Retroactive Mormon Priesthood Restoration Problems

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that in May 1829, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were busy translating the Book of Mormon and were curious about the authority to baptize. They went to ask God and were visited by a heavenly messenger, John the Baptist, who conferred upon them the Aaronic Priesthood, which is the modern-day authority to baptize individuals into the church. Immediately after receiving this priesthood, Joseph and Oliver baptized each other in the Susquehanna River. You can even visit the site where the church claims this happened, there’s a visitor center and everything!

Later, but still in the month of May 1829, on an undisclosed day, Joseph and Oliver were again visited by more heavenly messengers, Peter, James, and John, the apostles from the New Testament, who bestowed a higher, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, upon them. This is the authority to lead the Church, give the gift of the Holy Ghost (after baptism), and perform other ordinances like temple endowments and sealings. This narrative is foundational to the Church’s authority claims and is taught consistently in missionary discussions, Sunday school classes, General Conference talks, and official publications. The church even keeps a priesthood line of authority record for each ordained member in the church (including essentially every male over the age of twelve).

Contrary to assumptions, these stories of miraculous priesthood ordination and claims to authority didn’t appear until years after the Church was organized. This now familiar story didn’t appear in any church records until 1834—five years after the events allegedly took place—and the details weren’t fully shared within the church until 1835. Early members of the Church, including those closest to Joseph Smith and his family, had no knowledge of such a restoration by angelic beings. They never mentioned it when the church was first organized or at the first conferences, where many members were baptised and ordained as church leaders. It wasn’t mentioned when the latter-day Apostles were ordained. So, is this a problem? Why the discrepancy? Why was something now considered so central to the restoration not mentioned at all in the early years of the Church? And what does the evolving nature of the story tell us about its origins?

Problems

None of Joseph Smith’s contemporaries—including his family members and early Church members—had ever heard of a priesthood restoration involving angelic visitations from John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John until at least 1834. Although the modern Church teaches that the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods were restored in 1829, there is no mention of these events in any contemporary writings, journals, sermons, or church documents from that time. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery never spoke publicly or recorded that the men they ordained to leadership positions in the early Church were receiving “priesthood authority” through divine messengers.

When the Church was formally organized on April 6, 1830, there was no mention of priesthood offices being derived from angelic ordination. Joseph and Oliver ordained each other and others as “elders” of the Church, not as bearers of a restored priesthood from heavenly beings. If such a profound, miraculous event as the visitation of resurrected apostles had truly occurred in 1829, it would be reasonable to expect some contemporary record of it, particularly given Joseph’s willingness to record and publicize other visionary experiences.

Much like the “First Vision,” which was unknown to the early Saints and only began to appear in official narratives years after the Church’s founding, the priesthood restoration story appears to have been retroactively inserted into Church history. These stories are now presented as foundational events that established Joseph Smith’s divine authority, yet they were conspicuously absent from the Church’s earliest teachings and publications. This also reflects Joseph’s developing doctrines on the Godhead.

The evidence suggests that these narratives were developed years after the fact, possibly as a response to growing questions about Joseph’s legitimacy as a prophet and Church leader. By backdating the priesthood restoration to 1829, Joseph and Oliver could reinforce their spiritual authority and claim divine sanction for the structure and offices of the evolving Church organization. Far from being widely known, contemporaneous, and foundational, the priesthood restoration story appears to have been an afterthought—introduced when it became useful to bolster Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims.

Church Narrative

Again, the Church teaches officially that in May 1829, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were visited by heavenly messengers—first John the Baptist conferring the Aaronic Priesthood on May 15, and then later on some undisclosed date, Peter, James, and John conferring the higher Melchizedek Priesthood. The church was then organized with this priesthood authority in 1830.

In the early 1800s, Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ restored the gospel to the earth through the Prophet Joseph Smith. This Restoration included the restoration of priesthood power and authority.

While Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were working on the translation of the Book of Mormon, they read about baptism for the remission of sins. On May 15, 1829, they went to a wooded area near Joseph’s home in Harmony, Pennsylvania, and prayed about what they had learned.

In answer to their prayer, John the Baptist, under the direction of the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared and conferred upon them the Aaronic Priesthood, saying, “Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins.” Following John’s instructions, Joseph and Oliver then baptized each other and ordained each other to the Aaronic Priesthood.

Sometime after John the Baptist’s appearance, the ancient Apostles Peter, James, and John also appeared to Joseph and Oliver, again under the direction of Jesus Christ, and conferred upon them the Melchizedek Priesthood. “The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things.” With this authority again on the earth, the Church of Jesus Christ could be restored in its fulness.

LDS Church Website: Topics and Questions: Restoration of the Priesthood
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/restoration-of-the-priesthood

Latter-day Saints believe that in 1829, the priesthood was restored to the earth when heavenly messengers conferred it upon the Prophet Joseph Smith. To Latter-day Saints, the restoration of the priesthood is an important event in the history of The Church…

Joseph Smith learned about the Aaronic Priesthood after finding mention of baptism for the remission of sins during his translation of the Book of Mormon. On May 15, 1829, Joseph and his scribe, Oliver Cowdery, went to the woods to pray about what they had read about baptism. In response, John the Baptist descended from heaven and conferred the Aaronic Priesthood, which includes the authority to baptize, upon Joseph and Oliver…

Latter-day Saints believe that the Melchizedek Priesthood, or the greater priesthood, was also restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith. The exact date of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood is unknown, but it occurred several weeks after the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood in 1829. The ancient Apostles Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph and Oliver and conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood upon them.

The Life of Joseph Smith: Restoration of the Priesthood
https://uk.churchofjesuschrist.org/the-life-of-joseph-smith-restoration-of-the-priesthood

The church presents a neat and accepted historical narrative in which things happen in a logical and chronological order. But all references of these priesthood restoration events were published several years after the event, and no contemporary records suggest anything happened on these dates. The church was organized on April 6, 1830. We have a record of the meeting—there is no mention of God’s authority or any priesthood restoration. Published in 1833, the Book of Commandments, precursor to the Doctrine and Covenants, was “for the government of the Church of Christ,” and it didn’t mention the priesthood restoration, the Aaronic Priesthood, or the Melchizedek Priesthood. The story wasn’t introduced to the church until years later, and when the Doctrine and Covenants was published, the now well-known sections about the priesthood restoration were quietly added and backdated.

Historical Omissions and Contradictions

Historians often scrutinize what isn’t said in historical documents just as carefully as what is said. A historical omission occurs when an event, idea, or detail is absent from records where it reasonably should have appeared had it been known or accepted at the time. For example, the ancient city of Pompeii was buried by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE, yet for centuries afterward, no Roman writers—despite living in the region—made any reference to the city’s destruction or burial. This omission is striking, given the scale of the catastrophe and Pompeii’s prominence. If there is no contemporary record of an event in history, it becomes difficult to trust that the event occurred at all. In the event of Pompeii, we do have enough other data points to confirm the eruption, despite the omission.

On the other hand, a contemporary contradiction involves a case where a source from the same period explicitly says something that conflicts with later claims. If, for example, there were contemporary accounts of people visiting Pompeii around the time of the eruption stating that there was no eruption. A better example would be the myth that medieval Europeans believed the Earth was flat. Contemporary writings from the Middle Ages, including those by scholars and clergy, consistently refer to a spherical Earth, following classical knowledge from Ptolemy and Aristotle. Yet in the 19th century, the flat-Earth myth gained popularity as a way to paint medieval people as ignorant, contradicting the actual record.

These kinds of omissions and contradictions are critical in identifying where later narratives may be inventions or distortions rather than reflections of historical reality. If we have both omissions and contradictions, it becomes very hard to believe the legitimacy of the event.

