This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
According to The Salt Lake Tribune, pioneer Jane Manning James was “denied access to the temple for more than 40 years despite persistent pleas to do work for her dead and to be sealed to a priesthood-holding man.” This was due to a church policy of the time which prevented African-Americans from receiving the priesthood. Yet she did receive a sealing ordinance in the temple. “In 1894, she was ‘sealed’ to Mormonism’s first couple” Joseph and Emma Smith “’not as their spiritual child but as their eternal ‘servitor’,” they allege.
Skeptics and Antimormons often bring up Jane Manning James to portray the church as racist, due to this wording “servitor”, the racial priesthood policy, and her being an African-American. An Antimormon forum refers to her as “Joseph Smith’s house slave.”
False – Jane Manning James was not a slave. She was employed to help around the house by Joseph Smith when she arrived in Nauvoo penniless and destitute, and eventually she became well-to-do, one of the wealthiest pioneers in her Latter-day Saint community. This is according to her own account. She performed vicarious work in the temple for her ancestors according to all accounts (which also debunks the popular Antimormon narrative that African-Americans were barred from temple ordinances). But what about being sealed to Joseph and Emma Smith as “servitor” when she was old? There are allegedly quotes from Jane Manning James’ autobiography, church leadership meeting notes, and a temple record to indicate this is what happened. But each bit of evidence has not been verified and is shaky. This claim is unverified and may be false.
Jane Manning James’ conversion story is beautiful. She walked for hundreds of miles by foot to get to Nauvoo to join the Saints, and was taken in by Joseph Smith himself. She was shown the Urim and Thummim which was used to translate the Book of Mormon, and was offered by Emma to be adopted by eternal sealing into their family (according to Jane Manning James’ autobiography). She said she unfortunately turned that offer down, not understanding at the time what it meant. But she went on to join the first wagon train of Saints on their trek to the Rocky Mountains following their violent expulsion from Nauvoo by Antimormon mobs. She entered Utah with the first wave of pioneers, worked hard to build civilization from the barren desert ground–despite her family’s poverty–and lived to the very end a faithful and noble woman. It is outrageous that her life story has been reduced by racist Antimormons to become a mere “house slave.” It is unfortunate to see today’s virtue-signalling intellectuals and university scholars focus on unverified accounts of her temple activities instead of learning from her integrity and beautiful experience.
Unverified Accounts Of ‘Servitor’ Sealing
Autobiography: Fifth-Hand Source, Unquoted – The church website essay claims: “Church leaders eventually allowed her to be sealed by proxy into the Joseph Smith family as a servant in 1894, a unique occurrence.” Their citation for this claim is Jane Elizabeth Manning James autobiography, dictated by her between 1902 to 1908. Dictated to whom? Published by whom? It doesn’t say and I haven’t been able to find out, because I do not find this autobiography available anywhere on the internet. It is apparently held at the “Archives, Family and Church History Department”–a very vague place for me to go trying to find it. The essay’s citation of the autobiography refers to a book by Ronald G. Coleman and Darius A. Gray, and a book by Newell G. Bringhurst and Darron T. Smith. So it sounds like this is a fourth-hand source: an essay cites a book, which cites a book, which cites an autobiography, which was allegedly written from an audible dictation.
I’m not familiar with most of the authors in those sources. But I did recognize the name Newell G. Bringhurst. His Amazon bio describes him as a “cultural Mormon and a liberal Democrat.” He also apparently served as president of the “John Whitmer Historical Association,” a group founded with the RLDS splinter-sect. Hmm. This is whose word we are relying on that Jane Manning James really said this?
What did she actually say in this autobiography? We don’t know; the essay doesn’t provide any kind of quotation. In fact, I haven’t been able to find a quote anywhere of what she said. I finding it hard to believe that her autobiography really said it. If so, did she actually indicate that was sealed as a “servitor,” or did she only say that she was sealed? We don’t know, because nobody will provide the alleged quote.
Jane Manning James died in 1908, and this autobiography was allegedly dictated sometime between 1902-1908. So it was apparently given on her deathbed. There are several problems with this.
- There is there is no mention of this event in the fourteen years between 1894 and 1908. Jane Manning James was a very prominent member of the community. If African-Americans were banned from these ordinances and if she received it, don’t you think somebody would have said something?
- It is convenient that Jane Manning James wasn’t around to confirm whether this was truly her autobiography, whether the claims in it were accurate, and if the claims in it were transcribed accurately. Where is the recording of her dictating it? Where are the witnesses? Who transcribed it? Who published it? Skeptics and Antimormons complain that the Book of Mormon witnesses did not personally sign their name on the printer’s manuscript of the Book of Mormon, yet skeptics and Antimormons have no problem pushing this narrative about Jane Manning’s James which has zero witnesses–and she wasn’t around to correct it like the Book of Mormon witnesses were.
