CES Letter Answers

Appearance

Late Appearance ​

The claim:

"Like the first vision story, none of the members of the Church or Joseph Smith's family had ever heard prior to 1832 about a priesthood restoration from John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John. Although the priesthood is now taught to have been restored in 1829, Joseph and Oliver made no such claim until 1832, if that."[1]

The CES Letter quotes Richard Bushman: "The late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication."[2]

That's a real sentence from Rough Stone Rolling. But the CES Letter stops mid-paragraph. Here's what Bushman actually wrote next:

"His reticence may have shown a fear of disbelief. Although obscure, Joseph was proud. He did not like to appear the fool."[3]

Bushman raised the fabrication possibility in order to dismiss it. He concluded that Joseph's silence reflected caution born of prior persecution, not invention. Quoting half a paragraph reverses its meaning.

So what does the documentary record actually show?

Six specific claims ​

The CES Letter makes six arguments on pages 80-84:[1:1]

  1. No one heard about priesthood restoration before 1832.
  2. David Whitmer said he never heard of angelic ordination until 1834-36.
  3. The Book of Commandments (1833) contains no mention of John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John.
  4. Joseph and Oliver added priesthood restoration verses to D&C 27 that weren't in the original revelation.
  5. The 1835 Doctrine & Covenants backdated priesthood restoration to 1829-30.
  6. Lyman Wight ordained Joseph to the high priesthood in June 1831 — so why would Peter, James, and John have already done it?

Each one sounds damaging in isolation. Each one omits evidence that changes the picture.

Claim 1: "No one heard about it before 1832" ​

This is the central claim, and it's wrong. Contemporary newspaper accounts — written by hostile observers with no reason to fabricate evidence for Joseph Smith — document public claims about angelic authority starting in late 1830.

November 16, 1830 — The Painesville Telegraph reported that Oliver Cowdery "pretends to have a divine mission, and to have seen and conversed with Angels."[4]

December 7, 1830 — The same newspaper reported 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 "are the only persons on earth who are qualified to administer in his name." The article noted Cowdery 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."[5]

February 14, 1831 — The Palmyra Reflector reported that "Jo Smith had now received a commission from God" and that "Cowdery and his friends had frequent interviews with angels."[6]

March 2, 1833 — Reverend Richmond Taggart reported that Joseph Smith claimed to have "seen Jesus Christ and the Apostles and conversed with them."[7]

These are outsiders reporting what the early Saints were telling them. No one was fabricating pro-Mormon evidence in the Painesville Telegraph.

Key Point

Hostile newspapers documented claims of angelic authority in November 1830 — eighteen months before the CES Letter's alleged earliest date of 1832.

The reports confirm that Joseph and Oliver were publicly claiming divine authority — including angelic visitations and exclusive priesthood power — within months of the Church's organization in April 1830.

Joseph's own 1832 history ​

In the summer of 1832, Joseph dictated what is now recognized as his earliest personal history. He listed the foundational events of the Restoration in order:

"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"[8]

Two distinct priesthood events, both attributed to angelic ministry. The "letter of the Gospel" (Aaronic Priesthood) and the "high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God" (Melchizedek Priesthood). Written in 1832 — two years before the CES Letter says the story first appeared.

The CES Letter acknowledges this document exists but dismisses it as "just a 'reception' of the priesthood" — "a glancing reference at best." That's a judgment call, not a fact. Joseph listed angelic priesthood conferral among the four most important events of the Restoration. That's not glancing. That's cardinal.

Claim 2: David Whitmer said he never heard of it ​

The CES Letter quotes David Whitmer:

"I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood until the year 1834, [183]5, or [183]6 — in Ohio... I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver."[9]

This is a real quote. But three things matter about it.

First, Whitmer was excommunicated in 1838. He spent the next fifty years in a theological dispute with the Church. His late-life statements reflect that dispute — he rejected the entire concept of priesthood hierarchy, not just the angelic ordination account.[10]

Second, Whitmer simultaneously confirmed that Joseph and Oliver baptized and ordained each other in 1829. He acknowledged the events but disagreed about the source of authority — arguing that God's voice, not an angel, authorized the ordinances.[10:1] This isn't "it didn't happen." It's "I interpret it differently."

