account can be deemed unreliable because she claims Joseph Smith used abortion.

Great. Then we agree on what seems to you to be the centrail issue--that the overall value of Sarah Pratt's testimony doesn't hinge on her abortion claim. I would go further and say that, rather, the value of her abortion claim hinges in part on the overall value of her testimony, which is late and unabashedly biased. And since she is the only source saying Joseph Smith used abortions, since we would expect someone other than a biased interviewee four decades later to intimate something about this, and since her claim fits poorly with how Joseph Smith obtained polygamous wives and sex in the first place, her late and biased testimony is quite insufficient to make the abortion claim anything more than one possibility among others, and not an especially strong possibility at that.

Don

[_NorthboundZax]

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

LOL! New Illinois tourism slogan: What happens in Nauvoo stays in Nauvoo.

[_DonBradley]

Hi Dan,

You wrote:

I think it's probable that Joseph Smith used some form of birth control, if not abortion. This tells me that for Joseph Smith procreation wasn't his only rationale.

?

I'm not sure I follow you here, since I can see more than one thing you could mean by the above. Could you elaborate?

The rationale that he gave in the 1843 revelation was procreation, but when he approached Nancy Rigdon in 1842, procreation was not mentioned. Instead, it was that God had permitted them to have pleasure.

True! The Nancy Rigdon letter is very tellingly different than the revelatory document he produced to convince Emma. D&C 132 attempts to browbeat, pressure, and threaten Emma into compliance with something she obviously didn't want, while the Nancy Rigdon letter appears to assume that Nancy does want to marry Smith but is uncertain whether it is right to do so.

The letter doesn't mention the procreative rationale at all may simply reflect the fact that the letter was prudently vague about exactly what Smith was trying to convince Nancy of. And I'm unfamiliar with any woman Smith approached saying that he used a love, pleasure, or happiness rationale. But in any case the Rigdon letter does provide evidence that Smith at least sometimes offered this latter type of rationale.

Given this dual purpose, I think it's possible that he gave another rationale for delaying the fruition of such unions until a safer time and place.

This is one of the best points I've heard in favor of Smith using some sort of birth control, possibly including abortion.

It seems to me quite probable that Joseph Smith and those practicing polygamy were intentionally preventing the birth of plural children, through various methods of birth control.

Is there information on what methods might have been known of and available at the time?

I have some doubt about Smith having used birth control methods, but I find this more likely than his procurement of abortions for his wives. I think non-abortive methods of birth control would have been easier for Smith to "sell" to his plural wives. It's one thing to argue for a mere delay in achieving the primary (stated) purpose of polygamous unions; but it's quite another to argue for the destruction of the promised, chosen seed the practice was intended to "raise up."

What do you think?

Don

[_DonBradley]

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

LOL! New Illinois tourism slogan: What happens in Nauvoo stays in Nauvoo.

Nice! 8'D

Don

[_DonBradley]

Here are a few additional thoughts on the issue of Joseph Smith using birth control / abortion to limit the chances of his having children by his plural wives:

First, the report that Smith approached Melissa Lott for sex by telling her he wanted to have a child by her would suggest that he didn't use any obvious method of birth control during this encounter. Again, it's certainly possible that he could have done so without her understanding what he was doing, but this doesn't seem to me the most likely occurrence.

One problem with this argument, though, is that the Melissa Lott account is late and not firsthand. The consummation of their marriage may not have come about this way. Still, the report is one of the few pieces of evidence, of whatever quality, that we have on how Smith approached his plural wives for sex. It serves as at least a minor evidence against his use of birth control.

Second, if Joseph Smith's relative lack of 'spiritual babies' is to be chalked up to abortion or some sort of contraception, then, as Dan suggests, a similar argument should be made for the relative lack of such children in the polygamous marriages of other Nauvoo leaders, such as Brigham Young. But no hint or echo such practices among the apostles, et al. appears to have survived. Such notable gossips as Ann Eliza Young would likely have been in a position to at least hear of such practices, and expose them. Yet they did not.

Third, those who were definitely in the know who sought to 'expose' Nauvoo polygamy, such as John C. Bennett and William Law, similarly fail to disclose Smith's alleged abortion or birth-control secrets.

Finally, I'm curious how effective birth control of his time would have been, and how safe abortion procedures were.

Even today's methods of birth control carry a non-neglible failure rate--and this is with durable synthetic materials, scientifically informed design, quality testing, and a good deal of experience in their use. Were there any reliable methods in Smith's time? And if so, how reliable? With what kind of failure rate? Unless the quality of contraception available was quite high, Smith's relative lack of polygamous offspring would not be well-explained by the use of such contraception.