- We seem to have an epidemic of important Latter-day Saints making very important claims like this days before they died. Claims that they strangely stayed silent about for years. Claims that were recorded and published by people other than themselves, often RLDS splinter-sect publishers that had every motive to tear down the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Claims often from audible dictation rather than written down by the source themselves, audible dictation that wasn’t recorded. Claims that were not verified by witnesses as actually having been given. Claims that they themselves were no longer around to verify that they had actually said it. The seer stone narrative is the most glaring example of this. The narrative that a seer stone separate from the Urim and Thummim was used to translate the Book of Mormon rests entirely on death-bed statements published by RLDS and other hostile groups. It’s really weird how big controversial historic claims often rest on these death-bed quotes.
Church Leadership Meeting Notes – Notes from the Council of the Twelve Apostle meetings allegedly indicate Jane Manning James was sealed as servitor: “After his [John Taylor’s] death the wife of Isaac James (known as Aunt Jane) asked to receive her own endowments and to be sealed; but President Woodruff, Cannon, and Smith decided that this could not be done, but decided that she might be adopted into the family of the Prophet Joseph Smith as a servant, which was done, a special ceremony having been prepared for the purpose. But Aunt Jane was not satisfied with this, and as a mark of her dissatisfaction she applied again after this for sealing blessings, but of course in vain.” (Council of the 12 meeting minutes January 2, 1902) “The same efforts he said had been made by Aunt Jane to receive her endowments and be sealed to her husband and have her children sealed to their parents and her appeal was made to all the Presidents from President [Brigham] Young down to the present First Presidency. But President [George Q.] Cannon conceived the idea that, under the circumstances, it would be proper to permit her to go to the temple to be adopted to the Prophet Joseph Smith as his servant and this was done.” (Council of the 12 meeting minutes August 26, 1908)
There are several problems with these quotes:
- Both meeting minutes refer to an earlier meeting in which it was apparently decided that she would be sealed by adoption to Joseph Smith as a servant. But there is no earlier meeting minutes about this adoption. The only other mention of Jane Manning James comes from August 22, 1895, and it denies her “permission to receive her endowments.” Nothing about her being sealed. It also comes a year after this sealing allegedly occurred. There is a discrepancy in the date and omission of the servant-sealing–either that or this was a later additional plea for her to receive endowments, in which case we would expect it to make reference to her temple sealing just a year earlier… and the servant-sealing meeting is still missing. This is a huge omission.
- Did these council meetings just assume that an adopted had been talked about even though there was no record of it? I haven’t been able to find out when this alleged autobiography of Jane Manning James was produced (it could have been 1908 or as late as the 1970’s), so it could be that the autobiography made this claim and the Council just assumed that this was what happened even though there was no record for it–as Wilford Woodruff had died in 1989 and he wasn’t around to ask about it. With no record of this Council decision, how else would they know about it other than the autobiography? So this probably just goes back to the autobiography as the original alleging source that this servant-sealing occurred.
- I found these meeting minutes from an Antimormon website, which simply cited it as coming from “George Albert Smith Papers, Manuscripts Division, Marriott Library, University of Utah.” Yet another source that I haven’t been able to actually find or verify! Some random Antimormon website isn’t a good enough authority that these meeting minutes are real. The earliest reference to these meeting minutes I could find was the famous Antimormon Tanners. A UTM website run by the Tanners quotes the meeting minutes and cites… a book by the Tanners. Gee. Citing themselves. Most skeptics and Antimormons cite the Tanners. Citations for these quotes are all over the place and nobody can demonstrate that these meeting minutes actually exist.”
Temple Record – Here is the alleged quote of the temple record that’s been floating around: “Bathsheba W. Smith as proxy for Jane Elizabeth Manning James (living) Joseph F. Smith as proxy for Joseph Smith (dead) Jane Elizabeth Manning (a Negro Mormon) do you wish to be 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? (Answer Yes) Pres. Joseph F. Smith acting for and in behalf of the Prophet Joseph Smith: do you wish to receive Jane James as a Servitor to yourself and family? (Answer Yes) By the authority given me of the Lord I pronounce you, Jane James, a Servitor to the Prophet Joseph Smith (President Joseph F. Smith acting for an in his behalf) and to his household for all eternity, through your faithfulness in the new and everlasting covenant, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. John Nicholson
The same kind of problems exist for this evidence:
- This is just what I found on some website. Part of it was quoted on Wikipedia even though there is zero evidence that it is legitimate (typical for Wikipedia). There is zero evidence that this adoption record exists. It is cited as “Salt Lake Temple Adoption Record, May 18, 1894, Book A, p. 26.” Where am I even supposed to find this book? Nobody can tell me.
- That website cites a book, which cites another book, which allegedly cites the adoption record. It is a fourth-hand Antimormon source.
- There are apparently several version of this record that all contradict each other. Newell G. Bringhurst notes that there are at least four transcriptions of official record of adoption ceremony, but that “each of these transcriptions differs from the other.” They all contain differences. He claims to have “examined photographs of this document” but does not say where the photograph came from or if it was verified as legitimate. Just, somebody showed him a photograph of a record apparently. Not exactly an authoritative source there, Newell!
