The historically black Morehouse College campus in Atlanta, Georgia, includes an International Chapel that bears the name of the school’s most renowned alumnus, Martin Luther King, Jr. In 2023, the Chapel added a portrait of the then-president of the LDS Church, Russell M. Nelson. More recently, the chapel also added a portrait of church founder Joseph Smith. This chapel is dedicated to civil rights and equality, but has chosen to honor the founder and a modern leader of a church that is historically racist in doctrine and practice. All for looking forward and healing, but honoring these men while so little reconciliation has been offered is inappropriate to the honor of the chapel’s namesake and mission.
Background
The Morehouse College Martin Luther King International Chapel is dedicated to empowering transformational, nonviolent ambassadors of peace. Built in 1978, the Chapel seats 2,501 and features the 6,000-pipe Wendell P. Whalum organ. The Hall of Honor includes more than 300 oil portraits of global leaders of the international civil and human rights movement. The lobby is home to busts of Mahatma and Kasturbai Gandhi. The plaza is home to the only bronze statue of Dr. King in Georgia and the Howard Thurman obelisk and crypt. The chapel building, a multi-purpose facility, hosts people of diverse backgrounds from around the globe. The chapel is used for Morehouse academic, cultural, community, and spiritual programs and events.
Russell M. Nelson’s Gandhi-King-Mandela Peace Prize
In 2023, Morehouse College honored then-LDS Church President Russell M. Nelson with a Gandhi-King-Mandela Peace Prize, along with adding his portrait to the same Hall of Honor. If this sounds like a made-up “Peace Prize,” it is. The award, which includes the names of arguably the three individuals known for doing the most for civil rights in world history, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela, had never before been awarded to anyone.
Morehouse College, a historically Black school, honors President Nelson for building bridges of racial understanding
Morehouse College, a historically Black school in Georgia, has given its inaugural Gandhi-King-Mandela Peace Prize to President Russell M. Nelson of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Rev. Dr. Lawrence Edward Carter Sr., dean of the Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel, read a citation and presented President Nelson with the award in a pre-recorded video played at an award ceremony on Thursday, April 13, 2023, at the WorldHouse Interfaith and Interdenominational Assembly at the Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel. An overflow audience of more than 2,600 people attended.
“We are honored to announce you as the inaugural laureate of the Morehouse College Gandhi-King-Mandela Peace Prize as an internationally recognized medical scientist, revered president, prophet, seer, and revelator for the 17-million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” Carter said, reading the citation. “You have continued the legacy of Joseph Smith, founder of the Latter-day Saints movement and the first nationally recognized religious leader in the United States to advocate for the freedom of enslaved Africans by affirming racial and ethnic equality and running for the American presidency on a political platform of compensation emancipation. You have worked tirelessly to build bridges of understanding rather than create walls of segregation.”
President Nelson’s oil portrait was also inducted in the school’s International Hall of Honor… In his acceptance speech, the 98-year-old prophet said his decades as a heart surgeon taught him important lessons about God’s love for every soul… The prophet also said his lifetime of travel to 138 countries has taught him a similar lesson.
Church Newsroom: The Prophet Receives the Gandhi-King-Mandela Peace Prize, April 13, 2023
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/the-prophet-receives-gandhi-king-mandela-peace-prize
The only coverage of this award was from church-owned publications and other Utah-based news; local news and organizations in Atlanta reported nothing, as did Morehouse College, and other than the event itself, the Chapel said nothing either. The calendar of events at Morehouse does not include the April 13, 2023, award ceremony, and the website includes no coverage and searches for Gandhi-King-Mandela Peace Prize or Russell M. Nelson return no relevant results either.
This Peace Prize does appear to have been awarded in 2024, but no other recipients have been mentioned. It feels similar to the FIFA Peace Prize given to stoke the ego of Donald Trump, as the soccer federation sought to appease the US President before hosting the 2026 World Cup.
Other than speaking about love, Nelson seems to have done nothing to deserve such an award. In 2018, with the NAACP, Nelson issued a joint call for civility and racial harmony. Then in 2021, he orchestrated financial pledges of $3 million to fund scholarships over 3 years. Which is honorable, but pales in comparison to what the church could do with the billions of dollars in reserve or the immense repair a simple apology and acknowledgement of past (and current) racist doctrines espoused by the church.