Also, having read Marvin Olasky's social history of abortion in the US, I'm of the understanding that methods of abortion in Smith's time would have been crude and dangerous. Childbirth itself was quite dangerous at the time, and abortion all the more so because of its use of unsterile equipment and the like. If we posit that Smith was having frequent sex with his numerous wives, and that abortion is the reason they didn't have many children, then it should have been fairly likely for one or more of these wives to suffer serious health complications or death as a result. I'm not aware of any of his wives dying while he was alive. Nor am I aware of stories, with one possible exception, that would suggest that one of Smith's wives became ill in a way suggesting a possible abortion.

The possible exception is Eliza R. Snow, who is said to have suffered a miscarriage after falling down the stairs, and to have been thereafter infertile. Supposedly her later husband Brigham Young didn't have sex with her, which would suggest that it was understood that her fertility and sexual anatomy had been compromised. This could, of course, result from an abortion. It would be interesting to see how well-documented the 'fall down the stairs' story is, and to consider whether a fall could have rendered her infertile.

I think we'd also want to look at the estimated death rate for women receiving abortions circa the 1840s to assess how likely it would be for several abortions to have been performed on Smith's wives without any of them suffering fatal consequences as a result.

I'd welcome any observations, criticisms, relevant pieces of information, or suggestions for further study.

Don

[_harmony]

Comments:

1. Having sex does not necessarily result in pregnancy every time. Different methods, for example oral sex and anal sex, would not result in pregnancy.

2. Coitus interruptus wasn't just discovered in the last century.

3. The more experienced a man is, the less likely his partner is going to get pregnant, if he doesn't want her to.

4. The only ones he had to worry about were the single wives. Reserving the oral and/or anal sex for them, while indulging in penetration with the married ones would not be outside the bounds of prudent planning.

5. If a powerful person wants to keep illicit sexual activity on the down low, which obviously Joseph did since he lied about his marriages repeatedly, having a doctor who had a tool such as is described and who wasn't averse to using it would not be unusual. And if said doctor pushed for increased power based on his performance of an objectionable operation as a result of a request by said powerful person, especially if he threatened to make it public, the ostracization of said doctor would be one option, especially if the powerful person had successfully conned the public before.

[_Dan Vogel]

I think it's probable that Joseph Smith used some form of birth control, if not abortion. This tells me that for Joseph Smith procreation wasn't his only rationale.

I'm not sure I follow you here, since I can see more than one thing you could mean by the above. Could you elaborate?

With so many opportunities to have children, but having none, could reasonably point to intentional birth control.

Intentional birth control points to other reasons for sex than procreation.

True! The Nancy Rigdon letter is very tellingly different than the revelatory document he produced to convince Emma. D&C 132 attempts to browbeat, pressure, and threaten Emma into compliance with something she obviously didn't want, while the Nancy Rigdon letter appears to assume that Nancy does want to marry Smith but is uncertain whether it is right to do so.

More than that. It's about pleasure too:

This principle will justly apply to all of God's dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness-- and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has--He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant; the proffered good returns to the giver; the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but unto him that hath not or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had.

--JS to Nancy Rigdon, History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.7, p.135

The letter doesn't mention the procreative rationale at all may simply reflect the fact that the letter was prudently vague about exactly what Smith was trying to convince Nancy of. And I'm unfamiliar with any woman Smith approached saying that he used a love, pleasure, or happiness rationale. But in any case the Rigdon letter does provide evidence that Smith at least sometimes offered this latter type of rationale.

True, we can expect the 1842 letter to be vague. But it does mention enjoyment.

A parent may whip a child, and justly, too, because he stole an apple; whereas if the child had asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite; there would have been no stripes; all the pleasure of the apple would have been secured, all the misery of stealing lost.

--History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.7, p.135

This is one of the best points I've heard in favor of Smith using some sort of birth control, possibly including abortion.

If abortion was ever used, it was rare. So to explain all the lack of offspring, I think there had to be intentional birth control being used.

Is there information on what methods might have been known of and available at the time?

Ancient practice of birth control was a subject my Western Civilization professor liked to talk about.

The evidence of ancient contraceptive knowledge, methods of birth control which (unlike infanticide and abortion) are used before conception, is impressive. A list of contraceptive methods would include: withdrawal by the male; melting suppositories designed to form an impenetrable coating over the cervix; diaphragms, caps, or other devices which are inserted into the vagina over the cervix and withdrawn after intercourse; intrauterine devices; douching after intercourse designed to kill or drive out the sperm; condoms; and varieties of the rhythm methods. None of these methods are new. Except for the addition of the modern birth control pill introduced in 1960, there are no new methods. All of these techniques were practiced in the ancient world and in modern pre-industrial societies.

Coitus interruptus, withdrawal, was practiced in Africa, Australasia, the Middle East, and in Europe. Though condemned by Judaism and Roman Catholicism, its practice was common enough in Medieval Europe and later to be frequently attacked in canonical writings as a “vice against nature” (Gordon, p.41). Studies in the 1920’s and 30’s in New York and New Jersey found that coitus interruptus was the most common pre-medical form of birth control. Further evidence of its practice comes from documentation of doctors’ remonstrances against it—arguing that it was dangerous, caused nervousness, ultimately impotence, and one who said it might lead to hardening of the uterus in women.