- Newell Bringhurst noticed that “none of these transcriptions names Zina D. H. Young as the proxy for Jane James” as the photograph he saw does. Where is this photograph? Why can’t I see it? As for the other transcriptions, the only one he mentions that I could actually find is a broken link to an Antimormon website.
- And again, Newell Bringhurst is a “cultural Mormon” who served as president of the John Whitmer Historical Association.
Does Servitor Mean ‘Slave’?
So the “servitor sealing” narrative may be a hoax. But let’s say it’s true. Let’s say it turns out Jane Manning James was sealed as “servitor” instead of adopted daughter. Why wouldn’t the church allow her to be sealed as an adopted daughter? Isn’t that cruel? The church’s racist policy unfortunately barred African-Americans from the priesthood, and most ordinances of the temple including eternal sealings involved receiving the priesthood. That’s just the way it was, and in those alleged Council of the Twelve meeting minutes they acknowledge that this was a temporary policy that would be overturned and then her sealings would be sorted out. In any case, it is believed that in the Millennium these issues will all be sorted out. The doctrine of proxy ordinances means that an ordinance can be performed at a later date and apply to a person’s ancestor–indeed, Jane Manning James received the temple endowment by proxy in 1979.
But when you consider the entire context, there are several other circumstances to consider:
- Joseph Smith was not around in 1894 to consent to the adoptive sealing. The only evidence that the sealing should take place was Jane Manning James’ word that Emma had invited her to become part of their family. From her alleged autobiography: “Sister Emma asked me one day if I would like to be adopted to them as their child and I did not answer her. She said, “I will wait a while and let you consider it.” She waited two weeks before she asked me again. When she did, I told her, “No, Ma’am!” because I did not understand or know what it meant. They were always good and kind to me, but I did not know my own mind. I did not comprehend.” (via lds.org) Jane Manning James was a well-respected Saint and so they apparently they took her at her word. But church policy is typically that some kind of account or evidence needs to be shown to prove relationships for proxy ordinances.
Jane Manning James had multiple partners, which complicated the matter of who should be sealed to whom. According to Wikipedia, she had a child in 1835 apparently out of wedlock. In 1844 she married another notorious African-American pioneer: Isaac James. Then they split up and she married Frank Perkins in 1873. Evidence indicates Jane Manning James requested to be sealed to Walker Lewis, another famous early Latter-Day saint who helped with the Underground Railroad and promoted abolition of slavery–yet another partner. But we do not know the circumstances of this request. When there are multiple husbands like this, church policy is to be more delicate about who should be sealed to whom.
So it may not have just been about the priesthood policy. Again, we don’t know the reason because there are no meeting minutes about it, though the later meeting minutes–if they are genuine–indicate that the priesthood policy was a main reason.
‘Servitor’ Means Not Slavery – It is interesting that they used the word “servitor” rather than “servant” in the alleged record. Jane Manning James was born free and certainly wasn’t a ever a slave, but if they had used the word “servant” it could have been seen by some as indicative of slavery, as it is used in the bible to indicate indentured servitude. This may be why they used “servitor” instead–to make clear that she was not a slave. The 1828 dictionary defined servitor as “an attendant,” or “a follower or adherent.” Shakespeare uses the word in Henry VI to indicate someone you are reconciled with: “My noble queen, let former grudge pass, And henceforth I am thy true servitor.” But even in 1828 it was an obsolete word, and its usage must have been intentional to provide this connotation.
Did Baptisms For The Dead In The Temple – According to the alleged autobiography, Jane Manning James performed this temple ordinance: “I have lived right here in Salt Lake City for 52 years and I have had the privilege of going into the temple and being baptized for some of my dead. I am now over eighty years old and am nearly blind, which is a great trial to me. It is the greatest trial I have ever been called upon to bear, but I hope my eyesight will be spared to me–poor as it is–that I may be able to go to meeting, and to the temple to do more work for my dead.” (via lds.org)
She also had the tremendous privilege of handling the Urim and Thummim, which was used (not seer stones) to translate the Book of Mormon: “I had to pass through Mother Smith’s room to get to mine. She would often stop me and talk to me. She told me all Brother Joseph’s troubles and what he had suffered in publishing the Book of Mormon. One morning I met Brother Joseph coming out of his mother’s room. He said, “Good morning,” and shook hands with me. I went into his mother’s room; she said, “Good morning; bring me that bundle from my bureau and sit down here.” I did as she told me. She placed the bundle in my hands and said, “Handle this and then put in the top drawer of my bureau and lock it up. After I had done it she said, “Sit down. Do you remember that I told you about the Urim and Thummim when I told you about the Book of Mormon?” I answered, “Yes, ma’am.” She then told me I had just handled it. “You are not permitted to see it, but you have been permitted to handle it,” [she said]. “ You will live long after I am dead and gone and you can tell the Latter-day Saints that you was permitted to handle the Urim and Thummim.[8]” (via lds.org)
Jane Manning James was a good, strong, righteous woman who I admire. Her achievements pass down a legacy of faith that we can all live from. If she and the Smith family indeed wished to be sealed as one, there is no doubt in my mind that it is so.