I'll restate what I meant about "Moreover, it's not knee-jerk political correctness if it is something that really is wrong. If it didn't exist in the Tanakh but really was an idea created by Joseph Smith and his followers in the zeitgeist of early American racism, then why would it not be wrong to condemn it? It clearly associates skin color with evil, and that is racism at its core." First, it was a hypothetical question, and second, he may have invented it insofar as it was religious doctrine. Where it previously existed it was simply the aberrant belief of certain individuals as opposed to a belief held as part of a religion. So if in fact Smith make it part of a religious scheme, then it is likely that it came out of that zeitgeist. You yourself have said previously that you believe in moral absolutes, so that if something is REALLY wrong (that is, objectively wrong), then it is ALWAYS wrong. For example, most people would agree that raping a baby is always wrong. It is wrong all the time and everywhere. Is it not also wrong to say "It is true that person X is less than person Y for the only reason that X has darker skin color than Y"?

Moreover, when I asked for the source, while you say the belief existed in some form for about a century before Smith, insofar as LDS doctrines are concerned it came from an alleged divine revelation to Smith? Therefore it really has no human antecedents other than Smith, even if some people believed it a hundred years before him. It's certainly not found in the Bible, for instance. So IF Smith did not receive divine revelation for the claim that the Mark of Cain was black skin, then would it not be a clear example of racism?

The LDS claim of restoration assumes that something was lost in the first place. Contrary to your assertions, the early church taught the same essential doctrinal beliefs as found in the New Testament. That mistranslation of Joseph Smith, "the head of the gods" is laughable. Ask any Hebrew scholar if that's found in any Tanakh. It's not there. You can look at the Masoretic texts that are used for Old Testament sourcing as well as the Greek Septuagint. The Shema, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One" ("Adonai Eleheinu, Adonai Echad") has always been understood by Jews to mean that God is the ONLY ONE GOD.
That's why Judaism is and has always been monotheistic. And Jews and Christians are fully aware that Elohim is plural, that doesn't mean it gets translated as "head of the gods." As for a Jew saying "it would ruin the Bible." Yeah, right. Too bad Smith didn't provide us with the name of his Jew so that we could investigate his claim.

As for modern Judaism being apostate Christianity, I didn't write anything about modern Judaism. I wrote about ancient Judaism, so that's just a red herring.

Christianity is and always has been monotheistic, contrary to that bogus assertion that Emperor Constantine changed things at the Council of Nicea. Early church fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria also taught monotheism years before the Council of Nicea. Early Christianity was not a mix of Christianity with paganism. If it was, then it would have been polytheistic like Mormonism. Look at the ancient religions of Greece, Rome, Scandinavia and India and you will see that they were/are all polytheistic. So if anything, Mormonism is far closer to paganism than Christianity is. That's the primary reason that Christian denominations reject Mormonism, because it is polytheistic. Anyway, that bogus charge has been disproven by scholars like J. Gresham Machen, Ronald H. Nash and others. It's the same sort of pseudoscholarly claim made by people like Dan Brown. The same garbage pops up every few years despite the fact that the scholarship that disproves it gets better and better with time. At any rate, since Smith so quickly condemned all Christian churches as corrupt and an abomination, Mormons shouldn't complain when members of those churches call him a false prophet and LDS a false religion. As they say, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" and "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." That was a pretty good size rock Smith threw at every church then in existence, so of course there will be anti-LDS sites and organizations. The question is: Are they accurate or not, not just poisoning the well by saying, "Well, those are claims made by anti-Mormon groups, so we can dismiss them." That reminds me how the late Johnnie Cochran dismissed Ken Starr by saying, "Oh, he's just a tobacco lawyer." The host didn't challenge the statement at all. He could have said, "Yes, Starr is a tobacco lawyer and a highly respected Constitutional lawyer, and you're a double-murderer defending race-baiting lawyer. Now that we got that out of the way, was Ken Starr correct or not?"

Finally, as for citing the Journal of Discourses, if you go back to what I wrote I plainly did NOT cite it. I used McConkie and Smith, so that was another red herring. You say it's wrong to "quickly question a prophet." What about slow, careful deliberative questioning of a prophet? Like in the examples I gave, even the Old Testament writers condemned prophets when they veered off the path.