Coitus obstructus was a method recommended in several Sanskrit texts which required pressing on the forepart of the testicle; the pressure of the finger there may block the urethra forcing semen into the bladder. Coitus reservatus is a method whereby the male avoids ejaculation entirely. This method was used by the Hindus and reappeared among some American Utopian societies in the 19th Century.

Douching was used in ancient times but was not very effective. The Greek physician A‘tious know the properties of vinegar but recommended it be applied to the penis rather than used as a douche. 19th Century recipes in women’s books show that douching was known and tried in the United States.

A pessary is a vaginal suppository used to kill sperm and/or block their passage through the cervix. The pessary was the most effective contraceptive device used in ancient times and numerous recipes for pessaries from ancient times are known. Ingredients for pessaries included: a base of crocodile dung (dung was frequently a base), a mixture of honey and natural sodium carbonate forming a kind of gum. All were of a consistency which would melt at body temperature and form an impenetrable covering of the cervix. The use of oil was also suggested by Aristotle and advocated as late as 1931 by birth control advocate Marie Stopes.

Another kind of pessary was a solid object to block the cervix. This method was popular in pre-industrial societies, especially Africa; here women used plugs of chopped grass or cloth. Balls of bamboo tissue paper were used by Japanese prostitutes, wool by Islamic and Greek women, linen rags by Slavic women (Gordon, p. 43). The sponge used by Ancient Jews was considered the most effective contraceptive in use until the development of the diaphragm. The sea sponge was wrapped in silk with a string attached.

The rhythm methods (based on calculating the woman’s fertile period and abstaining from intercourse during it) were widely discussed during the 19th century. Unfortunately it was very ineffective during the 19th and early 20th century, since the female fertility cycle was not understood until 1920. Until that time, observing other mammals lead most to believe ovulation occurred either during menstruation or just before it.

The condom has been produced in this country since 1840. It was second in popularity to male withdrawal according to the 1920’s and 30’s studies. In fact, though, the condom was fully advocated not to prevent pregnancy but in campaigns against venereal disease. The widespread use of the condom to prevent V.D. following World War I contributed to the acceptance of contraception because even people of fundamentalist persuasion were forced to encourage its use.

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/6/82.06.03.x.html

I have some doubt about Smith having used birth control methods, but I find this more likely than his procurement of abortions for his wives. I think non-abortive methods of birth control would have been easier for Smith to "sell" to his plural wives. It's one thing to argue for a mere delay in achieving the primary (stated) purpose of polygamous unions; but it's quite another to argue for the destruction of the promised, chosen seed the practice was intended to "raise up."

I think Smith was serious about raising seed to expand his ambitions for empire and power. Using polygamy was a fast way to increase the number of followers. But he may have been willing to delay the procreative part until safely in Zion. Just some thoughts that need more work, but I thought you might be interested in them.

[_DonBradley]

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

[_guy sajer]

I have a couple of observations.

1. Absent corroborating information, I don't find this evidence convincing. Joseph Smith' character was such that I don't consider this improbable (I think it would be fully consistent with his other behavior), but I'd need more than this to conclude in the affirmative.

2. I also find uncompelling the dismissal of Sarah Pratt's affidavit on the grounds that she was "biased." Sure, this is a factor to consider, but it's too easy and convenient to dismiss testimony due to bias; a tactic that Mormon Apologists use quite frequently to dismiss unpleasant evidence much to the frustration of Mormonism's critics. (To be fair, it is an all purpose excuse used liberally by many people who prefer to avoid dealing honestly with uncomfortable issues.) For me, the charge of bias also requires some kind of corroboration, such as evidence of past behavior suggesting that the person in question allows biases to cloud his/her judgment or shade the truth.

[_Sethbag]

What exactly is "bias" anyhow? There can be irrational biases, such as an discinclination toward someone for no good reason. But then there are biases that are "earned" so to speak, and I think Sarah Pratt's bias against Joseph Smith, if indeed there is a demonstrable bias, certainly should fall into that category. She knew firsthand what kind of man Joseph Smith really was, when he was trying to get in the sack with her, and when he had her name besmirched after she rebuffed him. She also knew what it was like to have a husband who first supported her, and then loved to be in Joseph Smith's good graces more than to support and love his wife. I think she saw the crock that was Mormonism under Joseph Smith up close and personal, and if she was then "biased" against it, rather than undercut her views, I would say it confirms their truthfulness to some extent, because she was biased for a reason.

In a parallel thought, are we to dismiss the rape victim's testimony against her attacker in court on the grounds that she (since her attack) is now "biased" against him? What is the difference between being biased against someone and being negatively inclined against someone for a very good reason?