When women would reject Joseph’s polygamy and then went public with the information, Joseph would publicly denounce them as liars and harlots.
Table of contents
- When women would reject Joseph’s polygamy and then went public with the information, Joseph would publicly denounce them as liars and harlots.
- A1) D&C 132 says those taught plural marriage that don’t follow it are damned.
- A2) Zeruiah Goddard, a LDS member, claimed she signed a false statement vilifying Sarah Pratt.
- A3) Various Sources Suggest that Sarah Pratt was Publicly Called A Harlot
- A4) Martha Brotheron claimed Smith falsely accused her of being a harlot because she rejected his proposal.
- Issues these Facts Raise
- Questions these Facts Raise
A1) D&C 132 says those taught plural marriage that don’t follow it are damned.
Supporting Sources and Quotes
“For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.”
- See: D&C 132:4 at lds.org
The idea that one is damned was taught elsewhere besides scripture, such as:
Some quietly listen to those who speak against the Lord's servants, against his anointed, against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that God has revealed. Such persons have half-a-dozen devils with them all the time. You might as well deny "Mormonism," and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. What are you opposing it for? It is a principle that God has revealed for the salvation of the human family. He revealed it to Joseph the Prophet in this our dispensation; and that which he revealed he designs to have carried out by his people.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.5, p.204 - p.205, Heber C. Kimball, October 12, 1856
I speak of plurality of wives as one of the most holy principles that God ever revealed to man, and all those who exercise an influence against it, unto whom it is taught, man or woman will be damned, and they and all who will be influenced by them, will suffer the buffetings of Satan in the flesh; for the curse of God will be upon them, and poverty, and distress, and vexation of spirit will be their portion; while those who honor this and every sacred institution of heaven will shine forth as the stars in the firmament of heaven, and of the increase of their kingdom and glory there shall be no end. This will equally apply to Jew, Gentile, and Mormon, male and female, old and young.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.211, Heber C. Kimball, April 4, 1866
A2) Zeruiah Goddard, a LDS member, claimed she signed a false statement vilifying Sarah Pratt.
Supporting Sources and Quotes
To provide them with ammunition, the church press printed on 31 August a special edition of "Affidavits and Certificates, Disproving the Statements and Affidavits Contained In John C. Bennett's Letters." To discredit Sarah Pratt's accusations, the publication included a 23 July 1842 letter from Stephen A. Goddard to Orson Pratt which claimed that while Sarah was staying with the Goddards in October 1840 "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." The letter described the alleged Bennett/Pratt relationship in lurid detail: "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 came 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."
The special edition included a sworn statement from Goddard's wife, Zeruiah, 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." Hancock County sheriff J. B. Backenstos also provided a sworn affidavit testifying that during the previous winter (1841-42) he had accused Bennett of "having an illicit intercourse with Mrs. Orson Pratt. . . when said Bennett replied that she made a first rate go." But Backenstos's statement may be dismissed as slander-during the winter mentioned, Orson was in Nauvoo, and Sarah sick and pregnant with their daughter Celestia Larissa.
Years later, when totally disaffected from Mormonism, Sarah gave her account of the Goddard incident. She claimed that when she confronted Mrs. Goddard about her published accusations, "She began to sob. 'It is not my fault,' she said. '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.' "
- Richard Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, 2nd edition, p. 34 and Footnote 12, p. 38
Further Note by Richard S. Van Wagoner:
12. The Goddard story had serious problems that even Sarah did not point out. Bennett had been appointed 4 October 1840 to work with Smith on drafting the Nauvoo Charter. On this same day he was also selected as a delegate to lobby for passage of the bill through the state legislature at Springfield, nearly one hundred miles distant. That Bennett could draft the complicated documents, make the necessary trips to Springfield, and be with Sarah Pratt every night except one during a one-month period seems improbable. In addition, 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 against sexual sins brought before the Nauvoo High Council, Sarah Pratt's name is never mentioned.
Fabricated stories designed to protect both individuals and institutions in Nauvoo are seen elsewhere. Sidney Rigdon in the 18 June 1845 Messenger and Advocate reported that Parley P. Pratt, in speaking of the means by which church leaders should sustain Smith, advised that "we must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so." Not only were church leaders willing to violate the law to promote polygamy, they did not hesitate to blacken the character of individuals who threatened to expose the secret practice of plural marriage.
- Richard Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History, 2nd edition, p. 34 and Footnote 12, p. 38
A3) Various Sources Suggest that Sarah Pratt was Publicly Called A Harlot
Supporting Sources and Quotes
Nancy Rigdon was called a prostitute:
[[(In 1843 Joseph Smith proposed) spiritual marriage (to Nancy), promising her great exaltation (world) come to those who received and embraced it… (She) resented… utterly refused… (my father was) very indignant at Joseph Smith to think he should make such a proposal… it caused considerable talk among the neighbors and acquaintances of the Rigdon family.]] (“A son’s record of the life and testimony of Sidney Rigdon” Dialogue, Vol 1 No 4, footnote at archive.org)
As part of the negative consequences of her refusal of Joseph’s advances and her public account of the encounter, the “considerable talk” about Nancy included accusations of prostitution. These rumors are related in a speech given by Orson Hyde in 1845 while arguing against Sidney Rigdon’s claim of succession after the death of Joseph Smith. In this speech Orson stated that Nancy Rigdon was then considered “a poor miserable girl” in the “very slough of prostitution” (archive.org, From “Speech of Elder Orson Hyde”).
