Joseph Smith portrait at Morehouse College Controversy

[Pyreaux]

There is a controversy over the Joseph Smith portrait at Morehouse College, an HBCU in Atlanta, GA escalated from campus grumbling to a national debate in March.

On February 27, some "Morehouse Men" (clergy alumni) published a scathing open letter demanding the portrait be removed. They argued that Smith’s early defense of slavery and his practice of polygamy made him unfit to hang alongside civil rights icons like MLK Jr. The Dean of the Chapel, Lawrence Carter, continued to defend the move in March, calling Smith’s 1844 abolitionist platform morally ambitious. In a rare public clarification, the Church officially stated in March that the Church did not donate money for the portrait or for the induction, attempting to squash rumors by these alumni that the honor was "bought."

Why Joseph Smith’s portrait at Morehouse is causing a stir – The most cited article.

Opinion: Morehouse should not have honored a man who owned slaves

Morehouse College Faces Community Pushback Over Joseph Smith Chapel Portrait

Joseph Smith Inducted into Morehouse Hall of Honor – The Church's perspective.

In these high-profile cultural debates, the public arguments often mask deeper, more personal biases. For many individuals, including clergy alumni at Morehouse, I believe are only doing this because of a pre-existing aversion to Mormonism. Confirmation Bias. They already believe a group is "wrong" or "other," so they will find the specific historical facts that confirm that belief while ignoring anything that challenges it.

They are Chery-Picking remarks Joseph Smith made to avoid persecution in Missouri, completely ignoring the fact that he was the first U.S. presidential candidate to run on an abolitionist platform. He was also assassinated, in part, because of it.

Joseph Smith’s Changed Stance on Slavery

Joseph Smith had always lived in non-slave states, but in Missouri, a slave state, Smith and other leaders in 1836 wrote a letter defending the rights of Southern states from being told what to do by the Northern states, fearing that abolitionist rhetoric would lead to violence, particularly against themselves. The old settlers already believed the Mormons were inciting slave revolts. This neutrality ended at the time he ran for U.S. President, by which he fully shifted. His platform called for the total abolition of slavery by 1850. He proposed that the federal government sell public lands to buy the freedom of every enslaved person in America. For these Ideas, and for interfering with the election, Governor Ford and Warsaw Militia killed him.

As if it's a bad thing if he had changed his mind. Abraham Lincoln, whose portrait hangs right next to Joseph Smith’s, started with prejudiced views and changed his mind, in part to political pressure. Lincoln explicitly stated: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races." If Morehouse clergy alumni celebrate Lincoln's portrait despite his early rhetoric shows anti-Mormon bias.

Joseph Smith Only became an Abolitionist for Votes?

They argue Joseph Smith wasn't a real abolitionist. He only supported it to get votes during his presidential run. Sounds like a theory, but this ignores that in 1844, being an abolitionist didn't get you votes, it got you killed. The Illinois and Missouri neighbors hated abolitionists. By running on that platform, he wasn't "reaching" for votes, he was risking his life to stand for a moral principle that he believed would save the country from a Civil War. Furthermore, he proposed a practical solution, compensated emancipation, that Ralph Waldo Emerson would later be praised for suggesting a decade later.

"Curse of Ham"

Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham, which contains verses that were later used by his successors to justify, not slavey, but the priesthood ban. Alumni argue that Joseph Smith is at fault by bringing these "cursed lineage" ideas into modern scripture (they are presuming Joseph Smith is the author). Defenders, including the Dean of the Morehouse Chapel, argue it’s unfair to blame a founder for how later generations misinterpreted or weaponized his writings.

This, dear exmos, is called an Anachronism (applying later ideas to the past). While Smith mentioned biblical lineages common in 19th-century thought, he never used them to bar Black men from the priesthood. In fact, he did the opposite. He ordained Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis. The priesthood ban was a policy started by Brigham Young after Smith’s death. This is guilt by association. Blaming Joseph for the ban because of the Book of Abraham is as daft as blaming James Madison for later Jim Crow laws because the US Constitution was used to justify those laws.