Third, other early members directly contradicted him.

  • Hiram Page (present at the Church's organization on April 6, 1830): confirmed that "Peter, James and John" came before the organizational meeting.[11]
  • Orson Pratt (baptized September 1830): affirmed the Peter, James, and John restoration from the earliest period of his membership.[12]
  • Brigham Young (baptized April 1832): stated that Joseph received the "Apostleship" from "Peter, James, and John" before the organizational meeting.[13]

One dissenting voice — from a man who left the Church and spent decades disputing its authority structure — does not outweigh the contemporary record.

Claim 3: The Book of Commandments doesn't mention it ​

The CES Letter notes that the 1833 Book of Commandments contains no account of John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John.

True. It also contains no account of the First Vision, no account of Moroni's visits, and no narrative of the translation process. The Book of Commandments was a collection of revelations, not a narrative history. It was physically tiny — roughly 4.5 by 2.75 inches — and contained only the revelatory text.[14]

The absence of a historical narrative from a book that didn't include historical narratives isn't evidence of anything.

What the Book of Commandments does contain is language that only makes sense if priesthood restoration had already occurred. Chapter 24, verse 3 (later D&C 20) describes Joseph Smith as "an apostle of Jesus Christ."[15] Apostles must be ordained by other apostles or by higher authority. No earthly apostles existed in 1830. The title itself implies a divine source of ordination.

Claim 4: D&C 27 was expanded ​

The CES Letter accurately notes that D&C 27 contains material absent from the original Book of Commandments Chapter 28 (XXVIII). The 1835 Doctrine & Covenants expanded the revelation to include specific references to John the Baptist, Elijah, and Peter, James, and John.[16]

This is real. Joseph Smith did revise and expand revelations. He treated them as living documents — not fixed, closed texts. This was known to the early Saints and was never hidden.[17]

The relevant question is whether the expansion invented content or filled in content that was already understood. Newell Knight, who was present when the original revelation was received in August 1830, later recalled that the expanded portions reflected what was communicated at the time, even though the initial written version was abbreviated.[18]

More importantly, the expansion is consistent with every other source. Joseph's 1832 history already referenced both priesthood conferrals. Oliver Cowdery's 1834 account provided extensive detail. Hostile newspapers had been reporting angelic authority claims since 1830. The expanded D&C 27 didn't introduce a new story — it put into print what multiple sources already documented.

Claim 5: Backdating to 1829-30 ​

The CES Letter claims Joseph and Oliver "backdated and retrofitted Priesthood Restoration events to an 1829-30 time period — none of which existed in any previous Church records."[19]

This claim only works if you ignore every source listed above. The 1830 newspaper reports, the 1832 history, the April 1830 Articles and Covenants calling Joseph an "apostle" — all of these predate 1835 and all reference divine authority.

Additionally, Oliver Cowdery's June 14, 1829 letter to Hyrum Smith quotes language that later appeared in D&C 18, a revelation addressing apostolic calling. This letter was written before the Church was organized, documenting priesthood concepts in real time.[20]

The documentary trail doesn't begin in 1835. It begins in 1829.

Claim 6: Lyman Wight's ordination in June 1831 ​

The CES Letter asks: if Peter, James, and John already ordained Joseph to the Melchizedek Priesthood, why did Lyman Wight ordain him to the "high priesthood" at a conference in June 1831?[21]

This conflates two different things. The June 1831 conference involved ordinations to the office of high priest — a specific office within the Melchizedek Priesthood.[22] Receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood and being ordained to a particular office within it are distinct steps, just as receiving the Aaronic Priesthood and being ordained a priest are distinct steps today.

John S. Thompson's 2024 article in Interpreter demonstrated that the restoration unfolded as "a composite priesthood of portions and degrees" — different offices and keys conferred sequentially for specific purposes, not all at once in a single event.[23] The June 1831 ordinations fit this pattern. They don't contradict an earlier conferral of priesthood authority by Peter, James, and John; they represent a subsequent step in organizing the Church's priesthood structure.