Just as with Pompeii’s silence in Roman records or the flat-Earth myth that contradicts medieval scholarship, the story of Joseph Smith’s priesthood restoration reveals both historical omissions and contemporary contradictions. For an event as foundational as angelic beings conferring divine authority—first John the Baptist with the Aaronic Priesthood, followed by Peter, James, and John with the Melchizedek—it’s strikingly absent from any contemporary church documents, letters, sermons, or official histories written at the time it supposedly occurred. This is a clear omission: had such a dramatic event been known or commonly accepted in 1829 or 1830, it would almost certainly have appeared in the Church’s foundational texts or the testimonies of its earliest members.

Early missionaries declared that they were called of God but did not say that their authority originated with heavenly messengers. 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.

Grant Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, Page 224
https://archive.org/details/insidersviewofmo0000palm/page/224/mode/2up

No mention of angelic ordinations can be found in original documents until 1834-35

D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p.15

Even more troubling are the contradictions found in early sources. For example, when Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery organized the Church in 1830, they did so by ordaining each other as Elders—not high priests—and made no mention of previous angelic ordinations or priesthood authority from heavenly messengers. In fact, in some early revelations published in the Book of Commandments, priesthood offices like “high priest” aren’t even referenced, and later versions of these same revelations were edited to include language about priesthood that wasn’t there originally.

These changes suggest that the story of priesthood restoration, as now told, was retroactively inserted into the Church’s origin narrative. Considering all this, we can’t help but question the authenticity and historicity of the narrative, and must consider the timing of these additions.

These changes suggest that the current priesthood restoration narrative was retroactively inserted into the Church’s origin story. Considering the omissions and contradictions in early records, we can’t help but question the authenticity and historicity of that account. We can further ask when these details were introduced and maybe even deduce why. Examining the timing and context of these additions offers insight into what may have actually happened and how the narrative evolved to meet the church leadership’s claims of authority and legitimacy in the growing religious movement.

Historical Omissions

Church Organization

Joseph Smith reported the events of the meeting held on April 6, 1830, to organize the Church: “Having opened the meeting by solemn prayer to our Heavenly Father, we proceeded, according to previous commandment, to call on our brethren to know whether they accepted us as their teachers in the things of the Kingdom of God, and whether they were satisfied that we should proceed and be organized as a Church according to said commandment which we had received. To these several propositions they consented by a unanimous vote.

“I then laid my hands upon Oliver Cowdery, and ordained him an Elder of the ‘Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints;’ after which, he ordained me also to the office of an Elder of said Church. We then took bread, blessed it, and brake it with them; also wine, blessed it, and drank it with them. We then laid our hands on each individual member of the Church present, that they might receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and be confirmed members of the Church of Christ. The Holy Ghost was poured out upon us to a very great degree—some prophesied, whilst we all praised the Lord, and rejoiced exceedingly. …

“We now proceeded to call out and ordain some others of the brethren to different offices of the Priesthood, according as the Spirit manifested unto us: and after a happy time spent in witnessing and feeling for ourselves the powers and blessings of the Holy Ghost, through the grace of God bestowed upon us, we dismissed with the pleasing knowledge that we were now individually members of, and acknowledged of God, ‘The Church of Jesus Christ,’ organized in accordance with commandments and revelations given by Him to ourselves in these last days, as well as according to the order of the Church as recorded in the New Testament.”

At the first general conference of the Church, held in Fayette, New York, on June 9, 1830, the sacrament was administered, several people were confirmed members of the Church, others were ordained to offices in the priesthood, and the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Saints.

The Church was officially organized on April 6, 1830. The foundational documents refer only to Joseph and Oliver being “called of God and ordained” as apostles or elders. Priesthood restoration and authority were not mentioned there. In the meeting, Joseph ordained Oliver Cowdery as an Elder, they switched places, and Oliver then ordained Joseph. They did not mention either the Aaronic Priesthood or the Melchizedek Priesthood. There is no mention of John, Peter, James, or the ordination of the priesthood via any angelic messengers. The church was organized without a priesthood context.