Joseph Smith was never a "Slaveholder"

Joseph Smith did not buy or sell human beings. The confusion often stems from Jane Manning James, a free Black convert who lived in the Smith home in Nauvoo. She was a domestic servant, not a slave. She was paid for her work and was free to leave. After Joseph Smith's death, Jane many times petitioned to be "sealed" to the Smith family. Church leaders in 1894 eventually performed a ceremony sealing her to Joseph Smith as an "eternal servant" rather than a wife or daughter. Its these notions modern critics claim to be offensive and cite this as evidence of a "slave-master" mindset.

Bottom line

A pattern seen, like this claim the Morehouse College image of Joseph Smith as a triggering symbol of exploitation, is just one of among many attempts by detractors to either beat LDS in courtrooms, usually failing, yet often getting to win in the court of public opinion by putting disputable and controversial history on blast. Just like many other historical figures are being re-litigated in the court of public opinion using modern standards and expectations.

As many Courts often ruled in favor of the Church, like Huntsman v. LDS Church, success seems measured by how very often people get to accuse the church of exploitation, cover-ups, and complicity as facts. Even if dismissed, the news blast of negative buzzwords often leaves a permanent stain on the organization's public brand.

The goal often looks like it isn't to win per se, but to win the narrative. I feel the clergy alumni are simply poisoned against the faith, they are bypassing historical nuances in favor of a simpler, more explosive headlines. While the Church may "win" by keeping the portrait hung, the blast of controversy cannot easily be smoothed over.

Edited April 16 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

The one thing I found laughable in the linked articles is this bit:

Quote

“He knew what he was doing. It didn’t stop him,” the Rev. Dr. Carter said. “Think of the implications. If he had won, look at all of the lives that would have been saved that were lost in the Civil War.”

Yeah, no, just no. If Joseph Smith hade somehow won the Presidency he would not have averted the Civil War. The secession of the southern states started because Lincoln’s election meant that the expansion of slavery into the west of the United States was likely dead and that was intolerable to the people of the South. The idea that a President could take office on the platform of freeing all the slaves and not immediately trigger a conflict is just historically naive.

I applaud the idea Joseph Smith put forth but it wasn’t practical and wouldn’t have averted the conflict. The idea that southern slaveowners were primarily concerned that they wouldn’t get any money for freed slaves but were fine with them being freed in general is just not how anything would have worked. Had Lincoln run on the platform of manumitting all the slaves in the south it would have triggered secession even faster if he had won. Lincoln also likely would not have won if he ran on that platform.

The majority of the people of the North were antislavery before the war but were not abolitionists. During the war the Union (and particularly the Union Army) became very pro-abolition. John Brown was thought of as a dangerous terrorist before the war but by the middle of the war John Brown was a popular rallying cry. Here is one popular Union Army marching song:

Quote

Old John Brown's body lies a moldering in the grave,
While weep the sons of bondage whom he ventured all to save;
But though he sleeps his life was lost while struggling for the slave,
His soul is marching on.

Glory Hallelujah!

John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true and brave,
And Kansas knew his valor when he fought her rights to save;
And now, though the grass grows green above his grave,
His soul is marching on.

(Chorus)

He captured Harper's Ferry, with his nineteen men so few,
And frightened "Old Virginny" till she trembled through and through
They hung him for a traitor, themselves a traitor crew,
But his soul is marching on.

(Chorus)

John Brown was John the Baptist of the Christ we are to see—
Christ who of the bondmen shall the Liberator be,
And soon throughout the Sunny South the slaves shall all be free,
For his soul is marching on.

(Chorus)

The conflict that he heralded he looks from heaven to view,
On the army of the Union with its flag red, white and blue.
And heaven shall ring with anthems o'er the deed they mean to do,
For his soul is marching on.

(Chorus)

Ye soldiers of Freedom, then strike, while strike ye may,
The death blow of oppression in a better time and way,
For the dawn of old John Brown has brightened into day,
And his soul is marching on.

