A BYU Studies article, Priesthood Restoration Documents (BYU Studies, Volume 35, Number 4, 1996), attempts to compile and legitimize the historical claims surrounding the restoration of the priesthood in Mormonism. While the compilation appears scholarly on the surface, the conclusion it draws is apologetic rather than academic. The piece says one thing, but the data says another. We can see this from the first sentence, “a suprisingly large number of early Church documents impressively record crucial details about the restoration of both the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods.”
The only real surprise with these early church documents on the priesthood restoration is the lack of documents contemporary to the events.
A surprisingly large number of early church documents impressively record crucial details about the restoration of both the aaronic and melchizedek priestboods.
Few events in the history of the Restoration are as consequential as the bestowal of the priesthood upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. The following excerpts from early Church documents recount all of the known direct statements from the first twenty years of Church history specifically concerning the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods. In addition to compiling the descriptions that were written or dictated by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, this collection also includes the accounts by contemporaries of Joseph and Oliver up to the time of Cowdery’s death in 1850. Reflecting information that was probably gleaned from conversations or unrecorded discourses of Joseph and Oliver, a few of these statements offer details unavailable elsewhere. Additionally, these statements help to reveal early Church members’ understanding of the restoration of the priesthood and show how they described the priesthood restoration to others.
Brian Q. Cannon, Priesthood Restoration Documents, BYU Studies, Volume 35, Number 4 (1995-1996)
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/priesthood-restoration-documents
The document lists over 70 sources, “all of the known direct statements,” including “descriptions that were written or dictated by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery,” and even “the accounts by contemporaries of Joseph and Oliver.” This sounds like an exhaustive list, but there is a glaring omission—none of these documents are contemporary to the supposed 1829 event itself. Even though it states that “a surprisingly large number of early church documents impressively record crucial details,” the article fails to address the fact that, despite the numerous accounts written and said about the priesthood restoration, including “early church documents” and sources from “contemporaries of Joseph and Oliver,” none of these sources are contemporary to the events they refer to. This fact is quickly minimized and excused by referring to the “spirit of persecution,” Joseph says he faced.
The language of the article is exaggerated, and even borderline silly, with word choices intended to convey that the evidence is much more plentiful and convincing. Rather than candidly admitting that the priesthood restoration story lacks early documentation, the article dances around the issue with word choices like “seldom,” “less complete,” and “original edition”—phrasing that is deliberately vague or misleading. The article repeatedly states that claims from the church are “definite” facts, when the claims in question are at best hopeful, faith-promoting conclusions. These rhetorical tactics attempt to promote faith while obscuring reality: there is no documented claim of the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood restoration until several years after the church was organized.
The list of documents proves the point it tries to retort, that the priesthood restoration was an afterthought story added retroactively to the church origin story. In this exhaustive list of sources, there are no pre-1834 “home run” sources.
“Definitely” Priesthood
The article begins by claiming that Joseph was aware of the priesthood as early as 1823, long before receiving it in 1829. Their proof? Oliver said so in 1835. It softens the claim and admits that “it is unclear to what extent this retrospective account may contain details they were actually learned after 1823,” but then counters with the bold assumption as a definite fact that Joseph “definitely learned more about the priesthood” in 1829. This alludes to the date of the restoration, but refers more to the assumption that Joseph learned about the priesthood by mentions in the Book of Mormon while he translated.
Long before he received the priesthood, Joseph Smith learned of it from Moroni. According to an account of Oliver Cowdery published in 1835, Moroni appeared to Joseph in September of 1823 and informed him… While it is unclear to what extent this retrospective account may contain details that were actually learned after 1823, Joseph definitely learned more about the priesthood as he translated the Book of Mormon in 1829.
Brian Q. Cannon, Priesthood Restoration Documents, BYU Studies, Volume 35, Number 4 (1995-1996)
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/priesthood-restoration-documents
Using the word “definitely” is enough to show readers that the Priesthood Restoration, as fact, is the foregone conclusion of the article. The article essentially states, this happened, and here’s all the proof throughout history. But, it can’t be questioned because Joseph and Oliver said it happened, and we simply believe them, and you should too, but if you don’t look at all the evidece we’ve collected and curated.
Restoration Details “Seldom” Shared
The church wants to show proof that this alleged priesthood restoration story has merit, but it can’t be done.
The earliest account of the alleged 1829 priesthood restoration comes not from 1829, but from 1834, five years after the fact, when Oliver Cowdery first mentions John the Baptist. Joseph Smith’s own writings don’t mention it until 1832—and even then, it’s just a fleeting reference. As historian Richard Bushman notes, this is only a “glancing reference at best.” Having a story that isn’t mentioned anywhere for 5 years is hard to reconcile. Positioning these historical documents as supporting the narrative of priesthood restoration is historically misleading and academically dishonest.
