− | it seems likely that had Bennett and Sarah been involved in a sexual liaison as public as the Goddard story implies, objections would have been raised when Smith called him to be "assistant president" six months later. Furthermore, despite the numerous cases of church action againstsexual sins brought before the Nauvoo High Council, Sarah Pratt's name is never mentioned.116One should not over read the public nature of the reported behavior. The Goddards were purportedly aware because Sarah was boarding with them—this does not necessarily mean that Bennett was making apublic spectacle of his affair. Van Wagoner's analysis also presumes that any affair between Sarah and Bennett was handled by the high council. We have already seen evidence that Joseph dealt with the initial reports of Bennett's infidelities privately, without high council involvement. In a more speculative vein, if Sarah's case was initially handled privately, Joseph may well have regarded the issue as closed—one wonders what role the Goddards may have played in first alerting the Prophet to Bennett's true nature. (Were this the case, perhaps Sarah's role was kept quiet because she promised to reform, and because Joseph wished to spare OrsonPratt the pain and embarrassment of public disclosure. Sarah's original adultery may have been resolved privately, with Orson the missionary none the wiser. When Bennett began accusing Joseph, however, the Goddards may have been given leave to reveal what they knew.) When the Bennett imbroglio blew up a year later, Joseph may have been reluctant to publicly try Sarah—if he had proposed a plural marriage to her, the revelations that a hostile adulteress could make would be disastrous. (See discussion below on whether Joseph tried to marry Sarah.) Joseph doubtless had vivid memories of Oliver Cowdery's excommunication, and the unwanted disclosures about his Fanny Alger marriage that resulted. The Goddards are not alone in their witness againstBennett and Sarah. Robert D. Foster claimed that "Mrs. White, Mrs. [Orson] Pratt, Niemans, Miller, Brotherton, and others," could confirm the claim that Bennett was a seducer, though the source of his information is not clear.117A non Mormon witness, Jacob B. Backenstos, testified that "some time during [the] winter" of 1841–1842, "he accused Doctor John C. Bennett, with having an illicit intercourse with Mrs. Orson Pratt, and someothers, when said Bennett replied that she made a first rate go." Backenstosinsisted that "from personal 116Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, footnote 12, referenced on page 34. 117Robert D. Foster, The Wasp 1 (15 October 1842): 2; cited in Price, Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy [Vol. 2], "The Sarah Pratt Case," <http://restorationbookstore.org/articles/nopoligamy/jsfp visionarticles/sarahprattcase.htm> Do not copyGregory L. Smith © 2007–2008 – Draft copy [Providedto FAIR for private use only] Page 25 of 60 observations I should have taken said Doctor Bennett and Mrs. Pratt as man and wife, had I not known to the contrary."118Van Wagoner's attempt to diffuse Backenstos' testimony is unimpressive. He argues that because Sarah was ill and pregnant, andbecause Orson was back in Nauvoo by that time, "Mormon Backenstos's statementmay thus be dismissed as slander."119(Backenstos was not, in fact, a Mormon—Van Wagoner corrects the statement in his later book, but his initial intent seems to be to impeach Backenstos on religious grounds.120) Van Wagoner's error highlights a problem with his "slander" claim—Backenstos was, unlike theGoddards, a non Mormon.121He had no religious reason to defend Joseph Smith, or to accuse Bennett unfairly. Van Wagoner's effort to brush this claim away is disingenuous. Would he have us believe that no woman has carried on an affair while her husband is in the same city? Does pregnancy preclude adultery? Given that Bennett was often accused of promising abortions ifhis liaisons resulted in pregnancy, would not a pregnant Sarah give the lovers less reason to worry about discovery? Backinstos' witness is credible on a number of fronts—if he was fabricating a tale, why be so vague as to the exact time? And, he carefully distinguishes between what he has been told by others, and what he has observed himself. Most importantly, perhaps, neither Bennett or Sarahchallenged Backinstos' witness.122If he was truly guilty of slander, why did they say or do nothing, especially when Bennett was to publish a 300 page book justifying himself and condemning his enemies? Bennett likewise said little about the Goddard accusations, though he mentions both witnesses: Stephen is named as a witness to Joseph's demand for a sheep (he would claim that he did slaughter a sheep for supper, but denied any religious meaning behind it), while Zeruiah supposedly heard Sarah Pratt declare that Joseph was "a corrupt man."123For two such damning witnesses, this is gentle treatment. 118J[acob] B. Backenstos, affidavit, 28 July 1842; published in The Wasp (Extra) (31 August 1842). http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/LDS/wasp1.htm#083142 119Van Wagoner, "Sarah M. Pratt," 79. 120Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy, 33. On Backenstos' status as a non Mormon, see Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 466. 