John C. Bennett: Abortionist for Joseph Smith?

[_Ray A]

They did? Wow, I actually didn't know that.

Check out the details: http://mormontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10 ... sweek.html

[_The Dude]

Check out the details: http://mormontruth.blogspot.com/2005/10 ... sweek.html

Oh, now I remember this. It was right about the time I got fed up with RFM and started posting at FAIR because it seemed more constructive and challenging that pissing off Steve Benson (that was fun for a while).

[_Ray A]

Oh, now I remember this. It was right about the time I got fed up with RFM and started posting at FAIR because it seemed more constructive and challenging that pissing off Steve Benson (that was fun for a while).

Shock horror, we agree!

[_DonBradley]

As we're fond of pointing out to the apologists, possibility alone is of little value. What matters is not what's possible so much as what's probable.

It is valuable to keep possibilities open. You shut those off when you mistakenly (in my opinion) judge Joseph Smith's character as being of a type that wouldn't stoop to an abortion cover-up, that it would have been too awkward for him, or when you accept Joseph Smith's stated motives (procreation) as his true ones. All of my comments have been directed towards this small part of your argument.

Actually, a few of those things aren't part of my argument at all. We don't usually seem to have this much difficulty understanding one another, but here goes again....

First, I'm not shutting off possibilities by refusing to mistake them for probabilities. One ought to be biased in favor of probabilities over mere possibilities, and I decidedly am. But this doesn't mean I close off those possibilities as possibilities. Were additional evidence to make those possibilities more likely, I'd be among the first to acknowledge that they were likely.

Second, it's not an issue of Joseph Smith's character. While he does appear to have been fond of children, this observation is peripheral to my real arguments, which hinge on evidence and rationale. I mentioned that observation once, and you haven't stopped repeating it and wrongly treating it as central to my view since.

Third, I DON'T accept Joseph Smith's stated motives as his true ones, a fact I've repeated several times. I see Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy as being overwhelmingly sexually motivated. I don't think he engaged in it to have children. Indeed, children, however welcome they might otherwise have been, would have been problematic, since they would have made it more difficult to conceal his secret practices.

My argument is not that if Joseph Smith said he wanted to have children by his plural wives, then this was the reason for his taking those wives. My argument is that having used procreation as rationale for his plural relationships would not have placed Smith in a good position to use abortion to hide those relationships. Joseph Smith didn't have a magic wand with which he led women to do his bidding. He needed to provide them a rationale they would find convincing. He found such a rationale in the "raising up seed to the Lord" argument, and used it consistently. For him to have then acted in utter contradiction of this rationale would have been foolishly risky and would likely have produced at least some negative repercussions. Yet there is no evidence of his plural wives, the parents who gave these wives to him, et al. having become alienated from him, particularly not over issues of birth control.

Of course it's possible, though not probable, that Smith preached procreation and practiced abortion, yet no one found this disturbing enough for it have significant consequences. And it's possible that he took the risk of such consequences, however imprudent that might have been. He sometimes took a foolish risk to avoid another risk, as in the case of the Expositor. But his general success suggests that such lapses were relatively rare. In this case, it seems hard to go beyond making Joseph Smith's use of abortion more than bare possibility.

Your right. I can't say he probably did. I only say he might have, he would have, he could have, given the chance and the need.

He would have? I don't know. Do you? How would we know whether he would have done so under other circumstances? I'm entirely open to the idea; it seems plausible. But I don't think I'd go beyond saying that under the right circumstances Smith might have used abortion to cover up his behavior.

While I view Joseph Smith as a narcissist, and therefore largely without empathy for others, I'm not convinced that a lack of empathy entails an entire lack of moral ideals or ethical preferences. What his views on abortion in particular would have been is something I see little evidence on in the historical record. About the only thing I can see that seems relevant is his apparent fondness for children.

That's not a strong statement, is it?

It's not a strong statement, nor is it a very meaningful one. Joseph Smith might under the right circumstances have taken the Nazarite vow like Samson, or moved to Paris and espoused atheism. But apparently counterfactual possibilities aren't particularly useful or revealing.

If all you're arguing for is the possibility, why bother?

I just don't want to be mistaken for an apologist. <wink>

:-P I don't mistake you for an apologist here, not even for Smith's use of an abortionist. But I am puzzled why you want to argue for the mere possibility. Was it because you saw me as closing off that possibility and thought it should be left open and considered? If so, you may be surprised to know that I entirely agree that it should be left open and considered. I'm more open to it than you seem to realize. I just see the present evidence for it as weak and the evidence against it as strong. I am, however, a master at changing my mind as new evidence comes along. Just ask Ray.

for what it's worth, I see another evidence against Joseph Smith's use of abortion to hide his plural marriages: the children he did have. Smith apparently had a child by his otherwise-unmarried wife Olive Grey Frost. If Smith was so concerned that children would blow his cover that he was willing to contradict his own stated rationale for polygamy and have the children aborted, why not, like Herod, kill them all, instead of letting potentially dangerous babies out into the world?

