Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:25, 7 July 2008

Template:Medcabbox

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Latter Day Saint movement Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

OR and SYN

Attempting to state that we don't know of Joseph Smith's children because of abortion violates two policies: original research and synthesis. The edit draws a conclusion with facts not in evidence. More importantly, the source is currently being discussed for not qualifying as a reliable source. Please see discussion on the Joseph Smith, JR. page. Cheers. --Storm Rider 00:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete this page

This page has no relevance whatsoever. If proving Smith's polygamous children is the reason it exists, it is a house built of old paper. Since the RLDS Church no longer follows a lineal presidency, it makes this doubly irrelevant. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

POV Deletions Based on No Evidence or Good Reason

The content on this page is well cited based on reliable sources, including genealogical research appearing in the Deseret News and Template:Cite article, so at the very least these deletions violate WP:PRESERVE, as well as these reliable sources:

• Newell 1994, p. 111
• Smith 1971, p. 113
• Wymetal 1886, p. 61

Newell 1994 and Smith 1971 have been used as a reliable source on several Smith and Saints-related history pages. It is revealing that this scholarship is characterized as "pulp fiction" and "National Enquirer" on this single point. Please stop the POV campaign of deleting and attempting to suppress these highly relevant facts reported in numerous reliable sources, as well as the discussion on this talk page. Finally, here are the relevant passages from the reliable sources cited, which clearly state eyewitness allegations from Sarah Pratt that Dr. John C. Bennett performed abortions on Smith's single wives, from Zeruiah Goddard that Bennett told Pratt he performed abortions, that Smith ordered an ineffective public relations campaign to rebut Bennett (as reported in the newspaper record and published histories), and that both Smith and brother Hyrum Smith were aware that Bennett was performing abortions :

"Bennett had learned of plural marriage, maybe from Joseph himself, and plunged in with alacrity. 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. He and his friends called their system of seduction “spiritual wifery,” a term that had been used in the early establishment of plural marriage. The city rocked with tales that connected Joseph with Bennett's scandals, and Emma undoubtedly heard the rumors." Newell, Linda King (1994). Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith (2d ed.). University of Illinois Press. p. 111. ISBN 0252062914.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

"Bennett was also charged with performing abortions, or “embryo infanticide,” a charge that was likely true. Hyrum Smith alleged Bennett seduced women with the promise “that he would give them medicine to produce abortions, providing they should become pregnant.” Zeruiah Goddard claimed Bennett told Sarah Pratt “that he could cause abortion with perfect safety to the mother at any stage of pregnancy, and that he had frequently destroyed and removed infants before their time to prevent exposure of the parties, and that he had instruments for that purpose.” Pratt amplified these comments years later in Salt Lake City. According to Dr. Wilhelm Wymetal, Pratt related that when Joseph Smith had intercourse with women, “Dr Bennet was always on hand, when anything happened.” Bennett had a long instrument that was made “of steel and was crooked at one end” that he used for inducing abortions. In late August 1842 Joseph Smith called on many elders in Nauvoo “to go on missions and rebut Bennett's lies and disabuse the public mind.” More than three hundred elders fanned out from Nauvoo, “heavily laden with such certificates to rebut the statements of Bennett.” The elders tried to encourage editors to insert these statements and affidavits into their newspapers. Few succeeded, but many newspapers mentioned that these anti-Bennett certificates had been published in the Mormon press." Smith, Andrew F. (1971). The Saintly Scoundrel: The Life and Times of Dr. John Cook Bennett. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. p. 113.

" “a little job for Joseph one of his women was in trouble.” Saying this, he took a pretty long instrument of a kind I had never seen before. It seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one end. I heard afterwards that the operation had been performed; that the woman was very sick, and that Joseph was very much afraid that she might die, but she recovered. , “I saw that he was not inclined to believe the truth about his father, so I said to him: 'You pretend to have revelations from the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord to tell you what kind of a man your father really was?' He answered: 'If my father had so many connections with women, where is the progeny?' I said to him: 'Your father had mostly intercourse with married women, and as to single ones, Dr. Bennett was always on hand, when anything happened.” Wymetal, Wilhelm Ritter von (1886). Joseph Smith, the Prophet, His Family, and His Friends: A Study Based on Facts and Documents. Salt Lake City, UT: Tribune Printing and Publishing Company. p. 60–61.