Joseph Smith Portrait
Now the chapel has been presented and will also hang a portrait of Joseph Smith in the Hall of Honor, citing his remarks against slavery when running for President in 1844. This was at the very end of his life, just before being killed in June 1844.
A portrait of the Prophet Joseph Smith was added to the International Hall of Honor in Morehouse College’s Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel in Atlanta, Georgia, on Sunday, February 1, 2026… A portrait of the late President Russell M. Nelson of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was added to the historically Black college’s hall in 2023. Joseph’s portrait will go between President Nelson and Abraham Lincoln.
One significant way Joseph Smith advocated for basic rights for all came during his presidential run of 1844. While weaving in excerpts from the Book of Mormon and the text of the Prophet’s presidential platform, the Rev. Dr. Lawrence Edward Carter Sr., dean of the Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel, called Smith’s plan to abolish slavery “among the most morally ambitious proposals of the antebellum era.”
In his campaign pamphlet, the Prophet said that when people “petitioned to abolish slavery in the slave states, I would use all honorable means to have their prayers granted and give liberty to the captive.”
“We were not ready, as Lincoln said, to be guided by our better angels, to do what Christ said we should do,” the Rev. Dr. Carter said. “Joseph Smith Jr. was Lincoln before Lincoln.”
The portrait coming to Morehouse resonated deeply with Black Latter-day Saints who witnessed the unveiling.
The Genesis Group’s William Kennedy was one of them. The Genesis Group is a multi-stake activities group in the Church’s Utah Area. Established nearly 55 years ago, it helps Black Latter-day Saints and their families, friends and others build faith in Jesus Christ, foster unity and strengthen their membership in the Church…
Kennedy said Sunday’s event is about more than what Joseph Smith did in the past. It is also about the future.
For Cassie VanDyke of Atlanta, the portraits will help her teenage son feel more comfortable in the faith as he grows older. Cassie said she can see how difficult it is for him to reconcile his identity as both a Black man and a Latter-day Saint.
“There is a bit of a chasm there,” Cassie explained.
Portrait of Joseph Smith Unveiled at Morehouse College, Feb 1, 2026
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/portrait-joseph-smith-morehouse-college
The church made big (internal) publicity, celebrating this occasion with videos and articles to show that Smith was honored as an abolitionist and civil rights activist before his time. This, like more church news, is propaganda and a calculated attempt to sweep real history under the rug. The video includes local black church members and their statements along with church historians (mis)-representing church history and focusing only on his statements in the last few months of his life.
This video states, “the young prophet’s portrait joins others celebrated historic figures who envisioned and yearned for a future of racial equality.” This will “open the door to education about Joseph Smith.”
The video also includes an important tidbit that the descendants of the Smith family who sponsored the commission were present at the ceremony. It seems that whoever decided to accept the portrait of Joseph Smith was given a Gospel Topic Essay of sorts about Joseph Smith’s views on slavery. It would have whitewashed everything negative and promoted the single positive stance he had in his life, and praised him as a martyr without explaining why he actually died. It’s a case of the church attempting to erroneously put itself on the right side of history.
Joseph Smith on Slavery
Joseph Smith’s views on slavery evolved, moving from a position of pragmatic tolerance and theological justification in the 1830s to an anti-slavery platform during his 1844 presidential campaign. He initially supported slavery, citing the Bible and Mormon theology.
Early Support (1830s)
Joseph Smith, as leader of the faith, modified his views on slavery over the course of his short life. In 1836, Smith wrote that abolitionists were “ignorant” and that slavery was supported by the Bible. He stated that Southerners had the right to own slaves and that Northerners should not interfere.
If slavery is an evil, who, could we expect, would first learn it? Would the people of the free states, or would the slave states? All must readily admit, that the latter would first learn this fact.” – Joseph Smith, Letter to Oliver Cowdery, April 9, 1836
In his April 9, 1836 letter to Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith argues that people in free states are less able to judge the evils of slavery than slaveholders, and that if slavery were evil, the South would be the first to see it. He states that the North has no right to tell the South not to hold slaves, and that Northern anti-slavery petitions and activism are “no less than an array of influence, and a declaration of hostilities against the people of the South.”
He then cites the “book of Covenants” and says the church has no right to interfere with slaves contrary to the mind and will of their masters, advises not preaching to slaves until masters are converted, and then teaching masters to be kind and servants to serve “with singleness of heart, without murmuring.”
