Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

nickleus

jane elizabeth manning james "eternal servant"

32 posts in this topic

Jane 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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elizabeth_Manning_James

why is there nothing on fairlds.org about this?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Hast thou inquired of the lords of Fair?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Jane 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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elizabeth_Manning_James

why is there nothing on fairlds.org about this?

Wikipedia is not the most reliable source when anyone can edit in what they want. Recovering from Mormonism sounds like a web site that is not going to be objective. this happened in 1902.

Joseph Smith wrote 1836: Joseph Smith Slavery Editorial

In the April issue of the Messenger and Advocate, Joseph Smith writes that the methods of the abolitionists are not helping the cause of the slaves.

1842: Joseph Smith Writes in His Personal Journal that Slaves Should be Set Free

He writes that the slaves owned by Mormons should be brought

0

Share this post


Link to post

From Black and Mormon By Newell G. Bringhurst, Darron T. Smith

In 1894 Jane met with Wodruff and rasied the issue of obtaining her endowments. He praised Jan for her faithfulness but denied her request, saying: "I would not do it as it was against the Law of God... and that the seed of Cain would have to wait for redemption until all the seed that Abel would hav had that would come through other men can be redeemed." Undaunted by the rejection of her requests, Jane persisted and was not pacified when LDS leaders authorized her adoption into the Joseph Smith family as a servant in a special ceremony in 1902.

Phaedrus

0

Share this post


Link to post

Her "sealing" to Joseph and family as an "eternal servant" decades after Joseph will martyred was quite a departure from the teachings of Joseph Smith, wasn't it? I hope the LDS Church will make some effort to rectify this unfortunate circumstance.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Wikipedia is not the most reliable source when anyone can edit in what they want. Recovering from Mormonism sounds like a web site that is not going to be objective. this happened in 1902.

Joseph Smith wrote 1836: Joseph Smith Slavery Editorial

In the April issue of the Messenger and Advocate, Joseph Smith writes that the methods of the abolitionists are not helping the cause of the slaves.

1842: Joseph Smith Writes in His Personal Journal that Slaves Should be Set Free

He writes that the slaves owned by Mormons should be brought

0

Share this post


Link to post

Joseph Smith wrote 1836: Joseph Smith Slavery Editorial

In the April issue of the Messenger and Advocate, Joseph Smith writes that the methods of the abolitionists are not helping the cause of the slaves.

1842: Joseph Smith Writes in His Personal Journal that Slaves Should be Set Free

He writes that the slaves owned by Mormons should be brought

0

Share this post


Link to post

There are articles at LDS.org, such as this one:

Jane Manning

or articles like this on blacklds.org

Jane Manning

Although I'm not sure what it is you are looking for or why.

0

Share this post


Link to post

if you actually read the source, it wasnt joseph smith who authorized the servant sealing.

It was the First Presidency that authorized her sealing to Joseph as a servant. Joseph F. Smith, who was Second Counselor in the First Presidency at the time, acted as proxy for his uncle Joseph Smith in the ceremony.

Phaedrus

0

Share this post


Link to post

Her "sealing" to Joseph and family as an "eternal servant" decades after Joseph will martyred was quite a departure from the teachings of Joseph Smith, wasn't it? I hope the LDS Church will make some effort to rectify this unfortunate circumstance.

Slavery, just like polygamy, was an accepted biblical practice and can be practiced if specifically authorized. Since this sealing was done under the supervision of President Woodruff and the First Presidency it might be better seen as a restoration of an biblical practice.

Phaedrus

0

Share this post


Link to post

Slavery, just like polygamy, was an accepted biblical practice and can be practiced if specifically authorized.

I'd be kinda careful saying that. It occurrence in the Bible was under different circumstances, I don't know if the Lord would 'authorize' it in that same particular way again.

It doesn't sound like Jane Manning was too happy with it either, considering that she was supposed to be sealed to them as a child? Wasn't that it?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Joseph and Emma tried to get Jane to agree to be sealed to them as a child. She didn't understand what that meant at the time and refused. Whether she was sealed in some form or another at a later time is still just an issue of sealing in my mind. No doubt Jane with her great faith will receive all the blessings of the endowment and sealing if she hasn't already.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Jane 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)

http://en.wikipedia....h_Manning_James

why is there nothing on fairlds.org about this?

