CES Letter Answers

Appearance

ConciseIn-Depth
ConciseIn-Depth

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]

"Had the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood under the hand of John the Baptist been recorded prior to 1833, it would have been expected to appear in the Book of Commandments. However, nowhere in the Book of Commandments is this miraculous and doctrinally vital event recorded."[2]

"It wasn't until the 1835 edition Doctrine & Covenants that Joseph and Oliver backdated and retrofitted Priesthood restoration events to an 1829-30 time period — none of which existed in any previous Church records; including Doctrine & Covenants' precursor, Book of Commandments, nor the original Church history as published in The Evening and Morning Star."[3]

In June 1829, Oliver Cowdery sat down and wrote a private letter to Hyrum Smith. The Book of Mormon had not yet gone to press. The Church did not yet exist. And the letter is already speaking the apostolic-calling language of the revelation that became Doctrine and Covenants Section 18, the June 1829 revelation that tells Cowdery and David Whitmer they are "called even with that same calling" as Paul. That document, written six years before the 1835 compilation the CES Letter pinpoints as the moment of invention, is where the backdating thesis starts to come apart.

Start instead with what the CES Letter gets right, because much of it is right. The 1835 Doctrine and Covenants Section 50 (modern Section 27) is longer than the 1833 Book of Commandments Chapter 28. The 1833 version runs to roughly seven verses on sacrament wine. The 1835 version keeps those seven, then adds twelve more, naming Moroni, Elias, John the Baptist, Elijah, Peter, James, John, Joseph, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, and Michael/Adam, and describing the priesthood keys each conferred. The CES Letter reads that expansion as evidence that Joseph and Oliver invented the priesthood-restoration narrative in 1835 and slid it back into a revelation supposedly received in 1830.

This article takes up claims 3, 4, and 5, the documentary-alteration arguments. Claims 1, 2, and 6 (whether anyone heard about priesthood restoration before 1832, David Whitmer's late-life statements, the Lyman Wight ordination) belong primarily to the sister article on the late appearance of these accounts, though the Lyman Wight question's bearing on backdating is treated below.

The charge is documentary, so the engagement has to be documentary too. We will work through the textual expansion of D&C 27, concede what should be conceded, then assemble the eight separate pre-1835 documents that the "none of which existed in any previous Church records" claim has to dismiss in order to stand. The conclusion the record actually supports is narrower than the canonical telling but considerably stronger than the CES Letter's. Priesthood restoration is attested across eight independent vantage points between June 1829 and October 1834, hostile contemporary newspapers among them, before the 1835 compilation work began.

Concede what should be conceded ​

Several of the CES Letter's underlying facts are simply true, and no responsible apologetic should soften them.

D&C 27 was substantially expanded between 1830 and 1835. This is documentary fact, confirmed by the Joseph Smith Papers editors and uncontested in faithful scholarship. Roughly two-thirds of the 1835 text has no manuscript witness earlier than the 1835 edition: the named identifications of John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John; the Elias / Elijah passages; the spiritual armor verses; the priesthood keys language.[4]

The 1833 Book of Commandments contains no narrative account of either the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood restoration. No John the Baptist scene. No Peter-James-John scene. No May 15 date, no Susquehanna account. Anyone reading the 1833 Book of Commandments cover to cover would not learn that two angelic ordinations had occurred.

The 1832 history's reference to priesthood restoration is briefer and less specific than the 1838-39 history's account. The 1832 history mentions priesthood reception in two phrases. It does not name John the Baptist. It does not name Peter, James, and John. It gives no date. The 1838-39 history, which became Joseph Smith—History, is comparatively detailed.

Specific dates appear later in the record than the events they describe. The "May 15, 1829" date for the Aaronic restoration first surfaces in Cowdery's 1834-35 letters; "the 5th day of April, 1829" as the date Cowdery arrived to begin scribing for Joseph appears in those same letters.[5] No earlier source gives these dates.

Detail emerged gradually. Brian Cannon's BYU Studies documentary survey shows accounts becoming more detailed across the 1830s and 1840s, and the Gospel Topics page acknowledges directly that "Joseph Smith and other early members of the Church did not use the terms Aaronic Priesthood or Melchizedek Priesthood to describe the authority they received. Their understanding of priesthood developed over time and with the aid of continued revelation."[6]

The priesthood restoration's pre-1835 documentary trail is thinner than other foundational Latter-day Saint claims. The First Vision has more personal narrative. The Book of Mormon has 588 pages of public textual artifact. The Witnesses have signed published statements with cross-confirmation. The faithful claim here is not that the priesthood-restoration trail is overwhelming. It isn't. The claim is that it is sufficient to support the canonical timeline.[7]

Worth Acknowledging

The textual expansion of D&C 27 is real. The Book of Commandments omits the narrative. Detail did emerge gradually. The pre-1835 trail is thinner than other foundational claims. The faithful position is not that these facts are wrong; it is that the inference from these facts to fabrication does not survive engagement with the rest of the documentary record.

The CES Letter's inferential leap is from "the published narrative was elaborated between 1833 and 1835" to "the underlying claim was fabricated in 1835." That leap rests on assumptions about what counts as a "Church record," what genres the early Saints used, and what other pre-1835 documents say. None of those assumptions survives contact with the actual record.

What D&C 27 actually said in each printing ​

The CES Letter directs readers to compare the 1833 Book of Commandments Chapter 28 with the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants Section 50.[1:1] That comparison is the right starting point.

Section1833 Book of Commandments Ch. 281835 Doctrine and Covenants Sec. 50
Sacrament instructionsVerses 1-7: Don't purchase wine from enemies; partake of "none, except it is made new among you."Verses 1-4: Same content with 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-conferring angelsAbsent.Verses 6-13: "John... I have sent unto you, my servants... 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."
Spiritual armor"Wherefore lift up your hearts and rejoice, and gird up your loins and be faithful until I come: even so. Amen."Verses 15-18: Expanded into a full Ephesians-6 spiritual armor passage.
LengthRoughly 200 words.Roughly 750 words.

The expansion is real, substantial, and exactly what the CES Letter says it is.

The Joseph Smith Papers editorial introduction states the textual fact plainly:

"Early manuscripts, including the copy featured here, contain only the first portion of the combined revelation as published in 1835... While an earlier manuscript may have existed for the September portion, the earliest extant text for the expanded version of the revelation is the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants."[4:1]

The interpretive question is what that fact means. Two hypotheses are on the field, plus a third reading that fits the documentary record at least as well.

The fabrication hypothesis (CES Letter): Joseph and Oliver composed the additional verses in 1835 and inserted them into a revelation framework dated 1830, presenting fabricated content as if it had been received in 1830.

The two-stage composition hypothesis (Joseph Smith Papers, Newel Knight, Larry Porter): Joseph received the original portion in early August 1830 and the expanded portion in September 1830; the September portion's earliest extant manuscript is the 1835 publication, but it was not composed in 1835.

The expanded-under-canonical-authority reading: Joseph received some September 1830 portion, as Knight and Joseph's history attest, and the substantive textual elaboration in 1835 occurred under the openly canonized procedural framework: D&C 1:24-28, the November 1831 conference vote, the Literary Firm. This reading does not require the September 1830 portion to be textually identical to the 1835 publication. It requires only that the September 1830 receipt was a real revelatory event whose later textual elaboration falls within that canonized framework.

