Was “The Prophet” Joseph Smith an Abortionist? – A.T. Schroeder, 1901

Soon after the Mormons came to Utah, Brigham Young concluded that the time for the establishment of “The
Temporal Kingdom of God” was at hand. As early as February 1844, Joseph Smith, pursuant to revelation,
instructed the apostles to send a committee to California and Oregon in search of a location where the Mormons
could establish such a government of their own. (22 Mil. Star, 819 and 820; also Plural Marriage H. M. W., 21).
Not long after this the enraged Gentiles of Illinois, by forcible expulsion of Mormons from that State, added
a strong impetus to the carrying out of this purpose. The matter of polygamy now became a practical question
as a means of building up this temporal kingdom of God and making it possible for the Mormons to subdue all
the nations of the earth, as they expect to do. (7 Journal of Discourses, 53; 3 J. of D., 71; 1 J. of D., 230.) The
advantages of polygamy for this purpose were carefully estimated and the conclusion reached that a monogamic
family, when its head was 78 years of age, estimating ten children to each woman, would amount to but one
hundred and fifty-two, while the family of a polygamist would number 3,508,441. (19 Mil. Star, 432). This estimate
seems to have been made upon the basis of forty wives to each male member of the family. (19 Mil. Star, 384.)
At least one apostle, Heber C. Kimball, admits to having had more than this number (Life of Heber C. Kimball,
436), and Jos. Smith had double that number. (Mormon Portraits, 54). Brigham Young boasted that his own progeny
would be a million within 100 years. (4 Journal of Discourses, 224). With the ambition to beget the greatest
number of children, without regard to their quality or parental capacity for imparting superior culture, came also
an extensive boasting, continued to the present time, that the use of preventatives and the commission of
abortions and infanticides are abominations of the world which are unknown among Mormons.

This raises the question as to whether or not there is anything in the nature of Mormonism which will prevent the
prevalence of these evils. The facts as to the Prophet Joseph Smith’s polygamous relations when known, at
once rouse suspicion. It is admitted that the polygamic revelation was received as early as 1831. (Outlines Ecc.
Hist., 428). Apostates charged the practice of something akin to polygamy before the close of that year (Howe’s
Mormonism Unveiled, 220) and soon after the conduct of the Saints was such that their neighbors accused them
of having their wives as well as their property in common. (Evening and Morning Star, 168). In view of these facts
and the subsequently admitted and justified practices of these “Saints,” it is reasonable to believe that the Prophet’s
sexual adventures began in 1831, when the Lord first explained the beauties of polygamy, and that they continued
until his death in 1844. According to Mormon theology, they have not ceased yet. (Robert’s New Witness for God,
460; Deseret News, Sept. 14th, 52, quoted in Utah and the Mormons, 220.) Among all his numerous biographers,
none seem to have been able to give a list of the Prophet’s wives nor of his partners in pious though illicit amours.
This can be explained only on the theory that the former were so numerous, and perhaps the latter so indiscriminate
as to have made the keeping of a list of his celestial brides an impractical or undesirable labor. There are, however,
some clues to the number of the Prophet’s wives. One of these clues is a Mormon boast made in 1882—38 years
after the Prophet’s death and 51 years after his commencement of the polygamic practice—to the effect that even
then there were still living in Utah more than a dozen of his wives. (Plural Marriage Taught by the Prophet Joseph,
15). Mrs. Pratt, an apostle’s wife who knew the prophet well and personally, and who was one of those whom he
unsuccessfully attempted to seduce (Mormonism Exposed, 226), estimated the number of his wives at over eighty.

(Mormon Portraits, 54). When we remember that even in Nauvoo, “the Prophet Joseph Smith” demanded that
leading Mormons consecrate their wives by making them subject to his will as the agent of God (Mormon Portraits,
70 and 71), which duty to consecrate one’s wives was, under Brigham Young, extended to all church members
(4 Deseret News, 15; 2 Journal of Discourses, 14-38), we cannot doubt that the Prophet’s celestialized amours
exceeded the estimated eighty. Notwithstanding this (and here is the remarkable feature) there never has been
a single known child of the Prophet by any of his scores of polygamous wives. We instinctively ask why? Was
the prophet impotent? His unusually good physique and the children of his lawful wife answer “No!” Was he an
ascetic who shunned the exercise of sex function as an evil? Neither his friends nor his enemies ever accused
him of asceticism. Some who knew him pronounced him the most licentious man on earth (Mormon Portraits,
53), and the Prophet himself announced that whenever he saw a pretty woman, it was necessary for him to pray
for grace. He is also quoted as having said at another time that if the Lord had not taken him in hand, he would
have become the greatest [libertine?] in the world. (Mormon Portraits, 55.) If all of this “Prophet’s” sanctified
amours could be published, it would make a volume of libidinosity, the like of which has never yet appeared. If
any further evidence of Smith’s sexual excesses were desired, we might perhaps find it in a search for evidences
of degeneration in the “Prophet’s” children, one of whom was born deformed and a second is an inmate of an
insane asylum. All this forces upon us the conclusion that no asceticism on the part of Smith can explain the
absence of any children of his by any of his scores of polygamous wives. That the “Prophet” had sexual relation
with “spiritual wives” probably every Mormon of the Utah church will admit and must believe, else his claims
against the “Josephites” that the “Prophet Joseph” was a polygamist falls to the ground. That in many cases
preventatives were used is probable almost to certainty, as is also the conclusion, based upon human experience,
that their use alone is not an adequate explanation for the total abstinence of offspring by the “Prophet’s”
polygamous wives. It has been suggested upon convincing evidence that the result can be accounted for in
part by the fact that a large per cent of the “Prophet’s” amours were other men’s wives “for time.”

