nickleus Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 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_Jameswhy is there nothing on fairlds.org about this? Link to comment
Nathair/|\ Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Hast thou inquired of the lords of Fair? Link to comment
Anijen Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 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_Jameswhy 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 EditorialIn 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 FreeHe writes that the slaves owned by Mormons should be brought Link to comment
phaedrus ut Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 From Black and Mormon By Newell G. Bringhurst, Darron T. SmithIn 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 Link to comment
BookofMormonLuvr Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 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. Link to comment
nickleus Posted February 7, 2011 Author Share Posted February 7, 2011 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 EditorialIn 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 FreeHe writes that the slaves owned by Mormons should be brought Link to comment
Jaybear Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Joseph Smith wrote 1836: Joseph Smith Slavery EditorialIn 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 FreeHe writes that the slaves owned by Mormons should be brought Link to comment
Deborah Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 There are articles at LDS.org, such as this one: Jane Manningor articles like this on blacklds.orgJane ManningAlthough I'm not sure what it is you are looking for or why. Link to comment
phaedrus ut Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 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 Link to comment
phaedrus ut Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 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 Link to comment
Gohan Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 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? Link to comment
Deborah Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 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. Link to comment
Calm Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 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_Jameswhy 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). Link to comment
BookofMormonLuvr Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 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.PhaedrusSo 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. Link to comment
Zakuska Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 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 8410 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. Link to comment
BookofMormonLuvr Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Psalm 8410 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. Link to comment
Calm Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Psalm 8410 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. Link to comment
Calm Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 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. Link to comment
phaedrus ut Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 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. Link to comment
Calm Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 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. Link to comment
phaedrus ut Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 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 Link to comment
oremites Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 ... 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? Link to comment
BookofMormonLuvr Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 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. Link to comment
oremites Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 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? Link to comment
Deborah Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 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. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.