121Van Wagoner also mistakenly identifies Jacob Backenstos as the Sheriff of Hancock County. In fact, Backenstos was related to William Backenstos, the sheriff (see Smith, Saintly Scoundrel, 82). Jacob was the clerk of the Hancock County Circuit Court before Joseph's murder (see Times and Seasons5/10 (15 May 1844): 537) and was elected sheriff by Mormon votes in 1845 (see Robert Bruce Flanders, "The Kingdom of God in Illinois: Politics in Utopia," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought5/1 (Spring 1970): 34). 122One may profitably contrast Bennett and Sarah's reaction to the Goddard and Backinstos accusations (silence) with the reaction of Bennett and the Rigdon family to Stephen Markham's accusations against Nancy Rigdon, in which the witness' credibility was questioned and he was sued for slander (see NEXTCHAPTER). 123Bennett, History of the Saints, 231. Do not copyGregory L. Smith © 2007–2008 – Draft copy [Providedto FAIR for private use only] Page 26 of 60 Sarah said nothing to defend herself until decades later. Having left the Church, she gave an interview to anti Mormon author Wyl, and claimed that she approached Zeruiah about her testimony as soon as it appeared. "She began to sob," [claimed Sarah,] "'It is not myfault,' said she; '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."124While such a tale fits the anti Mormon trope of powerful Church leaders and members who are willing dupes or pawns, it is not terribly persuasive. Why was this matter not raised during the cross fire of charge and counter charge at Nauvoo? Even if Sarah did not wish to speak, why did Bennett not publicize this further evidence of Mormon perfidy, instead of leaving the Goddard charges unmentioned? Why did Sarah wait so long to make her accusation, speaking only when the Goddards (long residents of Utah) were safely dead?125Sarah's version is even undercut by an anti Mormon work. Mary Ettie V. Smith claimed that Sarah, occupied a house owned by John C. BennettFSarah was an educated woman, of fine accomplishments, and attracted the attention of the Prophet Joseph, who called upon her one day, and alleged hefound John C. Bennett in bed with her. As we lived but across the street from her house we saw and heard the whole uproar. Sarah ordered the Prophet out of the house, and the Prophet used obscene language to her.126Mary's book has many problems,127but she elsewhere showed no reluctance in condemning Joseph as a libertine and atheist.128Why pass up a perfect opportunity to condemn Joseph, if the Bennett/Sarahversion is the truth? We have already seen how Joseph reportedly "flagellated" Bennett for his adulteries; a violent verbal reaction from the Prophet in this instance would be in character if he discovered Sarah in sin, and it is not surprising that Joseph's rebuke would be far more public than Sarah's secret tryst. It would also be unlikely for Joseph to create a scene if he was a jilted lover, but understandable if he was railing against vice. 124Wilhelm Wyl, [Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal], Mormon Portraits Volume First: Joseph Smith the Prophet, His Family and Friends(Salt Lake City, Utah: Tribune Printing and Publishing Company, 1886), 60–63; citing Sarah Pratt (21 May 1886). 125NEED DEATH DATES!! 126Nelson Winch Green, Fifteen Years among the Mormons: Being the Narrative of Mrs. Mary Ettie V. Smith, Late of Great Salt Lake City; a Sister of One of the Mormon High Priests, She Having Been Personally Acquainted with Most of the Mormon Leaders, and Long in the Confidence of The "Prophet," Brigham Young(New York: H. Dayton, Publishers, 1860 [1858]), 30. 127On her limitations as a historical source, see John W. McCoy, "True Grit and Tall Tales: How Mary Ettie Coray (1827–1867) Got Her Man," (2006).128Green, Fifteen Years, 35–36, 51. Do not copyGregory L. Smith © 2007–2008 – Draft copy [Providedto FAIR for private use only] Page 27 of 60 The most persuasive argument against Sarah and Bennett's version—and in favor of the account offered by Joseph's supporters, Mormon and non Mormon—is Orson Pratt. Pratt would not let threats to hisecclesiastical office or his membership deter him from supporting his wife. Excommunicated, he remained in Nauvoo. He had made these sacrifices for his convictions; only an equally powerful change in those convictions would have made him reconsider. In time his view of the matter changed. When he received a letter from John C. Bennett trying to enlist him in a plot to return Joseph to Missouri, Pratt handed the letter to Joseph.129Orson was later to say that he got his information about Joseph and his wife from "a wicked source, from those disaffected, but as soon as he learned the truth he was satisfied."130He and Sarah were rebaptized on either the 19thor 20thof January 1843.131Joseph recommended that Orson divorce Sarah and marry another—more evidence that Joseph was genuinely concerned about Sarah's behaviour, and was not slandering Sarah to force the Pratts' support.132Otherwise, why risk angering Sarah further by encouraging a divorce, now that she was back in the Church? Orson made his views clear in a later letter: "J.C. Bennett has published lies concerning myself & family & the people with which I am connected.... His book I have read with the greatest disgust. No candid honest man can or will believe it. He has disgraced himself in eyes of all civilized society who will despise his very name."133Sarah later claimed that her belief never recoveredfrom this period.134Her later behaviour demonstrates that she had a talent for duplicity. Sarah soon betrayed Orson in another way, and hid her actions from everyone: During Orson's 1852 missionFSarah began to turn herchildren against Mormonism. She concealed her actions from neighbors, Church authorities, and her absent husbandF129Orson gave the letter to Joseph on 10 Jan 1843 (Smith, History of the Church, 5:251. Joseph was initially angry that Rigdon had not brought himthe letter; he later accepted Sidney's explanation that as Postmaster for Nauvoo, he felt such a course would be improper when the letter instructed him to pass it to Pratt. (See Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, 315.) 