Finally, Wymetal's scholarship is preceded by the testimonials of several high ranking and notable persons attesting to his character and judgment, such as this one from the Governor of the Territory of Utah, Eli H. Murray,

TERRITORY OF UTAH, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, SALT LAKE CITY, May 2, 1885.

To whom this may come:
Dr. W. Wyl, a representative of the Berliner Tageblatt, and who is commended to me from a high personal and official source as a "highly cultivated and thoroughly reliable gentleman," has for four months assiduously labored in the investigation of the questions involved in Mormonism. I am satisfied that he has given the subject careful study, and is therefore qualified to write advisedly of the situation, past and present. Respectfully,

ELI H. MURRAY,
Governor. link

Certainly, Wymetal satisfies Misplaced Pages's standards for a reliable source. Claims about WP:OR, WP:SYN, and relevance above are fatuous and, I believe, part of a POV attempt by these editors to suppress verifiable facts from these reliable sources. Also see Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.. That this has continued to this page may be regarded as a violation of WP:EW. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Please keep the conversation to one article

Ecrasez, as you know this topic is being discussed at the Joseph Smith article. Everything you wrote above appears to be a copy of the same arguments you made there. We try not to be redundant and it would be best to handle the topic in one article; does that make sense to you? I suppose we could all just copy every edit on every article that you have carried this same topic to, but that seems senseless. What do you recommend, we all copy and paste or just keep it in one article?

Also, this appears like another redundant article. We have talked about this concept before, but you seem to want to create more and more articles and copy the same material to each one. Wouldn't naturally be found on the polygamy article(s) or at least one of them? --Storm Rider 05:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A complete misrepresentation. That discussion is about a single sentence in a summary article. This article contains extensive background, details, and genealogical research. Do not WP:REMOVE. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on sources and allegations of POV forking

A couple of comments based on the edits I have seen here and the comments by other editors:

1. After looking over the content, it appears well sourced on the surface. For those that allege that these are not reliable sources, can you back up your claims? Otherwise I tend to lean on keeping the information.
2. I agree that the abortion stuff might be POVforkish - but the other information, such as the list of possible children born to polygamous wives is perfectly appropriate for this kind of list article, and it would definitely be incomplete without it. I don't think the article as a whole is a POV fork, and most of the information should be able to stand on its own as is.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of this information is being debated right now. In addition, the page is up for quick deletion. The creator of most of this stuff is losing the argument being mediated ably by one intelligent user. Info based on hearsay or rumor shouldn't be given a forum without being qualified as such. Allowing this to be read by Misplaced Pages readers having no background in the subject matter is us failing as competent editors. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I just posted my opinion on the debate at the other article. I will edit accordingly. (That is, I will seriously consolidate the abortion section, but the list of alleged children should probably stay as long as the references are credible). --Descartes1979 (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Descartes for seeking a middle ground. I agree that the article as a whole is not a POV fork, just the abortion stuff as you point out. I wonder if giving the abortion allegations their own heading is undue weight, when the subject has been trimmed down to two sentences and when no other historian even comes close to presenting these as historical fact. I'd suggest just merging it with the preceding section. I also took the liberty to make a few other changes: removed Newell - the reference does not support the claims in the text; consolidated a lot of redundancy in the footnotes; and removed the full quotes of Pratt - they didn't add anything really new to the text and it seemed a little weird having three separate footnotes in a row for the same reference. I was almost tempted to remove Wymetal as redundant since Smith (a modern historian) is quoting him, but Smith does not mention Pratt's comment to JSIII so in that Wymetal is not redundant. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolute silliness

