First, to say it was an idea "created by Joseph Smith" insinuates he simply made it up. And, of course, I don't believe he made anything up. Even if one chooses to ignore LDS doctrine and scripture, they can read books like The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, by David M. Goldenberg, which talks about how this belief went back to the early 1700's if not before. And that, obviously, was before Joseph Smith was even born.

Second, the whole point of the Restoration of the Gospel (brought about by the Lord through Joseph Smith) was to restore things lost previously. So, to argue that Ancient Judaism did not teach exactly what the mark of Cain was is to miss the point entirely. I should point out that, even though something is not accepted by the Church as official doctrine, that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't true. Just that it may choose to not emphasize it as one of it's central docrines. Black skin being the mark of Cain is a good example. From simply reading the Church's most recent press release, called "Race and the Priesthood," it seems to not expressly put forth this belief. However, we know from the statements of LDS leaders that this was the understanding. And one can find support for this in both the writings of Abraham (found in the Pearl of Great Price) and in the Book of Mormon.

Third, you only see this as wrong because you're looking at it through the modern-day lens of political correctness where anything about race is a highly charged topic. To say that LDS scripture or belief "associates skin color with evil" is overly simplistic. As I mentioned before, skin color was the way God chose to keep Adam and Eve's righteous descendants from intermarrying with the apostate descendants of Cain. The exact same thing occurred in the Book of Mormon to keep the righteous descendants of Nephi from intermarrying with the apostate descendants of Laman and Lemuel. But that doesn't mean that those with dark skin, who were righteous, weren't accepted by God. There are many examples in the Book of Mormon of righteous Lamanites. As I pointed out before, you can't look at only certain scriptures in isolation in order to reach a preconceived conclusion about racism in LDS theology. You have to take it as a whole, and that includes scriptures about taking the Gospel to "every nation, kindred, tongue, and people" and "all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden." And incidentally, many down through the years misusing Biblical interpretation as an excuse for racism, slavery, etc. doesn't change the valid history and reasons for the Lord doing what He did.



I don't think it ever was the official position of the Church or that it was necessarily held by most or all early Church leaders. In fact, that belief didn't become well known until the turn of the century. By that time, the Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith wrote in 1907 that the belief was "quite general" among Mormons that "the Negro race has been cursed for taking a neutral position in that great contest." "Yet this belief," he said, "is not the official position of the Church, and is merely the opinion of men." Even before that, Brigham Young taught there were "No neutral spirits in heaven at the time of the rebellion. All took sides."



That's just it, Christianity has not "always been monotheistic." The monotheism we see in modern-day mainstream Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, is the result of pure Christian doctrine being mingled with Greek and other pagan philosophy.

One can look through the New Testament alone and see example after example of God the Father and Jesus the Son of God being two, separate, distinct, Beings. The individual scriptural passages are two numerous to list. And that, alone, shows there are more than one God. Unfortunately, many Christians are blind to the plain and obvious meaning of these passages because they are reading it through the lens of belief that did not come about until long after the New Testament period. Indeed, the Trinitarian concept of God was the result of a long process of development (through various councils) and was not complete until the 5th century. Even Catholic scholars, such as found in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, admit that among the Apostolic Fathers there had been nothing even remotely approaching the idea of one God in three Persons.

Now what about the monotheistic belief of Judaism? First, we should not forget that modern Judaism itself is essentially apostate Christianity. It simply ends with the Old Testament while modern day Christianity went a bit further. But both had the same true origins, albeit in different dispensations.

Joseph Smith talked about how the ancient Hebrew text found in Genesis, before it was corrupted, said "In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth." He continued, "If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, 'Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aashamayeen vehau auraits' — "The head one of the Gods said. Let us make a man in our own image." I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He acknowledged I was right."

We Mormons readily admit to being Christians but different. We're not 2nd and 3rd century Christians, as mainstream Christianity is today, where much of their doctrine is built on non-Biblical creeds brought about by uninspired councils long after the New Testament era. In the First Vision, the resurrected Savior told Joseph Smith that "All their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.'"



I actually agree with some of this. If you read the "Race and the Priesthood" statement by the Church, it immediately goes into how the Church was established during a time of great racial division where many of African descent lived under slavery and prejudice. It further says that, for many white Americans, prejudice was not just common but customary. And it influenced all aspects of people's lives, including their religion. Many Christian churches were segregated along racial lines. However, from the beginnings of the LDS Church, people of every race and ethnicity could be baptized and received as members. The main sticking point, for many, was the Priesthood ban but we've been over that.

Now, when you say "many statements by early Church leaders" that were racist, I'm certainly now aware of "many" statements made by "many" leaders. In fact, pretty much all the specific statements that have led to accusations of racism against the Church (and various anti-Mormon groups just LOVE to cite them) come from one source - the Journal of Discourses that contains various speeches and sermons attributed to Brigham Young. Though certainly a relatively small part of the entire volume, there are several statements in there that could be taken as racist. The doctrine on eternal matters not being racist but what appears to be his views on a more temporal, societal level. And that's where I agree with you that even prophets are not perfect. Although God's mouthpiece, a prophet is still a man and still mortal. As Joseph Smith said, "A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such." He also said, "If the people expect perfection from me, I shall expect it from them." That said, however, it's dangerous to quickly question a prophet. They're prophets for a reason. And I've never been one to find fault with the Lord's anointed. Nor do I take some statements made by a single prophet and attribute it to the entire Church and it's officially accepted doctrine, or even to that prophet himself as if it was all he ever said or did.