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, Chapter 11: The Organization and Destiny of the True and Living Church
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-11

First Church Conference

A few short months later, at the first church conference in June 1830, more brethren were ordained to various priesthood offices. Still, no mention was made of any earlier restoration of the priesthood. No mention of the story of the restorations by John the Baptist, Peter, James, or John. No mention of lesser or higher priesthood.

There seems to be no support for the historicity of the Restoration of the Priesthood in journals, diaries, letters, nor printed matter prior to October, 1834 David Whitmer declared that he was ordained an Elder in June 1829, and that the offices of Elder, Priest, and Teacher—parts of a single Priesthood—were in evidence long before the formal organization of the Church on April 6, 1830. This conflicts with Joseph’s statement that he and Oliver ordained each other Elders on that historic day and that these ordinations were the first to be made to a definite office since the conferment by the angel. Whitmer contends that he was present on April 6 and that the only ordination Joseph received was that of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator; that the idea of dual Priesthoods conferred by heavenly beings was not known in the early years of the Church. If Whitmer is correct it helps to explain the mystery in Joseph’s annotation of the fourth conference of the Church at Kirtland, June 3 to 6, 1831: “The authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders.” (Joseph’s comment is in conflict with Doctrine and Covenants 107:7 which says: “The office of an elder comes under the priesthood of Melchizedek”). It has been suggested that this refers to the ordination of the first High Priests and does not mean what it says, but another instance of the bestowal of Melchizedek Priesthood upon Elders is found in William Smith’s account of the conference which followed at Orange, Ohio, October 25, 1831 “where Elders, Priests, Teachers, and Deacons received some general instructions from the leaders of the Church concerning the priesthood of Melchisedec, to which they had not as yet been ordained.” (As these statements were written in retrospect they may not conclusively establish that the term “Melchizedek Priesthood” was in use at the specified dates).

LaMar Petersen, Problems in Mormon Text, 1957
https://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/pdf/problemsinmormontext_digital.pdf

Book of Commandments

The Book of Commandments, published in 1833, and a precursor to what would become the Doctrine and Covenants (first published in 1835), does not mention the restoration of the priesthood. The familiar priesthood restoration and angelic ordination story wasn’t added to church history until years after it was reported to have occurred.

Joseph Smith substantially changed the wording of an earlier revelation when he compiled the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants, inserting multiple verses that contained the story of the priesthood restoration, but none of it was in the original published Book of Commandments revelation, and none of it was taught previously.

Organization of the Quorum of the Twelve

When the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was organized (on February 14, 1835), after the Zion’s Camp march, the apostles were selected and ordained; there was no mention of the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood. The priesthood restoration as we know it, with John the Baptist and then Peter, James, and John, was not referred to or even alluded to. The priesthood ordination of these apostles is only “implied” according to BYU studies.

The first entry in the Record of the Twelve bears the date of February 14, 1835, and briefly describes the “conference or general meeting” convened by Joseph Smith to consider if the time had come to implement the June 1829 revelation “relative to the choosing of the twelve apostles.” According to the 1835 Record, after it was “ascertained that the time had come,” twelve men were chosen and, it is implied, ordained.

BYU Studies: The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles’ Call and 1835 Mission, By Ronald K. Esplin and Sharon E. Nielsen
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-record-of-the-twelve-1835-the-quorum-of-the-twelve-apostles-call-and-1835-mission/?post_type=article&p=8328

The twelve Apostles were each called and, through a laying on of hands, were, in the name of Jesus Christ, blessed. In only one of these blessings is the Priesthood even mentioned, that of Brigham Young, which states, “the Holy Priesthood is conferred on him, that he may do wonders in the name of Jesus…”

Lyman E. Johnson, Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball came forward; and the Three Witnesses laid their hands upon each one’s head and prayed, separately…

The blessing of Lyman E, Johnson was, in the name of Jesus Christ, that he should bear the tidings of salvation to nations, tongues, and people, until the utmost corners of the earth shall hear the tidings; and that he shall be a witness of the things of God to nations and tongues, and that holy angels shall administer to him occasionally; and that no power of the enemy shall prevent him from going forth and doing the work of the Lord; and that he shall live until the gathering is accomplished, according to the holy prophets; and he shall belike unto Enoch; and his faith shall be like unto his; and he shall be called great among all the living; and Satan shall tremble before him; and he shall see the Savior come and stand upon the earth with power and great glory.