What on earth is the purpose of listing people already disproved as Smith's offspring? To further discredit the Smith family for no reason other than POV? Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you to a certain extent - I would say if there have been allegations made that a child was the offspring of J.S. and disproved later, he/she should probably remain on the list - however, after looking over the list, I wonder if some of it is original research in that Ecrasez just pulled a list of children of these wives, and made the assumption that they may have been J.S.'s children. Lets work to add a reference to each alleged child. Just because they were disproved by DNA testing does not mean they should escape mention altogether. Ecrasez, can you comment on where you got the listing? --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sniper, one of the benefits of such a list to demonstrate those allegations that have been made in the past, but have no basis in fact and have been disproved through scientific research. It would probably be helpful to refernence the groups or individuals who have been making the claims that have been proven false so that their "scholarship" is appropriately credited. After all, if the purpose is to belittle, which it appears a lot of the this editing seems to be about, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander. When readers can go to an article and see facts, it tends to shed light on just how much junk is bandied about about Joseph Smith. I do not support hearsay, innuendo, etc. being treated as appropriate for any article unless it is clearly labeled as such. Does that sound reasonable to you? --Storm Rider 21:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks again. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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:

• Smith 1971, p. 82.

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):

“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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages'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:

• Newell 1994, p. 111
• Smith 1971, p. 113
• Wymetal 1886, p. 61

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 refused, Bennett stated that he came with Joseph's approval."
4. "Bennett's indiscretions "rocked 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)

Protected

The page is now protected for 5 days days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

References removed

I notice that all bona fide references from the 1840s re: Bennett have been removed. As soon as the protection is gone, they will be placed back. Obviously the facts from the time conflict with the user's POV obsession to base everything on hearsay forty years after events supposedly happened, instead of reading the affidavits and publications of the period. A Sniper (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are sources about which there are no disputes that need re-adding, please make a request via placing a {{editprotected}} template here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please also note, that primary sources, if used at all, need to be used very cautiously: Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original research. Better, make use of reputable published secondary sources instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you would please scroll up a short way you'll see a post by FyzixFighter. He notes that the single user who has created the atmosphere of an edit war, as opposed to joining in with the consensus of regular contributors, reverted a version being built by that consensus. Best, A Sniper (talk)

Rather it is you that is waging an edit war that attempts to delete or supprress of this reliable source history based upon a slanderous attack on Sarah Pratt's reputation. Furthermore, you misrepresent your own edits in your edit war as minor ("m") ones. You have had numerous opportunities to WP:PROVEIT and document your claims by citing reliable sources and have failed to do so every single time. Instead you simply regurgitate calumny from Joseph Smith's mouth against the character of Sarah Pratt, allegations that are dismissed as "highly improbably" and "slander" by the Mormon historian Richard S. Van Wagoner link. If you can support your claims by citing reliable sources, then WP:PROVEIT. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A slanderous attack on Sarah Pratt's reputation? Is this your whole POV spin: to clear the name of Pratt? And in the process to disregard any sources from the 1840s - sworn affidavits, church meeting minutes, church publications, newspaper articles, etc? I would think that your edits are so obsessed with using hearsay against Smith that you're willing to disregard the statements, some of them sworn, of (literally) dozens of Nauvoo folk. Your allegations are in every way fringe. A Sniper (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am impressed that you are so concerned about a slanderous attack on Mrs. Pratt. To be so offended at an injustice is an admirable quality. What is so surprising is how willing you are to use any means to slander the character of Mr. Smith. That seems like a moral conflict that is not logical. Vous pouvez seulement écraser quelqu'un avec la vérité, pas avec des mensonges, n'est ce pas? --Storm Rider 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Pratt

. As already detailed by citations to reliable sources above, this regurgitated calumny from Joseph Smith's mouth against the character of Sarah Pratt is dismissed as "highly improbably" and "slander" by the Mormon historian Richard S. Van Wagoner link. If you can support your claims by citing reliable sources, then WP:PROVEIT. You have also ignored ≈ jossi ≈'s note to you above that, "primary sources, if used at all, need to be used very cautiously: Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original research. Better, make use of reputable published secondary sources instead." Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