The fabrication hypothesis has to explain away primary-source statements from Joseph, an eyewitness journal entry from Newel Knight, the Joseph Smith Papers editors' position, and the September 4, 1830 dating already present in the 1833 Book of Commandments. The other two readings ask only that material received in September 1830 was first published five years later, in 1835, the same publication delay that applies to many of Joseph's revelations and most of the rest of the early Church's documentary record.

The September 1830 receipt is in primary sources ​

Joseph Smith's own statement, recorded in his history: the revelation "was written at this time [early August 1830], and the remainder in the September following."[4:2]

Newel Knight was present at the original sacrament meeting in Harmony, Pennsylvania, in August 1830, when Joseph was on his way to procure wine and was instructed by a heavenly messenger to use what the Saints had made themselves. Both Joseph and Knight describe the rest of the revelation arriving a few weeks after the August meeting, locating the September 1830 receipt of the second portion specifically.[8]

The 1833 Book of Commandments dated the revelation September 4, 1830. That dating is itself documentary evidence: had the September portion been fabricated in 1835, the earlier 1833 printing would not bear a date pointing to September 1830 as the receipt of any portion. The 1833 dating likely reflects when the second portion was dictated, an artifact preserved in the 1833 printing.[4:3]

The case is not that the 1835 expansion appeared immediately after the September 1830 receipt. It is that the September 1830 receipt is independently documented (Joseph's history, Knight's autobiography, the 1833 dating), and that the expansion was published when the 1835 compilation occurred. Publication delays of five to fifty years were normal for Joseph's revelations. The First Vision was first written down in 1832 and not formally canonized until 1880. D&C 13, the Aaronic restoration words, was not formally canonized until 1876. Many Nauvoo-era revelations stayed unpublished until the twentieth century.

Key Point

The 1833 Book of Commandments already dated D&C 27's revelation to September 4, 1830, three years before the 1835 expansion the CES Letter cites as the moment of fabrication. The September 1830 dating is preserved in the very book the CES Letter says contains nothing about priesthood restoration.

The 1832 history says priesthood restoration ​

Joseph Smith's earliest extant personal history was written between July 20 and September 22, 1832, partly in his own hand and partly in the hand of scribe Frederick G. Williams. It survives in Joseph Smith Letterbook 1 and is fully imaged at the Joseph Smith Papers.[9] In a single foundational paragraph, Joseph names four cardinal events of the Restoration:

"firstly he receiving the testamony from on high seccondly the ministering of Angels thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of—Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel—the Law and commandments as they were given unto him—and the ordinencs, forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God"[9:1]

Two distinct priesthood events appear here, both attributed to angelic ministry. The "reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels" maps onto what was later named the Aaronic Priesthood; the "reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God" maps onto what was later named the Melchizedek Priesthood. The 1832 reference predates the 1835 D&C 27 expansion by three years and Cowdery's October 1834 Messenger and Advocate letter by two.

The CES Letter's own gloss describes this passage as "just a 'reception' of the priesthood," then quotes Richard Bushman calling the 1832 reference "a glancing reference at best."[10] "Glancing" is a fair characterization of the passage's brevity: the priesthood phrase is short, no angels are named, no date is given. What it is not is absent. The 1832 history is short overall; it breaks off after six pages, and the priesthood reception sits in its summary of what mattered. A glancing reference is still a reference.

The Gospel Topics essay on the Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood states the point in plainer language: Joseph Smith's "first written history, produced in Ohio in 1832," promised to narrate "the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministering of angels."[11]

Key Point

The 1832 history establishes that priesthood restoration as a category was already in Joseph's own foundational summary of the Restoration three years before the alleged 1834-35 retrofit. It does not establish the named-figures detail (John the Baptist, Peter, James, John), which appears in the record from 1834 onward. The CES Letter's "none of which existed in any previous Church records" claim has to dismiss this 1832 summary; the academic critical case has to grant the underlying category and contest only the named-figures detail.

Cowdery's October 1834 Messenger and Advocate Letter I ​

Oliver Cowdery published the Aaronic Priesthood restoration narrative in the first issue of the Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate, Vol. I, No. 1, dated October 1834. This was the official Church newspaper, distributed broadly, available to every member and to any critic who cared to read it.[5:1] [12]

Cowdery's prose is not understated. He describes the angel's appearance in rapturous, public language:

"the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the gospel of repentance!... 'I am thy fellow servant'... 'upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer this priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon earth, that the sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!'"[5:2]

One qualification keeps this honest. Cowdery's Messenger and Advocate letters do not name John the Baptist. The angel is "thy fellow servant" and "an angel of God." The earliest published explicit identification of John the Baptist as the angel comes in D&C 27:8, at the 1835 canonization. What Cowdery's October 1834 letter establishes is that an angel ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic priesthood, published in 1834. The named identification of that angel as John the Baptist becomes explicit in the 1835 D&C 27 itself.[5:3]

Two things about this publication matter for the backdating thesis.

First, it predates the 1835 D&C publication by months. The 1835 compilation work was authorized by a committee appointment of September 24, 1834, with the volume introduced for vote on August 17, 1835.[13] Cowdery's Letter I appeared in October 1834, almost simultaneously with the start of compilation work and well before publication. If the priesthood-restoration narrative had been invented for the 1835 D&C, Cowdery's October 1834 publication of the angelic-ordination scene is a strange move: he is putting the new claim in the most public Church organ a full year ahead of canonization, where every member and every critic could read it.

A skeptic may answer that the same "late publication" logic applies to the First Vision, which was not in member-accessible print until 1842, so the timing alone proves nothing.[14] The faithful answer is a bounded one. Late publication explains why we don't see fully detailed narratives in print, but priesthood authority was claimed and exercised from the start: baptisms, ordinations, the organization of the Church on April 6, 1830. The pre-1835 trail surveyed below documents the underlying claim across multiple genres and audiences well before 1834-35.

Second, the publication was conspicuous, not stealth. Critics including Eber D. Howe (editor of the Painesville Telegraph and soon-to-be author of Mormonism Unvailed, also 1834) were watching the early Saints closely. If Cowdery's 1834 letter had contained a brand-new claim with no previous documentary basis, hostile critics had every motive to say so. They did not.

Steven C. Harper's chapter on Cowdery as second witness traces three independent documents converging on the same priesthood-restoration narrative: Joseph's 1832 history, Cowdery's 1834-35 Messenger and Advocate letters, and the 1835 D&C 27. His argument turns on motive. If Joseph needed credibility repairs by 1834, why claim visitations that created credibility problems from day one, and why had his 1832 history already contained the priesthood-restoration claim, predating the supposed invention?[15]

Cowdery never recanted the angelic-ordination narrative, even after his 1838 excommunication and a decade outside the Church. His March 1846 letter to Phineas Young recalled standing "in the presence of John, with our departed brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood — and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater," and his October 21, 1848 reaffirmation at Kanesville, recorded by Reuben Miller, explicitly maintained both priesthood restorations.[16] [17] The fabrication case has to explain why a man with personal grievances against Joseph and a decade of Church-political distance would never recant a story he had supposedly helped invent.

Cowdery's continuing affirmation contrasts sharply with David Whitmer's late-life statement that he never heard of angelic priesthood ordination until 1834-36. Whitmer was excommunicated in 1838 and rejected priesthood hierarchy entirely; the late appearance sister article handles his testimony in detail. On the documentary-alteration question, what matters is Cowdery's record. He was the primary scribe for the 1834 Messenger and Advocate letters and one of the two participants in the alleged 1829 events. His continuing affirmation across post-excommunication contexts is the single most probative piece of testimonial evidence on the priesthood-restoration claim.