He also hopes no church-authorized preacher will stir up “strife and sedition” against “our brethren of the South,” and he defends slavery from the Bible by saying the first mention of slavery comes from someone “perfect in his generation” (the curse of Ham) and is “a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah,” and that it should be “to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South” for “holding the sons of Ham in servitude.”At this time, Joseph Smith’s position was pro-South and theologically pro-slavery. He defended the South’s right to hold slaves, rejected Northern moral and political pressure against slavery, forbade church preachers from anti-slavery agitation, and grounded slavery in scripture, treating opposition to it as opposition to God’s decree.
He did not call for abolition or for the church to work toward freeing the enslaved. By invoking “the sons of Ham” and God’s “decree” that they be held in servitude, Smith was using the standard proslavery, curse-of-Ham tradition. That tradition treated Black people as a group under a divine curse, treated their enslavement as biblically justified, and implied they should remain in bondage and serve “without murmuring” rather than seek freedom.
So in 1836, his teachings supported the legitimacy of holding Black people in slavery and framed that as obedience to scripture. His views may have shifted later (for example, by 1844 he had run for president on a platform that included compensated emancipation), but this letter shows that at this date his stated position was proslavery and aligned with curse-of-Ham ideology regarding Black people.
Missouri Context
In Missouri, he adopted a conciliatory stance toward enslavers, especially after Latter-day Saints were driven from Jackson County because outsiders falsely accused them of promoting slave rebellion and race mixing. In Illinois, however, Smith espoused ideals grounded in the commonality of all human beings and advocated a government-funded gradual emancipation plan.
So during the late 1830s, to avoid conflict with pro-slavery Missourians and protect the Church members and property, Smith adopted a more neutral stance in which he avoided any public anti-slavery rhetoric. Not talking about slavery doesn’t mean he changed his mind; it just means he was scared. He tried to cater to both slavers and abolitionists with a don’t ask, don’t tell postion.
Theological Justification
Smith believed that slavery was in accordance with the “curse of Ham” and that it should not be interfered with, advising against preaching to or meddling with enslaved people without their masters’ consent.
The Book of Mormon, the church’s founding scripture, was produced by Joseph Smith, who said he translated it from ancient records “by the gift and power of God.” In that text, skin color is repeatedly tied to righteousness and divine favor. Dark skin is described as a “curse” or “mark” set on the Lamanites because of their wickedness, so that they would be “loathsome” to the righteous Nephites and the two groups would not mix (e.g., 2 Nephi 5:21–24; Alma 3:6–19). When Lamanites later convert, the narrative says the curse is “taken away,” and their skin becomes “white” or “exceedingly fair” (e.g., 3 Nephi 2:15–16; Alma 23:18).
So the scripture presents dark skin as a sign of divine disfavor and light skin as a sign of favor and redemption. If this scripture is the word of God, as Latter-day Saints claim, then God is portrayed as using skin color as a punishment and reward; if it came from Joseph Smith’s mind, then it reflects his own racialized theology. Either way, a founding text that so clearly links dark skin to curse and sin helps explain why the church was far from an abolitionist movement and why later leaders like Brigham Young could so easily justify a priesthood and temple ban against Black people.
1843 Journal Entry
On January 2, 1843, Orson Hyde, LDS Apostle, asked Joseph Smith about “the situation of the Negro.” Hyde argued that Black people “come into the world slaves mentally & physically” only because of their situation; if their situation were swapped with whites, “they would be like them.” He affirmed that they “have souls & are subjects of salvation,” pointed to educated Black people in Cincinnati and refined enslaved people in Washington, and said that if Black people were “put … on the level” they would “rise above” him. Smith replied with an analogy: if he raised someone to be his equal and then oppressed them, they would be indignant and try to rise above him—and he compared that to Oliver Cowdery and Peter Whitmer, who had said he was “fallen” and that they were “capable of leading the people.”
He then stated that if he had power over Black people, he would “confine them by strict laws to their own species” and “put them on a national equalization.”
In the eve Elder [Orson] Hyde was present & after supper asked what is the situation of the Negro? They come into the world slaves mentally & physically. Change their situation with the white & they would be like them. They have souls & are subjects of salvation. Go into cincinati & find one educated, rides in his carriage, he has risen by the power of his mind to his exalted state of respectability. Slaves in washington more refind than the presidents. Boys will take the shine off those they brush & wait on.
