Welcome to Study Faith with AI, where we use the power of AI to help you explore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm Meg Jensen.

And I'm Paul Carter,

and we're Google AIs. Whether you're a lifelong member or just starting to learn about the Church, we're here to dive deep into its history, beliefs, and culture.

So, if you're ready to learn, you're in the right place.

That's right.

Let's get started. 

All right, let's unpack this. Today, we're taking a deep dive into the story of Sarah M. Pratt. Now, she's a name that might ring a bell in, you know, certain historical circles, wife of Apostle Orson Pratt,

Right? Often seen through a very specific lens, maybe.

Exactly. But the source material you've shared with us, specifically these excerpts from the Dialogue Journal article: Sarah Pratt, the Shaping of an Apostate, well, they paint a much more complex picture and, uh, frankly, a pretty controversial one.

Our mission here in this deep dive is really to use these specific sources to explore Sarah's journey, her path towards, uh, disaffection from the early LDS Church.

Yeah. Trying to understand her reasons, at least as they're presented in this historical account,

and figure out what insights this history might offer us today.

And the setting for so much of this is of course Nauvoo, the 1830s, the 40s.

A really crucial time,

Absolutely pivotal, and you know, pretty tumultuous for the early Church. Huge growth, but also these emerging doctrines that were well incredibly challenging, controversial.

And Sarah Pratt's life, as this article shows, got deeply tangled up in all of that, maybe tragically so.

And just to be clear, we're sticking strictly to the narrative and the information that's right here in the material you've given us.

Good. So, where does her story kick off in this context? She was born in New York, 1817. The sources say her family converted in the summer of ‘35,

Right? And then she marries Orson Pratt, who was already a young apostle just about a month after her own baptism in June 1836.

Wow, that's fast. Joins the Church, marries an apostle, boom.

Yeah. Jumped right in. But the challenges, according to the article, started almost immediately.

Like what?

Well, Orson's role meant he was gone a lot. Long missions,

Leaving Sarah to basically cope on her own,

And money troubles, too.

Constant reality, it seems. Even later in Nauvoo, the article specifically mentioned she had to take in sewing work just to, you know, help make ends meet. Support was meager.

And then personal tragedy on top of that. So hard. August 1839, her baby daughter Lydia died there in Nauvoo.

Yeah. And buried across the river, the article notes.

It just sets such a somber tone early on, doesn't it? You get a real sense of the personal burdens she was carrying right from those early years in the Church community.

Definitely.

Now, the article points to a specific event as like a major turning point for her. It involves John C. Bennett.

Ah, yes.

Bennett,

A newcomer. Apparently, Joseph Smith himself brought him to Sarah because Bennett needed some sewing done.

And Bennett, the source, describes him as what? Glib, influential. He climbed the ladder fast.

Became a close confidant of Joseph Smith. Even got the title assistant president.

So what was this crucial moment the source talks about?

Well, according to Bennett's account, and this is quoted in the source, Joseph Smith apparently confided in Bennett. Said he wanted Sarah for a spiritual wife.

A spiritual wife. Okay.

Claimed the Lord had given her to him. And Bennett says Joseph later proposed directly to Sarah, telling her it was God's will and well, expressing a desire for connubial bliss.

Connubial bliss? Wow. And Sarah's reaction. The article paints it as indignant. Absolute refusal. She reportedly asked if this was the big secret she wasn't supposed to tell anyone.

Flatly refused him. Said she'd never break her marriage fast.

She swore she had one good husband and that is enough for me. Strong words.

And she didn't stop there. Threatened to tell Orson as soon as he got back.

Okay, so she pushed back hard. What was Joseph's response? According to Bennett,

A chilling threat, apparently. The source says Joseph warned he'd ruin her reputation if she talked. Told her to remember that.

Remember that. And Sarah's reply.

She said she'd keep quiet unless, and this is key, strong circumstances should require it.

So, she stood her ground, but also left the door open. Sort of.

What's really striking here in the sources telling is her immediate forceful resistance. She wasn't intimidated.

Yeah. And the article mentioned she later recalled being so angry she even refused help from Church welfare.