The blessing of Brigham Young was, that he should be strong in body, that he might go forth and gather the elect, preparatory to the great day of the coming of the Lord; and that he might be strong and mighty, declaring the tidings to nations that know not God; that he may add ten talents; that he may come to Zion with many sheaves. He shall go forth from land to land and from sea to sea; and shall behold heavenly messengers going forth; and his life shall be prolonged; and the Holy Priesthood is conferred on him, that he may do wonders in the name of Jesus; that he may cast out devils, heal the sick, raise the dead, open the eyes of the blind, go forth from land to land and from sea to sea; and that heathen nations shall even call him God himself, if he do not rebuke them.

Heber C. Kimball’s blessing was, in substance, that he shall be made like unto those who have been blessed before him; and be favored with the same blessing. That he might receive visions; the ministration of angels, and hear their voice; and even come into the presence of God; that many millions may be converted by his instrumentality; that angels may waft him from place to place, and that he may stand unto the coming of our Lord, and receive a crown in the Kingdom of our God; that he be made acquainted with the day when Christ shall come; that he shall be made perfect in faith; and that the deaf shall hear, the lame shall walk, the blind shall see, and greater things than these shall he do; that he shall have boldness of speech before the nations, and great power…

History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Volume 2, Page 187-189
https://archive.org/details/historyofchurcho02robe/page/188/mode/2up

These recorded “blessings” combined only include one single reference to the priesthood, and nothing regarding the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods, lines of ordination authority, or anything along those lines.

In “A Revelation on Church Government” that Smith received in April 1830, there was no mention of either priesthood (History of the Church 1:64-70). Some time later, Smith went back and added three verses to the revelation, one of which mentions a “high priesthood” (D&C 20:67). When the Book of Commandments was printed in 1833, it included no mention of these ordinations.

The first time that any mention of angelic messengers is documented was in 1834 at a meeting of the Kirtland High Council. Soon after, Cowdery also started to talk about angels. In 1835, he said, “[Smith] was ordained by the angel John, unto the lesser or Aaronic priesthood, in company with myself… After this we received the high and holy priesthood …” (Early Mormon Documents 2:452-453).

The revelation referring to the Aaronic restoration is missing from the Book of Commandments, as well as from the original church history as published in The Evening and Morning Star (edition dated March 1833, p.6). The only known manuscript copy of the revelation makes no reference to the LDS priesthoods either (Origins of Power, p.16). All mention of priesthood was added at a later time.

Priesthood Restored or Retrofit?
https://mrm.org/priesthood-restoration

Historical Contradictions

There are inconsistencies between the dominant narrative and the historical record. There are journal entries of the church organization and early conferences. There is no journal record of any earlier priesthood ordinations. Joseph even notes that he and Oliver Cowdery ordain each other as Elders in the church in the first meeting.

This isn’t the case of an omission of facts, where it just wasn’t recorded but discussed or inferred. We have contemporary journals and statements stating the contrary, that they’d never heard of this priesthood restoration at the time, and if they did, not till years after it allegedly occurred. Statements by folks close to the establishment of the church and the early work, like David Whitmer, a witness to the Gold Plates who later clarified he saw the plates as a spiritual experience, who was there at the church organization and consistently throughout the first years of the church. He states emphatically that, “I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph,” “I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph,” and finally, “I regard that as an error.”

David Whitmer

Q. Were you present when Joseph Smith received the revelation commanding him and Oliver Cowdery to ordain each other to the Melchizedek Priesthood?