Says Elder Hyde, put them on the level & they will rise above me.
Joseph: If I raised you to be my equal & then attempt to oppress you would you not be indignant, & Try to rise above me? Oliver Cowdery & Peter Whitmer & many others say I was fallen & they were capable of Leading the people.
Had I any thing to do with the negro— I would confine them by strict laws to their own species put them on a national equalization.
Joseph Smith, Journal, December 1842–June 1844; Book 1, 21 December 1842–10 March 1843, (January 2, 1843) Page 41-43.
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-1-21-december-1842-10-march-1843/49
Hyde was pushing a relatively egalitarian view for the time: Black people’s condition is imposed by circumstance; they have souls and can be saved; with equality, they could excel. Smith did not adopt that view. His analogy to Cowdery and Whitmer frames “putting people on the level” as a threat—those raised to equality might try to surpass or replace you. His policy proposal is segregation: “confine them by strict laws to their own species.” So he is not endorsing integration or full equality; he is endorsing legal separation of Black people from whites, with “national equalization” likely meaning some form of separate-but-equal status within that segregated order. The entry shows that even when a close associate argued for Black capability and equality, Smith’s impulse was segregation and control, not the removal of racial barriers.
1844 Presidential Campaign
As a candidate for U.S. President, Smith reversed his public stance, calling for the abolition of slavery by 1850 through voluntary, government-paid liberation, using the sale of public lands to fund it.
But he never asked the members of his own church to free their own slaves, or even offered to compensate those members with anything, such as salvation. He saved the promises of salvation for the women he secretly married and their families.
Smith’s plan for gradual emancipation by using federal funds to buy enslaved people from their owners seems more strategic than honorable. Given his 1836 letter defending Southern slavery and the curse of Ham, it is reasonable to see this shift as politically driven: an abolitionist-sounding stance to appeal to Northern voters, and a promise to pay enslavers for their “property” to soften Southern opposition. His proposal still treated enslaved people as property to be purchased rather than as persons with an inherent right to freedom, and he proposed funding the purchases by slashing congressional salaries to a quarter of their rate—a gimmick that was never a serious or equitable way to finance emancipation. The national slavery question was deeply divisive, and compromise was in the air, but Smith’s plan was a late, self-serving campaign plank, not a principled or sustained stand against slavery.
Joseph’s Presidential Campaign ended with his death in June 1844. He was killed, but the campaign was nowhere near a success leading up to this. The Mormon political conventions in Boston and Tennessee both ended in riots! George Gayler states in his 1956 article, The Mormons and Politics in Illinois: 1839-1844, “from the troubles in Illinois, Massachusetts and Tennessee due largely to the announcement of his candidacy, the United States may have been saved from the bloodiest election in its history by the death of the Prophet.”
Mixed Legacy
While he did run as an anti-slavery candidate, his earlier, pro-slavery writings were used to justify the practice within the Church, which persisted for some time. These theological views were used by his successor, Brigham Young, to institute a segregated heaven. He forbade anyone with dark skin from the priesthood or admittance to the temple, where members of the faith make the covenants that qualify one for heaven.
Joseph even had a servant in his house, Jane Manning, to whom his wife Emma offered a temple sealing to Joseph as his child. But Joseph died before she took him up on the offer, and after a lifetime of service to the church and many petitions to church leadership for this sealing, she was finally allowed a special ceremony where she was sealed to Joseph as a slave for eternity.
To call Joseph Smith “Lincoln before Lincoln” ignores his earlier proslavery statements, introduced racist doctrine and church teachings, and even the property-based and politically calculated nature of his 1844 plan. It insults the memory of those who actually risked and gave their lives for emancipation.
Pushback on Joseph Smith’s Portrait Joining the International Hall of Honor
On February 1, 2026, Joseph Smith Jr., founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was honored by Morehouse College with a portrait unveiled in the Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel’s International Hall of Honor. He was recognized by Chapel Dean Dr. Lawrence E. Carter Sr. as a civil rights forerunner for his 1844 presidential platform to abolish slavery, which was deemed a “morally ambitious” antebellum proposal.
Just days later, the Chapel Assistants Program issued a statement requesting the removal of Smith’s portrait. An article in the school paper interviewed Dean Carter, who said the portrait was added, at least in part, for financial reasons.