(Chorus)

Now that is an amazing hymn.

[Stargazer]

On 4/22/2026 at 10:31 PM, The Nehor said:

Now that is an amazing hymn.

Indeed!

Totally off-topic, but I ran into this and it made me think of you. I hope your avatar change didn't signal anything tragic!

 

[manol]

On 4/22/2026 at 4:31 PM, The Nehor said:

If Joseph Smith hade somehow won the Presidency he would not have averted the Civil War. The secession of the southern states started because Lincoln’s election meant that the expansion of slavery into the west of the United States was likely dead and that was intolerable to the people of the South. The idea that a President could take office on the platform of freeing all the slaves and not immediately trigger a conflict is just historically naive.

I applaud the idea Joseph Smith put forth but it wasn’t practical and wouldn’t have averted the conflict. The idea that southern slaveowners were primarily concerned that they wouldn’t get any money for freed slaves but were fine with them being freed in general is just not how anything would have worked.

 

Not that this is "proof" of anything, but here's my anecdote as a descendant of slave owners:

First, a bit of background - I was probably about ten years old when this conversation with my grandmother, who lived in New Orleans, took place.  This was years before my conversion to Mormonism, and she was not remotely LDS nor did she later express any knowledge of or sympathies towards Mormonism or Joseph Smith.  Her grandparents had been slave owners in Kentucky, and after the war they had to sell their farm and move to Mississippi.  Three or four generations lived under one roof so she grew up hearing about the war from multiple first-hand accounts. 

One day I guess she decided to tell me what would have averted the war.  She said that if the Southern slave owners had been compensated for their financial loss, the Civil War would, or could, have been averted.  For whatever reason that made an impression on me, and then years later when I learned about that aspect of Joseph Smith's campaign platform, it seemed to me that he was either inspired or wise or both.

I'm not historian enough to argue whether my grandmother's opinion was right and whether Joseph Smith's plan would have worked. 

Was compensating the slave owners ever a serious topic of national conversation and debate, and thereby given valid opportunity to change people's minds?  Again, I don't know.  Seems to me it was an idea that really should have been given the best possible chance to win over support, and perhaps Joseph Smith could have provided it with that best possible chance even if he didn't win.   

Edited 19 hours ago by manol

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, manol said:

 

Not that this is "proof" of anything, but here's my anecdote as a descendant of slave owners:

First, a bit of background - I was probably about ten years old when this conversation with my grandmother, who lived in New Orleans, took place.  This was years before my conversion to Mormonism, and she was not remotely LDS nor did she later express any knowledge of or sympathies towards Mormonism or Joseph Smith.  Her grandparents had been slave owners in Kentucky, and after the war they had to sell their farm and move to Mississippi.  Three or four generations lived under one roof so she grew up hearing about the war from multiple first-hand accounts. 

One day I guess she decided to tell me what would have averted the war.  She said that if the Southern slave owners had been compensated for their financial loss, the Civil War would, or could, have been averted.  For whatever reason that made an impression on me, and then years later when I learned about that aspect of Joseph Smith's campaign platform, it seemed to me that he was either inspired or wise or both.

I'm not historian enough to argue whether my grandmother's opinion was right and whether Joseph Smith's plan would have worked. 

Was compensating the slave owners ever a serious topic of national conversation and debate, and thereby given valid opportunity to change people's minds?  Again, I don't know.  Seems to me it was an idea that really should have been given the best possible chance to win over support, and perhaps Joseph Smith could have provided it with that best possible chance even if he didn't win.   

I don’t think they were being deliberately deceptive but they were wrong. After the Civil War there was a bit of a crisis of identity in the Southern States. They lost a lot of lives, had a lot of their infrastructure burned, and a lot of their way of life dependent on slavery was gone. So all those people died for nothing or worse, died for something odious. So the “Lost Cause” mythos cropped up to soften the Confederacy’s image and make slavery less important so that their cause wasn’t so odious. State’s rights became a popular rallying cry. They also played up the Union occupation as particularly brutal, desperately looked for ways to show how the Confederacy wasn’t ‘that bad’ for enslaved and free black people and the like.