. From original sources of the time:


In the spring of 1841 Dr. Bennett had a small neat house built for Elder Orson Pratt's family and commenced boarding with them. Elder Pratt was absent on a mission to England. (Ebenezer Robinson, The Return, 2 : 363)

John C. Bennett became suspected, and...He was accused of selling offices in the military organization , to certain men who would help him win the good graces of some of the young sisters, and that he became intimate with Orson Pratt's wife, while Pratt was on a mission. That he built her a fine frame house, and lodged with her, and used her as his wife....He said that the Prophet gave him permission to do as he had done with Mrs. Pratt. (Lee, J.D. Mormonism Unveiled: or The Life and Confessions of the Late Mormon Bishop, John D. Lee , 147–148)


Affidavit of J. B. Backenstos.
State of Illinois ss.
Hancock County

Personally appeared before me Ebenezer Robinson acting Justice of the Peace, in and for said county, J. B. Backenstos, who being duly sworn according to law, deposeth and saith, that some time during last winter, he accused Doctor John C. Bennett, with having an illicit intercourse with Mrs. Orson Pratt, and some others, when said Bennett replied that she made a first rate go, and from personal observations I should have taken said Doctor Bennett and Mrs. Pratt as man and wife, had I not known to the contrary, and further this deponent saith not.

J. B. Backenstos

Sworn to, and subscribed, before me the 28th day of July, 1842.
E. Robinson, J. P. (Affidavits and Certificates Disproving the Statements and Affidavits Contained in John C. Bennett's Letters, August 31, 1842)


Alas, none but the seduced join the seducer; those only who have been arraigned before a just tribunal for the same unhallowed conduct can be found to give countenance to any of his black hearted lies, and they, too, detest him for his seduction, these are the ladies to whom he refers his hearers to substantiate his assertions. Mrs. White, Mrs. Pratt, Niemans, Miller, Brotherton, and others. (Nauvoo Wasp 1 : 2)


July 23,1842.

Mr. Orson Pratt, Sir:—Considering a duty upon me I now communicate to you some things relative to Dr. Bennett and your wife, that came under the observation of myself and wife, which I think would be satisfactory to the mind of a man could he but realize the conduct those two individuals...I would have been glad to have forever in silence if it could have been so and been just.
I took your wife into my house because she was destitute of a house, Oct. 6,1840, and from the first night, until the last, with the exception of one night, it being nearly a month, the Dr. was there as sure as the night came, and generally two or three times a day—on the first three nights he left about 9 o'clock—after that he remained later, sometimes till after midnight; what their conversation was I could not tell, as they sat close together, he leaning on her...whispering continually or talking very low—we generally went to bed and had one or two naps before he left.
After being at my house nearly a month she was furnished with a house by Dr. Foster, which she lived in until sometime about the first of June, when she was turned out of the house and came to my house again, and the Dr. came as before.
One night they took their chairs out of doors and remained there as we supposed until 12 o'clock or after; at another time they went over to the house where you now live and come back after dark, or about that time. We went over several times late in the evening while she lived in the house of Dr. Foster, and were most sure to find Dr. Bennett and your wife together, as it were, man and wife. Two or three times we found little Orson lying on the floor and the bed apparently reserved for the Dr. and herself—she observing that since a certain he had rather sleep on the floor than with her.
I am surprised to hear of her crying because Bro. Joseph attempted to kiss her as she stated, even if he did do it; for she would let a certain man smack upon her mouth and face half a dozen times or more in my house without making up the first wry face. I will not mention his name at present.
There are many more things which she has stated herself to my wife, which could go to show more strongly the feelings, connexion, and the conduct of the two individuals. As to the lamb which Dr. Bennett speaks of, I killed it, and kept a hind quarter of it for my own use, and saw the Dr. and Mrs. Pratt eat of the balance; The Dr. told me he would like to have me save enough blood to make a French pudding, which I believe Mrs. Pratt spoke of afterwards and said it looked so that she could not eat it. I had not instructions to save the entrails, and the Dr. was not present to sacrifice them himself, consequently his statements that he burned them on twelve stones is a falsehood, for the hogs eat them.

