In the spirit of Black History Month, I want to give a quick biographical sketch of Jane Manning James, an early black convert to Mormonism. Jane joined the LDS Church in 1843 at the age of 21. That year, she and eight other black Mormons walked 800 miles to Nauvoo, where the bulk of the church was then located.
For their time, early Mormons were actually quite progressive on the matter of race. Joseph Smith, for example, ordained several black males to the priesthood (the black priesthood ban wasn’t fully articulated or enforced until Brigham Young became president). Many early Saints also had abolitionist sympathies, and the fear that Mormons wanted to free slaves is partly why the church was driven out of Missouri. And when Smith ran for president of the United States in 1844, he campaigned on a platform of abolition. Appreciating this context, it’s not hard to see how these black members might have felt welcome among the Saints.
When Jane arrived in Nauvoo, she was directed to Joseph Smith’s Mansion House. There, they were shown extraordinary hospitality, and Jane even lived with Smith for some time. Shortly before Joseph Smith was murdered in 1844, Emma Smith extended an invitation to Jane to be sealed to the Smith family as an adopted daughter. Flattered, but unsure what exactly the offer meant, she declined—a decision that would prove to be a life-long regret. More about that soon.
After the death of Joseph Smith, Jane followed Brigham Young faction to the Utah territory. She remained a faithful Latter-day Saint all her days. She was active in the Relief Society and donated funds to the building of several temples. Church authorities recognized her tremendous contributions and would occasionally reserve the front seats of the Tabernacle for her and her brother. And when she died in 1908, President Joseph F. Smith spoke at her funeral.
That’s the church-approved biography of Jane Manning James, and it’s all true. One aspect of her life, though, is consistently omitted in the church’s accounts. Remember that, while living with the Smiths, Emma asked Jane whether she wanted to be sealed as an adopted daughter and Jane declined. Toward the end of her life, she reconsidered the proposal and petitioned the First Presidency to be sealed to the Smiths. Normally, this wouldn’t be a problem. Countless people were sealed to Joseph Smith after his death, many as plural wives. But because Jane was black and couldn’t receive temple endowments, the First Presidency under Joseph F. Smith repeatedly ignored her requests.
What the First Presidency offered instead, and what Jane begrudgingly assented to, is astounding. In 1894, they sealed Jane to Joseph Smith not as a daughter, but as a servant. She was “attached as a Servitor for eternity to the prophet Joseph Smith and in this capacity be connected with his family and be obedient to him in all things in the Lord as a faithful Servitor” (Salt Lake Temple Adoption Record, May 18, 1894, Book A, p. 26). Because Jane couldn’t participate in temple ceremonies directly, Bathseba W. Smith acted as her proxy for and Joseph F. Smith as proxy for Joseph Smith.
A year later, dissatisfied with this compromise, Jane appealed one last time to receive the sealing Emma had offered her half a century prior. And again, she was denied.
Some Mormons have come to terms with there being polygamy in the celestial kingdom, but how many are comfortable with Joseph Smith having a black servant?
Wow! Very interesting. Mind if I ask your source for the non official story?
Celestial servants. I thought that was the role we gays would get. Who knew.
I provided the source in the article, but I can provide further citation tonight when I’m not at work.
I have trouble buying the “progressive” bit. Who needs chattel slavery when you have the Church, which will allow your free slave to firmly believe that you’re doing her a generous favor?
Contrasted with an actual progressive abolitionist of the time, like Thoreau, the sincerity behind Smith’s motivations is questionable at best. Thoreau was a major influence and source of inspiration for some of the best human rights leaders, including MLK and Gandhi; Joseph Smith’s conditioned followers are profoundly submissive to this day.
Jane Manning James’ story has apparently become a handy, go-to source of historical pride for Mormons, an answer to reach for when the subject of abuse to black people in the Church comes up. Which turns my stomach. This woman was badly cheated out of the life she deserved. Placing her in a “could have been worse” category is a cop-out.
She was triple-brainwashed to believe in her lack of human independence and it’s plain sad history. Not something to gloat about.
Sure, relative to Thoreau Mormons weren’t progressive on race. But relative to 19th century America at large? Definitely. Well, that is until Brigham Young at least.
I just don’t think that progressive is the choicest description for Joseph Smith’s position. In my mind, he wasn’t an abolitionist so much as an opportunist who used the abolitionist plank for a run at office.
“(In 1838, Joseph Smith answered the following question while en route from Kirtland to Missouri, as follows: “Are the Mormons abolitionists? No … we do not believe in setting the Negroes free.”(Smith 1977, p.120)
Joseph Smith’s views of the true nature of the African American, according to the modern view, may be seen in the following exchange (as recorded in History of the Church, Volume 5, p. 216):
Elder Hyde inquired about the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine of many of those they brush and wait on.
Elder Hyde remarked, “Put them on the level, and they will rise above me.” I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant and try to rise above me, as did Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, and many others, who said I was a fallen Prophet, and they were capable of leading the people, although I never attempted to oppress them, but had always been lifting them up? Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.” )” wikipedia
“In my mind, he wasn’t an abolitionist so much as an opportunist who used the abolitionist plank for a run at office.”
That assumes that in 1844 abolition was a politically convenient position. I’m not sure that was the case.
“Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation.”
That’s not progressive for the early 19th-century?! The idea that blacks would be our equals were they afforded the same privileged situation as whites?
“Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.”
Don’t get me wrong. I think this is a repugnant view. But again, at Smith’s time, it was, yes, progressive. It’s not that Smith supported segregation because he hated blacks (again, he invited Jane to live in his house for several months). Rather, perhaps he felt blacks would only realize their potential absent the oppressive presence of whites. That makes more sense in the context of his remarks.
Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: The “Cultural Mormon” Conundrum Edition! | Main Street Plaza
Jon, you mentioned that Joseph Smith ordained several Blacks to the priesthood. Were they disenfranchised, so to speak, under the leadership of Brigham Young?
Where it concerns the priesthood at least, yes. Very much so.