CES Letter Answers

Appearance

Backdating & Retrofitting ​

The claim:

"Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery changed the wording of an earlier revelation when they compiled the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants, adding verses about the appearances of Elijah, John the Baptist, and Peter, James, and John as if those appearances were mentioned in the earlier revelation in the Book of Commandments, which they weren't."[1]

The CES Letter points to the 1833 Book of Commandments Chapter 28 (XXVIII) and compares it to modern D&C 27. The original: seven verses about sacramental wine. The 1835 version: those seven verses plus twelve more — naming Moroni, Elias, Elijah, John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John, and describing priesthood keys each one conferred.

The implication is clear. Joseph invented the priesthood restoration story and inserted it back into his revelations.

Did the expansion fabricate new content — or put into print what was already understood?

What the Book of Commandments actually said ​

Here is Book of Commandments Chapter 28, published in 1833:[2]

VerseText
1"Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God and your Redeemer, whose word is quick and powerful."
2-3"For behold I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory; Remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins"
4-5"Wherefore a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine, neither strong drink of your enemies: Wherefore you shall partake of none, except it is made new among you"
6"the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you, on the earth, and with all those whom my Father hath given me out of the world"
7"Wherefore lift up your hearts and rejoice, and gird up your loins and be faithful until I come:--even so. Amen."

Short. Practical. Sacrament instructions.

D&C 27 preserves those seven verses almost verbatim. Then it adds twelve more — expanding verse 6's reference to "all those whom my Father hath given me" into a list of specific individuals with specific priesthood keys.[3]

The CES Letter treats the expansion as proof of fabrication. But both Joseph Smith and Newel Knight — who was present when the original revelation was received — said the expanded material was communicated in September 1830, weeks after the initial August 1830 revelation.[4]

A revelation received in two parts ​

Joseph recorded the first portion in August 1830 during a visit from Newel and Sally Knight in Harmony, Pennsylvania. He had gone to procure wine for a sacrament service when a heavenly messenger appeared.[5]

Joseph later stated that "the remainder" came "in the September following."[6] Newel Knight's journal corroborates this, noting the expanded portions were "revealed to Joseph a few weeks after their August meeting."[4:1]

The Joseph Smith Papers editors confirm the two-stage composition: the first portion — roughly verses 1-5, 14, and parts of verses 15 and 18 — appeared in the 1833 Book of Commandments. The second portion first appeared in print in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. Less than one-third of the 1835 text appears in the earlier printings.[6:1]

The CES Letter presents this as one revelation that was altered. The documentary record shows two revelations that were combined.

What D&C 27 actually added ​

SectionBook of Commandments (1833)D&C 27 (1835)
Sacrament instructionsVerses 1-7: Don't purchase wine from enemies; use what you make yourselvesVerses 1-4: Same content, minor wording adjustments
Future sacrament with Christ"I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you... and with all those whom my Father hath given me out of the world"Expanded to name specific individuals: Moroni, Elias, Elijah, John the Baptist, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Michael/Adam
Priesthood keysAbsentVerses 12-13: "John I have sent unto you... to ordain you unto this first priesthood"; "Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles"
Armor of God"Lift up your hearts and rejoice, and gird up your loins and be faithful"Expanded into full Ephesians 6-style spiritual armor passage (verses 15-18)

The expansion names angelic visitors and describes priesthood conferrals that the original seven verses didn't mention. If Joseph received that content in September 1830 — as both he and Newel Knight said — then combining the two portions into one section for the 1835 publication was editorial, not fabrication.

Worth Acknowledging

The D&C 27 expansion is real. The question is whether it was invented in 1835 or published in 1835 after being received in 1830. Everything turns on that distinction.

Revision isn't fabrication ​

The CES Letter's argument rests on a premise: that changing a revelation's text is inherently dishonest. Three facts undermine that premise.