Morehouse Chapel unveils portrait of Joseph Smith Jr., sparks student outrage
The Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel sparked campus outrage after it unveiled a portrait of Joseph Smith Jr., founder of Mormonism, in its Hall of Honor. Students say chapel administrators made the decision without meaningful student input and ignored how the honor conflicts with Morehouse College’s legacy.
The chapel unveiled the portrait Sunday, Feb. 1, during its 5:30 p.m. vespers service. Two days later, chapel assistants began drafting a formal letter of dissent. Over the following week, tensions escalated between students and chapel leadership over representation, governance and the symbolism of the Hall of Honor.
So, who was Joseph Smith Jr.?
Joseph Smith Jr. founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the early 19th century. Many students and scholars consider his views on race and slavery deeply troubling.
Although Smith later expressed support for gradual emancipation, historical records show that he tolerated slavery among church members and made racially charged statements throughout his life.
Zandra Vranes, a Black Atlanta resident and lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said Smith’s record reflects both regressive and progressive ideas for his time.
Historical texts document Smith making racist remarks, including a journal entry that states, “Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict Laws to their own species.”
In a letter to fellow religious leader Oliver Cowdery, Smith warned against freeing enslaved people. He argued that abolitionists might “set loose upon the world a community of people who might peradventure, overrun our country and violate the most sacred principles of human society, chastity and virtue.”
Smith later supported gradual emancipation during his 1844 presidential campaign. However, Vranes emphasized that he never prohibited church members from enslaving people.
“Is a person allowed to evolve? Sure,” Vranes said. “But even while he was running on that anti-slavery platform, there was never a time where he didn’t allow members to have enslaved people.”
Vranes said she questioned why the chapel chose to induct Smith into the Hall of Honor.
Morehouse Chapel unveils portrait of Joseph Smith Jr., sparks student outrage
https://maroontigermedia.com/2026/02/joseph-smith-jr-portrait-morehouse/
Dean Carter’s justification
Dean Lawrence Edward Carter, dean of the Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel, has publicly praised Smith. In a published article, Carter referred to Smith as “Lincoln before Lincoln.”
Vranes challenged that comparison. She said Abraham Lincoln and Smith’s political opponent James G. Birney openly opposed slavery, while Smith promoted gradual emancipation paired with compensation for slave owners.
In an exclusive interview with The Maroon Tiger, Carter defended the decision. He described Smith’s abolition stance as courageous and historically significant.
“Smith wanted to free the enslaved Africans, and he wanted to have the federal government pay reparations to slave owners,” Carter said. “If elected, there would have been no civil war.”
Carter also cited financial constraints as a factor in the decision.
“Donors are hard to find who are willing to pay for oil portraits of people they don’t know,” Carter said. “I haven’t been able to find money for almost everybody you can name in Black history.”
Student dissent and alleged retaliation
On Wednesday, Feb. 4, junior Alonzo Brinson, the 40th President of the Chapel Assistants, and junior Damarion King, vice president of the Chapel Assistants, released a letter condemning the decision to honor Smith. The letter questioned whether the induction aligned with Morehouse’s mission and institutional values. Students involved say chapel administrators dismissed their concerns and, in some cases, responded with disciplinary actions.
On Feb. 5, King advanced to the finals of the Otis Moss Oratorical Contest. During his speech, King publicly criticized the college’s decision.
“How are we falling asleep while a racist, unethical, miseducated, dead white man is honored with a portrait in this sacred space,” King said. “While hardworking Black, powerful and educated men and women are overlooked? Morehouse, how are we falling asleep?”
Morehouse Chapel unveils portrait of Joseph Smith Jr., sparks student outrage
https://maroontigermedia.com/2026/02/joseph-smith-jr-portrait-morehouse/
Here is the statement from the Martin Luther King Jr International Chapel Assistants Program’s President, Alonzo Brinson, and Vice President, Damarion King. The Dean asked them to remove their message, but they declined.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
From the Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel Assistants Program
Morehouse College
Grace and peace unto you,On behalf of the Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel Assistants Program, we issue this public statement to express our concern regarding the decision to induct the oil portrait of Joseph Smith Jr., founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, into the International Hall of Honor at Morehouse College.
Our beloved institution was founded in the aftermath of slavery to educate, uplift, and affirm the dignity of Black men. Our history is rooted in the affirmation of Black dignity and the pursuit of justice; therefore, those honored within our halls should reflect that legacy.
