The long list of descendants is excessive, and a bit aberrant for a WP article. This needs to be trim to just the WP:NOTABLE people. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Inthe genealogy of the Pratt and Romney families (Pratt-Romney Family) in Wikipedia there is a note on Orson Pratt. Apostle, Ten wives, youngest wife was 16, younger than his daughter Celestia. The note takes no account of other children. This seemed to belong with the article we're discussing. When I looked, though, I found that it was already here in the same wording. With respect to general Wikipedia work, what are you doing? I am researching Rey L. Pratt, in a sort of fulfillment of my ambition, that came over me after a university class.
MOREOVER, TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Archibald Bennett wrote an essay, which was published in the Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, from a theological, historical point of view, may be useful to the genealogist. See Pratt, Parley P., Jr., ed. _Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt_. Salt Lake City, Deseret Book, copyrt. 1976, p. 466 (Written 1856 or 1857) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnow75 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The following IP 220.127.116.11 edit was removed for discussion and consideration. Current tone is POV, but some info may be useful. WBardwin (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The following account is taken from journals of people who had every reason to distort facts and lie about the true character of Joseph Smith. For instance, John C. Bennett was a documented adulterer who was excommunicated from the church. Even Van Wagoner recognizes Bennett's adultery. This makes Bennett's testimony highly impeachable. Yet somehow, Van Wagoner finds Bennett's tale more credible than what he admits were many disagreeing affidavits including the testimony of Joseph Smith. Sarah Pratt was also accused of being an adulterer, yet somehow he decides that Sarah is the reliable one. A mere accusation doesn't make one unreliable, but numerous affidavits might. Why does he consider her reliable when the majority of sources contradict her view? If it were simply her testimony against Joseph Smith's, then it might be easier to understand Van Wagoner's position; however, one might hope that he would present both testimonies in an equal light. Indeed one might hope that he would declare the fact that his account is based heavily on the supposition that what his anti-mormon sources are saying is true and that what the pro-mormon sources are saying is entirely false. Instead we find an article that may have a scholarly gloss, but is anything but honest.