The revision was authorized. At an 1831 conference, the Church resolved that "Br. Joseph Smith Jr correct those errors or mistakes which he may discover by the holy Spirit while reviewing the revelations & commandments."[7] Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, and W.W. Phelps all assisted with editing as part of a formally appointed Literary Firm.[8]

The revision was open. Oliver Cowdery himself noted the differences between earlier and later printings: "we were not a little surprised to find the previous print so different from the original."[9] Church leaders discussed changes publicly — Orson Pratt in 1854, the Millennial Star in 1857, and multiple modern publications.[10] The earlier printed versions were available for anyone to compare. A forger doesn't leave the original documents on the shelf.

The Bible itself contains the same pattern. Jeremiah 36 records that after King Jehoiakim burned the prophet's scroll, God commanded Jeremiah to produce a new one: "and there were added besides unto them many like words" (Jeremiah 36:32).[11] The circumstances differ — Jeremiah's scroll was destroyed, while Joseph's wasn't — but the principle is the same: prophetic texts in the biblical tradition could be expanded with additional revealed content.

Brigham Young stated the underlying theology plainly: "Revelations, when they have passed from God to man, and from man into his written and printed language, cannot be said to be entirely perfect, though they may be as perfect as possible under the circumstances."[12] Joseph understood his revelations as conveying divine ideas through imperfect human language — always subject to refinement as understanding deepened.[13]

Key Point

Joseph Smith treated revelations as living documents subject to expansion and refinement — not as fixed texts. This was known to early Church members, authorized by conference vote, and discussed openly in Church publications.

What the CES Letter doesn't tell you about the Book of Commandments ​

The CES Letter notes that the 1833 Book of Commandments contains "no mention of John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John."[14] True. It also contains no mention of the First Vision. No account of Moroni's visits. No narrative of the Book of Mormon translation.

The Book of Commandments was a collection of revelatory texts, not a narrative history. It was physically tiny — approximately 4.5 by 2.75 inches — printed on scarce paper, and the press was destroyed by a mob before binding was completed.[15]

Expecting it to contain accounts of angelic visitations is like expecting a hymnal to contain a biography of the composer.

What the Book of Commandments does contain is language that only makes sense if angelic ordination had already occurred. Chapter 24, verse 3 describes Joseph Smith as "an apostle of Jesus Christ."[16] Apostles must be ordained by other apostles or by higher authority. No earthly apostles existed in 1830. The title itself implies a divine source — and that implication was there in 1833, two years before the D&C 27 expansion.

For the broader argument about whether anyone heard about priesthood restoration before 1832 — including hostile newspaper evidence, Joseph's 1832 history, and Oliver Cowdery's 1834 published account — see Late Appearance.

The Lyman Wight question ​

The CES Letter quotes Richard Bushman:

"During the turbulent meeting, Joseph ordained five men to the high priesthood, and Lyman Wight ordained eighteen others, including Joseph. The ordinations to the high priesthood marked a milestone in Mormon ecclesiology."[17]

Then it asks: "If Peter, James, and John ordained Joseph Smith to the Melchizedek Priesthood in 1829, why did Lyman Wight ordain Joseph Smith to the Melchizedek Priesthood again in 1831?"

The question conflates two different things.

Priesthood is not the same as office ​

The June 1831 conference involved ordinations to the office of high priest — a specific role within the Melchizedek Priesthood.[18] The actual minutes read: "Joseph Smith jr. & Sidney Rigdon were ordained to the High Priesthood under the hand of br. Lyman Wight."[18:1]

Receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood and being ordained to a particular office within it are distinct steps. The same distinction exists today: a young man receives the Aaronic Priesthood and is ordained a deacon. Later he's ordained a teacher, then a priest — each a new office within the same priesthood. Nobody asks, "Why was he ordained again?" because everyone understands the difference.

EventWhat happenedCategory
~May-June 1829Peter, James, and John conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood on Joseph and OliverPriesthood authority
April 6, 1830Joseph and Oliver ordained as First and Second Elders of the ChurchOffice (Elder)
June 3-4, 1831Joseph ordained to the high priesthood under the hand of Lyman WightOffice (High Priest)

One more detail the CES Letter omits: Joseph himself ordained Lyman Wight before Wight ordained Joseph at the same conference.[19] If this were a first-time priesthood conferral rather than an office ordination, the circularity would be absurd. Nobody at the time raised that objection — because they understood the distinction.