Honoring a figure associated with a religious tradition whose early history includes racially exclusionary teachings and practices does not align with Morehouse’s mission or heritage. Such an action does not reflect the Morehouse standard, nor the standard upheld by the Chapel Assistants Program.
With righteous indignation, we have submitted a letter to Dean Lawrence Edward Carter Sr., respectfully requesting the immediate return of the oil portrait of Joseph Smith Jr. and the revocation of his induction.
This request is not rooted in hostility toward any faith tradition, but in faithfulness to the story, values, and enduring legacy of Morehouse College.
In unity and in service,
https://www.instagram.com/p/DUWp0mqjQUr/
Alonzo Brinson, 40th President
Damarion King, Vice President
The Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel Assistants Program
Alonzo spoke regarding the experience of being asked to remove his statement on the 1380 WAOK-AM radio program, Voices in the Streets.
Morehouse Faces Backlash Over Joseph Smith Portrait
Let me go ahead and preface by saying, this is not an attack on the institution not is it an attack on anyone who made the decision, but I am attacking the oil portrait itself. When I did my research, I scratched my head becasue I chose Morehouse for a plethora of reasons, but mainly because Morehouse, as you know, is suppose to represent men who speak up against injustice.
So I looked up who this person was, and I said, this is not—I don’t feel that this is who we should be honoring. There’s a lot of other african americans who have done more things to be spotlighted than this. So, I went and met with Dean Carter who made the decision. I was basically told to read the tribute—Harold Bennet, who is the Dean of Philosophy and Religion at Morehouse and we honor Joseph Smith Jr.
Joseph Smith Jr was honored for 15. Which made me even more uncomfortable to say the least. Then we had a meeting on Tuesday, an e-board meeting, like we normally do. We passed a resolution to put out a statement saying that we ourselves as the e-board did not agree with the induction of the oil portrait.
Since then there has been a mass eruption of “We need to take it down.”
We got told by the dean that we need to take it down.
We got told by the director of communications that we needed to take it down.
If you know Morehouse, we were built on resilience, and so we said no.
We did not take it down. Went and met with the powers that be to change some stuff but ultimately we did not take it down.
So there’s a battle between right now what are we going to stand for and at what cost? Like I said, I’m not criticicizing the person who made the decision, but I am cirticizing the oil portrait. I’ve gotten calls from many black latter-day saints who don’t understand why Joseph Smith would be honored at Morehouse College. They’re kinda scratching their head too. When I felt like I was the only one who wasn’t just ok with this, I got the revelation that I wasn’t. So we are speaking out against that and it’s caused some pushback and as John Lewis would say, “Good trouble.”
Alonzo A.J. Brinson, 40th President of Morehouse Chapel
https://www.instagram.com/p/DUyaVyJiRaF
The Salt Lake Tribune published an article, ‘We were bamboozled’ — students at Black college question why it honored LDS founder Joseph Smith.
Not everyone, though, was pleased with the honor accorded a religious leader who had made racist remarks and whose church barred Black members from participating in its temple rituals and priesthood for more than a century.
“Our beloved institution was founded in the aftermath of slavery to educate, uplift, and affirm the dignity of Black men. … Therefore, those honored within our walls should reflect that legacy,” Morehouse juniors Alonzo Brinson and Damarion King posted on social media. “Honoring a figure associated with a religious tradition whose early history includes racially exclusionary teachings and practices does not align with Morehouse’s mission or heritage.”
They asked that Carter take down Smith’s portrait from the chapel’s International Hall of Honor and revoke his “induction” into the hallowed space…
Morehouse is “a liberal arts college,” the longtime dean of the chapel told The Tribune. “We want our students to be safe to hear and discuss any idea, no matter how controversial, [including] the students who have protested about the Joseph Smith portrait. Nobody who works for Morehouse — professors or deans or directors or chairs of academic departments — nobody is condemning those students for expressing their views or discouraging them from speaking up. Freedom of press, freedom of speech is encouraged. All of our students understand that where Blacks or minorities are not free, we’re all born to rebel.”
Still, Carter believes that those students have not studied Mormonism as much as he has. Indeed, the Black administrator has spent a fair amount of time talking with Latter-day Saint historians and now sees the faith — and, he said, all faiths — through a lens of forgiveness and redemption.
W. Paul Reeve, chair of Mormon studies at the University of Utah and author of “Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness.”