The article’s phrasing that the event was “seldom if ever shared prior to 1832” is a subtle sleight of hand. It suggests the story might have been circulating, just undocumented. But we’re not talking about a side note here—this is supposedly one of the most important theological events in modern religious history. If angelic ordinations actually happened, why were they “seldom if ever” mentioned until several years later?
Details regarding the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood, including John the Baptist’s role in that event, were seldom if ever shared prior to 1832, though, “owing to a spirit of persecution,” as Joseph Smith indicated in 1838. Two of Joseph and Oliver’s close associates, David Whitmer and William McLellin, recalled in the late 1870s or mid-1880s that they first learned of John the Baptist’s appearance two to four years after the Church’s organization. In writing, Joseph Smith first referred to this event in 1832 (document 5), describing “the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel.” Oliver Cowdery offered the first detailed, recorded account of the restoration of the lower priesthood in 1834 (document 22)…
Brian Q. Cannon, Priesthood Restoration Documents, BYU Studies, Volume 35, Number 4 (1995-1996)
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/priesthood-restoration-documents
When explaining that the details of the Aaronic Priesthood restoration story “were seldom if ever shared prior to 1832,” they lead the reader to believe that they may have been shared, but in this exhaustive collection of details, there is no account before 1832. Rather than honestly stating this, they would rather lead on readers by insinuating that it was “seldom.”
There are, not surprisingly, many sources after 1843, which is when Oliver Cowdery first shared an account of the story. It’s not hard to conclude that any corroborating source after 1834 is influenced by this initial telling. But stories contemporary to the alleged event are nowhere to be found; rather than say they apologists must hold space for a hopeful trace that might be found one day, and until that happens, they must state that these stories are “seldom if ever shared prior to 1832.” Again, a softer way to say we currently have zero record of this story before 1832. In 1832, there is a single passing phrase that could be framed in such a way as to refer to this story, but nothing definitive. This is followed by another two full years of absolutely zero record. Then, finally, Oliver Cowdery first shares the story in 1834, and the “contemporary” sources of this extremely consequential event are plentiful.
Less Complete
The apologetic framing becomes even more blatant when addressing the Melchizedek Priesthood. After admitting that the evidence for the Aaronic Priesthood restoration is “seldom if ever ever shared prior to 1832”, they state the details of the Melchesideck Priesthood restoration are less “complete.”
The article admits the written record is “less complete,” but that implies the Aaronic restoration story is somewhat complete—which it isn’t. In fact, both priesthood restoration stories were added after the fact. The Aaronic account appeared in writing years later, and the Melchizedek story even later still, with no date, location, or direct account from the principal participants. Using the term “complete” in any way is misleading and dishonest.
The written record regarding the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood is less complete. Although repeatedly testifying that Peter, James, and John had appeared to them and restored this high priesthood authority … neither Joseph Smith nor Oliver Cowdery specified the date of that restoration or reported the words used by Peter in ordaining them to this priesthood…
Brian Q. Cannon, Priesthood Restoration Documents, BYU Studies, Volume 35, Number 4 (1995-1996)
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/priesthood-restoration-documents
A critical reader might ask a few questions: Why did these monumental details not make it into the first published version of Joseph Smith’s revelations? How can the historic record of the Aaronic Priesthood restoration be in any way considered “complete”?
“Original Edition” D&C
The article continues by admitting that the “first precise published account” is found in the 1835 “original edition” of the Doctrine and Covenants. Describing it as the original edition implies to the reader that this is the first time these revelations are published. Less known is that there was an earlier version of the Doctrine and Covenants called the Book of Commandments. This edition, published in 1833, did not include this precise account. In fact, one place where the story surfaces in the D&C is in the Book of Commandments, but the story is not there; it is added to the original revelation between these two publications. So the “original version” of the revelations included in the Doctrine and Covenants does not, in fact, include any details on these priesthood restoration stories at all.
In 1835 the original edition of the Doctrine and Covenants gave the first precise published account of the appearance of Peter, James, and John to Joseph and Oliver. (Footnote: These verses did not appear in the earlier text of the revelation printed in the Book of Commandments, 1833. Joseph Smith recalled in 1839 that all of section 27 was received as a revelation in August 1830 but that most of the revelation, including these words, was not recorded until September 1830.)
Brian Q. Cannon, Priesthood Restoration Documents, BYU Studies, Volume 35, Number 4 (1995-1996)
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/priesthood-restoration-documents
It doesn’t mention the previously published in the Book of Commandments unless you refer to the footnote (which is parenthetically included in the quote below). According to the footnote, we must believe that Joseph received a revelation in August 1830 and did not record it fully until September 1830. It was not included in the revelation as published in 1833, but was in 1835, and the revelation is regarding the priesthood restoration, which occurred in May 1829. Simple.