Answer: No I was not, neither did I ever hear of such a thing as an angel ordaining them until I got into Ohio about the year 1834, or later. …

Q. Can you tell why that Joseph and Oliver were ordained to the lesser Priesthood by the hand of an angel but in receiving the higher, they ordained each other?

Answer: I moved Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to my fathers house in Fayette Seneca County New York, from Harmony, Penn. in the year 1829, on our way I conversed freely with them upon this great work they were bringing about, and Oliver stated to me in Joseph’s presence that they had baptized each other seeking by that to fulfill the command – And after our arrival at fathers sometime in June 1829, Joseph ordained Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder, and Oliver ordained Joseph to be an Elder in the church of Christ and during that year Joseph both baptized and ordained me an elder in the church of Christ. Also, during this year the translation of the Book of Mormon was finished, and we preached preached, baptized and ordained some as Elders, And upon the Sixth day of April 1830, six Elders together with some fifty or sixty (as near as I recollect) of the members met together to effect an organization.

I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic priesthood until the year 1834, 5, or 6 – in Ohio. My information from Joseph and Oliver upon this matter being as I have stated, and that they were commanded so to do by revealment through Joseph. I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver as stated and believed by some, I regard that as an error, a misconception.

David Whitmer, interview by Zenas H. Gurley Jr., 14 Jan. 1885, typescript, LDS archives
https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/assets/cbff7497-0764-4f7d-9aec-702b5f9b8f27/0/3

Some of the revelations as they are now in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants have been changed and added to… When the Book of Commandments was printed, Joseph and the church received it as being printed correctly. This I know. In the winter of 1834 they saw that some of the revelations in the Book of Commandments had to be changed, because the heads of the church had gone too far, and had done things in which they had already gone ahead of some of the former revelations. So the book of “Doctrine and Covenants” was printed in 1835, and some of the revelations changed and added to.

David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887, Pages 56
https://archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit/page/56/mode/2up

In no place in the word of God does it say that an Elder is after the order of Melchisedec, or after the order of the Melchisedec Priesthood. An Elder is after the order of Christ. This matter of “priesthood,” since the days of Sydney Rigdon, has been the great hobby and stumbling-block of the Latter Day Saints. Priesthood means authority ; and authority is the word we should use. I do not think the word priesthood is mentioned in the New Covenant of the Book of Mormon. Authority is the word we used for the first two years in the church — until Sydney Rigdon’s days in Ohio. This matter of the two orders of priesthood in the Church of Christ, and lineal priesthood of the old law being in the church, all originated in the mind of Sydney Rigdon. He explained these things to Brother Joseph in his way, out of the old Scriptures, and got Brother Joseph to inquire, etc

David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887, Pages 64
https://archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit/page/56/mode/2up

William E. McLellin

We also have William McLellin, who was another early church member, who also states, “I never heard of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph.” He never heard of this priesthood ordination, even though he heard Joseph recount his ordination and the organization of the church over twenty times. Had it been said, McLellin surely would have heard it.

After leaving the church, [William E.] McLellin recorded: “I joined the church in 1831. For years I never heard of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver. I heard not of James, Peter, and John doing so.” He elaborated in 1870: “I heard Joseph tell his experience of his ordination [by Cowdery] and the organization of the church, probably, more than twenty times, to persons who, near the rise of the church, wished to know and hear about it. I never heard of Moroni, John, or Peter, James and John.” Two years later he repeated: “But as to the story of John, the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver on the day they were baptized; I never heard of it in the church for years, altho I carefully noticed things that were said.”

Grant Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, Page 224
https://archive.org/details/insidersviewofmo0000palm/page/224/mode/2up
Jan Shipps and John W. Welch, eds., The Journals of William E. McLellin, 1831-1836
William E. McLellin to J. L. Traughber, 25 Aug. 1877, J. L. Traughber Collection,
William E. McLellin to D. H. Bays, 24 May 1870, True Latter Day Saints’ Herald, 15 Sept. 1870, 556.
William E. McLellin to Joseph Smith III, July 1872, 3, Library- Archives, Community of Christ (RLDS).