(Mormon Portraits.) This partial explanation, though founded on fact, must be rejected by Mormons because
it fails to materially decrease any inference of dishonor drawn from the facts which it is meant to explain.
Again we ask why has the “Prophet” no progeny by any of his eighty or more celestial mistresses? The
Illinois legislature of 1833 had passed laws making Smith’s practices criminal, and of course it was desirable
to avoid the furnishing of live evidences of his guilt. Can they have resorted to abortion? Let us examine
the evidence. Among Smith’s confidentials were two doctors named Foster and Bennett. They held high
rank in the church and knew all Smith’s iniquity. When Doctors Foster and Bennett apostatized and exposed
Smith’s polygamous habits, the “Prophet,” by way of defence, said that the doctors were as deep in the mire
as he was in the mud. If, then, any abortions were committed, Doctors Foster or Bennett would most likely
have been invited to superintend the operations. Did they do it? Mrs. Pratt, the legal wife of a Mormon apostle,
says that on one occasion while Dr. Bennett, then still a good Mormon of the highest rank, was calling at her
home in Nauvoo, she observed that he had partly concealed in his left sleeve an instrument, which, upon being
produced, was long, apparently composed of steel and crooked at one end, which from the description was
probably a catheter. Upon speaking of it, Bennett said: “Oh, a little job for Joseph; one of his women is in
trouble.” The operation was performed and the woman after a serious illness recovered. (Mormon Portraits,
61-62) Dr. Wyl says that several credible persons informed him that women who objected to the “blessings of
Abraham” because of the fear of consequences were regularly promised abortions. (Mormon Portraits, 133.)

It is admitted by the official Mormon Church organ of that time that many Mormons were attempting to seduce
women in the name of God, and that John C. Bennett, at least, did, while he was one of the church chiefs,
promise misguided women the protection of an abortion if they would yield to the criminal solicitations of
himself and his fellow priests. (3 Times and Seasons, 870.) I find also one circumstance related in the
autobiography of the “Prophet” which seems to me to furnish unmistakable evidence of the truth of these
statements and the Prophet’s connection with the crimes. In the beginning of 1843 Dr. John C. Bennett and
others had apostatized and were publicly exposing Smith’s licentious practices. Dr. Foster was believed to
be secretly leagued with the dissenters and opposing the Prophet from within the Church, and, among other
things, was failing to contribute money to the building of the Nauvoo House, the construction of which God
Himself had directed. Under these circumstances what was more natural than that the Prophet should threaten
to expose the crimes of dissenters as a means of cowing them into silence? In the Prophet’s autobiography,
as published in the Church organ, is the synopsis of a sermon to which no other sensible interpretation can
be given than that it was a covert threat to expose Dr. Foster’s abortions. The Prophet’s language reads thus:
“I will whip Hyrum Kimball and Esquire Wells, and everybody else, over Dr. Foster’s head, who, instead of
building the Nauvoo-House, BUILT A GREAT MANY LITTLE SKELETONS.” “Those who live in GLASS
HOUSES SHOULD NOT THROW STONES.” (20 Mil. Star, 582.) What could be plainer? Dr. Foster lives in
a glass house because he makes “a great many little skeletons,” and unless he quits throwing stones at the
Prophet, his abortions, these little skeletons, will be exposed to the public gaze. The words can mean nothing
else. Had Smith been guiltless, he would certainly have been more vigorous in prosecuting these criminals who
were his most bitter personal enemies, and he would never have contented himself with mere threatenings.

Taking all the facts together, Smith’s indubitable virility, his eighty or more wives, the entire absence of children of
his by any except the first wife, Bennett’s admission, while he was still a good Mormon, that he committed abortions
for the Prophet, the statements of several other witnesses to Dr. Wyl that abortions were regularly promised as
a protection to women who hesitated about consecrating themselves, the admission of the Church organ that
this was done at least by Dr. Bennett, one of the Church chiefs—all of these facts, together with Smith’s covert
and unexecuted threat to expose his enemy, Dr. Foster, who made “a great many little skeletons,” all convince
me that the Prophet Joseph Smith should add to his list of crimes that of procuring the commission of abortions.
A daughter of “Prophet” Brigham Young, and one of the daughters of his first counselor have been reported
through the press as having died from the result of abortions. In addition, I have quite satisfactory evidence
from members of the medical profession in Utah that the Mormon people of Utah are no more free from the
temptations of abortion (see also Mormonism by Hyde, 181), infanticide or the use of preventatives than people
of their same class outside of Utah. From all of this I infer that there is nothing in the nature of Mormon polygamy
which in itself operates as a restraint upon these criminal tendencies. We can hardly expect the followers to be
more free from these temptations than was their prophet, except as greater ignorance and simplicity in relation
to the subject might make them hesitate where the Prophet would boldly commit the crime. At the present time,
two thousand Mormon missionaries are busy endeavoring to convince the world that this abortionist is the founder
of a purer and holier religion, and was the literal “mouthpiece of God.” If God ever had a Prophet that Prophet
either was not a wholesale abortionist or the God who chose him as his servant is unworthy of human worship.