[pp. 396–401]

Brigham Young was first a great disciple and student of Joseph Smith and only secondly a great leader in his own right. He saw himself as a master-builder—not the architect—of the Kingdom and of Zion. And while he taught the necessity of revelation to carry out the program, and claimed revelation himself, he felt it was Joseph Smith's special calling to have given the patterns and to have taught all the necessary principles of priesthood and government. . . .

In a postscript to President Young's 1866 address above, Church Historian George A. Smith added his

testemony that the work that has been carried out by president Young and his brethren has been in accordance with the plans, and designs, and Spirit, and instruction of Joseph Smith, as the Lord lives. . . .

It is clearly too early to conclude that Joseph Smith did not teach of priesthood denial to the Blacks. In fact, in this case the circumstantial evidence increases rather than narrows the probability that he did. . . .

Brigham Young and the Twelve . . . had access to a much larger corpus of Joseph Smith's teachings than we presently enjoy in written form. This becomes highly significant and relevant to the present question when Apostle Orson Hyde in 1845 characterized a discussion of the curse upon Blacks specifically as "among the mysteries of the kingdom" and said that he mentioned it at that time "not by constraint, or by commandment, but by permission." In other words, he was party to teachings about the Blacks which had not been explained publicly—and which would not be until Brigham Young himself did so in January and February of 1852. This same private understanding, it would appear, prompted Parley P. Pratt's cursory statement in 1847, Brigham Young's explanation to Lorenzo Snow in 1849, and President Young's public explanation in 1852.

Finally, if priesthood denial to the Blacks were taught in Nauvoo councils during 1843–1844, and consequently came to the Church (and in 1852 to the public) through Brigham Young and the Twelve, it would hardly be a new or unknown phenomenon. Many of the teachings and practices formalized during Brigham Young's administration can be traced to private councils where Joseph Smith taught the Twelve in detail about the affairs of the Kingdom. In fact, it seems far more compelling to accept that possibility, one in harmony with what we know of Brigham Young, and of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, than to continue to believe--in the absence of documentation--that Brigham Young made a fundamental innovation of his own during those tumultuous years of succession, temple building, and exodus, especially in view of the fact that the private meetings where Joseph Smith taught the full pattern of temple ordinances (and related doctrines) would have provided the ideal forum and the motivation for discussing it. We know the early brethren were concerned about priesthood lineage and about who would have access to temple ordinances. Even if Joseph did not raise the question himself, it is not difficult to envision someone asking about the Blacks and Joseph providing the answer. It is my feeling that the doctrine was introduced in Nauvoo and consistently applied in practice at least by 1843, although it would require additional documentation to raise the possibility from the realm of the probable to the certain.

No matter who taught of priesthood denial to the Blacks, or when, the question of inspired (or human) origin remains. Ultimately, of course, that is a question of faith, not history. But since historians have suggested, in the absence of any claimed revelation on the matter, that it might well be a historically determined policy, it is relevant to examine Brigham Young's own comments. The best evidence is a speech he gave before the Utah Territorial Legislature in February of 1852. Lester Bush, the most careful student so far of the question of priesthood and the Blacks, concluded from a partial report of the 1852 address that, while "one hesitates to attribute theological significance to a legislative address, were this account to be unequivocally authenticated it would present a substantial challenge to the faithful Mormon who does not accept an inspired origin for Church priesthood policy." Locating additional evidence of the address was complicated by a problem in dating. The speech was given 5 February 1852, rather than in January as Bush concluded. On the fourth of February, Governor Young laid the groundwork for a theological address to the legislature by reminding the members "not to forget that they are Elders in Israel" who should enjoy the Spirit of the Lord and should remember eternal principles even as they debated legal technicalities.

The reason that the 5 February 1852 sermon is of such importance in the matter is that President Young went to great lengths to deny in the most unequivocal language that he was the author of the practice of priesthood denial to the Blacks and to assert that the Lord was. Why could not Blacks hold the priesthood? Because [these] are the true eternal principles the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it. Men cannot, the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure. The matter was, he said, beyond his personal control; that is, it was divinely determined, not historically or personally. It is interesting to speculate that if he had felt it was within his jurisdiction to change the policy, he would have conferred the priesthood upon selected Blacks in his own lifetime. For example, speaking of one of his longtime Black employees, Brigham Young said in 1861 that "he would confer any blessing to him he could, believing him to deserve it."

Independent of one's conclusions about the origins of priesthood denial to the Blacks, the dramatic change of June 1978 is almost uniformly seen as a rebuttal of Brigham Young's teachings on the matter. Again I suggest that the evidence requires no such wholesale rejection. Brigham Young did say in the strongest possible terms that he had no power to change the doctrine, that if he tried he could only bring God's curse upon himself and his own priesthood. But that is part of his passage explaining that God, not man, was the author, and he neither states nor implies that Blacks could never have the Priesthood. On the contrary, Brigham Young personally believed that the day would come when the Blacks would have the priesthood. For example, the significant 1852 statement quoted above continued with a promise of future blessings:

Men cannot [remove the curse], angels cannot . . . but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one partical [sic] of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes. . . . That time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more.