"A composite priesthood of portions and degrees" ​

John S. Thompson's 2024 article in Interpreter demonstrated that the apparent contradictions in the priesthood restoration timeline dissolve when you understand Joseph Smith's own framework: "All priesthood is Melchizedek; but there are different portions or degrees of it."[20]

Thompson identified four stages in the restoration:

  1. Apostleship (~May-June 1829) — Peter, James, and John conferred authority to establish the kingdom.
  2. Elder (April 6, 1830) — Joseph and Oliver ordained as First and Second Elders, signaling the official existence of a church.
  3. High Priest (June 1831) — The "totality of priesthood to which all others are appendages," representing supreme ecclesiastical authority.
  4. Temple keys (April 3, 1836) — Elijah restored keys enabling priesthood blessings through temple ordinances.

This isn't a post-hoc rationalization. It matches ancient patterns. In the New Testament, Christ called twelve apostles, who then ordained elders as local overseers. The Book of Mormon follows the same progression through Alma and Melchizedek.[20:1]

The Gospel Topics Essay confirms the incremental framework: early Church members "did not immediately use the terms 'Aaronic Priesthood' or 'Melchizedek Priesthood'" and understanding "developed incrementally through revelation."[21]

The CES Letter treats "high priesthood" and "Melchizedek Priesthood" as synonyms. Joseph didn't. Understanding his actual framework resolves the Lyman Wight question entirely.

Oliver Cowdery published the account before the 1835 D&C ​

The CES Letter's backdating argument assumes the priesthood restoration narrative first appeared in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. It didn't.

Oliver Cowdery published a detailed account of the Aaronic Priesthood restoration in the October 1834 Messenger and Advocate — months before the 1835 D&C was compiled.[22] He described praying with Joseph about baptism before "on a sudden" an angel descended, shared a message, and ordained them to the priesthood.

This was a public, printed account in the Church newspaper. Every member could read it.

If the priesthood restoration were a story being invented for the 1835 D&C, Oliver's 1834 publication makes no sense. You don't pre-announce a fabrication in a public newspaper. You slip it in quietly.

Steven Harper at BYU demonstrated that Oliver's 1834 account, Joseph's 1832 history, and the 1835 D&C additions all tell a consistent story from independent vantage points.[23] That's the pattern of two people recalling the same experience at different times — not coordinated invention.

The strongest criticism — addressed honestly ​

The strongest version of this argument isn't the CES Letter's. It's Dan Vogel's: that Joseph Smith gradually developed priesthood concepts over time and retroactively inserted them into earlier documents to create a coherent origin story.[24]

This is a serious argument. It deserves a serious answer.

If the priesthood restoration narrative were invented in 1834-35, then every piece of pre-1834 evidence for it must be either fabricated or misinterpreted:

  • The 1830 newspaper reports documenting angelic authority claims — written by hostile outsiders with no motive to help Joseph[25]
  • Joseph's 1832 history referencing "reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels"[26]
  • The 1830 Articles and Covenants calling Joseph "an apostle of Jesus Christ"[16:1]
  • Newel Knight's journal about the September 1830 revelation[4:2]
  • Oliver Cowdery's June 14, 1829 letter to Hyrum Smith quoting D&C 18 language about apostolic calling[27]

The fabrication hypothesis requires dismissing all five of these. The expansion hypothesis requires accepting one thing: that Joseph received content in September 1830 that wasn't published until 1835.

The latter explanation is simpler. It's also better supported. And it's exactly how the Joseph Smith Papers editors describe what happened.[6:2]

The positive case: revision as corroboration ​

The CES Letter frames D&C 27's expansion as a smoking gun. Turn it around.

The expanded portions of D&C 27 are consistent with every other source. Joseph's 1832 history already referenced both priesthood conferrals. Oliver Cowdery published the Aaronic Priesthood account in 1834. Hostile newspapers reported angelic authority claims in 1830. The expanded D&C 27 didn't introduce a new story. It put into print what multiple independent sources already documented.

SourceDateWhat it records
Oliver Cowdery's letter to Hyrum SmithJune 1829Quotes D&C 18 language about apostolic calling
Articles and Covenants (D&C 20)April 1830Calls Joseph "an apostle of Jesus Christ"
Newel Knight's journalSeptember 1830Expanded revelation received "a few weeks" after August
Painesville TelegraphNovember 1830Reports Cowdery "conversed with Angels"
Joseph Smith's earliest historySummer 1832Lists "reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels"
Oliver Cowdery, Messenger and AdvocateOctober 1834Detailed account of angelic ordination
D&C 27 expansion1835Names the same angels, same events, same timeline

If Joseph were fabricating, you'd expect the expansion to contain claims found nowhere else — new information with no corroboration. Instead, every detail in the expansion matches what earlier sources already established.

That's corroboration. Not fabrication.

Bottom line: The CES Letter says Joseph fabricated priesthood restoration by inserting it into an earlier revelation. Both Joseph and Newel Knight said the expanded content was received in September 1830 — five years before the 1835 publication. Oliver Cowdery published a detailed account in 1834, before the D&C expansion. The revision added content that every other source already corroborated. That's not backdating. That's publishing.

  1. Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Priesthood Restoration," no. 3, pp. 81-83. ↩︎

  2. Book of Commandments 28 (XXVIII), 1833, p. 60. The full text is available at the Joseph Smith Papers: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-commandments-1833/64 ↩︎

  3. Doctrine and Covenants 27 (modern edition). The 1835 edition published this as Section 50 (L). Full text comparison available at the Joseph Smith Papers: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-circa-august-1830-dc-27/1 ↩︎

  4. Newel Knight's journal records that the expanded portions of D&C 27 were revealed to Joseph in September 1830, weeks after the original August 1830 revelation. See Larry C. Porter, "The Restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods," Ensign (December 1996): 30-47. See also the historical introduction to D&C 27 in the Joseph Smith Papers. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  5. "Historical Context and Background of D&C 27," Doctrine and Covenants Central. https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/historical-context/dc-27/ ↩︎

  6. "Revelation, circa August 1830 [D&C 27]," Joseph Smith Papers. The editors note that the first portion was recorded in the manuscript revelation books and included in the 1833 Book of Commandments, while the expanded version's earliest extant text is the 1835 edition. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-circa-august-1830-dc-27/1 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  7. Minutes of the November 1831 conference, recorded in "Minute Book 2." The Church authorized Joseph Smith to "correct those errors or mistakes which he may discover by the holy Spirit while reviewing the revelations & commandments." Joseph Smith Papers. ↩︎

  8. Grant Underwood, "Relishing the Revisions: Joseph Smith and the Revelatory Process," BYU-Hawaii devotional. Underwood describes the Literary Firm — Sidney Rigdon, John Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and W.W. Phelps — receiving authority to make "verbal corrections" while maintaining doctrinal integrity. https://speeches.byuh.edu/devotionals/relishing-the-revisions-joseph-smith-and-the-revelatory-process ↩︎

  9. Oliver Cowdery noted the differences between earlier and later printings of the revelations. Cited in "Why did Joseph Smith edit revelations?" FAIR. https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Doctrine_and_Covenants/Textual_changes/Why_did_Joseph_Smith_edit_revelations ↩︎

  10. "Overview of changes to the Doctrine and Covenants," FAIR. The editing and modification of the revelations "was never a secret; it was well known to the Church of Joseph's day, and it has been discussed repeatedly in modern Church publications." https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Overview_of_changes_to_the_Doctrine_and_Covenants ↩︎

  11. Jeremiah 36:32 (KJV): "Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe... and there were added besides unto them many like words." ↩︎

  12. Brigham Young, "The Kingdom of God," Journal of Discourses 9:310 (July 13, 1862): "Revelations, when they have passed from God to man, and from man into his written and printed language, cannot be said to be entirely perfect, though they may be as perfect as possible under the circumstances; they are perfect enough to answer the purposes of Heaven at this time." See also JD 2:314 (1855). ↩︎

