Difference between revisions of "Joseph Smith/Polygamy/John C. Bennett"

m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-\|H2 +|H))
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{FairMormon}}  
 
{{FairMormon}}  
{{H2
+
{{H1
 
|L=Polygamy book/John C. Bennett
 
|L=Polygamy book/John C. Bennett
 
|H=John C. Bennett
 
|H=John C. Bennett
|S=
+
|>=[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett/John C. Bennett Prior to Nauvoo|John C. Bennett Prior to Nauvoo]]
|L1=
 
}}
 
{{BookHeader
 
|title=[[../]]
 
|author=
 
|noauthor=
 
|section=John C. Bennett
 
|previous=[[../Polyandry|Polyandry]]
 
|next=[[Polygamy book/John C. Bennett/John C. Bennett Prior to Nauvoo|John C. Bennett Prior to Nauvoo]]
 
|notes={{PolygamyBook}}
 
 
}}
 
}}
 
<onlyinclude>
 
<onlyinclude>
Line 21: Line 11:
 
|S=
 
|S=
 
}}
 
}}
 +
</onlyinclude>
 
{{SummaryItem
 
{{SummaryItem
 
|link=Polygamy book/John C. Bennett/John C. Bennett Prior to Nauvoo
 
|link=Polygamy book/John C. Bennett/John C. Bennett Prior to Nauvoo

Revision as of 19:46, 28 July 2017

FAIR Answers—back to home page

John C. Bennett



John C. Bennett



John C. Bennett Prior to Nauvoo

Summary: Bennett's early behavior can teach us much about how to interpret his behavior and claims from the Nauvoo period.

Bennett's Brothel at Nauvoo

Summary: Bennett had a brothel, and some have claimed that the Mormons' tolerance of it illustrates their moral depravity. In fact, the Saints destroyed the brothel and ultimately excommunicated Bennett for this and related acts.

Rise and Fall of Bennett in Nauvoo

Summary: Bennett quickly rose in influence and popularity in Nauvoo, but his inappropriate behavior ultimately led to his excommunication. In return, he vowed revenge on Joseph Smith.

Sarah Pratt

Summary: John C. Bennett and Joseph Smith exchanged charges, each claiming that the other had attempted the seduction of Sarah Pratt, wife of apostle Orson Pratt. Learn about this complex period of LDS history here.

John C. Bennett and Prostitution in Nauvoo

Summary: Bennett was charged with procuring women for purposes of prostitution, and teaching others in Nauvoo how to religiously manipulate women into sexual intercourse. These events eventually led to Bennett's excommunication. Individuals drawn into Bennett's schemes would later play a role in the events that led to Joseph's incarceration and murder in Carthage.

Nancy Rigdon and Plural Marriage

Summary: Even more complex than the Sarah Pratt episode, Sidney Rigdon's daughter Nancy was approached by Joseph Smith regarding plural marriage.

Sidney Rigdon and Bennett's charges

Summary: In part due to Bennett's determination to disgrace Joseph, the Nancy Rigdon episode almost led to a rupture between Joseph and his long-time friend and counselor in the First Presidency. A miraculous series of events convinced Sidney to continue to support Joseph, though the Prophet's confidence in his counselor was never entirely restored.
See also Brian Hales' discussion
Some charge an early involvement with Nancy and/or Athalia Rigdon, but these charges are implausible.

The third change, which occurred in April, came as Joseph Smith made his second proposal to a previously unmarried woman in Nauvoo and the first proposal since his marriage to Louisa Beaman.

John C. Bennett arrived in Nauvoo in September of 1840 and stayed less than two years. In spite of his relatively brief time living among the Saints, his impact upon the secret expansion of plural marriage was immense.

His accusations against Joseph Smith could not be based upon firsthand knowledge. Clearly, Bennett was positioned to hear rumors about polygamy and the identities of plural wives. However, his apparent distance from the nucleus of Nauvoo polygamy is obvious in his writings and accusations.

William Law was Joseph's counselor, but eventually broke with the Prophet and helped publish the Nauvoo Expositor.

William Marks related that Joseph’s conversation denouncing plural marriage occurred “three weeks before his death” or around June 6. Perhaps Joseph had such a change of heart during the first week of June, but this seems unlikely and other parts of Marks’ recollection are implausible.