I am perplexed that Smith didn't have more babies, and the use of abortion could account for this. But I'd need more favorable evidence for this practice to believe it actually, or even probably, occurred.

Cheers,

Don

[_harmony]

Smith apparently had a child by his otherwise-unmarried wife Olive Grey Frost.

Who? I don't recall that name on any list I've seen. What is the story behind this wife?

[_Dr. Shades]

Don:

I know that the "raise up seed" safety net is built into D&C 132 and the Book of Mormon, but isn't it true that the majority of D&C 132 spends its time justifying polygamy on the grounds of "if a man espouse a virgin, and she be with no other man, they cannot commit adultery?"

What I'm getting at is that we know Smith found it convenient to contradict his own revelation/justification by mere virtue of the fact that many of his plural wives weren't virgins. Why should we assume that he wouldn't contradict his "raise up seed" clause as well?

Also, from what I've read of the women's account of their seduction into polygamy, none of them mention Joseph using the "raise up seed" justification in the first place. If memory serves, the way he talked them into it was by merely stating that the Lord had reintroduced the old ways, e.g. polygamy as practiced by the ancient patriarchs.

What do you think?

[_DonBradley]

Don, along with what the Dude said, I just wanted to point out that my little exercise in rationalizing an abortion isn't to show that it happened, but to demonstrate how easily it could have happened, in contradiction to your using Joseph Smith's profressed procreation rationale to justify his plural wives.

Sethbag,

I do understand that. However:

1) That Smith used a procreative rationale to persuade women and then flouted that rationale is not, other things being equal, the most likely course of action for him to have taken.

2) It's easy to construct scenarios under which something seems plausible, but such scenarios can as easily mislead as enlighten. The first thing that came to mind when you presented your scenario, and the reason I didn't, and don't, take it seriously, is the section "Reconsideration Under Suitable Scripts" from the book Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds by cognitive psychologist Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini. Piatell-Palmarini here reviews research showing that the use of a seemingly 'plausible' narrative can distort probability judgments. In one study, for instance, the subjects were asked what they thought was the likelihood that the US would invade Poland. (This was in the early 1980s.) The respondents overwhelmingly, and prudently, placed this possibility as very remote. Then subjects were offered a 'plausible' narrative script under which a US invasion of Poland might occur (e.g., Poland moving further in the direction of the US, the USSR invading in response, and the US coming in to save the day). The subjects now gave a fairly high probability to the US invasion of Poland! Given the world situation at the time, the probability of such an invasion was vanishingly small; but a "suitable script" was able to make it seem quite large!

For this reason, I don't find it wise to invent detailed scenarios of how something could have happened and let these influence my judgments of probability.

That Smith could have invoked the idea of an Abrahamic test and other rationales for abortion is no reason to think he likely did, or that his doing so would not, given the larger situation, have been risky and problematic. And to zero in too much on a possibility that doesn't seem, given that big picture, to have been very probable would likely distort, rather than, aid historical judgment.

Was it that important that the women have Joseph Smith's offspring rather than their own husbands?

BINGO" That Joseph Smith in particular should have more offspring was the rationale. Smith claimed to be a special descendant of Joseph of old, and the latter-day descendant and heir of King David and Jesus. Smith also prophesied that a new, latter-day David would arise who would take the kingdom, priesthood, and power of the David of old. And, significantly, in producing by 'revelation' the wording to be used to seal him to Sarah Ann Whitney, Smith had God say that the marriage was to be contracted "that David might reign king over Israel." The meaning was not lost on Sarah Ann Whitney, who named each of her four sons "David."

Joseph Smith was to have many children so that his own special, chosen bloodline could be expanded. To abort those chosen ones, perhaps even the latter-day David, would have been, in the eyes of Smith's believers, including his wives, a gross sacrilege.

I don't know what to make of the paucity of Joseph Smith children from plural "marriages", but one thing I don't take from that is that Joseph Smith wasn't having sex with them. I find that to be incredibly unlikely. Something else must then, therefor, be at the root of it.