For most of his life, the Mormon prophet shared the belief of most Christians of his era about Black people having “the curse of Ham,” a biblical view the Utah-based faith eventually disavowed. He also condemned interracial marriage, or, as many put it, “race mixing.”
Smith made a statement in 1836 that “reified the status quo,” Reeve noted, and publicly opposed abolition.
At that time, Smith argued in a church publication that the course of abolitionism was “calculated to … set loose, upon the world a community of people who might peradventure, overrun our country and violate the most sacred principles of human society, chastity and virtue.”
Reeve was pleased to see recognition that Smith arrived at an antislavery position, he said, “but there is no need to make it sound more influential than it was.”
Putting up the Latter-day Saint leader’s portrait without any acknowledgment “that the church got race wrong for nearly 130 years,” the historian said, “or of the considerable harm that resulted leaves people feeling like there is an effort to avoid hard history.”
It is “perfectly OK to celebrate the good things,” he said, “but to do so while ignoring the bad things leads to the kind of response we have witnessed from students at Morehouse.”
Though Zandra Vranes has been a lifelong Latter-day Saint, she said, “Had I, a Black Mormon woman, been able to vote in 1844, my vote would have gone to James G. Birney.”
Birney called for “the immediate abolition of slavery, for the Constitution to be interpreted as an antislavery document,” she said, “and for freed Black Americans to be recognized as citizens with natural rights.”
Vranes acknowledged that “while Joseph Smith was a kind friend and leader to many Black pioneers in the faith, his campaign did not condemn slavery, and he allowed enslavers into membership and leadership in the church.”
She understands why Morehouse students are questioning his inclusion in the cherished chapel.
Salt Lake Tribune: ‘We were bamboozled’ — students at Black college question why it honored LDS founder Joseph Smith, Peggy Fletcher Stack, Feb 11, 2026
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2026/02/11/lds-news-morehouse-students/
Final Thoughts
Reconciling the church’s racist past would require far more than symbolic gestures like where Joseph Smith’s portrait hangs. A serious reckoning would start with a clear, public apology for the priesthood and temple ban—over a century of official policy that excluded Black Latter-day Saints from ordination and temple ordinances and taught that people of African descent were spiritually inferior. The church has never apologized for that policy or for the teachings that justified it. It has only stated that the ban was lifted in 1978 and that “today the church disavows the theories advanced in the past” about Black skin and the curse of Cain—without naming who advanced those theories, how long they were taught as doctrine, or how much harm they caused. An apology would acknowledge that the institution, not only past leaders, was wrong, and that the policy and its supporting teachings were sinful and damaging.
The church could also explicitly disavow the racist theology still embedded in its founding scripture. The Book of Mormon presents dark skin as a divine curse and mark of disfavor and light skin as a sign of righteousness and redemption. Recent editions have softened some wording (e.g., “skin of blackness” to “skin of blackness” in some contexts, or adjustments in chapter headings and study helps), but the narrative still ties skin color to curse and favor, and the church has not explained these edits or taken responsibility for the text’s role in teaching racism. The church could state plainly that those passages do not reflect God’s will, that skin color is not a curse or a reward, and that the church repudiates any use of the Book of Mormon to teach that it is. It could add study materials that name the harm these passages have caused and frame them as a problem to be confronted, not only as history to be read.
Beyond apology and disavowal, the church could use its wealth and visibility for substantive anti-racist work: major, sustained funding for racial justice, education, and reparative initiatives; consistent preaching that names and renounces the church’s own racist history; and support for scholarship and curricula that tell the full story of the ban, the curse-of-Ham teachings, and the pain they caused. Right now, the church’s public efforts against racism are modest next to its resources and its global podium. Until it apologizes, disavows the racist theology still present in its scripture, and backs that with real accountability and action, any claim to be reconciling with a racist past will remain meager—and the decision to honor figures like Joseph Smith in spaces dedicated to racial justice will continue to ring hollow.
Your Own Voice
The portrait of Joseph Smith in the MLK Chapel cannot be separated from the money behind it. The sequence—a “Peace Prize” for Russell M. Nelson from the Dean, then Nelson’s portrait, then Smith’s—strongly suggests that donations from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and/or Smith family organizations shaped what the chapel chose to honor. When an institution dedicated to Dr. King’s legacy accepts such gifts and responds by enshrining the church’s founding prophet alongside real champions of justice, it trades moral clarity for donor relations. Smith’s documented racism, his proslavery preaching, and the racist theology embedded in the scripture he produced make the pairing not just ironic but offensive. Calling out that connection is not anti-religious; it is a demand that spaces that claim Dr. King’s name not let funding rewrite who counts as a peacemaker or a moral exemplar.