130George L. Mitton and Rhett S. James, "A Response to D. Michael Quinn's Homosexual Distortion of Latter Day Saint History," FARMS Review of Books10/1 (1998): footnote 70, citing T. Edgar Lyon, "Orson Pratt—Early Mormon Leader," (M.A. diss., University of Chicago, 1932), 31. See also Millennial Star 40 (16 December 1878): 788. 131Sources disagree on the date. For the 19th, see Woodruff, WW Journals, 2:212–213; for the 20th, see Brigham Young, "History," Millennial Star26:127; cited in Danel W. Bachman, "A Study of the Mormon Practice of Polygamy before the Deathof Joseph Smith" (Purdue University, 1975), 238n268 and "Minutes of the Quorum of the Twelve," 20 Jan.1843; cited in Van Wagoner, "Sarah M. Pratt," 80. Smith, History of the Church, 5:255–256 gives the date as 20th. 132Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 467. 133Orson Pratt, postscript to letter written by Parley P. Pratt to John Van Cott (7 May 1843), Orson Pratt Collection); cited in Van Wagoner, "Sarah M. Pratt," 82–83. 134Van Wagoner, "Sarah M. Pratt," 89–90. Do not copyGregory L. Smith © 2007–2008 – Draft copy [Providedto FAIR for private use only] Page 28 of 60 "I had not only to prevent my children from becoming Mormons, I had to see to it that they should not become imbued with such an early prejudice as would cause them to betray to the neighbors my teachings and intentions." She further explained to the reporter how she accomplished this: "Many a night, when my children were young and alsowhen they had grown up so as to be companions to me, I have closed this very room where we are sitting, locked the door, pulled down the window curtains, put out all but one candle on the table, gathered my boys close around my chair and talked to them in whispers for fear that what I said would be overheard."135Such actions may be understandable, and a modern reader repulsed by plural marriage may even be in sympathy with them. They demonstrate, however, that Sarah's post Nauvoo years were filled with duplicity, by her own admission—while Orson was away preaching his faith, Sarah undermined the faith of his children at home. At the same time that she tried to impeach the Goddards' witness, Sarah also insisted that Joseph had told her "God does not care if we have a good time, if only other people do not know it."136While this sounds like Bennett, it is inconceivable that Joseph would take this stance. Sarah elsewhere claimed that Bennett was the source of Joseph's revelation on plural marriage,137and that Joseph had "many more" than eighty wives, regardinghimself "the Christ of this dispensation."138She also insisted that William Clayton was "a brute and a drunkard,"139while Brigham Young was "the most bloodthirsty of men."140Such transparent exaggeration and fabrication make her—or at least the version presented by Wyl—a witness to be used with extreme caution. ConclusionOn one hand, we have Bennett—a serial adulterer, sociopath, and witness who perjured himself repeatedly, even over trivial matters—and Sarah Pratt, who waited until her accusers were safely dead before presenting any evidence in her own defense. Sarah also admitted to repeated deceptions of her husband and neighbors, and perjured herself repeatedly in Wyl'swork. 135Richard S. Van Wagoner and Mary C. Van Wagoner, "Orson Pratt, Jr., Gifted Son of an Apostle and an Apostate," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought21/1 (Spring 1988): 85–86; citing "Orson Pratt's Harem," New York Herald(18 May 1877): 1–4, New York City Public Library, page 2. 136Wyl, Mormon Portraits, 62. 137Wyl, Mormon Portraits, 60–63; also in Charles A. Shook, The True Origin of Mormon Polygamy(Cincinnati: The Standard Publishing Company, 1914[1910]), 130–132. 138Wyl, Mormon Portraits, 53–54. 139Wyl, Mormon Portraits, 94. 140Wyl, Mormon Portraits, 53. Do not copyGregory L. Smith © 2007–2008 – Draft copy [Providedto FAIR for private use only] Page 29 of 60 Ranged against Bennett and Sarah are the wronged husband, and multiple Mormon and non Mormon witnesses (including a hostile anti Mormon source) who were not challenged contemporaneously, and whose accounts match the available timeline. I think it probable, then, that Bennett and Sarah were engaged in an illicit affair. When Joseph learned of it, he was incensed and worried. Given that he entered plural marriage with the wives of other apostles, and was also sealed to some women whose husbands were not faithful Church members (see CHAPTER), it is possible that he did offer Sarah a plural relationship. I suspect that he did. The tenor and circumstances of that offer, however,have doubtless been distorted beyond all recognition by Bennett and Sarah. Given Joseph's apparent belief that the sealing power could both bind him to faithful members and possibly help save the less valiant, he may have hoped to link himself more tightly to Orson and help redeem Sarah from her folly. If so, he succeeded in his first goal, but failed in the second.
| |