I definitely think Smith was having sex with his plural wives. But from the information we have, it doesn't appear that circumstances made it convenient for him to do so whenever he might like. His surreptious meetings with his wives appear to be relatively infrequent. This certainly helps explain the paucity of his progeny. But, like you, I'm not satisfied that it comprises the complete answer. However, the fact that the use of abortion could account for this paucity doesn't mean that it likely was used. It is an interesting possibility, one that should be considered, and one that, your perception to the contrary, I do consider. The result of my considering the possibility thus far has largely been to show how problematic it would have been, and I seriously doubt that it was used. But I will certainly be further considering the evidence to try to solve the puzzle of why Joseph Smith didn't have more 'plural children.'

Cheers,

Don

[_DonBradley]

Don:

I know that the "raise up seed" safety net is built into D&C 132 and the Book of Mormon, but isn't it true that the majority of D&C 132 spends its time justifying polygamy on the grounds of "if a man espouse a virgin, and she be with no other man, they cannot commit adultery?"

What I'm getting at is that we know Smith found it convenient to contradict his own revelation/justification by mere virtue of the fact that many of his plural wives weren't virgins. Why should we assume that he wouldn't contradict his "raise up seed" clause as well?

Hi Doc,

This reasoning doesn't work.

Joseph Smith's procreative rationale for polygamy was used repeatedly with numerous wives. D&C 132 was later recorded for Emma, who may not have even known of her husband's polyandrous relationships. Indeed, she probably did not. None of the wives Emma is reported to have known about or "given" to her husband were polyandrous, and unlike his relationships with otherwise-single wives, Smith's polyandrous relationships were easy to hide. Several of his otherwise-single wives lived under his own roof, and therefore under Emma's nose and pregnancy in one of those women could have set off alarms; while Smith could visit his polyandrous wives on the pretext of visiting a married couple, and the offspring could easily be hidden.

So the most likely reason D&C 132 doesn't justify polyandrous relationships is that Emma didn't know about these relationships. To have discussed these relationships in D&C '132 would likely have only increased Joseph's troubles by letting Emma in on another, even worse secret practice.

This is quite different from the case of Joseph Smith's widely used and (to his wives) well known procreative rationale for polygamy, as I'll discuss further below.

Also, from what I've read of the women's account of their seduction into polygamy, none of them mention Joseph using the "raise up seed" justification in the first place.

Oh, waaay off, my friend. He most decidedly did use the procreative rationale with his intended wives, and we have abundant documentation of it. I've already mentioned the Sarah Ann Whitney revelation, which gave the promise of a latter-day David as the reason Sarah Ann and Joseph Smith needed to hook up. D&C 132 also uses this rationale. And someone on RfM recently posted a listed of several quotations demonstrating Smith's use of the procreative rationale. I'll see if I can find that lengthy (and incomplete) list and post it here.

by the way, you doubtless know the story of the angel with the drawn sword. Any idea what, specifically, the angel is supposed to have said to Smith?

If memory serves, the way he talked them into it was by merely stating that the Lord had reintroduced the old ways, e.g. polygamy as practiced by the ancient patriarchs.

He certainly made use of biblical precedent. But what reasons did he give why the ancient patriarchs themselves practiced polygamy? And was this his sole rationale?

Best wishes,

Don

[_DonBradley]

Smith apparently had a child by his otherwise-unmarried wife Olive Grey Frost.

Who? I don't recall that name on any list I've seen. What is the story behind this wife?

She was rather grey and frosty. Actually, quite the opposite. She was the church's first female missionary, and a sister to Parley P. Pratt's wife. Smith married her when she was about 28. She was not previously married. You might recall her as the one who is described as having gone "perfectly mad" when Smith's remains were displayed just before his burial.

Compton has a chapter on her, but Quinn is the one who has evidence that she had a child by Smith.

Off-topic, she strikes me as one of the most intelligent and interesting women with whom Smith was connected.

Don

[_Dr. Shades]

D&C 132 was later recorded for Emma, who may not have even known of her husband's polyandrous relationships. . . So the most likely reason D&C 132 doesn't justify polyandrous relationships is that Emma didn't know about these relationships. To have discussed these relationships in D&C '132 would likely have only increased Joseph's troubles by letting Emma in on another, even worse secret practice.

Ahh, that makes much more sense. Thanks.

Joseph Smith's procreative rationale for polygamy was used repeatedly with numerous wives. . . He most decidedly did use the procreative rationale with his intended wives, and we have abundant documentation of it.

In that case, I stand corrected.

by the way, you doubtless know the story of the angel with the drawn sword. Any idea what, specifically, the angel is supposed to have said to Smith?

Yeah. Practice polygamy or be killed. I don't remember the angel saying anything about producing children, though. (By the way, there may have been a "drawn sword," but I highly doubt it was the angel holding it. . . )

He certainly made use of biblical precedent. But what reasons did he give why the ancient patriarchs themselves practiced polygamy? And was this his sole rationale?

I don't know the answer to either question.