If this bothers you, say so. Write or call the MLK Chapel and Morehouse and tell them why honoring Joseph Smith in that space undermines the values they claim to uphold. The chapel can be reached at 830 Westview Drive, SW, Atlanta, GA 30314. And emailed at [email protected]. wasmormon has already sent a letter to the chapel to add our voice to the irrational and irreconcilable representation of Joseph Smith among those in the Hall of Honor of the MLK Chapel of Morehouse College.
Dear King Chapel,
As a native of the Atlanta area, I care deeply about the heritage of Dr. King and Morehouse. I was also raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have since resigned from the church, in part because of the racist teachings it has promoted and the harm they have caused.
I was therefore surprised to learn that the chapel has added portraits not only of the late church president Russell M. Nelson but also of Joseph Smith, the church’s founder.
The version of history the church tells about its origins omits or softens difficult facts. Joseph Smith secretly practiced plural marriage with dozens of women, including teenagers—Helen Mar Kimball was secretly married to him at 14—and women who were already married to other men. When a Nauvoo newspaper, the Expositor, exposed this practice and other abuses of power, Smith ordered the printing press destroyed. That act contributed to his arrest and detention in Carthage, where he was later killed by a mob. Beyond these actions, Smith left a legacy that has been used to justify racism. The Book of Mormon, which he presented as scripture, repeatedly links dark skin to a divine curse and wickedness (e.g., 2 Nephi 5:21; Alma 3:6). Those passages have been cited for generations to teach that dark skin is a sign of spiritual inferiority. Smith also taught and allowed ideas that tied Black people to the curse of Cain or Ham, which his successor would later use to justify a formal ban.
That successor, Brigham Young, made Smith’s racial ideas into church policy, which lasted for over a century. As prophet and territorial leader in Utah, Young barred all members of African descent from the temple and from the priesthood. He taught that Black people were spiritually “less valiant” in a premortal life and bore the “curse” of Cain, and that they would not receive priesthood or temple blessings until after all other peoples. That ban remained in place until 1978, over a decade after the assassination of MLK Jr., when the church rescinded it under pressure and changing circumstances. For over a century, the church excluded Black Latter-day Saints from full participation and sent a message to the world that the church considered people of African descent to be inferior.
Honoring Joseph Smith and Russell M. Nelson in a space dedicated to Dr. King’s legacy can feel, to many, like honoring figures whose teachings and policies contradicted the dignity, equality, and beloved community Dr. King preached. I am writing not to attack anyone’s faith but to ask that the chapel’s leadership consider whether these portraits align with the values of Dr. King and Morehouse, and whether the full history of these men—including their racism—ought to be part of that conversation.
I would love to further discuss any topics or answer any questions you may have.
Thank you for your time and for the work you do in Atlanta and beyond.
If the idea of Joseph Smith’s portrait in this historic hall doesn’t sit right with you either, send them a message to let them know the truth about Joseph Smith. Hopefully, the Chapel Dean doesn’t consider adding supreme racist Brigham Young to the Hall next.
And if you are an ex-Mormon or someone who has struggled with the church, its racist past, its whitewashed history, or its pressure to stay silent—consider adding your story to wasmormon.org. Bringing these stories into the light is one way to resist the church’s efforts to silence dissent, downplay its history, and present itself as if it had always been on the right side of racial justice. It didn’t, and it isn’t. Speaking up keeps that truth in the open.
More reading:
- https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/portrait-joseph-smith-morehouse-college
- https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/the-prophet-receives-gandhi-king-mandela-peace-prize
- https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/inaugural-morehouse-college-ghandi-king-mandela-peace-price
- https://maroontigermedia.com/2026/02/joseph-smith-jr-portrait-morehouse/
- https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2026/02/11/lds-news-morehouse-students/
- https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-1-21-december-1842-10-march-1843/49
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_1844_presidential_campaign#Platform
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith%27s_views_on_Black_people
- https://www.jstor.org/stable/40189482
- The Prophet Joseph Smith Honored with Portrait – Church Newsroom Video