This revisionism went deep to the point that many Confederate stalwarts who never mentioned state’s rights publicly post-war held it up as the casus belli of the conflict.

On a more practical level the aristocratic planter class wasn’t going to give up slavery. Their plantation lifestyle and wealth relied on it. Getting paid for their slaves wasn’t going to get them to shrug and agree to free everyone. The South didn’t secede because Lincoln was going to abolish slavery or even emancipate the slaves. It occurred because Lincoln was staunchly opposed to expanding slavery into the western territories. They wanted to spread the system they were using into the west.

It is also important to note that the South and the North were operating on very different economic and social systems. The South had a very entrenched class system. Plantation owners were more like feudal lords than business owners. The North had a class system too of course but it was much more flexible and was based around free farming and industrialization. Once the war was over the South rapidly industrialized. The divide was mostly gone once the South was on a similar economic system though the South found new methods to oppress the Black people in their midst and went to town with those.

So yeah, I don’t believe that would have worked. As a post-war rationalization it sounds good. From a mostly disinterested viewer taking a large view emancipation with compensation probably seemed reasonable. It didn’t seem reasonable to the Southern elite. It would require massive systemic changes and there was also the deep-rooted fear of losing control. That is understandable until you remember that their fear was losing control over other people.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Indeed!

Totally off-topic, but I ran into this and it made me think of you. I hope your avatar change didn't signal anything tragic!

 

My glider died a few years back sadly. Cute video though.

[manol]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

On a more practical level the aristocratic planter class wasn’t going to give up slavery... From a mostly disinterested viewer taking a large view emancipation with compensation probably seemed reasonable. It didn’t seem reasonable to the Southern elite.

I don't disagree with that.

But could the Southern elites have instigated the civil war, including the fielding of multiple large armies, without the consent and support of the Southern non-elites?   Seems to me a good idea well-argued (and Joseph Smith was a good orator) would have had a chance of swaying enough hearts and minds to divide the South along lines unfavorable to those who preferred war. 

That being said, recognizing my own tendency to be more optimist than realist, that's not a hill I'm willing to die on. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, manol said:

I don't disagree with that.

But could the Southern elites have instigated the civil war, including the fielding of multiple large armies, without the consent and support of the Southern non-elites?   Seems to me a good idea well-argued (and Joseph Smith was a good orator) would have had a chance of swaying enough hearts and minds to divide the South along lines unfavorable to those who preferred war. 

That being said, recognizing my own tendency to be more optimist than realist, that's not a hill I'm willing to die on. 

I think this approach in thinking that the non-elite white people would not support this is incorrect. However, it is not off the reservation thinking. Those who think it are in good company. This was actually what Lincoln was thinking would happen. There was a hope that those who benefitted the least from slavery would be uninterested in the conflict. Sadly historians who do deep dives into the correspondence of Confederate soldiers have found that the lowly privates and other enlisted of the Confederate army were, generally speaking, very pro-slavery. The groundswell of Confederate dissatisfaction with the war from the relatively poor never materialized. They appear to have largely bought into the system they were defending even if its benefits to them were relatively minimal.

The cynic in me thinks this is best explained by the old quote from LBJ: "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

There is a huge advantage of creating an underclass below your poorer classes. Having someone beneath them is a reminder that things could be worse and help you buy into the status quo. LBJ was from the South and was a staunch member of the Southern bloc in Congress throughout his career. He knew how racism in the South worked inside and out and the “Lost Cause” mythos the Confederate historians wrote was built up to build this kind of loyalty to the status quo even if it didn’t benefit you much individually.

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

My glider died a few years back sadly. Cute video though.

Sorry to hear that! 

[Tacenda]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

My glider died a few years back sadly. Cute video though.

Oh, sorry about that!