Your friend
Stephen H. Goddard

I certify that the above statement of my husband is true according to the best of my knowledge.

Zeruiah N. Goddard. Sworn to before me July 23d 1842.

Geo. W. Harris, Alderman of the City of Nauvoo. (Ibid., August 31, 1842)


Dr. Bennett came to my house one night about 12 o'clock, 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 I have no other reason. I concluded from circumstances that she had promised to meet him somewhere and had disappointed him; on another night I remonstrated with the Dr. and asked him what Orson Pratt would think, if he could know that you were so fond of his wife, and holding her hand so much; the Dr. replied that he could pull the wool over Orson's eyes.
Mrs. Pratt stated to me that Dr. Bennett told her, that he could cause abortion with perfect safety to the mother, at any stage of pregnancy, and that he had frequently destroyed and removed infants before their time to prevent exposure of the parties, and that he had instruments for that purpose &c.
My husband and I were frequently at Mrs. Pratt's and stayed till after 10 o'clock in the night, and Dr. Bennett still remained there with her and her little child alone at that late hour.
On one occasion I 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.
I would further state that from my own observation, I am satisfied that their conduct was anything but virtuous, and I know Mrs. Pratt is not a woman of truth, and I believe the statements which Dr. Bennett made concerning Joseph Smith are false, and fabricated for the purpose of covering his own iniquities, and enabling him to practice his base designs on the innocent.

Zeruiah N. Goddard (Ibid.)