Right. And apparently Bennett himself would later kind of tease her about Joseph's proposition,

Which just adds another weird layer to it all.

This whole incident, as the source presents, it feels like the flash point where this new secret doctrine of plural marriage just slammed right into Sarah's personal beliefs and her loyalty to Orson.

Exactly.

So, according to the source, things simmered for nearly a year and then escalated in mid July 1841.

Yeah. Bennett claimed Joseph Smith kissed Sarah right in front of him. Caused a commotion. Apparently a neighbor, Mary Ettie V. Smith, witnessed some of it.

What did the neighbor see or hear?

Smith later recalled Sarah ordering Joseph out of the house. And she apparently heard Joseph use obscene language and accused Sarah of being involved with Bennett.

So, flipping the script on her.

Seems like it. And this incident, the article suggests, might have been the strong circumstance that pushed Sarah to finally tell Orson.

Okay, so the confrontation happens. Sarah tells Orson. Orson goes to Joseph. What then?

This is crucial. Joseph didn't admit to the proposal. Instead, the source says he denied Sarah's story completely and then accused her of being Bennett's lover.

Doubling down on the accusation.

But here's the thing the material really emphasizes. Orson believed Sarah.

He believed his wife over the prophet.

Yes. And that unsurprisingly caused serious difficulties between Orson and Joseph Smith.

That moment of belief is absolutely central to everything that follows.

You can see how that would create a rift and it became public, especially after Bennett was uh disfellowshipped May 1842.

Right. And a really significant detail in the article is that Orson Pratt refused to sign the announcement about Bennett getting kicked out.

Why? What did he say?

He stated he knew nothing against him, which was a huge public stand. Really, aligning himself with Sarah's side of things against the official story challenging Joseph's accusation.

Wow. And all this is happening while rumors about Spiritual Wifery polygamy are swirling around Nauvoo.

Exactly. The climate was already thick with it. And the article points out leaders like Joseph and Hyrum Smith were publicly denying these practices were happening.

Even Emma Smith was trying to shut down the rumors through the Relief Society.

Yeah. Getting women to sign statements denying it. The source even mentions this story about Katherine Fuller Warren confessing to, um, illicit relations with Bennett and William Smith.

And justifying it by claiming leaders taught free intercourse,

Right. It just gives you a sense of the chaos and the conflicting messages flying around. You can see why someone like Sarah might be questioning things or resisting.

Okay, so Bennett's out and he threatens to expose everything. How did Joseph Smith react then?

The source describes Joseph launching public attacks, not just against Bennett, but against Sarah Pratt, too.

What kind of attacks?

The article quotes Joseph using incredibly harsh language, reportedly calling Sarah “a whore from her mother's breast.” Just brutal.

Oh my goodness. How did Orson react to his wife being publicly slandered like that?

The sources paint a picture of him in absolute turmoil,

Deeply distressed, apparently seeking solitude down by the river, even left a note that some thought sounded suicidal.

That's devastating.

Brigham Young's perspective quoted in the material is really telling. He described Orson as all but crazy.

Wow.

And blamed Sarah's influence, saying, you know, a woman was destroying him.

That perspective really highlights the sort of institutional bias against women who challenged authority, doesn't it?

Definitely, as presented in the source, seeing her as a distraction or a negative influence.

So, there was this public meeting where Joseph laid out Bennett's alleged wrongdoings in an affidavit affirming Joseph's character were published in the newspaper, The Wasp.

Correct. But the key point from the article is who didn't sign them?

Orson Pratt

and Sidney Rigdon and George W. Robinson.

And the material notes, Rigdon and Robinson had their own issues related to Joseph's polygamous proposals involving Rigdon's daughter.

Exactly. It suggests a pattern maybe where people who resisted or knew things that contradicted the official line faced pressure.

It seems like women who spoke out were particularly targeted.

Absolutely. The source really emphasizes this. Women like Sarah Pratt, Martha Brotherton, Nancy Rigdon, anyone who exposed the Church's private polygamy stance faced these intense slander campaigns.

