Sarah Pratt: Credible Witness?

[_Runtu]

A few observations:

1. Family lore of the descendants of Sarah and Orson (her children left the church in large part but many of the descendants returned and some have been general authorities) attribute Sarah's mistake to being deceived by John C. Bennett when Orson was on his mission. After Bennett left the Church, Bennett claimed that Joseph had seduced Sarah, and Bennett's story was published in the Sangamo Journal. Joseph Smith repeatedly denied this story, and felt that he was forced to publish previously confidential information he had about Bennett, that one of the reasons for Bennett's excommunication was his affair with Sarah Pratt. Contemporaneous writings indicate that Bennett would tell young ladies that Joseph had received a revelation that men could have sex with any available woman and Bennett was there to comply. John D. Lee's confessions indicate that Bennett had had an affair with Pratt. Non-member Jacob Backenstos (Sheriff) executed and published an affidavit saying that Bennett had told Backenstos that the former had had an affair with Sarah, and that "she had made a first rate go."

Orson Pratt came home from his mission and discovered that church officials were in the middle of investigating the allegations of the affair, and that the church was coming close to excommunicating Sarah, withdrawing a food allotment given the wives of missionaries. (Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker, A Book of Mormons [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1982], 211), although this is excerpted from a secondary source and I lack this particular book.)

A Community of Christ-friendly website which reproduces the affidavits and counter-affidavits is at http://restorationbookstore.org/article ... ttcase.htm.

Once Orson came to conclusion that Joseph had not had the affair, or had authorized Bennett's affair, he forgave Sarah and returned to the church (or depending on how you looked at it, returned to fellowship). From Nauvoo forward, however, Sarah was an unbeliever, thinking that her deception was Joseph Smith's fault. One of her sons became a notorious hunter of Mormons for incarceration under the Edmunds-Tucker Act.

2. Wyl was a notorious muckraker and yellow journalist. This little piece (which is really well known in historical circles) was published after Orson's divorce of her, and after Orson's death, and after the church turned down her request for a pension. It wasn't until after the church turned down her request for a pension in Salt Lake that she really became virulently anti-Mormon.

One of the challenges in understanding Mormon history is that one must be discerning in the authorities offered. They tend to be quite polar -- either very anti-Mormon or very pro-Mormon. I don't quite believe either side fully, but am willing to look for areas of agreement between them -- the standard historical method.

rcrocket

Thanks, Bob. That's probably the most thoughtful post I can remember from you here. As I said, I don't know how to take her statements. She obviously got some things absolutely right (such as the Partridge sisters, Mrs. Harris, and Louisa Beaman), but it's hard to say what was really going on beyond those known details.

[_It occurs to me . . .]

It's not his fault that apparently god tricked him by sending warm and fuzzy thoughts about an abortionist and sexual predator - enough to make him his number one adviser.

Obviously Joseph's Super Duper Countenance Detector was inferior to Will's. I guess we all have different gifts right? Joseph must have been endowed with other gifts.

[_William Schryver]

Joseph must have been endowed with other gifts.

Yes, he certainly must have been. And one of them must have been the ability to please his plural wives, since we are unaware of any of them ever even expressing displeasure with him, let alone denouncing him in any way. Now that's quite a man, if you ask me. According to Sethbag, Joseph bedded dozens of women in his day -- and not a one of them felt spurned afterwards? Amazing! Indeed, some of them almost spoke reverentially of him. I especially like Eliza Snow's response (no doubt with a glint of fond recollection in her eye) to someone who suggested that Joseph Smith would never have consummated his plural marriages, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that . . . "

So while you offended moderns are fanning the embers of outrage towards Joseph Smith and his allegedly wild escapades in Nauvoo, I find it quite telling that those in the best position to judge him harshly, the women you assure us were harmed, pointedly fail to do so. Indeed, they continue to regard him as a "Prophet of God" to their dying day.

But why give them any voice in the matter, right? No doubt they were all just a bunch of giddy "whores from their mother's breast," anxious to be counted among this depraved Lothario's uncounted conquests.

[_Runtu]

Joseph must have been endowed with other gifts.

Yes, he certainly must have been. And one of them must have been the ability to please his plural wives, since we are unaware of any of them ever even expressing displeasure with him, let alone denouncing him in any way. Now that's quite a man, if you ask me. According to Sethbag, Joseph bedded dozens of women in his day -- and not a one of them felt spurned afterwards? Amazing! Indeed, some of them almost spoke reverentially of him. I especially like Eliza Snow's response (no doubt with a glint of fond recollection in her eye) to someone who suggested that Joseph Smith would never have consummated his plural marriages, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that . . . "

So while you offended moderns are fanning the embers of outrage towards Joseph Smith and his allegedly wild escapades in Nauvoo, I find it quite telling that those in the best position to judge him harshly, the women you assure us were harmed, pointedly fail to do so. Indeed, they continue to regard him as a "Prophet of God" to their dying day.

But why give them any voice in the matter, right? No doubt they were all just a bunch of giddy "whores from their mother's breast," anxious to be counted among this depraved Lothario's uncounted conquests.

Are you channeling Juliann, Will? This is perhaps the dumbest defense of polygamy I've ever heard: the women didn't complain, and our disapproval of the practice means we're anti-feminists who want to silence these women who deserve to heard, dammit! Hell, the Jonestown folks didn't complain while they were lining up to drink the Kool-Aid, did they? What a stupid, stupid argument, Will.

[_William Schryver]

Stupid?