Why the accounts emerged gradually ​

The CES Letter treats gradual documentation as evidence of fabrication. But there's a simpler explanation, and Joseph himself stated it:

"We were forced to keep secret the circumstances of our having been baptized, and having received this Priesthood, owing to a spirit of persecution which had already manifested itself in the neighborhood."[24]

Joseph didn't write much of anything before 1832. His first attempt at keeping a journal lasted nine days. He described writing as being in "a narrow prison."[25] The absence of early written records reflects Joseph's well-documented reluctance to write, combined with genuine fear of mob violence — not the absence of early events.

The CES Letter also claims the accounts "later got more elaborate and bold" — implying a snowballing fabrication. But that's what happens when anyone writes about the same event at increasing length. A journal entry is shorter than a letter. A letter is shorter than a history. Greater detail in later tellings doesn't mean the core claim changed; it means the writer had more space, more time, and more reason to be comprehensive.

The pattern is identical to the First Vision. Joseph experienced it in 1820. He first wrote it down in 1832. No historian seriously argues the First Vision didn't happen because Joseph didn't record it for twelve years.

Oliver Cowdery never recanted ​

Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated in 1838. He spent a decade outside the Church. He held personal grievances against Joseph Smith. He practiced law in Ohio and never depended on the Church for his livelihood.

He never denied the priesthood restoration.

In an 1846 letter to Phineas Young, seeking readmission to the Church, Oliver 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."[26]

When Oliver returned to the Church in 1848, he testified before the Kanesville high council that the angelic messenger had told Joseph: "This priesthood shall remain on earth unto the end."[27]

A man who had left the Church, harbored personal resentments, and had nothing to gain by maintaining the story — maintained it anyway. Not once, but consistently, across multiple settings, for the rest of his life.

The positive case: what the evidence looks like all together ​

DateSourceWhat it documents
June 1829Oliver Cowdery's letter to Hyrum SmithQuotes D&C 18 language about apostolic calling
April 1830Articles and Covenants (D&C 20)Calls Joseph "an apostle of Jesus Christ" — requires divine ordination
Nov 1830Painesville TelegraphReports Cowdery "conversed with Angels"
Dec 1830Painesville TelegraphReports Cowdery claims "commission directly from the God of Heaven"
Feb 1831Palmyra ReflectorReports Joseph received divine commission; Cowdery had "interviews with angels"
Summer 1832Joseph Smith's earliest historyLists "reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels" as a cardinal event
Mar 1833Rev. Taggart's reportJoseph claimed seeing "Jesus Christ and the Apostles"
Oct 1834Oliver Cowdery, Messenger and AdvocateFirst detailed published account of John the Baptist's visit
1835D&C 27 expandedAdds specific angelic names to the revelation text
1838Joseph Smith's formal historyFull narrative of both Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood restoration
1846Oliver Cowdery to Phineas YoungReaffirms standing "in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater" priesthood

Eleven sources spanning seventeen years. Hostile newspapers, private letters, personal histories, published accounts, and post-excommunication testimony. All telling the same story.

The Bushman quote in full context ​

The CES Letter opens its priesthood section with Bushman's "late appearance... raises the possibility of later fabrication." It's worth seeing where Bushman actually landed.

After noting the late documentation, Bushman observed that Oliver Cowdery — not Joseph — was the first to publish a detailed account, in the 1834 Messenger and Advocate. When Joseph later described the same events, he was "much more plainspoken" than Oliver. Bushman noted this looked "more like a refurbished memory than a triumphant announcement."[3:1]

If Joseph were fabricating, you'd expect a polished, dramatic rollout. Instead, Oliver published an emotional account first, and Joseph followed with a restrained one. That's the pattern of two people independently recalling the same event — not the pattern of an inventor promoting a new story.

Bottom line: The CES Letter says no one heard about priesthood restoration before 1832. Hostile newspapers were reporting angelic authority claims in November 1830. Joseph's own 1832 history lists priesthood conferral by angels as a foundational event. Oliver Cowdery maintained his testimony of the restoration through a decade of excommunication and personal bitterness. The "late appearance" argument depends on ignoring the evidence that appeared early.