The use of terms like “complete” and “original edition” deliberately confuses readers. The article references the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants as the “original edition” to introduce the Peter, James, and John story—but fails to mention the earlier 1833 Book of Commandments, which does not contain those additions. In fact, the revelations were retroactively expanded between editions, with significant narrative changes inserted post hoc.
Revelation “Definitely Received” Prior To Church Organization?
The article’s most egregious overreach may be its claim—despite not appearing in any known document until 1835—that a revelation “was definitely received prior to the organization of the Church” simply because Joseph Smith carried out its instructions. Definitely? Seriously? This kind of backwards logic is historical malpractice.
No single document written by the principals discusses both the appearance of Peter, James, and John and the revelation received in the Whitmer home, specifying the chronological order of these revelations, but the revelation described in documents 13 and 14 was definitely received prior to the organization of the Church, since Joseph Smith carried out its instructions on April 6, 1830. Joseph Smith’s history indicates that he and Oliver ordained each other on April 6 according to previous commandment.
Brian Q. Cannon, Priesthood Restoration Documents, BYU Studies, Volume 35, Number 4 (1995-1996)
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/priesthood-restoration-documents
That’s like saying a map that wasn’t drawn until five years after a journey proves the traveler had it in hand the whole time, because they ended up at the right destination. This is a textbook case of retrofitting history. We can’t use a document created in 1835 as evidence for what someone knew or was instructed to do in 1830, especially when there’s no contemporary mention of the revelation, the priesthood, or the angelic ordination it’s supposed to describe.
The logic is completely backwards: the effect is being used to prove the existence of a cause that no one had even heard of at the time. We can’t claim someone must have received a text message in 2010 because they acted on it, even though the message wasn’t written or sent until 2015. Just because someone did something doesn’t mean a specific instruction or revelation existed at the time, especially when there’s zero evidence of it until years later. This is retroactive justification, not historical proof. You can’t backdate a command and then use its fulfillment to prove the command existed all along. That’s not history; that’s narrative engineering.
The idea that we can “definitely” date a revelation based on later recollections—especially ones recorded years or even decades after the fact—is not a scholarly conclusion. It’s wishful thinking masquerading as analysis.
The fact that the historical record can be used to support different interpretations demonstrates how puzzling any fragmentary record of the past can be. Because Joseph and Oliver never identified a date for the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood, they left room for speculation about the date of that priesthood’s restoration. Further complicating the task is our inability using extant documents to determine with certainty Joseph Smith’s full understanding of the nature of the priesthood at the time of the Church’s organization.
While the documentary record is fragmentary regarding the date for the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the record is extensive and rich in many other respects. It strongly shows that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery repeatedly testified that they received power from on high to perform ordinances, first from John the Baptist and then from Peter, James, and John. Their testimonies began early in Church documents and intensified as these first and second elders drew closer to their own impending deaths. The powerful thrust of these accounts, corroborated by numerous statements from other early members of the Church, is intellectually challenging and spiritually invigorating.
Brian Q. Cannon, Priesthood Restoration Documents, BYU Studies, Volume 35, Number 4 (1995-1996)
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/priesthood-restoration-documents
This conclusion does nail a couple facts: Joseph and Oliver repeatedly testified that they received power from on high, and these accounts are “intellectually challenging.”
The apologetic claim that the historical record is merely “fragmentary” and therefore open to multiple interpretations may sound reasonable on the surface—but it sidesteps the deeper problem. In historical analysis, when key events lack any contemporary documentation—especially events as foundational as angelic visitations and divine ordinations—the academic conclusion is not that “we can’t know for sure,” but rather that the events most likely didn’t happen as later described. In historical terms, absence of evidence—especially where evidence should exist—is itself evidence. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery gave no specific date for the Melchizedek Priesthood restoration, nor did they speak publicly about it for five years. That silence is not neutral—it casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the claim.
Apologists say here that not giving a date leaves “room for speculation.” But this ambiguity doesn’t just leave room for speculation about when the event happened—it opens the door to speculate whether the event happened at all. The situation mirrors the First Vision, where the earliest accounts fail to mention the most remarkable details that later became central to the Church’s origin story. Like the First Vision, the priesthood restoration story evolved over time, gained specificity only in retrospect, and was conspicuously absent from early public teachings. The First Vision also lacks a date, other than stating it occurred on a spring morning. How can a story be trusted when the people involved don’t even mention it until years later? Especially when such stories are regarded today as foundational and that “few events in the history of the Restoration are as consequential as the bestowal of the priesthood.” If someone claimed angelic ordination today but waited half a decade to bring it up, would we take them seriously?