It’s “stupid” to note the glaring incongruity between the judgment of Joseph Smith by you and others -- looking back from 160+ years – and the judgment of those whom you claim were the victims of his crimes?

Hardly.

Indeed, the irony is almost palpable. You go to great lengths to compile these l-o-n-g lists of the women whom Joseph Smith victimized, and yet a simple examination of their own words reveals that none of them considered themselves harmed by the man. To the contrary, they speak favorably of him for the remainder of their otherwise “god-fearing” lives.

It is an extraordinarily pertinent argument, and anyone who believes that Joseph Smith was an amoral predator should be completely mystified by it. Of course, that’s why you want to draw attention away from these facts. They demonstrate an obvious weakness in your claims that Joseph Smith was a megalomanic monster.

And please refrain from playing the Jonestown card. It’s like throwing down an Old Maid card in the middle of a game of Texas Hold’em. It makes you look desperate.

[_rcrocket]

I especially like Eliza Snow's response (no doubt with a glint of fond recollection in her eye) to someone who suggested that Joseph Smith would never have consummated his plural marriages, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that . . . "

And I've always considered that to be a dodge and a non-answer.

[_William Schryver]

I especially like Eliza Snow's response (no doubt with a glint of fond recollection in her eye) to someone who suggested that Joseph Smith would never have consummated his plural marriages, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that . . . "

And I've always considered that to be a dodge and a non-answer.

I don't know why. The implication is quite clear, to most people at least. It was certainly understood at the time to be an explicit acknowledgment of the "carnal" nature of Joseph's plural marriages.

Why, and in what way, do you consider it a "dodge"? Are you saying that Eliza meant to deny that she had been Joseph's wife in very deed (to use a phrase popular at the time)?

[cacheman]

Stupid?

It’s “stupid” to note the glaring incongruity between the judgment of Joseph Smith by you and others -- looking back from 160+ years – and the judgment of those whom you claim were the victims of his crimes?

Hardly.

Indeed, the irony is almost palpable. You go to great lengths to compile these l-o-n-g lists of the women whom Joseph Smith victimized, and yet a simple examination of their own words reveals that none of them considered themselves harmed by the man. To the contrary, they speak favorably of him for the remainder of their otherwise “god-fearing” lives.

It is an extraordinarily pertinent argument, and anyone who believes that Joseph Smith was an amoral predator should be completely mystified by it. Of course, that’s why you want to draw attention away from these facts. They demonstrate an obvious weakness in your claims that Joseph Smith was a megalomanic monster.

And please refrain from playing the Jonestown card. It’s like throwing down an Old Maid card in the middle of a game of Texas Hold’em. It makes you look desperate.

Yes, Will, I've repeatedly said Joseph Smith was a megalomaniacal, amoral sexual predator. ROFL. People willing do all kinds of things, and we are under no obligation to accept their rationalizations at face value. But you seem to think that because people went along with Joseph Smith's behavior willingly, that justifies Joseph's behavior. That is an extraordinarily stupid argument, Will.

I think the Jonestown card works nicely; I used it because you reminded me of this woman they interviewed on NPR last year who said that we shouldn't judge Jim Jones by the suicides but by the good he did for his people. It also illustrates that the willingness of a participant has no bearing on the rightness of what is done to that person.

And since you're practically begging for a l-o-n-g list of Joseph Smith's "victims," here are some more:

Me (my life has been ruined by that awful, AWFUL man!)
Natty Bumppo
Judge Howard Porter and his long-suffering mother
The Doublemint Twins
Emmeline Grangerford
Mikey Simon
Simon Ritchie
Mayor McCheese
Joshua Steed
Pyewacket
Darby Crash
Anung Un Rama
Fanny Brawne
Roderick Jaynes
Hilly Kristal
Huddie Ledbetter

[_rcrocket]

I don't know why. The implication is quite clear, to most people at least. It was certainly understood at the time to be an explicit acknowledgment of the "carnal" nature of Joseph's plural marriages.

You need to be more discriminating. Moreover, "implication" and "explicit" are two mutually exclusive concepts.

rcrocket

[_Jason Bourne]

Stupid?

It’s “stupid” to note the glaring incongruity between the judgment of Joseph Smith by you and others -- looking back from 160+ years – and the judgment of those whom you claim were the victims of his crimes?

Hardly.

The reason it is stupid is because:

1: They had a major investment in plural marriage. If they were not ok with it then what does that reflect on them and their characters? Of course they would defend it.
2: They clearly did believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. And maintaining that belief was vital to them. If they gave it up then they would obviously feel extremely bad, foolish and even dumb.
3: THey were victims (assuming that Joseph did not get this commandment from God) because he was in power and had extremely strong influence over them. Prophet comes to them and says "God says marry me, you are mine from eternity, you can get exalted and your family too, God will slay me by and angel with a flaming sword if you don't....."
4: Look at what happened to Nancy Rigdon's reputation when she refused Joseph's proposal, and William Law and his wife when they refused.

This is why your argument is stupid.


Indeed, the irony is almost palpable. You go to great lengths to compile these l-o-n-g lists of the women whom Joseph Smith victimized, and yet a simple examination of their own words reveals that none of them considered themselves harmed by the man. To the contrary, they speak favorably of him for the remainder of their otherwise “god-fearing” lives.

And please refrain from playing the Jonestown card. It’s like throwing down an Old Maid card in the middle of a game of Texas Hold’em. It makes you look desperate.

In spite of the MAD boards infuriation when such comparisons are made they are valid. The bigger question is why do you give Joseph the green light when if anyone else did this you would cringe?