Publications like The Wasp figures like Orson Hyde quoted in the article

calling them harlots, prostitutes, framing Joseph's actions as just trying to reprove and reclaim them. The source presents this as a deliberate strategy, discrediting the accusers to protect the leadership. That's crucial context for understanding the pressure Sarah was under, the cost of speaking her truth,

And the pressure on Orson himself just kept mounting.

Immensely. Brigham Young is quoted saying Orson came out in rebellion against Joseph, refusing to believe Joseph's testimony or obey his counsel. Why? Because he sided with his wife.

And Joseph allegedly threatened Orson. Directly told him he would go to hell if he didn't basically abandon Sarah's side of the story

Which led to Orson's excommunication.

From the Quorum of the Twelve. Yes. August 1842. The article cites Wilford Woodruff’s diary which explicitly blamed John C. Bennett for Orson's wicked course.

So the official narrative blamed Bennett, not the actual conflict over the proposal and Sarah's credibility.

Exactly. It shows that institutional need as presented in the source to control the story, protect the leadership. For you listening today, this history really underscores the historical pressure on individuals to prioritize institutional loyalty, especially to the prophet, even over personal relationships or information that contradicted the official line.

The source talks about specific efforts to discredit Sarah, like that special edition of the Wasp newspaper.

Yes. Featuring affidavits, including from the Goddards, a family Sarah had boarded with, accusing her and Bennett of having an affair.

But the article questions these affidavits.

It does. It offers a critical analysis looking at Bennett's known whereabouts at the time, suggesting the timeline doesn't quite add up.

And more importantly,

it presents Sarah's later account. She claimed Hyrum Smith pressured the Goddards into signing those statements.

Is saying what?

Telling them, "Joseph and the Church must be saved."

Wow. Joseph and the Church must be saved. That phrase right there in the source says so much, doesn't it, about the priority being institutional protection, maybe even over individual truth or reputation.

It really highlights the incredibly difficult choices people faced when the institution felt threatened.

The source also mentions a later interview, Joseph Smith's son, Joseph Smith III, met with Sarah.

Right. But it presents two completely different versions of that meeting.

His claim was that Sarah denied his father had done anything improper.

Yes. But Sarah's account was that she challenged him, told him to go ask the Lord what kind of man your father really was.

So even years later, conflicting memories, conflicting interpretations, it just shows how hard it is to pin down this history definitively.

But what the article argues strongly supports Sarah's side of the story is the corroborating evidence. Other women's accounts

Like Mary Elizabeth Rollins, Jane Law,

and others. The source details similar stories. Joseph Smith making polyandrous proposals, proposing to women already married to other men.

And these proposals were often resisted. and then followed by slander just like Sarah's experience.

Exactly the pattern the article highlights. It quotes William Law, Jane's husband, who was pretty blunt. He asserted Joseph Smith lusted after many men's wives and daughters and when they rejected him, he managed to blacken their reputations. He specifically mentions Mrs. Pratt, a good virtuous woman, as an example.

So Law saw her as a victim of this pattern.

The source acknowledges some suggested Joseph was just testing virtue,

Right? That explanation sometimes comes up,

But the article counters that. It presents evidence suggesting that with some married women, it went way beyond testing. He actually secretly married them while they were still legally married to their first husbands. This collection of similar stories really lends significant weight to Sarah Pratt's account and explains the campaign against her according to the source.

Okay, so despite all this conflict, this public slander, the excommunication attempt, the article says Sarah and Orson didn't leave Nauvoo.

Surprisingly, no. Orson even publicly reaffirmed his commitment to Mormonism, said his belief in the Gospel wasn't shaken by, you know, petty difficulties among the members.

And then Bennett sends that letter trying to get their help against Joseph.

Right. And Orson, in an act of loyalty, takes the letter straight to Joseph Smith,

Which led to Joseph declaring Orson's excommunication invalid.

Yeah. And a technicality: lack of a proper quorum. Apparently, the source also includes this detail from a meeting where Joseph spoke to Orson about Sarah's accusations. He apparently said, said she lied about me.

But he didn't tell Orson to divorce her.