This conclusion also emphasizes that Joseph and Oliver later “repeatedly testified” of their priesthood authority, especially as they approached death, as though that somehow validates the claim. But another, more historically grounded explanation is that they were attempting to resecure their grip on leadership amid increasing internal dissent and external criticism. Reframing their narrative to emphasize divine authority wasn’t a final testimony—it was a calculated move to reassert power. Joseph wasn’t simply bearing witness; he was trying to maintain control over a fracturing movement. And it didn’t even work! Joseph died in jail, after losing the confidence of many followers and facing significant internal schisms.
In the end, the apologetic spin cannot erase the fact that the priesthood restoration appears not as a documented, witnessed event, but as a late, retrofitted justification for ecclesiastical authority. The story evolved because it had to—because Joseph’s credibility and leadership depended on it. And for nearly two centuries, the Church has continued to teach this backdated narrative as if it were solid, historical truth. But for those willing to look at the actual record, the cracks are clear.
Faithful Framing Over Honest Inquiry
Apologetics is the practice of defending a predetermined belief system—typically religious—by selectively presenting arguments, evidence, and reasoning intended to reinforce that belief. Rather than beginning with open-ended inquiry, apologetics starts with a fixed conclusion (e.g., “the church is true”) and works backward to justify it, often ignoring or reinterpreting contradictory evidence.
In this way, apologetics is less about discovering truth and more about preserving faith. It prioritizes faith-affirming narratives over objective analysis and frequently employs rhetorical strategies—such as selective omission, emotional appeals, and redefinition of terms—to make complex or uncomfortable facts fit within a pre-approved framework.
Where scholarship asks, “What actually happened?”, apologetics tends to ask, “How can we make this appear consistent with our beliefs?” or “How can we make this at least less of a stumbling block for others?” “How can we frame this to keep the church from looking bad?”
Apologists are similar to defense lawyers; their job is to defend their client. They must do anything and everything they can to instill belief in their client’s claims. Truth is not the goal, but putting their client in the best light.
Apologetics is not about discovering the truth. It’s about defending what one has already decided to believe. The deeper issue here is not just one of missing documentation. It’s the apologetic approach to history itself. Apologists are not historians. They are not interested in the past for its own sake but in the past insofar as it supports their theological views.
A scholar follows the research wherever it goes, while an apologist has decided beforehand what conclusions they will reach. Apologists begin with a conclusion—that the priesthood restoration really happened as described in current church narratives—and then work backwards, cherry-picking evidence, reinterpreting language, and softening contradictions to fit that conclusion. Rather than allowing the evidence to guide them to the truth, they retrofit the evidence to protect the truth they’ve already chosen to believe.
Some apologists even know their arguments don’t hold water, but if there are no arguments defending the faith, they’re told, the faith will falter. They know that argument does not create conviction, but the lack of an argument can destroy belief. So they come up with any argument to prop up what faith they can.
Again, this isn’t how genuine historical inquiry works. If we want to learn what really happened, we must be willing to start with questions, not conclusions. We must examine all the evidence, not just the parts that support a predetermined belief. And we must be honest about what the evidence does not say—not just what we wish it did.
Start with Questions, Not Conclusions
If you’ve ever felt like the historical story of the church doesn’t quite add up, you’re not alone. Many who have deconstructed their Mormon faith have done so not out of offense, laziness, or sin, but because the facts told a different story than they were raised to believe. We invite you to allow yourself to ask real questions. Look at all the evidence. Acknowledge the missing pieces. Consider whether a story added years later, and edited repeatedly, still holds the same weight.
And if you’ve taken that journey—if you’ve asked the hard questions and found the courage to reexamine your beliefs—we invite you to share your story at wasmormon.org. Your experience matters. Your honesty matters. And your voice can help others who are just beginning to look beyond the surface.
Let’s value truth more than tradition. Let’s be willing to let the evidence lead, wherever it takes us.
More reading:
- https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/priesthood-restoration-documents
- https://website-files-bucket.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/issues/issue_pdfs/35-4.pdf
- https://history.byu.edu/directory/brian-cannon
- Retroactive Mormon Priesthood Restoration Problems
- Bushman on Holes in The Priesthood Restoration Story
- https://ehrmanblog.org/can-biblical-scholars-be-historians/
- https://archive.org/details/improvementera7306unse/page/10/mode/2up
- Retrofitting the Priesthood Restoration into the Doctrine and Covenants Revelation
- Retrofitting Revelation For The Mormon Church Official Name