  13. Robin Scott Jensen, Robert J. Woodford, and Steven C. Harper, eds., Revelations and Translations: Manuscript Revelation Books, Facsimile Edition (Salt Lake City: Church Historian's Press, 2009), xxiii-xxv. The editors document Joseph Smith's practice of revising revelation texts as an integral part of his prophetic method. ↩︎

  14. Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Priesthood Restoration," no. 4, p. 83. ↩︎

  15. Brian Q. Cannon and BYU Studies Staff, "Priesthood Restoration Documents," BYU Studies 35, no. 4 (1995-96): 162-207. https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/priesthood-restoration-documents ↩︎

  16. Book of Commandments 24:3 (1833), later Doctrine and Covenants 20:2. Describes Joseph Smith as "an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." ↩︎ ↩︎

  17. Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Priesthood Restoration," no. 6, pp. 83-84, quoting Richard Lyman Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 157-158. ↩︎

  18. "Minutes, circa 3-4 June 1831," Joseph Smith Papers. The minutes record: "Joseph Smith jr. & Sidney Rigdon were ordained to the High Priesthood under the hand of br. Lyman Wight." https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-circa-3-4-june-1831/2 ↩︎ ↩︎

  19. Richard Lyman Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling: A Cultural Biography of Mormonism's Founder (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 157-158. Bushman noted that Joseph himself ordained Lyman Wight before Wight ordained Joseph at the same June 1831 conference — an arrangement that makes sense for office ordinations but not for initial priesthood conferral. ↩︎

  20. John S. Thompson, "Restoring Melchizedek Priesthood," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 62 (2024): 263-318. Thompson demonstrates that Joseph Smith taught "All priesthood is Melchizedek; but there are different portions or degrees of it" and that different offices and keys were conferred sequentially for specific purposes. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/restoring-melchizedek-priesthood ↩︎ ↩︎

  21. "Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood," Gospel Topics Essays, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The essay notes that early Church members did not immediately use the terms "Aaronic Priesthood" or "Melchizedek Priesthood" and that understanding "developed incrementally through revelation." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/restoration-of-the-melchizedek-priesthood ↩︎

  22. Oliver Cowdery, Letter to W.W. Phelps, published in Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 1, no. 1 (October 1834): 14-16. Cowdery described the angelic ordination in detail — published months before the 1835 D&C compilation. See Steven C. Harper, "Oliver Cowdery as Second Witness of Priesthood Restoration," in Days Never to Be Forgotten: Oliver Cowdery (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2009). ↩︎

  23. Steven C. Harper, "Oliver Cowdery as Second Witness of Priesthood Restoration," in Days Never to Be Forgotten: Oliver Cowdery (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2009). https://rsc.byu.edu/days-never-be-forgotten-oliver-cowdery/oliver-cowdery-second-witness-priesthood-restoration ↩︎

  24. Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2004). Vogel argues Joseph gradually developed priesthood concepts and retroactively inserted them into earlier documents. This is the most sophisticated version of the fabrication hypothesis. ↩︎

  25. "The Golden Bible," Painesville Telegraph (Painesville, OH), November 16, 1830. Reports Oliver Cowdery "pretends to have a divine mission, and to have seen and conversed with Angels." Reprinted in Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996-2003), 2:271. ↩︎

  26. Joseph Smith, History, circa Summer 1832, 1. Joseph listed "reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels" among the four cardinal events of the Restoration. Joseph Smith Papers. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1 ↩︎

  27. Oliver Cowdery to Hyrum Smith, June 14, 1829. Quotes language later appearing in D&C 18, referencing apostolic calling and authority. See Larry C. Porter, "The Priesthood Restored," in Studies in Scripture, Volume 1: The Doctrine and Covenants, ed. Robert L. Millet and Kent P. Jackson (Sandy, UT: Randall Book, 1984), 35-36. ↩︎

A faith-promoting resource for Latter-day Saints.

Copyright 2025-present