-Speech of Elder Orson Hyde delivered before the High Priests quorum in Nauvoo, April 27th, 1845 upon the course and conduct of Mr. Sidney Rigdon, and upon the merits of his claims to the presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1845); pg. 28, archive.org
Furthermore, in defending himself from the accusations of Bennett Joseph caused a series of affidavits and certificates to be published denouncing Bennett and discrediting the women whose stories Bennett circulated. This included an affidavit by Stephen Markham, a friend of Joseph, which stated that he had witnessed Nancy early on in a compromising situation with John Bennett. Markham claimed ‘many vulgar, unbecoming and indecent sayings and motions’ passed between them and testified that he was convinced that they were ‘guilty of unlawful and illicit intercourse with each other.’
He gave Sarah Pratt a warning:
“Sister Pratt, I hope you will not expose me, for if I suffer, all must suffer; so do not expose me. Will you promise me that you will not do it?” … “If you should tell,” said he, ”I will ruin your reputation; remember that; and as you have repulsed me, it becomes sin, unless sacrifice is offered.”
(“History of the Saints” page 231, archive.org <-Note this is from often considered “anti-mormon” source)
Sarah Pratt later stated:
“If any woman, like me, opposed his wishes, he used to say: ‘Be silent, or I shall ruin your character. My character must be sustained in the interest of the church.'”
( “Mormon Portraits” Wyl, p. 62 archive.org)
Note: Richard S. Van Wagoner also presented a Dialogue article titled: Sarah M. Pratt: The Shaping of an Apostate with further information here: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V19N02_71.pdf
A4) Martha Brotheron claimed Smith falsely accused her of being a harlot because she rejected his proposal.
Supporting Sources and Quotes
Note: This is from Mormonthink website:
Martha Brotherton, an 18 year-old convert from England, emigrated to Nauvoo, Illinois in 1842 with her parents. Brigham Young approached Joseph Smith to ask if he could add Martha as another plural wife. Smith agreed and called a meeting with Young and Martha. She knew nothing of the agreement between them beforehand. Her parents were not informed or invited, though she would be regarded as a dependent minor today.
After Smith and Young made great efforts to persuade her, Martha refused. They encouraged her to lie to her parents and keep their proposal a secret and tried again to convince her to accept Brigham's proposal. Martha finally appealed to them through tears and pleading that she be given time to think about the offer.
After being sworn to secrecy and permitted to leave the room, Martha revealed everything to her parents and wrote the events while the important details were fresh in her mind. She told others in Nauvoo about the episode before the family boarded a steamboat bound for St. Louis. She published her account in a St. Louis newspaper (St. Louis Bulletin, July 15, 1842, p. 2).
Smith, stung by the article, immediately denied that the events Martha described took place. He also issued false affidavits and statements that labeled Martha not only a liar, but also an apostate and "mean harlot." Smith used lies to commit character assassination when he thought the situation warranted it; no matter how young his victim was. (Arza Evans, The Keystone of Mormonism, Keystone Books Inc., 2003, St. George Utah, pp. 20-21.)
Issues these Facts Raise
This appears to be Joseph trying to assassinate someone’s character when they brought light to polygamy and told the truth. Why would he do this? I can’t think of any righteous or holy reason to launch into this, even to the point of fabricating more lies. How many lies did Joseph have to tell to cover his actions?
According to Doctrine and Covenants 132, rejecting plural marriage supposedly results in damnation. The teachings of Joseph Smith and others, like Heber C. Kimball, intensify this by claiming that those who reject or speak against polygamy would be damned and suffer spiritually. This leads to a critical question: How can a loving and just God require something as controversial and difficult as polygamy for exaltation?
The claim that affidavits were fabricated to protect Joseph Smith’s reputation or discredit those who spoke out against him calls into question the reliability of historical accounts presented by the church. If church leaders were willing to lie or manipulate stories, how much of the church’s official history can be trusted?
The recurring theme of Joseph Smith and other early leaders acting in ways that seem ethically dubious but without accountability lead to the question, Why didn’t God hold Joseph Smith or other leaders accountable for these moral failings? If prophets can act in ways that seem unjust, how can members trust future leaders?
Questions these Facts Raise
The stories of Sarah Pratt, Nancy Rigdon, and Martha Brotherton being called "harlots" and suffering character assassination for rejecting or opposing Joseph Smith’s advances bring up serious concerns about the abuse of authority. Why would early church leaders feel the need to defame women who resisted polygamy or revealed inappropriate behavior? This raises ethical concerns about leadership integrity and the extent to which church leaders might have been willing to protect the church’s reputation at the expense of individuals.
Does this mean that members' spiritual progress is subject to leaders' demands, even if they conflict with their personal beliefs or conscience?
