Bushman on Holes in The Priesthood Restoration Story

In Rough Stone Rolling, respected Mormon historian Richard Lyman Bushman examines the origins of the Mormon priesthood narrative. What he finds should give every faithful truth-seeker pause.

The church teaches that in 1829, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were visited by angelic messengers and ordained to the priesthood, first by John the Baptist on May 16, to receive the Aaronic Priesthood, and then on an unspecified date in 1829, presumably later in May, by Peter, James, and John to receive the Melchisedek Priesthood. The problem is that contemporary records say nothing of these visits, and contemporary records contradict this occurrence. If it were given to Joseph and Oliver as claimed, the church organization, language, and sermons would have been different in the first few years of the church. The priesthood wasn’t even mentioned until 1831 in a church meeting, over a year after the church was formed.

Bushman does his homework, and in Rough Stone Rolling he has some questions about why this discrepancy could exist. He does declare that the dominant narrative of the church is not true, but he stops short of including other conclusions. He infers that the official narrative story could be fabricated to bolster Joseph’s image and authority.

Priesthood Restoration

Bushman points out that Joseph Smith did not tell anyone about the visitation of John the Baptist when it allegedly happened in 1829. In fact, in Joseph’s 1830 summary of his religious experiences, there is no mention of priesthood restoration or any angelic visitor. The first official Church compilation of revelations in 1833 also omits any such story. According to David Whitmer, one of the Three Witnesses, he didn’t hear about John the Baptist until four years after the Church was founded. Not until Joseph’s 1832 history does a vague reference appear—“reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of angels”—but even then, no names, dates, or dramatic events are described.

This delayed introduction of such a foundational event is troubling. Bushman acknowledges that Joseph may have fabricated the account later to bolster his prophetic authority. He suggests possible motives: fear of being disbelieved, sacred secrecy, or pride—but admits these are guesses. Notably, Oliver Cowdery was the first to tell the story publicly, not Joseph. Cowdery’s 1834 article in a Church newspaper is poetic and dramatic, but Joseph’s version, written years later and published even later in 1842, was subdued, more like a quiet edit than a declaration.

Joseph did not tell anyone about John the Baptist at first. Summarizing the key events in his religious life in an 1830 statement, he mentioned translation but said nothing about the restoration of priesthood or the visit of an angel. The first compilation of revelations in 1833 also omitted an account of John the Baptist. David Whitmer later told an interviewer he had heard nothing of John the Baptist until four years after the Church’s organization. Not until writing his 1832 history did Joseph include “reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of angels to administer the letter of the Gospel” among the cardinal events of his history, a glancing reference at best. Joseph had not told his mother about his First Vision, and spoke to his father about Moroni only when commanded. His reticence may have shown a fear of disbelief. Although obscure, Joseph was proud. He did not like to appear the fool. Or he may have felt the visions were too sacred to be discussed openly. They were better kept to himself. The late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication. Did Joseph add the stories of angels to embellish his early history and make himself more of a visionary? If so, he made little of the occurrence. Cowdery was the first to recount the story of John’s appearance, not Joseph himself. In an 1834 Church newspaper, Cowdery exulted in his still fresh memory of the experience. “On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace unto us, while the vail was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the gospel of repentance!” When Joseph described John’s visit, he was much more plainspoken. Moreover, he inserted the story into a history composed in 1838 but not published until 1842. It circulated without fanfare, more like a refurbished memory than a triumphant announcement.

Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, Page 75
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Joseph_Smith/Mz3tpz4eRBQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA75&printsec=frontcover

Melchizedek Priesthood

During the founding of the Church, leadership appointments referred to offices (apostles, elders, bishops) but were not organized explicitly under the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood structures, which only appear clearly in records around 1835. Joseph’s 1832 history entry is particularly vague—it says “reception” of priesthood but offers no details of angelic ministrations or laying on of hands.

Today, members are taught that the higher, or Melchisedek Priesthood was restored by Peter, James, and John sometime in 1829. Yet the term “priesthood” wasn’t used in early church sermons or revelations, despite appearing in the Book of Mormon. It wasn’t until the June 1831 conference, when Joseph and others were ordained to the “high priesthood,” that the term was recorded in contemporary documents. Strangely, Joseph was ordained at this time by Lyman Wight, even though tradition now says he already had the higher priesthood. If Joseph was already an elder and an apostle, why the need to be ordained again?

During the turbulent [June 1831] meeting, Joseph ordained five men to the high priesthood, and Lyman Wight ordained eighteen others, including Joseph. The ordinations to the high priesthood marked a milestone in Mormon ecclesiology. Until that time, the word ‘priesthood,’ although it appeared in the Book of Mormon, had not been used in Mormon sermonizing or modern revelations. Later accounts applied the term retroactively, but the June 1831 conference marked its first appearance in contemporary records…

The Melchizedek Priesthood, Mormons now believe, had been bestowed a year or two earlier with the visit of Peter, James, and John. If so, why did contemporaries say the high priesthood was given for the first time in June 1831? Joseph Smith himself was ordained to this ‘high priesthood’ by Lyman Wight. If Joseph was already an elder and apostle, what was the necessity of being ordained again?

Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p.157-158
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Joseph_Smith/Mz3tpz4eRBQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA75&printsec=frontcover

Bushman concludes that these inconsistencies create serious doubts about the historical reality of the priesthood restoration. If a faithful and sympathetic historian like Bushman admits that the story may have been fabricated or retroactively inserted, what does that say to the rest of us? These aren’t the musings of an anti-Mormon critic—they’re the honest questions of a believing scholar trying to make sense of a shifting historical narrative.

When you place the priesthood restoration next to other major backdated developments—like the First Vision (which wasn’t publicly taught until years after it allegedly occurred), polygamy (secretly practiced for years before being acknowledged), and temple ordinances (developed well after the Book of Mormon)—a pattern emerges. It appears that key components of the Restoration were developed later and retrofitted into the origin story.

Have you struggled with this discrepancy? You’re not alone. Many have faced the uncomfortable realization that the historical record and the church narrative don’t line up, including Richard Bushman. The “priesthood restoration” as taught today seems more like a theological backfill than a clear, miraculous event.

If you’ve experienced the mental gymnastics required to reconcile these contradictions—and found that they no longer add up—we invite you to share your story. Others are walking this path too. Your voice matters. Use wasmormon.org to share your journey of faith deconstruction and make space for others to find clarity, too.

• Retroactive Mormon Priesthood Restoration Problems
• Dominant Narrative of Church is Not True
• Richard Bushman, Mormon Historian, Concedes to CES Letter Truths on CES Letters Podcast
• Joseph Smith and “The” “First” “Vision”
• Timeline of the First Vision Story and Development
• Mormon Apologist Handbook: Argument does not Create Conviction, Lack of it Destroys Belief
• Rough Stone Rolling, by Richard Lyman Bushman
• https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/priesthood