Joseph Smith Ill's Interview with Sarah Pratt

I was visiting in the home of a retired physician named Benedict. In conversation with him and his wife, I mentioned Elder Orson Pratt, then deceased, and asked them if they knew the woman who was his wife when he lived in Nauvoo, and whether or not she were still living. They said, "Why, yes; she lives with some sons of hers only about two blocks from here, and we know her well."
For certain reasons which I believed to be good, I was desirous of having a talk with Mrs. Pratt, whom I had known at Nauvoo. So I asked Doctor Benedict if he would go with me to call upon her. He consented to do so, and after lunch we repaired to the house and I was presented to the lady.... The latter part of my conversation with her revolved around the matters I had had particularly in mind when I sought the interview. I asked her, "Sister Pratt, will you allow me to ask you some rather personal and delicate questions?"
"You may ask me any questions proper for a lady to hear and answer," she replied.
I assured her I would use no language a lady should not hear and did not wish to ask any improper question or one she might not answer in the presence of Dr. Benedict who was with me. But I told her I felt there were some which referred to my father and herself which only she could answer. I asked her to consider the circumstances in which I was placed. I was the son of the Prophet; had been baptized by him; was a member, though a young one, at the time of his death, and thought that I had understood, in part at least, the principles the church taught and believed. But following his death certain things were said about him, his teaching and practice, which were at variance with what I had known and believed about him and about the doctrines he presented. Naturally I wanted to know the truth about these matters, for I assured her I would much rather meet here in this life whatever of truth might be revealed about those things, even though it were adverse to what I believed to be his character, than to wait until after I had passed to the other side and there be confronted with it and compelled to alter my position should such revealment prove I had been in error. She told me to proceed and the following conversation took place.
"Did you know my father in Nauvoo?"
"Yes, I knew him well."
"Were you acquainted with his general deportment in society, especially towards women?"
"Yes."
"Did you ever know him to be guilty of any inpropriety in speech or conduct towards women in society or elsewhere?"
"No, sir, never. Your father was always a gentleman, and I never heard any language from him or saw any conduct of his that was not proper and respectful."
"Did he ever visit you or at your house?"
"He did."
"Did he ever at such times or at any other time or place make improper overtures to you, or proposals of an improper nature—begging your pardon for the apparent indelicacy of this question?"
To this Mrs. Pratt replied, quietly but firmly, "No, Joseph; your father never said an improper word to me in his life. He knew better."
"Sister Pratt, it has been frequently told that he behaved improperly in your presence, and I have been told that I dare not come to you and and ask you about your relations with him, for fear you would tell me things which would be unwelcome to me."
"You need have no such fear," she repeated. "Your father was never guilty of an action or proposal of an improper nature in my house, towards me, or in my presence, at any time or place. There is no truth in the reports that have been circulated about him in this regard. He was always the Christian gentleman, and a noble man."
That I thanked Mrs. Pratt very warmly for her testimony in these matters my readers may be very sure. I had constantly heard it charged that my father had been guilty of improper conduct toward Elder Pratt's wife, and I had long before made up my mind that if I ever had an opportunity I would find out the truth from her.
The result was very gratifying to me, especially as she had made her short, clear-cut statements freely, just as I have recorded, in the presence of Dr. Benedict.
It may be added that mingled with my pleasure was a degree of astonishment that such stories as had been told about her and her relations with Father should have gotten out and been so widely circulated and yet never met with a public refutation from her. However, I expressed my appreciation of her kind reception and her statements, and at the close of our interview, which lasted about an hour and a half, left her with good wishes.
Doctor Benedict and I passed from her presence into the street in a silence which was not broken until we had gone some distance. Then suddenly he stopped, pulled off his hat, looked all around carefully, and raising his hand emphatically, said: "My God! What damned liars these people are! Here for years I have been told that your father had Mrs. Pratt for one of his spiritual wives and was guilty of improper relations with her. Now I hear from her own lips, in unmistakable language, that it was not true. What liars! What liars!"
I was glad that before she died I had her testimony, and that it had proved, as had been proved many times before, that such charges made against my father were untrue.
I have conscientiously traced statements made by various individuals inculpating my father in this wrongdoing, and in every instance I have failed to find evidence worthy to be called proof. It strikes me now, as it has for many, many years, that honorable men and women should absolve me from blame for pursuing the course I have taken, in steadfastly refusing to believe, simply because persons entangled in the evil meshes wished to involve him in their wrongdoing, that my father was a bad man and responsible for doctrines which he himself pronounced to be "false and corrupt." (Saints' Herald, January 15, 1935, 80; January 22, 1935, 109–110)

Informal Mediation Requested: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-07 Children of Joseph Smith, Jr.

I've done my best to discuss these issues here and at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and to prompt several editors to support their claims and allegations by citing reliable sources. After many, many (many) requests by me and others, no one has yet provided any. Perhaps they exist, but no one has shown otherwise, in spite of numerous requests to WP:PROVEIT. To avoid edit warring or conflict when the pages Children of Joseph Smith, Jr. and Joseph Smith, Jr. are unprotected, and in an attempt to prompt other editors to cite reliable sources to support their claims that this information should be deleted, I have requested informal mediation, consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed that Écrasez did not heed the following instruction on the Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal page:

"Fill out the information. Keep it as brief as possible. Try to present the information in a way that only describes the disagreement. To make it easy for everyone to participate and cooperate, avoid arguing for one side or the other."

The description of the dispute that Écrasez provided is just a repetition of his side of the argument and does not neutrally characterize the dispute. This is poisoning the well and such tactics make it difficult to work together toward a resolution of the issues. Écrasez, you need to show more respect for others' point of view if you want mediation to succeed. alanyst 16:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

alanyst, you appear to have some difficulty citing specifics to back up your opinions. Please state explicitly how I "poisoned the well," as you say, examples of which are listed on that page:

"Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail."

"Don't listen to what he says, he's a lawyer."