Cowdery's June 14, 1829 letter to Hyrum Smith ​

The single most damaging document for the "none of which existed in any previous Church records" claim is the private letter this article opened with. Oliver Cowdery wrote to Hyrum Smith from Fayette, New York, on June 14, 1829, three months before the Book of Mormon went to press, ten months before the Church's organization, four years before the Book of Commandments, six years before the 1835 D&C.

The letter quotes language closely paralleling D&C 18, the June 1829 revelation that addresses Cowdery and Whitmer in apostolic-calling terms. Larry C. Porter's analysis in Studies in Scripture notes that the letter "contains wording very parallel to section 18 of the Doctrine and Covenants." That puts the apostolic-calling content of D&C 18 in Cowdery's own writing in real time, before the Church even existed.[18]

The Joseph Smith Papers editorial introduction to D&C 18 draws out the implication. Cowdery's later self-description as "an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God" is consistent with the language already present in the June 1829 revelation, "language [that] could be evidence that the ordination of JS and Oliver Cowdery to the apostleship took place before this revelation."[19]

Cowdery's Articles of the Church of Christ, an 1829 manuscript, calls him "an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."[20] Written months before April 1830, the document presupposes apostolic ordination, and a man cannot make himself an apostle by writing it down. The 1829 self-description requires either a divine commission already received or a fabrication that began in 1829, two years before the alleged 1831 origin of "high priesthood" terminology and five years before the 1834 Messenger and Advocate publication.

So the fabrication hypothesis would have to push the start of the alleged retrofit back to June 1829, which means the priesthood-narrative deception would have to predate the Book of Mormon's publication and the Church's organization. The narrower critical case that Vogel and Quinn typically advance, that priesthood concepts developed gradually in Joseph's thinking, is more historically plausible than the CES Letter's "1835 fabrication" version. But even that gradualist case has to reckon with apostolic-calling language already sitting in Cowdery's 1829 writing.

D&C 18 (June 1829) and D&C 20 / Articles and Covenants (April 1830) ​

Two revelations published in the 1833 Book of Commandments carry priesthood-conceptual language that claim 5 cannot afford to leave standing.

D&C 18 (June 1829), addressed to Cowdery and Whitmer:

"I speak unto you, even as unto Paul mine apostle, for you are called even with that same calling with which he was called."[19:1]

Apostleship in the D&C 18 sense is not casual designation. It is the explicit calling Paul received, a calling that, in the New Testament framework, required either commissioning by other apostles (Acts 13:2-3) or direct divine appointment (Galatians 1:1, 1:11-12). Joseph and Oliver had no earthly apostles available to ordain them in June 1829; the framework leaves only divine commission. D&C 18 was published in the 1833 Book of Commandments, and it carries apostolic-calling language addressed to Cowdery shortly before he wrote his June 14, 1829 letter to Hyrum in parallel language. The Joseph Smith Papers introduction observes that this language "could be evidence that the ordination of JS and Oliver Cowdery to the apostleship took place before this revelation."[19:2]

D&C 20 / Articles and Covenants (April 1830):

The April 6, 1830 Articles and Covenants describes Joseph Smith as "called of God and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ," published in the 1833 Book of Commandments at Chapter 24, verse 3.[21] The CES Letter says the Book of Commandments contains nothing about priesthood restoration. But "called of God and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ" is a priesthood-restoration claim. Apostles must be ordained by other apostles or by divine commission; no earthly apostles existed in 1830 to ordain Joseph; the title presupposes a divine source of ordination. That presupposition is in the 1833 Book of Commandments, two years before the alleged 1835 fabrication.

Key Point

The 1833 Book of Commandments, the very book the CES Letter says contains no priesthood-restoration narrative, calls Joseph Smith "an apostle of Jesus Christ" in Chapter 24:3. Apostleship presupposes divine ordination. The internal evidence is sitting in the document the CES Letter cites as evidence of absence.

The Joseph Smith Papers Priesthood Restoration topic page lists the 1830 Book of Mormon, the 1829 Articles of the Church of Christ, and multiple revelations from 1829-1832 mentioning apostolic calling and priesthood keys among the earliest references to authority.[22] In this respect the pre-1835 trail is not thin. It is documented across multiple genres.

Hostile-witness corroboration: the Painesville Telegraph and Palmyra Reflector ​

Three contemporary non-Latter-day-Saint newspapers, edited by men actively hostile to Joseph Smith and with no incentive to manufacture evidence that helped his case, reported the early Saints' angelic claims publicly between November 1830 and February 1831, more than four years before the 1835 D&C.

November 16, 1830, Painesville Telegraph. Eber D. Howe, the editor and later co-author of Mormonism Unvailed (1834), reported that Oliver Cowdery "pretends to have a divine mission, and to have seen and conversed with Angels," and that Cowdery and his associates claimed ordinances had not "been regularly administered since the days of the Apostles," a position that requires the angelic-restoration framework to make any sense.[23]

December 7, 1830, Painesville Telegraph. A follow-up stated that Cowdery claimed "his commission directly from the God of Heaven" and "credentials, written and signed by the hand of Jesus Christ," and that he and his associates were "the only persons on earth who are qualified to administer in his name." The same article reported Cowdery's position that "the ordinances of the gospel, have not been regularly administered since the days of the apostles, till the said Smith and himself commenced the work."[24]

February 14, 1831, Palmyra Reflector. "Jo Smith had now received a commission from God" and "Cowdery and his friends had frequent interviews with angels."[25]

These reports are dated, attributable, and preserved in newspaper archives, written by editors who had every motive to expose Joseph and Oliver as fraudulent. In their own hostile voice, they reported that Cowdery was claiming angelic communication and exclusive divine authority: fourteen to eighteen months before the CES Letter's claimed 1832 cutoff, four years before the 1834 Messenger and Advocate publication, and five years before the 1835 D&C compilation.

A precision point matters here. The hostile newspaper coverage from late 1830 and early 1831 does not name John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John. The accounts use generic angelic-conferral language; the named identifications first appear in print in the 1835 D&C 27 expansion and are repeated in the 1838-39 history. So the academic version of the critical argument survives this evidence: that named identifications crystallized in 1835, even granting that generic angelic-authority claims were already circulating in 1830. What does not survive is the CES Letter's blanket "none of which existed in any previous Church records." The fabrication hypothesis cannot accommodate hostile reporting that confirms generic angelic-authority claims were already in circulation by late 1830.

The Gospel Topics essay on the Aaronic Priesthood notes this hostile-witness convergence directly: "a newspaper not affiliated with the Church reported Cowdery's claim of receiving a commission from angelic visitors just months after the publication of the Book of Mormon."[11:1]

Key Point

The November 16, 1830 Painesville Telegraph is hostile contemporary documentation that Cowdery was publicly claiming angelic communication and divine commission eighteen months before the CES Letter's claimed 1832 cutoff. The newspaper does not name John the Baptist or Peter, James, John (that detail comes later in the trail), but generic angelic-authority claims were already in the documentary record by late 1830, four years before the 1835 D&C compilation.

The Book of Commandments as physical and genre artifact ​

The CES Letter's claim 4, that the Book of Commandments would have included priesthood restoration "had it occurred," rests on two unstated assumptions. Both fail under examination.