Book of Commandments

The 1833 Book of Commandments (chapter 28) and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants (section 50, later renumbered in modern editions) share a common origin—a revelation given in September 1830. However, if compared side by side, it’s easy to see the priesthood restoration story, though familiar today, is not present in the Book of Commandments.

The differences between the 1833 and 1835 revelations are not minor edits—they represent a significant retroactive insertion of new doctrine and authority claims into earlier revelations. What began as practical instructions on the sacrament became a foundational priesthood and apostolic authority narrative. These additions support the idea that the priesthood restoration story developed over time, and that earlier revelations were revised to align with Joseph Smith’s expanding claims to divine authority.

1832 Abandoned History

Once in 1832, Joseph mentioned vaguely “the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministering of Angels”—with no names, dates, or laying on of hands in the 1832 first history of the church. This account was not published and this version of his history was abandoned after six pages.

The introductory prospectus to the history refers to four foundational events in JS’s life: “the testamony from on high,” later explained as his first vision of Deity; “the ministering of Angels,” or the angel Moroni’s revelation of the gold plates of the Book of Mormon; the “reception of the holy Priesthood”; and “a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood.” JS related the first two events in some detail, providing a firsthand account of his childhood and early religious experiences, but this history includes nothing further about the reception of priesthood authority.

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

The church can’t claim much from this history, because it doesn’t include the details. It doesn’t include many accepted details regarding the first vision either. So, they seem to want to mention it but only in passing and when it supports their current claim, but they do not quote from it extensively. Remember, this is the same strange first vision account that was cut from the journal and hidden in the church vaults.

1834 Today’s Accepted Story First Introduced

Until 1834, neither Joseph nor Oliver ever shared these events in sermons, letters, or journals. The first description appears in Oliver Cowdery’s September 1834 letter to Messenger & Advocate, describing “an angel…clothed with glory” and John baptizing them after laying on hands. Even the church admits that this is the earliest account of the event, in 1834, which is 5 years after the fact.

In a series of letters published in 1834, Oliver Cowdery recorded the earliest detailed account of the appearance of John the Baptist to Cowdery and Joseph Smith in 1829 in Harmony, Pennsylvania.

LDS Website: Church History Topics: Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/restoration-of-the-aaronic-priesthood

Joseph Smith III

A rude paragraph awaits the faithful who read the history of the Church as viewed by Joseph Smith III, son of the Prophet. Referring to the visit of the three angels he wrote: “There is no historical evidence of such an event. Nor is there any evidence that Peter, James, and John were present, either when the instruction was given to ordain or when the ordination actually took place. . . . It is not safe then to write historically that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were ever ordained literally under the hands of Peter, James, and John.” In a footnote to the story of the Restoration of the High Priesthood B. H. Roberts wrote similarly: “There is no definite account of the event in the history of the Prophet Joseph, or, for matter of that, in any of our annals. . . .” This lack of historical proof will not alter belief in the divine commission. These matters are to be accepted by faith, not proven by chapter and verse. In Mormon belief authority to act in God’s name comes not from an inner conviction of one’s sonship with God but by the backward tracing of authority from one Priest to another through the imposition of hands.

LaMar Petersen, Problems in Mormon Text, 1957
https://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/pdf/problemsinmormontext_digital.pdf

Rationalizing Apologetics

The church article about the restoration of the priesthood claims that both published and unpublished contemporary sources corroborate the story, stating that a newspaper reported regarding Oliver Cowdery’s claim of receiving a commission from angelic visitors. The footnote shares the paper, but they are sure not to include a link or a quote from this paper.

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery’s detailed firsthand accounts were written several years after the appearance of John the Baptist, but both published and unpublished sources written closer to the event itself corroborate their memory. For example, 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.