If you say something, be prepared to prove it or retract it. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to. Poisoning the well, at least according to the Misplaced Pages article, is "information presented in order to produce a biased result". In court it might be called leading the witness. Your characterization of the dispute at the MedCab page was entirely one-sided:

• "Highly relevant verifiable facts" when you are well aware that the relevance, factual basis, and verifiability of the allegations are all under dispute.
• "There has been no legitimate justification for deleting this material" when justifications have been provided; the legitimacy of the justifications is a matter of opinion, and your opinion that they are not legitimate does not belong in what ought to be a neutral summary.
• "No substantive challenge to the reliable sources" when you know that I have substantially challenged your use of Newell as a source and have established Pratt's testimony as hearsay.
• "The only challenge has been POV regurgitation of calumny" when you know that my challenge, at least, has nothing to do with the alleged Bennett-Pratt affair.
• "To date, no reliable sources or rationale consistent with Misplaced Pages policy has been provided for deleting the cited facts" when I have cited WP:UNDUE as a rationale against inclusion of the material on the Joseph Smith, Jr. page.
• You mention that edit warring occurred but, unlike your other accusations of misbehavior, didn't elaborate on the parties or give diffs. This conveniently avoids calling attention to your own participation in those edit wars.
• You say that I, among others, have failed to cite reliable sources, but I have made no claims of my own; rather I have only challenged your addition of material based on your interpretation of sources. My arguments have been based on my reading of your sources, and since you are the one making the positive assertion, you are the one who has to provide the sources.
• All of your behavior complaints are notable in their omission of User:Écrasez l'infâme as an offending party.

I stand by my use of the phrase "poisoning the well" regarding your description at MedCab. Please see my alternate description of the dispute, which manages to avoid painting your position in any sort of negative light. alanyst 19:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I did provide the sources and lots of them. As the challenger of these sources, you made a lot of illogical and easily refuted claims, like "Newell does not connect Bennett with Smith's abortions" (or words to that effect), when in fact she says

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

That's your challenge?! Based on obviously faulty reasoning like this you concluded things like WP:UNDUE. When your illogic was presented to you, you simply restated it, as if nothing ever happened, which is pretty much the to-be-avoided "contradiction with little or no supporting evidence" stage of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. As for elaboration on the edit warring, it would be neither constructive nor useful to compile a list of diffs on either side. Please feel free to do so if you disagree. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Écrasez, a simple question: To whom does Newell attribute the "system of seduction": John C. Bennett or Joseph Smith? alanyst 20:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does not bode well for any type of positive mediation. Ecrasez is so virulently against any form of information if it conflicts with his specific objectives that there appears little hope of compromise or cooperative editing. --Storm Rider 18:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think everybody needs to take a step back and put things in perspective here. This is a minor point, by any perspective. At most, we are talking about a sentence or two in this article, and maybe a footnote in the Joseph Smith, Jr. article. Also, we are not debating the veracity of Sarah Pratt here. She could be a complete liar, or a bastian of saintly virtue--for purposes of editing, it shouldn't matter. We have to ask two questions: (1) is the fact that Pratt made this allegation verifiable?--meaning: is the fact she made this allegation (a) uncontroversial or (b) citable to the type of source typically cited in scholarly publications, and (2) is the issue of abortion for Joseph Smith's wives more than just a fringe theory? If the answer to both of these question is true, then nobody should be deleting this material, although we can debate matters of style and neutrality, etc., and making sure this is not unduly emphasized in relation to the general literature on this subject. If the answer is false, then we should remove the material. Having looked at the sources and some of the modern commentary, I'm leaning toward this being a viable issue that deserves mention, though probably just a short mention. COGDEN 19:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

COgden, do you know if Brodie ever discussed Wyl's allegations? I think it is fringe because of the dearth of information from any mainline historian. It is like a black hole; a few very minor historians have quoted Wyl and Pratt's statements, but it seems like it is simply not covered by those who one would typically think would be making hay with it and no one is responding to the wild accusations.

Almost anything can be cited, but the context and quality is identified. These are heinous allegations found repugnant by any sane individual. Bennett has no credibility and Pratt seems to be a question mark for me; I have not studied her life and what happened to her after Nauvoo. There are just too many questions to come to a conclusion. --Storm Rider 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Unknown-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles