The Book of Mormon teaches that race is not fixed, but tied to stories of lineage, faith, and covenant. Early Latter-day Saints used these narratives to explain human differences, sometimes in ways that reinforced exclusion and other times in ways that promised transformation. Jane Manning James’s remarkable life—captured in her statement, “I am white except for the color of my skin”—shows both the possibilities and the painful contradictions of this theology. Remembering how racial origins were narrated, forgotten, and internalized sheds light on the legacy of whiteness in Mormon thought. In this interview, Max Perry Mueller discusses themes from his book, Race and the Making of the Mormon People.
Don’t Miss Our Latest Interviews!
Be part of a growing community exploring topics such as the 1978 revelation and race and priesthood.
Book of Mormon Teachings About Race
How is Mormonism approached in religious studies?
I first began graduate school in the mid-2000s. Even in that late date, “Mormon Studies” (of which the history and culture of the Church in Salt Lake is the dominant part) still straddled the line in religious studies between an “acceptable” faith tradition to take seriously in and of itself and one that still received implicit derision, or worse, within the academy.
Much has changed in the last decade or so. The Book of Mormon musical. Mitt Romney’s presidential campaigns. The Church’s own concerted efforts to open itself up to the world (which reflects, of course, the increased global membership and history of the Church).
The study of Mormonism remains fairly niche.
In the mid-2000s, there were no endowed chairs or programs outside of Utah dedicated to Mormon Studies. Now there are several on both coasts and more to come in the next decade, I’m sure.
And yet, let me not oversell this. The study of Mormonism remains fairly niche and sometimes insular. Especially when it comes to taboo subjects like race, the long history of Mormon apologetics can creep into surprising places.
What drew you to Mormon history?
I have a lot of “I’m not a Mormon, but…” stories (many of which I’ve told elsewhere). But let me say here that, as the only child of a single mother growing up among big, often rambunctious, but for the most part, happy families of Latter-day Saints in Wyoming and later in North Carolina, especially (yes, there are Latter-day Saints in Chapel Hill!), left a deep impression on me.
For those for whom it is designed (and the Church itself acknowledges that it’s not designed for everybody), Mormon family life, at least from the outside, seems pretty great. Still, even among the Latter-day Saint families that made me feel at home, I was never quite or am at home.
And I think that insider/outsider paradox is true for Latter-day Saints in America (and increasingly the rest of the world). Latter-day Saints have been stand-ins for “American,” and yet in their exceptionalness, they remain set apart.
Race, of course, factors heavily into these historical and cultural understandings of Latter-day Saints. Non-Mormon Americans have projected their own anxieties about race, religion, and gender onto Latter-day Saints since the Church’s founding.
And at the same time, Latter-day Saints have responded by projecting out claims to racial, religious, and gender purity, and sometimes superiority.
My book explores this intersectional and multi-vectoral history, while trying to foreground the experiences of non-white Mormons who were often caught in the middle.
What challenges did you face trying to write about race in the Book of Mormon?
The biggest challenge for me was to make the Book of Mormon’s truth claims intelligible to non-Mormon audiences. That isn’t to say that the Book of Mormon is unintelligible. But it presents such a distinct view of the past, present, and future that for those non-Mormons who are not accustomed to it, the book can be intimidating.
This goes in the other direction, too. I worked hard to write about the Book of Mormon—especially its racialized histories and prophecies—that would allow Latter-day Saints to see the book in a new light.
The latter goal, to be honest, has proven harder than expected to accomplish.
To be sure, the Book of Mormon is having a moment outside of Mormon Studies. Even outside of Religious Studies, as more and more Mormon and non-Mormon academics are taking the text’s complexity and richness more seriously (I credit Jared Hickman, Elizabeth Fenton, Grant Hardy, and Seth Perry, among others, for this).
Many Latter-day Saints have been open to new kinds of readings of the Book of Mormon, to be sure. Yet others resist—full stop—any reading that implicates the Book of Mormon in racialized history.
The Book of Mormon is about much more than race. But to say that the Book of Mormon doesn’t speak to race at all or to say that the movement(s) that the Book of Mormon spawned are without racial concerns—both universalistic and particularistic—is not accurate.
How did early Latter-day Saints define race and ethnicity through lineage and origin stories?
These are the million-dollar questions! I’m going to ignore that category of ethnicity for now and focus on teasing out the difference between “race” and “lineage.”
In America, “race” has long meant “white” and “black.” America’s foundation (and its original sin) is built upon that constructed distinction and hierarchy. But “race” is much more complicated than the typical black/white binary.
My book looks at how the early Latter-day Saints viewed “race” as a holistic category—one of the schisms that Joseph Smith and his followers were mandated to end within the human family.
But “race” isn’t really the right word in the Mormon context (nor is it, when one steps back, the right term in the American context, either). As I write in the introduction to Race and the Making of the Mormon People, race and the “narration” of racial origins are intertwined.
That is, “race requires narration—the writing of origin narratives describing how different races came to be” (8).
These “origin narratives” are what Latter-day Saints refer to as “lineages.” Lineages are literary narratives (the most famous of these “genealogies” are those of Jesus, recorded in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew).
These literary narratives connect the “racialized” persons that the early Latter-day Saints encountered (and accepted, excluded, tried to convert, tried to marry, tried to kill) with those persons’ (supposed) ancient biblical (and/or Book of Mormon) progenitors.
So, according to the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith Jr. and Sr. were of the “loins” of Joseph, the son of Jacob, and the great-grandson of Abraham (See 102 in the book). But according to the patriarchal blessing that Hyrum Smith gave her just a few weeks before Hyrum’s martyrdom, Jane Manning James was “the lineage of Cainaan [sic] the son of Ham” (146).
So, at least at her birth, Jane Manning James’s place in the American and Mormon racial hierarchy was determined by her connection to “Ham,” the lowliest of the ancient biblical patriarchs.
(Let me note again my thanks to James’s great-great-grandson, Louis Duffy, who helped me secure James’s first patriarchal blessing and allowed me to be the first scholar to analyze this vital document).
Race becomes, then, less about phenotype and more about narratology.
Does the Book of Mormon teach that skin color can change?
What’s powerful (and certainly not unproblematic) about early Mormon racial theology is what I call “white universalism.”
The Book of Mormon teaches that race wasn’t fixed, permanent, or authored by God. Non-whites could return to their original non-race status through the adoption of the Mormon gospel (to become, once again, as the Book of Mormon infamously put it, “white and delightsome”).
How did race and literacy influence the spread of the Book of Mormon in the 19th century?
The Book of Mormon asserts that the Lamanites “forgot” their true ancestry (as long-lost Israelites) because of their illiteracy.
Take a look at King Benjamin’s lessons to his sons (Mosiah 1). Benjamin believes that were it not for their ability read and write and “understand” the “mysteries” of God, then the Nephites too “would have been like unto our brethren the Lamanites, who know nothing concerning these things.”
It’s the record-keepers and recorders’ proximity to the sacred archive—including the written record of their true ancestry (once again, we have lineage/race and literacy intertwining here)—that keeps the (faithful) Nephites from falling into unbelief.
Everywhere the Latter-day Saints went—but especially in their (most often failed) efforts to convert Native Americans (most of who they called “Lamanites”)—missionary work and literacy-promotion work went hand-in-hand.
Becoming literate was a key step toward becoming “white and delightsome.”
This is the case with the first official mission in Mormon history (to the Delaware in “Indian Country” in 1831) and throughout the missionary efforts in early Utah. Becoming literate, perhaps even more than being dunked in the baptismal waters, was a key step for non-white Mormons towards becoming “white and delightsome.”
Of course, this connection between Biblicism and race isn’t unique to Mormonism. Most early-nineteenth-century Protestant missionaries viewed the promotion of literacy as essential to the spread of the gospel.
But in Mormon history, illiteracy—or even antipathy to literacy—is particularly racialized.
Jane Manning James and Mormon Racial History
Who was Jane Manning James?
Jane Manning James was a singular figure, both literally and figuratively, in the history of Mormonism. She converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in her home state of Connecticut, then moved to Nauvoo in the fall of 1843 with several members of her family.
In Nauvoo, she became a friend and confidante to the Smith family and lived in the Nauvoo Mansion House. After the Smith brothers’ assassinations, she became a member of the first wave of pioneers to participate in the Mormon trek in 1847. In Salt Lake City, she raised eight children and buried six before her own death in 1908.
In 1908, then Church President Joseph F. Smith eulogized her at her funeral. And he also heard the first public recitation of James’s “life sketch,” which James and Elizabeth J. D. Roundy composed together in the 1890s and 1900s. This “life sketch” has become the transcript for contemporary black Mormon women who reenact James’s life, in part as a means of asserting their own belonging in a church that was, for a long time, wary, at best, of having black people as members.
What did Jane Manning James mean when she said, “I am white except for the color of my skin”?
This is a painful and powerful statement. But it reflects how deeply James understood the Mormon gospel of “white universalism”—or at least the universalism that was taught during her lifetime.
She understood that the Mormon gospel promised her that she could overcome the (so-called) limitations of her race by adhering to the strictures of the Mormon gospel. And, as she argues in her “life sketch,” few, if any, Mormons lived a more “Mormon” life than she did:
- She was a confidante to the Smith family and their would-be adopted spiritual daughter.
- She handled the urim and thummim.
- She was a witness to the early, secret days of polygamy.
- She was an 1847er.
- She was a pioneer of Salt Lake.
- She was a matriarch to a large Mormon family.
At the end of her life, she argued that she had overcome the accursed legacy of her ancient forefathers and rejoined the (white) universal human family.
Did Jane Manning James believe that her race was cursed?
One can—and should—ask if she actually believed that her race was cursed. Was she more “woke”—as the kids say—than her fellow Mormons (including the prophets of the Church) about race (the answer is n resounding “yes”)?
Did she publicly denigrate her race as an act of performance so that she’d be accepted and get access to the temple, which she so desired?
When I think of James uttering these heartbreaking words, I also think of the great poet Phyllis Wheatley’s On Being Brought from Africa to America. When I teach this poem, my students are often surprised (and sometimes horrified) that Wheatley would argue that her enslavement was a “mercy” because it brought her Christianity.
But we must remember that both Wheatley and James wrote for specific (white) audiences. Were James and Wheatley engaged in a form of “code switching?” I think the answer is yes.
Remembering and Forgetting Racial Origins
How does archival access shape Mormon racial history?
Of course, it’s impossible to know how more (or less) access would have changed Race and the Making of the Mormon People (again, I couldn’t have written it without access to the patriarchal blessing, so there’s that).
Let me say this: today, the Church’s archives are more open to the public than ever before. Many sources are digitized online (for example, I can do much of my research on Wakara’s America from the comfort of my office (or local bar).
But Church insiders do have access to key documents that outsiders don’t. This is the Church’s prerogative, of course. But this does affect how stories get told and who gets to tell these stories.
One of my ancestors, Sarah Elizabeth Holmes, grew up as a little girl in the Mansion House in Nauvoo. What might have been her attitude towards Jane Manning James and other African-Americans?
How fascinating! Again, it’s impossible to know. But if a young Sarah took her cues from the Smith family, then I think she’d have viewed Jane Manning James as a black woman, but one that was also a key member of the Smiths’ efforts to create a (more) universal human family.
And this attitude isn’t that different from how most of us today experience race.
When political pundits, politicians, our friends, and family members claim that they “don’t see race,” they are lying to themselves and to everyone else. (Take a look at the famous “Clark and Clark” doll studies, which were the key piece of evidence in Brown v. Board, to see how young children are when they become indoctrinated in the racist world which we construct for them).
We all see race, but not everybody sees race in themselves.
I’d argue that a major step toward dismantling white supremacy is that we demand that white people see that they, too, belong to a race, one that was/is also constructed, one that was/is pregnant with meaning and symbols.
One of the cornerstones of white supremacy is the assumption that whiteness is the default, the universal, the original race.