The Book of Commandments was not a complete printed work ​

On July 20, 1833, an anti-Mormon mob in Independence, Missouri, destroyed W. W. Phelps's printing press, scattered the type, threw manuscripts into the street, and burned much of the building. The Book of Commandments was being printed at the time. The print run was incomplete; binding was never finished; some sheets were rescued by Mary Elizabeth Rollins (then 12) and Caroline Rollins (then 14) at considerable personal danger; the surviving text is partial.[26]

What survives, then, is not a comprehensive published volume. It is a partial print run abruptly truncated by mob violence. Treating its textual contents as a definitive census of what early Saints believed in 1833 is methodologically backwards. The 1835 Doctrine and Covenants was the next opportunity to compile the early revelations into a published volume, and that work was authorized by a committee appointment in September 1834.

The Book of Commandments was not the genre that contained restoration narratives ​

The Book of Commandments was a collection of revelations, texts dictated by Joseph Smith as the voice of the Lord, not a history of Joseph's life or the Church's origin events. It contains:

  • No First Vision narrative (Joseph's first formal account was 1832; not canonized until 1880)
  • No Moroni-visit narrative (first formal account was 1832)
  • No Book of Mormon translation history (Cowdery's 1834-35 letters were the first detailed published account)
  • No biographical material about Joseph Smith Sr., Lucy Mack Smith, or any of the Smith family
  • No account of how the gold plates were obtained, translated, or returned
  • No narrative of the Whitmer or Smith witnesses' experience with the plates

No one argues that any of these events were "fabricated" because they are absent from the Book of Commandments. The Book of Commandments is simply the wrong genre to search for narrative origin events. Expecting it to contain a John the Baptist scene is like expecting a hymnal to contain a biography of the composer.

What the Book of Commandments does contain, and what makes claim 4 internally inconsistent, are revelations that presuppose priesthood authority. D&C 20 / Book of Commandments 24 calls Joseph "an apostle of Jesus Christ." D&C 18, in the same book, addresses Cowdery and Whitmer in apostolic-calling language. The internal evidence in the document the CES Letter cites as omitting priesthood is precisely the evidence the claim must explain away.

The CES Letter's logic, if it wasn't in the 1833 Book of Commandments, it didn't happen, would, applied consistently, disqualify the First Vision. The First Vision was first formally written down in 1832, in the same 1832 history that lists priesthood reception, and was not canonized until 1880. The Book of Commandments contained no First Vision narrative. By the claim 4 standard, the First Vision too is a "miraculous and doctrinally vital event" that "would have been expected to appear," and didn't. The CES Letter's parallel argument about the First Vision is treated in the late appearance of the First Vision article; the same standard applied consistently disqualifies either both events or neither.

Worth Acknowledging

The Book of Commandments doesn't contain a John the Baptist narrative because the Book of Commandments doesn't contain narratives at all. Treating its silence on origin events as evidence those events didn't happen is a genre confusion, not a documentary argument.

The June 1831 conference and the Lyman Wight question ​

The CES Letter's claim 6 cites the June 3-4, 1831 Kirtland conference. The minutes record:

"Brs. Lyman Wight, John Murdock, Reynolds Cahoon, Harvey Whitlock & Hyrum Smith were ordained to the high Priesthood under the hand of br. Joseph Smith jr."

"Joseph Smith jr. & Sidney Rigdon were ordained to the High Priesthood under the hand of br. Lyman Wight."[27]

The Joseph Smith Papers editorial introduction confirms: "During one of the conference meetings, the first recorded ordinations to the high priesthood occurred, several of them performed by JS himself."[28]

Two readings of this evidence are on the field, and both deserve direct engagement.

The critical reading (Vogel, Quinn): The June 1831 conference is the first contemporary primary-source use of "high priesthood" terminology. The simplest reading of the minutes is that Melchizedek priesthood was being conferred for the first time. The order (Joseph ordains Wight first, then Wight ordains Joseph) is a bootstrapping pattern: Joseph claims an authority he did not previously hold, then has someone confer it back to give it institutional legitimacy. That is exactly what the developmental hypothesis predicts.

The faithful reading (Hales, Thompson): The June 1831 ordinations were ordinations to the office of high priest within an already-existing Melchizedek priesthood, not the initial restoration of Melchizedek priesthood as a category. Joseph's own 1841 statement, recorded in the Times and Seasons, frames the distinction: "All priesthood is Melchizedeck; but there are different portions or degrees of it."[29] The contemporary witness record is mixed: Parley P. Pratt and (in part) Ezra Booth support the office-vs-priesthood reading, while John Corrill's 1839 history uses language closer to the developmental reading.[30] The fair summary is that contemporary witnesses point in both directions, and the office-vs-priesthood reading rests primarily on Pratt's autobiography and Joseph's 1841 articulation rather than on a uniform witness record.

The 1831 minutes themselves do not draw the office-vs-priesthood distinction explicitly. It has to be inferred from the broader documentary context: a real interpretive move, not a knockout from the minutes alone.

What pushes against the bootstrapping reading is the rest of the documentary record. Cowdery's June 14, 1829 letter to Hyrum quoted apostolic-calling language paralleling D&C 18, and the 1830 Articles and Covenants (D&C 20) called Joseph "an apostle of Jesus Christ." Both predate June 1831; both presuppose priesthood-tier authority. Mutual-ordination patterns appear elsewhere in early Church practice without anyone alleging fraud; Joseph and Oliver mutually baptized each other in May 1829. So the order of ordination is not by itself a smoking gun. It has to be read alongside the documentary trail of priesthood-claim content already in place before June 1831.

The Gospel Topics page on the Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood acknowledges the terminology question directly:

"Joseph Smith and other early members of the Church did not use the terms Aaronic Priesthood or Melchizedek Priesthood to describe the authority they received. Their understanding of priesthood developed over time and with the aid of continued revelation."[6:1]

This is the strongest version of the academic critical case stated in faithful framing: that the terminology developed even though the underlying authority claim was already in place. Vogel's sharper version is that the bifurcation between "Aaronic" and "Melchizedek" priesthood as a structural distinction emerged between 1831 and 1835, and that the 1832 history's two-priesthood listing is the first documentary appearance of the bifurcation rather than independent attestation of it. The faithful response: even granting that the bifurcation terminology stabilized between 1831 and 1835, the underlying theological distinction (lesser and greater, Levitical and apostolic) is already in the Book of Mormon. Alma 13 has the high priesthood after the order of Melchizedek; Mosiah 18:17 has baptismal authority; 3 Nephi 11:25 and 12:1 have Nephite apostolic authority. The Book of Mormon was published in March 1830, before any plausible bifurcation timeline. The structural distinction was in the canonical text before the terminology stabilized in member usage.

The June 1831 question's full bearing on claim 6 (including the David Whitmer and Lyman Wight testimony specifics) is treated in the late appearance sister article. For the backdating thesis, the relevant points are narrower: the June 1831 minutes are primary documentary evidence rather than later harmonization, the order-of-ordination question has two defensible readings, and the faithful reading is supported both by Joseph's own later teaching and by the pre-June-1831 documentary trail that already presupposes priesthood-tier authority.

D&C 27's expansion as canonization ​

The CES Letter's framing treats textual change between 1833 and 1835 as evidence of deception. It presupposes that revelation, once received, is fixed in textual form, and that subsequent revision is by definition fraudulent. That theology of revelation is foreign to both the Latter-day Saint framework and the biblical tradition.

The November 1831 conference authorization ​

A conference held November 1-2, 1831, in Hiram, Ohio, formally authorized Joseph Smith to revise the manuscript revelations before publication. Minute Book 2 records:

"Br. Joseph Smith Jr correct those errors or mistakes which he may discover by the holy Spirit while reviewing the revelations & commandments."[31]

The authorization was openly known to the early Saints, voted on by membership, and recorded in the Church's minute books. It was the procedural framework under which D&C 27 was expanded, D&C 20 was modified, and other texts received editorial work between the 1833 Book of Commandments and the 1835 D&C. The CES Letter does not engage this canonized authorization for revelation revision. The omission matters, because it makes the argument depend on framing as covert what was openly authorized public procedure.

The Literary Firm ​

D&C 70 (November 1831) designated a "Literary Firm" of six men (Joseph Smith, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, Sidney Rigdon, and W. W. Phelps) to assist in preparing revelations for publication.[32] Grant Underwood, a Joseph Smith Papers editor, describes Joseph's instructions to Phelps about the editorial work: "be careful not to alter the sense of any of them," which establishes that grammatical and stylistic improvements were authorized while doctrinal alteration was not.[33]

Underwood articulates the framework:

"Joseph apparently focused on communicating 'the sense' of revelations rather than preserving exact wording, welcoming refinement by trusted associates."[33:1]

Joseph himself prayed to be delivered "from the little narrow prison [of] a crooked broken scattered and imperfect language."[33:2] His view of revelation was that divine ideas came through the imperfect medium of human language.

The D&C 1:24-28 framework ​

The most consequential canonical text for this whole question was received November 1, 1831, at the same conference that authorized the revelation revision, and it predates most of the alleged backdating by years:

"Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent..."[34]

This is the Lord's preface to the Doctrine and Covenants. It explicitly anticipates that revelations come through human channels with weakness and language limitation, that the channel may err, and that errors may be corrected and made known. It was canonized before the 1835 compilation and before most of the textual revisions critics label backdating.

The framework critics treat as a post-hoc apologetic was canonized scripture from 1831. The standard the CES Letter applies, that textual change between printings equals fabrication, is one Joseph's own canon explicitly disclaimed three years before the alleged backdating occurred. This is the same framework the failed-revelations article applies to the Canadian copyright case and the Independence temple, and the same one the adam-god article applies to Brigham Young's later teachings.

Key Point

The CES Letter treats revising a revelation between printings as fabricating it. Joseph's own canon explicitly disclaimed that standard in November 1831, four years before the 1835 D&C compilation. The framework that classified Adam-God as non-binding is the same framework that authorized D&C 27's expansion.

Public knowledge of the practice ​

The revision practice was openly published. Oliver Cowdery acknowledged the differences between earlier and later printings: "we were not a little surprised to find the previous print so different from the original."[35] Orson Pratt in 1854 explicitly noted that "line was added upon line to several of the sections."[13:1] Brigham Young, in 1855:

"I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness."[35:1]

B. H. Roberts described the edits as corrections "by the Prophet himself" and additions "to throw increased light upon the subjects."[35:2] The CES Letter's framing of the D&C 27 expansion as covert depends on isolating it from the openly canonized procedural framework that authorized it.

The biblical pattern of revelation revision ​

The closest biblical analog to the D&C 27 expansion is Jeremiah 36. King Jehoiakim burned Jeremiah's prophetic scroll. God commanded Jeremiah to produce a new one:

"Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe... who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words."[36]

The biblical text describes a prophet's scroll destroyed and re-dictated with additional content, and treats this as authentic prophetic activity, not fabrication. The CES Letter's standard, revision equals fraud, would falsify Jeremiah if it were applied consistently to the biblical canon. Christianity's own scripture treats prophetic revision as an authentic feature of revelatory transmission.

Engaging the academic version ​

The CES Letter's argument is the popular form of the critical case. The academic form, represented by Dan Vogel's Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (2004), D. Michael Quinn's Origins of Power (1994), and Grant Palmer's An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (2002), is more careful, more documented, and harder to refute by rhetorical-error route. It deserves direct engagement.

What the academic case grants ​

The strongest critical scholarship does not claim:

  • That Joseph deliberately fabricated knowing he was lying. The most sophisticated naturalist case treats his developing priesthood narrative as a sincere reconstruction. The fabrication framing is the CES Letter's, not the academic critic's.
  • That nothing happened in 1829-1830. Most critical historians acknowledge that something happened (an experience, perhaps a vision) that was later interpreted as priesthood conferral.
  • That all textual revisions are evidence of fabrication. The strongest critical case grants that grammatical and stylistic revision is innocuous; its focused argument is on substantive content additions (named angels, specific events, specific keys) appearing in 1835 without earlier manuscript witness.
  • That the early Saints were lying when they reported authority claims to hostile newspapers. The Painesville Telegraph and Palmyra Reflector reports are accepted as authentic; the critical argument is that what was reported in 1830 was generic "conversed with Angels" content, not the specific named events.

The academic case is this: priesthood concepts and terminology developed gradually in Joseph's thinking and revelation production between 1829 and 1835; specific named identifications crystallized as the theology required them; and the textual record preserves traces of that development, including the D&C 27 expansion.

What the academic case gets right ​

Several observations from the academic critical scholarship are documentary facts that any responsible faithful response has to acknowledge:

  1. D&C 27 was substantively expanded between 1833 and 1835. Conceded.
  2. The Book of Commandments does not contain the priesthood-restoration narrative. Conceded, with the genre observation.
  3. The 1832 history's priesthood reference is shorter and less specific than the 1838-39 history's. Conceded.
  4. The June 1831 conference is the first contemporary primary-source use of "high priesthood." Conceded, with the office-vs-priesthood contextualization.
  5. Cowdery's October 1834 letter is the earliest detailed published narrative. Conceded.
  6. Detail emerged gradually. Conceded, and acknowledged in Gospel Topics.
  7. The pre-1835 documentary trail is thinner than other foundational claims. Conceded.

The disagreement ​

The academic critical case and the academic faithful case both agree that priesthood understanding developed in Joseph's mind and in the textual record between 1829 and 1835. They disagree about whether the underlying events (angelic conferrals in 1829) were:

  • Real events whose interpretation and detail crystallized over six years of theological development (faithful), or
  • Reconstructed events whose specific contours emerged from retrospective theological need (critical)

The cumulative critical pattern combines presence-evidence (textual expansion of D&C 27 in 1835, the June 1831 first explicit high priesthood event, the October 1834 first detailed published narrative) with absence-evidence (silence in the Book of Commandments and Evening and Morning Star on priesthood narrative, the 1832 history's generic language). The cumulative faithful pattern combines presence-evidence across multiple genres and audiences (the eight pre-1835 documents below) with the explanatory framework of canonized revelation revision (D&C 1:24-28, the November 1831 conference, the Literary Firm) that absorbs the textual expansion as authentic prophetic activity rather than fabrication.

Both patterns are real. Two considerations point faithward. First, the critical pattern's presence-evidence is consistent with both fabrication and authentic revelation revision under canonized procedure; the eight pre-1835 documents are not consistent with 1835 fabrication. Second, the critical pattern's absence-evidence requires assuming that absent documents would have contained the priesthood-restoration narrative if true. But the same documents (the Book of Commandments, Evening and Morning Star, the truncated 1832 history) also lack First Vision narratives, Moroni-visit narratives, and Book of Mormon translation accounts that even critical historians accept as historical.

The cumulative documentary record ​

The strength of the pre-1835 record is convergence across multiple independent vantage points. No single source carries the case alone. The cumulative pattern is what the CES Letter's claim 5, "none of which existed in any previous Church records," has to dismiss.

SourceDateGenreWhat it records
Cowdery to Hyrum SmithJune 14, 1829Private letterApostolic-calling language paralleling D&C 18[18:1]
D&C 18June 1829Revelation (in BoC)Cowdery and Whitmer "called even with that same calling" as Paul[19:3]
Articles of the Church of Christ1829ManuscriptCowdery as "an Apostle of Jesus Christ"[20:1]
D&C 20 / Articles and CovenantsApril 1830Revelation (in BoC)Joseph "called of God and ordained an apostle"[21:1]
D&C 27 (August + September portions)August-September 1830RevelationSacrament instructions (in 1833 BoC); September portion expanded later
Painesville TelegraphNovember 16, 1830Hostile newspaperCowdery "conversed with Angels"[23:1]
Painesville TelegraphDecember 7, 1830Hostile newspaperCowdery's "commission directly from the God of Heaven"[24:1]
Palmyra ReflectorFebruary 14, 1831Hostile newspaperJoseph's "divine commission"; Cowdery "interviews with angels"[25:1]
June 1831 Conference MinutesJune 3-4, 1831Conference recordHigh priesthood ordinations begin[27:1]
Joseph Smith's earliest historySummer 1832Personal history"Reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels"[9:2]
Cowdery's Messenger and Advocate Letter IOctober 1834Church newspaperDetailed account of angelic ordination[5:4]
D&C 27 expansion (1835 D&C)1835Canonized scriptureNames same angels, same events, same timeline

Each row is independent. Cowdery's June 1829 letter to Hyrum is private correspondence. The 1830 newspapers are hostile witnesses. The 1832 history is Joseph's own personal record. Cowdery's 1834 letter is published Church newspaper. The June 1831 minutes are organizational records. These are not coordinated documents controlled by a single editorial source. They are independently produced records, generated for different audiences with different motives, that converge on the same underlying claim: angelic priesthood authority being conferred and asserted in 1829-1830.

A useful test for any historiographic question is whether critical scholars who reject the supernatural character of an event still accept the basic timeline. On the priesthood restoration's pre-1835 record, the answer is broadly yes. Quinn's Origins of Power and Vogel's Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet both accept that priesthood concepts were being claimed in 1829-1830 while arguing the specific narrative crystallized between 1832 and 1835. That is a substantively narrower claim than the CES Letter's blanket "none of which existed in any previous Church records." On the timeline of priesthood-claim content, as distinct from named-angel identification, even the most aggressive critical scholarship grants that something was being claimed in 1829-1830. What is contested is the specificity and timing of the named identifications, and the supernatural character of the events.

Grant Palmer's strongest single-sentence version of the critical case is worth quoting: "Accounts of angelic ordinations from John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John are in none of the journals, diaries, letters, or printed matter until the mid-1830s."[37] Read it carefully, though, because it distinguishes named-angel identifications from priesthood-claim content generally. Joseph's 1832 history references priesthood reception "by the ministring of Aangels": the angels are not named, but the events are. Cowdery's October 1834 letter is "in the printed matter" before "the mid-1830s" if "mid-1830s" means 1835-1836. Palmer's statement is defensible under the narrowest reading, yet it is far narrower than the CES Letter's "none of which existed in any previous Church records."

Even on the most aggressive critical reading, then, the disputes are theological (was it supernatural?) and terminological (when did the bifurcation stabilize?), not chronological in any blanket sense (when did Joseph claim it?). What is contested is what the documentary record means.

The Book of Mormon as anchor ​

The CES Letter's backdating argument leverages the documentary thinness of the priesthood-restoration narrative relative to other foundational claims. The faithful response acknowledges the asymmetry: the priesthood restoration's trail, while sufficient to support the canonical timeline, is thinner than the First Vision's, the Witnesses', or the Book of Mormon's.

What does not thin out is the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith's prophetic identity rests primarily on it, and the book was complete and in print before any priesthood-restoration "retrofitting" could have occurred, even on the most aggressive critical reconstruction.[38] It already carries explicit priesthood theology: Alma 13 (high priesthood after the order of Melchizedek), Mosiah 18:17 (baptism by "power and authority of God"), 3 Nephi 11:25 and 12:1 (Nephite apostles receiving baptismal authority).[39] Those are pre-March-1830 priesthood references, set down in a public textual artifact anyone could examine.

So even on the most aggressive critical reconstruction of Joseph's intellectual development, the priesthood theology was already in print before any narrative could have been retrofitted. When the priesthood-restoration record gets thin, and parts of it genuinely do, the Book of Mormon is what holds.

Assessment ​

The CES Letter's backdating argument contains real documentary observations and a flawed inferential leap. The textual expansion of D&C 27 between 1830 and 1835 is real. The Book of Commandments does not contain a narrative account of the priesthood restoration. Detail emerged gradually. Specific dates appear later in the record than the events they describe. The pre-1835 trail is thinner than other foundational claims. These are documentary facts, and the faithful position does not contest them.

The leap is from those facts to the conclusion that priesthood restoration was fabricated in 1835. It requires:

  1. Treating the 1833 Book of Commandments as a comprehensive census of Restoration claims, when it was a partial print run truncated by mob violence, organized as a revelation collection rather than a historical narrative.
  2. Treating "the published narrative was elaborated between 1833 and 1835" as equivalent to "the underlying claim was fabricated in 1835," a non-sequitur given that publication delays of three to ten years were normal for Joseph's revelations.
  3. Dismissing eight separate pre-1835 documents that attest priesthood-claim content, including hostile contemporary newspapers that confirm generic angelic-authority claims were already in public circulation by late 1830.
  4. Applying a standard the canon explicitly disclaims, namely that revelation, once received, is fixed in textual form. D&C 1:24-28 (November 1, 1831) anticipates the human channel's weakness and provides for correction, and the 1831 conference vote authorizing Joseph to "correct those errors or mistakes" was openly canonized procedural authorization for the practice the CES Letter labels covert.
  5. Applying that standard selectively. The same standard, applied consistently, would falsify the First Vision, the Book of Mormon translation method (never canonized in narrative form), and the biblical Jeremiah 36:32. Christianity's own scripture treats prophetic revision as authentic.

The pre-1835 cumulative record (eight independent documents across private correspondence, organizational records, hostile contemporary newspapers, and personal histories) supports the canonical priesthood-restoration claim. The claim is not that the record is overwhelming; it isn't. The claim is that it is sufficient, and that it points the way the canonical timeline says it points.

So the honest faithful position is narrower than the canonical telling but stronger than the CES Letter's: priesthood restoration is attested across eight independent vantage points between June 1829 and October 1834; the 1835 expansion of D&C 27 is canonization rather than fabrication; the gradual emergence of detail and named identifications is acknowledged in faithful sources and in Gospel Topics; and the standard the CES Letter applies, that textual change equals fabrication, is one Joseph's own canon disclaimed before the alleged backdating occurred.

And when the question gets thin, as on parts of this documentary trail it does, there is still the Book of Mormon. Strip away every priesthood-restoration record the CES Letter disputes, push the date of any alleged retrofit as early as the most aggressive critic dares, and you are still left with a 588-page book that was already in print, complete, before that retrofit could have begun. It was dictated in roughly 60 working days in 1829, with no substantive revisions and no one who watched the work ever exposing it as a fraud. Its priesthood theology was set in type in March 1830, ahead of any disputed canonical revision. Even if every document about John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John were lost tomorrow, that book would still be sitting on the table, and the question of how it got there would still be unanswered on the CES Letter's terms.

For the broader question of when the priesthood-restoration accounts emerged in oral and written tradition (including David Whitmer's specific objections in his 1887 Address to All Believers in Christ), see Late Appearance. For the framework canonized in D&C 1:24-28 and how it applies to revelation revision generally, see Failed Revelations. For how the same canonization-by-common-consent framework applies to teachings that did not survive the test (Brigham Young's Adam-God), see Adam-God.

Further Reading

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

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

  3. Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Priesthood Restoration," no. 5, p. 83. ↩︎

  4. "Revelation, circa August 1830 [D&C 27]," historical introduction, Joseph Smith Papers. The editors note: "Early manuscripts, including the copy featured here, contain only the first portion of the combined revelation as published in 1835... While an earlier manuscript may have existed for the September portion, the earliest extant text for the expanded version of the revelation is the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants." Joseph Smith stated the revelation "was written at this time [early August 1830], and the remainder in the September following." https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-circa-august-1830-dc-27/1 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  5. Oliver Cowdery, "Letter I" to W. W. Phelps, dated September 7, 1834, published in Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate 1, no. 1 (October 1834): 14-16. Cowdery describes the angel coming "down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the gospel of repentance!" with the angel saying "I am thy fellow servant" and conferring "this priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon earth, that the sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!" None of Cowdery's eight Messenger and Advocate letters explicitly name John the Baptist; they consistently use "thy fellow-servant" / "an angel of God" language. The earliest published explicit identification of John the Baptist as the angel comes in D&C 27:8 (1835 canonization), with the 1838-39 history (later canonized as Joseph Smith—History) also naming him. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letters_by_Oliver_Cowdery_To_W.W._Phelps_on_the_Rise_of_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints/Letter_I ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  6. "Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood," Gospel Topics Essays, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The essay states: "Joseph Smith and other early members of the Church did not use the terms Aaronic Priesthood or Melchizedek Priesthood to describe the authority they received. Their understanding of priesthood developed over time and with the aid of continued revelation." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/restoration-of-the-melchizedek-priesthood ↩︎ ↩︎

  7. The reason the pre-1835 trail is thinner than other foundational LDS claims is partly genre: priesthood restoration was originally a private event between two men in a wooded area near the Susquehanna, not a public claim documented for public record. Private events leave thinner trails than public ones. The First Vision has more personal narrative across more years; the Book of Mormon has 588 pages of public textual artifact; the Witnesses have signed published statements with cross-confirmation across decades. The priesthood restoration, by comparison, has scattered references in personal histories and letters, a documented expanded revelation, and a series of post-1834 published accounts. ↩︎

  8. Newel Knight, Autobiography and Journal (1846). Knight, present at the original August 1830 sacrament meeting in Harmony, Pennsylvania, recorded that the rest of the revelation was received a few weeks after the August meeting. See "Historical Context and Background of D&C 27," Doctrine and Covenants Central, which paraphrases: "Both Joseph and Newel Knight said the rest of verses 5-18 were revealed a few weeks later." https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/historical-context/dc-27/ ↩︎

  9. Joseph Smith, History, circa Summer 1832, p. 1. Joseph Smith Papers. The history was written between July 20 and September 22, 1832, in Joseph Smith's hand and that of scribe Frederick G. Williams. The four cardinal events listed are: (1) "the testimony from on high"; (2) "the ministering of Aangels"; (3) "the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of—Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel—the Law and commandments"; and (4) "a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God power and ordinence from on high to preach the Gospel." https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  10. Richard Lyman Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling: A Cultural Biography of Mormonism's Founder (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 75. Bushman calls the 1832 reference "a glancing reference at best." The CES Letter (PDF p. 81) introduces this with its own gloss "(just a 'reception' of the priesthood)" before quoting Bushman. ↩︎

  11. "Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood," Gospel Topics Essays, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The essay notes that Joseph Smith's "first written history, produced in Ohio in 1832," promised to narrate "the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministering of angels," and that "a newspaper not affiliated with the Church reported Cowdery's claim of receiving a commission from angelic visitors just months after the publication of the Book of Mormon." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/restoration-of-the-aaronic-priesthood ↩︎ ↩︎

  12. Brian Q. Cannon and BYU Studies Staff, "Priesthood Restoration Documents," BYU Studies 35, no. 4 (1995-96). The most comprehensive scholarly compilation of priesthood-restoration primary sources from the first 20 years of Church history. Cannon's framing: "The documentary record demonstrates that detailed accounts of the Aaronic Priesthood were available to members... as early as 1834." https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/priesthood-restoration-documents ↩︎

  13. Grant Underwood, "Revelation, Text, and Revision: Insight from the Book of Commandments and Revelations," BYU Studies Quarterly 48, no. 3 (2009). Documents the 1835 D&C compilation timeline: a publication committee was appointed at a September 24, 1834 high council meeting in Kirtland, with the volume introduced for membership vote on August 17, 1835. Includes Orson Pratt's 1854 acknowledgment that "line was added upon line to several of the sections." https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol48/iss3/6/ ↩︎ ↩︎

  14. The skeptic's objection has force: the First Vision wasn't formally published in member-accessible form until 1842, and members of the early Church didn't necessarily know its detailed contents during the 1820s-1830s. If "late publication" doesn't disqualify the First Vision, it doesn't automatically vindicate the priesthood restoration either. The bounded faithful response: late publication explains why we don't see explicit narratives in print, but it doesn't establish that the events were known to early members in their specific form. What does survive is that priesthood authority was claimed and exercised from the start — baptisms, ordinations, the organization of the Church on April 6, 1830 — even if the specific narrative about its source emerged in print gradually. ↩︎

  15. 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), 73-89. Harper traces three independent documents converging on the same priesthood-restoration narrative: Joseph's 1832 history, Cowdery's 1834-35 Messenger and Advocate letters, and the 1835 D&C 27 expansion. https://rsc.byu.edu/days-never-be-forgotten-oliver-cowdery/oliver-cowdery-second-witness-priesthood-restoration ↩︎

  16. Oliver Cowdery to Phineas Young, March 23, 1846. Cowdery, after a decade of post-excommunication separation from the Church, wrote: "Had you stood in the presence of John, with our departed brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood — and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater... you would feel what you have never felt." Published in "Oliver Cowdery," Improvement Era 2, no. 10 (October 1899): 829-830. See also Stanley R. Gunn, Oliver Cowdery: Second Elder and Scribe (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1962). ↩︎

  17. Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Reuben Miller, Recorder of Oliver Cowdery's Reaffirmations," BYU Studies 8, no. 3 (1968): 277-293. Documents Cowdery's October 21, 1848 reaffirmation at Kanesville (Council Bluffs), Iowa, recorded in Reuben Miller's journal. Cowdery, after a decade of post-excommunication separation, reaffirmed his presence at both priesthood restorations. https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/reuben-miller-recorder-of-oliver-cowderys-reaffirmations/ ↩︎

  18. Oliver Cowdery to Hyrum Smith, June 14, 1829. Quotes language closely paralleling D&C 18 (June 1829), including apostolic-calling content. 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. The letter predates the Church's organization (April 1830) by ten months, the Book of Commandments (1833) by four years, and the 1835 D&C by six years. ↩︎ ↩︎

  19. "Revelation, June 1829-B [D&C 18]," historical introduction, Joseph Smith Papers. The introduction notes that the 1829 language addressing Cowdery and Whitmer "even as unto Paul mine apostle, for you are called even with that same calling with which he was called" "could be evidence that the ordination of JS and Oliver Cowdery to the apostleship took place before this revelation." https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-june-1829-b-dc-18/2 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  20. "Articles of the Church of Christ" (1829 manuscript by Oliver Cowdery). Cowdery describes himself as "an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." See Scott H. Faulring, "An Examination of the 1829 'Articles of the Church of Christ' in Relation to Section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants," BYU Studies 43, no. 4 (2004): 57-91. https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/an-examination-of-the-1829-articles-of-the-church-of-christ-in-relation-to-section-20-of-the-doctrine-and-covenants ↩︎ ↩︎