Not unless Orson asked him to. According to the account,

And then maybe the most striking thing, shortly after that meeting,

Orson and Sarah were rebaptized by Joseph Smith himself.

That is complex. Staying in the fold after everything they'd been through, what does that tell us?

It highlights these incredibly complicated, maybe contradictory dynamics, doesn't it? Maybe a core belief in the Gospel itself, separate from the issues with leadership or specific doctrine or maybe just the immense difficulty of leaving the community entirely.

And the article points out these conflicting narratives kept going. Leaders publicly denying polygamy

while secretly practicing it. The source even quotes Parley P. Pratt according to Sidney Rigdon saying something like, "We have to lie to support brother Joseph. It's our duty."

That alleged justification for deceit contrasted with Sarah's later statement also in the source that she knew Bennett's expose, the main points anyway, were true.

Exactly. It shows the deep internal conflict. She must have been wrestling with institutional loyalty versus her own knowledge, her own truth. Her experience really highlights that tension for individuals caught between official stories and personal reality.

So, as time went on, how did Sarah navigate the actual practice of polygamy, which was becoming more open, at least within the inner circles?

The source describes her as becoming reluctantly entangled. Orson married his first plural wife in November 1844,

And Sarah initially had to give permission under the Law of Sarah.

Yes. The article notes that was the requirement at first and then she herself was sealed to Orson by Brigham Young on the same day.

Can you explain that Law of Sarah a bit more based on the source?

Sure. The source explains it comes from Doctrine and Covenants 132.

Yeah.

It required the first wife's consent for her husband to take plural wives. However, and this is crucial,

It also stated that if she refused consent, she became the transgressor. Her husband was then exempt and could marry anyway. So her consent was required, but if she withheld it, she was punished and he could do it anyway.

Essentially, yes. The article quotes Joseph F. Smith's later testimony saying her consent amounts to nothing but her consent. It shows the limited power a first wife ultimately had in this system as the source interprets it. That framework is really important context for Sarah's position.

Her involvement deepened, endowment council,

Right? The article links her joining the secret endowment council in December ‘44 to preparing for plural marriage and also testing loyalty and secrecy. And she witnessed Orson being sealed to more women after that.

And the hardships just continued.

Absolutely. Ongoing money problems, the source details, and just immense personal grief. Six of her 12 children died before reaching adulthood. Six.

It's heartbreaking and mostly alone.

Largely. Orson was away on missions, the source calculates, about 41% of the time between 1839 and 1868.

Oh,

It really underscores the incredible personal cost and sacrifice. Especially for women in the system whose husbands were prominent leaders.

There was also that dramatic conflict in the Nauvoo Temple January 1846 involving Orson's brother Parley Pratt.

Yes. According to the source, Parley had married secretly and Sarah apparently told his first wife Maryanne.

Uh-oh.

Big uh-oh. It led to a huge confrontation right there in the temple. Parley accused Sarah of apostasy, of slander,

And Orson?

Fiercely defended Sarah, which the article notes got both Orson and Sarah kicked out of the temple,

Expelled from the temple for defending his wife.

Orson later wrote in a letter quoted in the source that his fault was simply the opening of my mouth in Sarah's defense. Again, it shows that intense pressure against any kind of critical speech, even defending your spouse if it ruffled feathers or challenged the order.

So, the family moves west with the Saints. More hardship. 

Definitely. The source mentions severe poverty during that first awful winter of 1847-48. And Orson's missions didn't stop even after he gave the first public sermon defending polygamy in 1852.

And the article mentions a possible strain between Orson and Brigham Young, suggesting maybe Brigham kept sending him away, partly because of their past conflicts.

Yeah, the source floats that possibility. Sending him on these long-distance missions might have served multiple purposes.

The article identifies the move down south to the Dixie Mission in St. George as a real catalyst. 1861.

Yes. A major turning point toward her more open disaffection. She hated it there apparently. The heat, the sickness, the crops failing.

But crucially, the article quotes her later account

Where she revealed she hadn't actually believed in Mormonism since Nauvoo, since those early conflicts.

Wow. All those years,

Decades, concealing it. She said she privately raised her children to detest the system while keeping up appearances publicly. That's a critical insight from the source, the depth and duration of her private struggle.

And this hidden disbelief started coming out through her kids, especially Orson Pratt Jr.,

Right? He refused a mission call in 1863. Why? He'd concluded Joseph Smith wasn't especially sent by the Lord.

How did Sarah react to her son saying this publicly?

Intensely. Maybe all those years of suppressed feelings, maybe feeling abandoned again with Orson Senior away in Austria. The article mentioned she apparently burned most of Orson Senior's journals and papers in a fit of rage.

Burning his legacy in a way. And what happened to Orson Jr.?

He was excommunicated for unbelief September 1864 after he wouldn't back down from from his views. The source confirms her kids generally despise polygamy. It even cites a daughter-in-law's journal mocking the practice.

So Sarah's private teaching had a real lasting impact on her family.

It seems so. Shaping their views, their actions. For you listening, this sequence really shows how one person's private convictions born from tough experiences could ripple through generations and affect their relationship with the Church.

Facing all this hardship in St. George, seeing her kids struggling, she wrote to Brigham Young a desperate letter, July 1864, begging permission to return to Salt Lake City, mentioning the suffering, the poverty, her children's struggles.

And Brigham Young said yes.

Surprisingly quickly, yes. Even offered back some city property he bought from Orson, which is interesting. It suggests that even then, despite everything, she still had some line of communication, maybe some leverage within the leadership.

But her marriage to Orson was basically falling apart by this point.

The article describes it as disintegrating, fueled by those long absences, her struggles alone, and then his decision to marry much, much younger women,

Like his 10th wife being only 16 when Sarah was 51.

Yeah, the source highlights that detail.

Sarah's later words about it from that 1877 interview in the source sound incredibly bitter.

They are harsh. She described Orson taking young girls in mockery of marriage, called it fanaticism. She recounted him proposing they rotate living arrangements among the wives,

And she refused

Defiantly. and she claimed his response was cruel, go to hell or starvation.

She also talked about Orson being broke and Brigham Young having a stronghold over him. It's a really raw perspective on the emotional cost of polygamy for her.

She eventually moved back to their old home in Salt Lake, which Brigham Young had initially granted her.

Yes. But after she and Orson separated for good, Brigham Young tried to get the property back, led to a court battle,

And Sarah won.

She did eventually. The source notes this highlights that tension between Church authority trying to control things like property and the secular legal system asserting itself.

And then came her formal excommunication, October 1874,

for apostasy. And the source adds her son Arthur was excommunicated the very next day. Same reason. He later stated his mother had taught him the evils of the system, raised them all to detest it. So the break was complete in public.

And after that, she became active in the anti-polygamy movement.

Yes, the article highlights this. She gave a deposition in a congressional election case in 1975 publicly stated she hadn't believed the doctrines for 30 years and that she was considered an apostate.

The source suggests maybe political motives tied to her kids’ activities too.

It mentions that possibility. Yeah. Her children were involved with the anti-Mormon Liberal Party. So her private struggle had definitely evolved into very public opposition.

So her final years living with her children.

Yes. The source mentions one poignant detail. She sent Orson a sort of peace offering letter before he left on a mission in 1878.

How did he respond?

His reply included in the source reflects his view that their separation was mostly because she rejected the principle of equality among wives. A very different perspective from hers.

After Orson died in ‘81, Sarah became even more outspoken.

The source indicates she did. That's when her famous quote comes from that 1884 interview. There are only two classes of Mormon women, devils and fools. A really stark summary of her feelings about women who stayed in the system.

And she shared more details about Joseph Smith's proposals then too.

Yeah. Adding things like him allegedly saying, "God does not care if we have a good time if only other people do not know it." Painting this picture of his character from her viewpoint.

She died Christmas Day 1888, age 71.

And the source notes she had a Protestant funeral buried separately from Orson, a final symbol of that lasting separation from the life and community she'd once been so deeply embedded in.

The article does mention a, a potentially conflicting deathbed quote. Some children claiming she said something like, "If Mormonism isn't true, nothing is." But the overall thrust of the source emphasizes her long disaffection and public opposition.

Right. And the author's final reflection is really powerful. They argue history hasn't been fair to Sarah Pratt, often painted her unfairly,

Saying her radicalism was a direct result of polygamy.

Exactly. A consequence of her experience with polygamy and importantly the deceit surrounding it. Her early disclosures in Nauvoo were often brushed off as just her trying to justify herself.

But the author emphasizes the corroborating evidence,

Yes, from other women supporting her story. And the central point the author makes is about that decision by Church leadership to keep plural marriage secret. It forced this impossible choice.

Protect the institution even if it meant untruths and slander

Or prioritize personal integrity and telling the truth as you experienced it. Sarah's choice, the author argues, was to resist what they call collective infidelity going along with the deceit. And because she spoke out, she was labeled an apostate, a threat.

So pulling it all together, what are the key insights we can draw from Sarah Pratt’s story based purely on the source material you provided? Not judging, but learning from this account. Her reasons for leaving seem deeply tied to those Nauvoo experiences and everything that followed with polygamy.

Definitely one major insight, as the article presents it, is understanding that intense friction when new controversial, initially secret doctrines like plural marriage get introduced. Sarah's story just vividly shows that collision between institutional directives and an individual's conscience, their established moral compass. Her path, as shown here, really stemmed from rejecting that first proposal she found wrong, refusing to join in a public denial she knew was false, and ultimately being unable to accept polygamy itself, despite huge pressure and personal loss.

And another clear takeaway is the immense pressure to conform and the severe consequences historically for questioning or challenging leaders or doctrines, especially when it came from personal experience. You see it in the slander against Sarah, the pressure on Orson, the excommunications of Sarah and her son for expressing disbelief. For you listening, this history gives a stark look at how dissent and different perspectives were handled back then, prompting reflection on how those dynamics might play out over time in a faith community.

The narrative also really spotlights that tension between protecting the institution and telling the truth, especially in a crisis. That reported phrase, Joseph and the Church must be saved, used to pressure witnesses and the documented public denials of polygamy while it was secretly happening, that illustrates this dynamic perfectly as described in the source. Sarah's resistance to what the author calls collective infidelity, refusing to participate in deceit to protect the institution put her squarely against that imperative. Understanding that historical context might offer perspective on ongoing discussions about transparency and how history gets interpreted.

And finally, Sarah's story, as this source tells it, provides just a powerful historical lens. on women's experiences navigating these evolving doctrines and intense pressures. It shows how some women responded and the incredible personal cost, including family alienation for those who chose resistance, who spoke out against practices they felt were morally wrong. Her determination to teach her kids to detest the system, as the article puts it, shows this deep conviction borne out of everything she went through. It really prompts thought about the voices and experiences of women within religious institutions both then and now. That was definitely a powerful and complex deep dive into Sarah M. Pratt’s life, guided meticulously by the source material you brought. Her story really pushes back against simple narratives, doesn't it? And reveals the very real human cost of these big doctrinal and institutional shifts back then.

It really does. It's such a stark reminder that history is packed with individuals facing these incredibly difficult choices under immense pressure to just go along. Understanding these stories grounded in the evidence we have gives us valuable insights into the forces shaping institutions, yes, but also shaping individual lives, especially that personal toll of trying to navigate faith, authority, and your own conscience when they feel like they're pulling in opposite directions.

Well, thank you for taking this deep dive with us. We really hope exploring Sarah's documented reasons for her path. And trying to understand the historical dynamics laid out in this source gives you plenty to think about.

Absolutely. This story, like so many from that foundational period, raises these big enduring questions, doesn't it? But truth, loyalty, freedom of conscience, the individual's place within the collective. Questions that echo far beyond Nauvoo and early Utah. It really leaves you wondering about the weight of personal integrity when it clashes with what the institution demands.

If you find value in this exploration, please like, share, follow, and consider becoming a subscriber. Your contributions help keep these conversations going and allows us to maintain the highest quality production. You can find all the details at studyfaithwithai.com. Thank you for being part of this journey.