Many of those at fairlds.org also worked with or on blacklds.org which does mention it (see the timeline for one) so it is possible in my view that they just forgot to include it on FAIR as well. There are a couple of talks that come close to mentioning it (talk about Jane's efforts toward the temple) and I know personally there is no reluctance to discuss it as a group as this has happened several times.

Like any extremely large project done by volunteers, I suspect this is just something that fell through the cracks.

I would recommend contacting FAIR and it is likely to be corrected as soon as someone who works on the wiki in that area has some free time. (A lot of us FAIRsters have not gotten over being shy of the wiki technology, me for one or I would do it myself).

0

Share this post


Link to post

Slavery, just like polygamy, was an accepted biblical practice and can be practiced if specifically authorized. Since this sealing was done under the supervision of President Woodruff and the First Presidency it might be better seen as a restoration of an biblical practice.

Phaedrus

So you believe there is slavery in the Celestial Kingdom? I'm sorry, but it is hard for me to picture plantations in the realms of glory.

0

Share this post


Link to post

So you believe there is slavery in the Celestial Kingdom? I'm sorry, but it is hard for me to picture plantations in the realms of glory.

Psalm 84

10 For a day in thy courts is better than aa thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.

There sure are tent cities.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Psalm 84

10 For a day in thy courts is better than aa thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.

There sure are tent cities.

Just when I thought LDS ideas on eternity couldn't get any stranger, a zinger comes along.

I think the Psalmist is employing some hyperbole here.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Psalm 84

10 For a day in thy courts is better than aa thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.

There sure are tent cities.

Don't forget the smilies, Zak.:P

0

Share this post


Link to post

So you believe there is slavery in the Celestial Kingdom? I'm sorry, but it is hard for me to picture plantations in the realms of glory.

P ut is not LDS, at least not a believer, can't remember if ever a believer or just on the rolls or nevermo.

0

Share this post


Link to post

P ut is not LDS, at least not a believer, can't remember if ever a believer or just on the rolls or nevermo.

Believe it or not Phaedrus is actually LDS. He is still a member and a Elder. He even mentioned the other day that his sons are a Deacon and a Priest.

Phaedrus

//I don't know why I wrote this in the third person. It started that way so I went with it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Believe it or not Phaedrus is actually LDS. He is still a member and a Elder. He even mentioned the other day that his sons are a Deacon and a Priest.

But do you actually believe the major doctrines and follow the practices not for appearance sake, but because you believe that Christ is leading the Church, etc.

I have a family member who is a member, a HP, one son just returned from a mission and to all appearances on the surface is an active, believing Saint.

He doesn't even believe in God and thinks Joseph Smith is a con man and those of us who are believers are dupes.

Your comments are almost identical to his.

0

Share this post


Link to post

But do you actually believe the major doctrines and follow the practices not for appearance sake, but because you believe that Christ is leading the Church, etc.

I have a family member who is a member, a HP, one son just returned from a mission and to all appearances on the surface is an active, believing Saint.

He doesn't even believe in God and thinks Joseph Smith is a con man and those of us who are believers are dupes.

Your comments are almost identical to his.

You're basically correct. My worldview doesn't include ancient American angelic visitors, magic rocks, or gold plates in secret languages. But I respect the everyday members of the church who work hard and try to be honest & decent people of faith and service.

Historical racism is baggage carried by members and I would like to see the church refute many of its past practices.

Phaedrus

0

Share this post


Link to post

... I would like to see the church refute many of its past practices.

Isn't the fact that the past practices are past and not current a refutation of those practices?

What would it really accomplish to go beyond that?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't the fact that the past practices are past and not current a refutation of those practices?

What would it really accomplish to go beyond that?

No... it is more an "ignore it and hopefully it will go away" attitude. Which in no way is a refutation. To admit an error in practice or doctrine will never happen, as it would fly in the face of the belief that the President is literally incapable of leading the church astray.

1

Share this post


Link to post

No... it is more an "ignore it and hopefully it will go away" attitude. Which in no way is a refutation.

I prefer discussing specifics to generalities. What issue is the LDS church ignoring and hoping will go away that it would be better off actively refuting?

0

Share this post


Link to post

To admit an error in practice or doctrine will never happen....

Because there was no error and you can't admit something was wrong when at the time it wasn't.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.