  21. Book of Commandments 24:3 (1833), later Doctrine and Covenants 20:2-3. Describes Joseph Smith as "an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." See "Articles and Covenants, circa April 1830 [D&C 20]," Joseph Smith Papers. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/articles-and-covenants-circa-april-1830-dc-20/1 ↩︎ ↩︎

  22. "Priesthood Restoration," Joseph Smith Papers Topics. Identifies the 1830 Book of Mormon, the 1829 "Articles of the Church of Christ," and multiple revelations from 1829-1832 mentioning apostolic calling and priesthood keys among the earliest references to authority. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/priesthood-restoration ↩︎

  23. "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." The article also reports that Cowdery and his associates claimed ordinances had not "been regularly administered since the days of the Apostles." Reprinted in Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, 5 vols. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996-2003), 2:271. http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/oh/painetel.htm ↩︎ ↩︎

  24. "The Golden Bible, No. 2," Painesville Telegraph (Painesville, OH), December 7, 1830. Reports Cowdery claimed "his commission directly from the God of Heaven" and "credentials, written and signed by the hand of Jesus Christ" and that he and his associates were "the only persons on earth who are qualified to administer in his name." Cowdery reportedly held that "the ordinances of the gospel, have not been regularly administered since the days of the apostles, till the said Smith and himself commenced the work." Reprinted in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 2:274-275. ↩︎ ↩︎

  25. "Gold Bible, No. 6," Palmyra Reflector (Palmyra, NY), February 14, 1831. Reports "Jo Smith had now received a commission from God" and that "Cowdery and his friends had frequent interviews with angels." Reprinted in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 2:256. ↩︎ ↩︎

  26. On the July 20, 1833 destruction of the W. W. Phelps press in Independence, Missouri, which interrupted printing of the Book of Commandments before binding was completed, see Richard Lyman Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling: A Cultural Biography of Mormonism's Founder (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 222-223; and the editorial introduction to "Revelation Book 1" at the Joseph Smith Papers, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-book-1/2 . The rescue of unbound sheets by Mary Elizabeth Rollins (age 12) and Caroline Rollins (age 14) is documented in Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner's later reminiscences. ↩︎

  27. "Minutes, circa 3-4 June 1831," Joseph Smith Papers. The minutes record: "Brs. Lyman Wight, John Murdock, Reynolds Cahoon, Harvey Whitlock & Hyrum Smith were ordained to the high Priesthood under the hand of br. Joseph Smith jr." and "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 ↩︎ ↩︎

  28. Editorial introduction, "Minutes, circa 3-4 June 1831," Joseph Smith Papers. The introduction notes: "During one of the conference meetings, the first recorded ordinations to the high priesthood occurred, several of them performed by JS himself." ↩︎

  29. John S. Thompson, "Restoring Melchizedek Priesthood," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 62 (2024): 263-318. Thompson cites Joseph Smith's 1841 teaching that "All priesthood is Melchizedeck; but there are different portions or degrees of it" and synthesizes the biblical, Book of Mormon, and Restoration-era patterns showing apostleship, elder, and high priest as sequential offices/degrees within Melchizedek priesthood. Includes Parley P. Pratt: "the office of an Elder is the same in a certain degree, but not in the fulness." https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/restoring-melchizedek-priesthood ↩︎

  30. The contemporary witness record on the June 1831 conference is genuinely mixed. Pratt's autobiography supports the office-vs-priesthood reading: "the office of an Elder is the same in a certain degree, but not in the fulness." Ezra Booth's October 1831 letter says the conference participants were ordained to "the High Priesthood, or the order of Milchesidec" — terminology that establishes the language was in use in October 1831 but is ambiguous between readings. John Corrill's 1839 history, by contrast, says "the Malchisedec priesthood was then for the first time introduced" — language that supports the developmental (critical) reading rather than the office-vs-priesthood one. Corrill's 1839 phrasing may reflect post-1835 terminology that doesn't reflect 1831 understanding, but the witness record is not uniform. See Thompson, "Restoring Melchizedek Priesthood," Interpreter 62 (2024): 263-318, which engages Pratt, Booth, and Corrill directly. ↩︎

  31. Minutes of the November 1-2, 1831 conference at Hiram, Ohio, recorded in Minute Book 2, Joseph Smith Papers. The conference voted that Joseph Smith "correct those errors or mistakes which he may discover by the holy Spirit while reviewing the revelations & commandments." This authorization was the procedural framework under which D&C 27 was expanded and other texts received editorial work between the 1833 Book of Commandments and the 1835 D&C. ↩︎

  32. Doctrine and Covenants 70:1-3 (November 12, 1831). The revelation designates Joseph Smith, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, Sidney Rigdon, and W. W. Phelps as "stewards over the revelations and commandments" — the six-man "Literary Firm" responsible for preparing revelations for publication. ↩︎

  33. Grant Underwood, "Relishing the Revisions: Joseph Smith and the Revelatory Process," BYU-Hawaii devotional, 2009. Underwood — a Joseph Smith Papers editor — argues revelations are "the word of God" rather than "the very words of God" and documents Joseph's openly authorized practice of revising revelation texts. Joseph instructed Phelps: "be careful not to alter the sense of any of them." https://speeches.byuh.edu/devotionals/relishing-the-revisions-joseph-smith-and-the-revelatory-process ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  34. Doctrine and Covenants 1:24-28 (received November 1, 1831). "Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent..." ↩︎

  35. "Overview of changes to the Doctrine and Covenants," FAIR; "Why did Joseph Smith edit revelations?" FAIR. Documents that the editing of 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." Brigham Young (1855): "I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness." Cowdery: "we were not a little surprised to find the previous print so different from the original." https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Doctrine_and_Covenants/Textual_changes/Why_did_Joseph_Smith_edit_revelations ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎

  36. Jeremiah 36:32 (KJV): "Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words." The biblical tradition contains revisable, expandable revelation; the standard the CES Letter applies (textual change = fabrication) would, applied consistently, falsify Jeremiah. ↩︎

  37. Grant Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002). Palmer argues: "Accounts of angelic ordinations from John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John are in none of the journals, diaries, letters, or printed matter until the mid-1830s." The statement is defensible if "mid-1830s" includes 1834 and if "ordinations from John the Baptist" requires the specifically named identification, but is substantively narrower than the CES Letter's blanket "none of which existed in any previous Church records" claim. ↩︎

  38. John W. Welch, "Timing the Translation of the Book of Mormon: 'Days [and Hours] Never to Be Forgotten,'" BYU Studies Quarterly 57, no. 4 (2018). Establishes the approximately 60-65 working-day timeline for the Book of Mormon dictation in 1829, primarily April through June 1829, before the period the priesthood-restoration backdating claim addresses. ↩︎

  39. See Alma 4:20 (Alma "confined himself wholly to the high priesthood of the holy order of God"); Alma 13 (extended treatment of the high priesthood after the order of Melchizedek); Mosiah 18:17 (baptism by "power and authority of God"); 3 Nephi 11:25; 12:1 (Nephite apostles receive authority to baptize). The Book of Mormon was published in March 1830 and contains explicit priesthood theology — pre-dating any disputed canonical revisions and any priesthood-restoration "retrofitting" period on any reconstruction. ↩︎

A faith-promoting resource for Latter-day Saints.

Copyright 2025-present