What might pioneer and contemporary Latter-day Saints think about each other’s racial attitudes?
The key change between 1830 to (roughly) 1900, which is the period covered in Race and the Making of the Mormon People, is that the narrative stories of racial origins—those that people believed came from the Bible; those that people believed could be found in “science” (think crania studies from the mid-nineteenth century)—have been forgotten. Or these “texts” of racial origins, which were used to justify slavery, segregation, and lynching as well as Indian removal and sequestration, and America’s colonial projects overseas, have become subtexts. Or perhaps even subconscious.
The cop who killed Mike Brown described him as a superhuman “demon” and used the pronoun “it” to describe his body. Mike Brown’s killer likely doesn’t know the origins of the ideologies about the black male body as an existential threat to white bodies and white spaces (or the origins of America’s police as, in part, “slave patrols”). But his rhetoric reflects—almost word-for-word—rhetoric used to describe black male bodies and to justify legal and extralegal violence against them in the antebellum period and up through the early 1900s.
We’ve (purposefully) forgotten the narratives of racial origins. And all that we’ve remembered is the effects of these stories on psyches. Another element of combating racism today is remembering these stories of (biblical, “scientific”) racial origins and seeing them for what they are—lies meant to divide us.
Introduction to Max Perry Mueller
Who is Max Perry Meuller?
I’m a theorist and historian of race and religion in American history, with a particular interest in the religious experiences, epistemologies, and cosmologies of indigenous and African American communities. I am currently an assistant professor of religious studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and a fellow at the Center for Great Plains Studies. I earned my PhD from Harvard and am a proud HDS alum as well as a Carleton College alum (Go Knights!)
Why did you write Race and the Making of the Mormon People?
My first book, Race and the Making of the Mormon People (The University of North Carolina Press, 2017), examines how the three original American races—“red,” “black,” and “white”—were constructed as literary projects before these racial divisions were read onto bodies of Americans of Native, African, and European descent.
The Latter-day Saints serve as my primary case study. But the Latter-day Saints’ own particular racialized theologies make them a case unto themselves, too.
What are you working on next?
My next book, Wakara’s America, will be the first full-length biography of the complex and often paradoxical warrior Ute chief, horse thief, slave trader, settler colonist, one-time Mormon, and Indian resistance leader.
In the first half of the nineteenth century, Wakara was arguably the most influential and feared man in the American Southwest. Yet the history books barely mention him.
Wakara’s America will, I hope, illuminate why history has purposefully forgotten him and explain why it’s time that history gives Wakara his due.
Don’t Miss Our Latest Interviews!
Get new interviews and articles from leading scholars delivered straight to your inbox.
About the Scholar
Max Perry Mueller is a historian of race and religion in American history and an associate professor of religious studies at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. His research focuses on how communities construct racial and religious identities, with particular attention to Latter-day Saints, African Americans, and Indigenous traditions. He is the author of Race and the Making of the Mormon People (University of North Carolina Press, 2017), a book that examines how the Book of Mormon and early Mormon theology shaped ideas about race.
Further Reading
- Let’s Talk About Race and the Priesthood
- Who Was Chief Wakara?
- How Did the 1978 Priesthood Revelation Happen?
- Who Was Jane Manning James?
- Did Samuel the Lamanite Face Prejudice?
- Why Did Eerdmans Publish a Book on Latter-day Saint Theology?
Race and Skin Color in the Book of Mormon
- Race and the Making of the Mormon People (University of North Carolina Press)
- Review of “Race and the Making of the Mormon People” by Max Perry Mueller (BYU Studies)
- He Denieth None That Come Unto Him: A Personal Essay on Race and Priesthood by Ahmad Corbitt (Church History)
- In Review: ‘Whiteness’ in the Mormon Archive (Harvard Divinity Bulletin)
- When Mormons Aspired to Be a ‘White and Delightsome’ People (The Atlantic)
Citation Information
This post was originally published on April 18, 2020. The most recent update on September 24, 2025, includes updated headers, images, and resources, as well as and an improved online reading experience.