  1. Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Priesthood Restoration," no. 1, pp. 80-81. ↩︎ ↩︎

  2. Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Priesthood Restoration," p. 81, quoting Richard Lyman Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 75. ↩︎

  3. Richard Lyman Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling: A Cultural Biography of Mormonism's Founder (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 75-76. Bushman raises the fabrication possibility and then explains Joseph's reticence as reflecting pride and fear of disbelief, concluding the pattern looks "more like a refurbished memory than a triumphant announcement." ↩︎ ↩︎

  4. "The Golden Bible," Painesville Telegraph (Painesville, OH), November 16, 1830. The article reports Cowdery "pretends to have a divine mission, and to have seen and conversed with Angels." Reprinted in Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, 5 vols. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996-2003), 2:271. ↩︎

  5. "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." Reprinted in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 2:274-275. ↩︎

  6. "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. ↩︎

  7. Richmond Taggart to the Rev. Jonathan Goings, March 2, 1833. Reports Joseph Smith claimed to have "seen Jesus Christ and the Apostles and conversed with them." In Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 1:541. ↩︎

  8. Joseph Smith, History, circa Summer 1832, 1. Joseph Smith Papers. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1 ↩︎

  9. David Whitmer, interview, in Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2003), 5:137. ↩︎

  10. David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, MO: David Whitmer, 1887). Whitmer rejected priesthood hierarchy entirely, advocating a return to the Church as organized in 1830 without offices of high priest, stake president, or First Presidency. ↩︎ ↩︎

  11. Hiram Page to William E. McLellin, May 30, 1847. Page confirmed that Peter, James, and John appeared before the Church's April 1830 organizational meeting. In Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 5:260. ↩︎

  12. Orson Pratt, The Seer 1, no. 8 (August 1853): 113-114. Pratt affirmed the Peter, James, and John restoration from the earliest period of his membership (baptized September 19, 1830). ↩︎

  13. Brigham Young, discourse of April 6, 1853, in Journal of Discourses, 1:134-137. Young stated that Joseph received the "Apostleship" from "Peter, James, and John" prior to the organizational meeting of the Church. ↩︎

  14. Brian Q. Cannon and BYU Studies Staff, "Priesthood Restoration Documents," BYU Studies 35, no. 4 (1995-96): 162-207. This compilation catalogs over 70 sources containing direct statements about priesthood restoration before 1850. https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/priesthood-restoration-documents ↩︎

  15. 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." ↩︎

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

  17. Joseph Smith revised revelations openly throughout his ministry. The original texts were available for comparison. See 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. ↩︎

  18. Newell Knight's journal records that the expanded portions of D&C 27 reflected what was communicated during the original August 1830 experience. See Larry C. Porter, "The Restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods," Ensign (December 1996): 30-47. ↩︎

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

  20. 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. ↩︎

  21. Runnells, CES Letter (2017), "Priesthood Restoration," no. 6, pp. 83-84. ↩︎

  22. "Minutes, circa 3-4 June 1831," Joseph Smith Papers. The conference involved ordinations to the office of high priest, a specific office within the Melchizedek Priesthood. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-circa-3-4-june-1831/1 ↩︎

  23. John S. Thompson, "Restoring Melchizedek Priesthood," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 62 (2024): 263-318. Thompson demonstrates that the priesthood restoration unfolded as "a composite priesthood of portions and degrees," with different offices and keys conferred sequentially. https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/restoring-melchizedek-priesthood ↩︎

  24. Joseph Smith, History, 1838-1856, volume A-1, 17. Joseph Smith Papers. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834/17 ↩︎

  25. Dean C. Jessee, "The Writing of Joseph Smith's History," BYU Studies 11, no. 4 (1971): 439-473. Joseph described writing as being confined in "a narrow prison" and kept almost no personal records before 1832. ↩︎

  26. Oliver Cowdery to Phineas Young, March 23, 1846. Published in "Oliver Cowdery," Improvement Era 2, no. 10 (October 1899): 829-830. ↩︎

  27. Oliver Cowdery, testimony before the Kanesville high council, October 21, 1848. Recorded in Reuben Miller's journal. See Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Reuben Miller, Recorder of Oliver Cowdery's Reaffirmations," BYU Studies 8, no. 3 (1968): 277-293. ↩︎

A faith-promoting resource for Latter-day Saints.

Copyright 2025-present