LDS Website: Church History Topics: Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/restoration-of-the-aaronic-priesthood

Here are two contemporary newspaper statements. The first does mention angels, but does not mention the priesthood and only angels in passing, and could easily be referring to the published account of Oliver witnessing the gold plates.

About two weeks since some persons came along here with the book, one of whom pretends to have seen Angels, and assisted in translating the plates. He proclaims destruction upon the world within a few years,—holds forth 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…. The name of the person here, who pretends to have a divine mission, and to have seen and conversed with Angels, is Cowdray.

“The Golden Bible,” Painesville (Ohio) Telegraph, November 16, 1830, 3
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/priesthood-restoration-documents

A second article states that Oliver claims his commission from God, written and signed by the hand of Jesus. Not mentioning again the priesthood or John the Baptist, Peter, James, or John. It does state that Cowdery’s authority is that those who don’t believe his testimony and are baptised will be forever miserable.

Mr. Oliver Cowdry has his commission directly from the God of Heaven, and that he has credentials, written and signed by the hand of Jesus Christ, with whom he has personally conversed, and as such, said Cowdry claims that he and his associates are the only persons on earth who are qualified to administer in his name. By this authority, they proclaim to the world, that all who do not believe their testimony, and be baptised by them for the remission of sins . . . must be forever miserable.

Painesville (Ohio) Telegraph, December 7, 1830
https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/priesthood-restoration-documents

They follow up their weak corroborative source with a point that Joseph was reluctant to share details due to persecution. But we must remember the main persecutions he suffered as a youth were because he was involved in treasure digging and conning neighbors, not because he was preaching. This sounds like a very convenient way to cover his tracks. Either way, it further proves the point that the priesthood restoration was not discussed in the first 4-5 years of the church. It suddenly appeared later on and was retrofitted into an existing and unrelated revelation.

Joseph Smith later explained that at first, he and Cowdery were reticent to share details of their experience “owing to a spirit of persecution” in the area.

LDS Website: Church History Topics: Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/restoration-of-the-aaronic-priesthood

The article further makes statements which confirm that the priesthood and specifically the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods were not part of the church communications or organization from the beginning. They explain that these were added later through additional revelations, but they don’t report that these revelations were retrofitted to look older.

Though the phrase Aaronic Priesthood did not appear in Joseph Smith’s revelations until 1834 …

When Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery first organized the Church in early 1830, they divided responsibilities among several offices, patterned after references in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. These offices were similar to those in other churches of the time, which also commonly structured their congregations after New Testament patterns and featured officers such as deacons, teachers, priests, elders, and bishops. At first, these offices in the newly organized Church were not associated with the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthoods. Over time, additional revelations instructed Joseph Smith on how to align Church organization with priesthood authority, and by 1835, offices and duties were more thoroughly organized under the purview of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods.

LDS Website: Church History Topics: Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/restoration-of-the-aaronic-priesthood

Richard Bushman, in Rough Stone Rolling, addresses the fact that Joseph didn’t share the story about the priesthood restoration, and admits that “the late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication.”

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… 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?

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

While the Church officially recounts the date as May 15, 1829, for the Aaronic and an unspecified subsequent day for Melchizedek Priesthood restoration, historical records show a conspicuous silence in Joseph’s journals, letters, and sermons, plus no mention in any church meetings, teachings, revelations, or doctrines until 1834. Early organizational efforts lacked a priesthood authority context.

There is a five-year gap between the purported 1829 event and any public retelling in 1834. Such a gap that even the faithful historian Richard Bushman admits that this silence “raises the possibility of later fabrication.”

The story of the priesthood restoration, as taught by the Church today, is presented as a clear and foundational event—divine messengers conferring authority directly to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in 1829. But the historical record paints a very different picture. For the first five years of the Church’s existence, there is no mention of John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John conferring priesthood authority. Early revelations, official documents, and church organization records from this time show no awareness of such events. The story only begins to emerge around 1834 and isn’t fully detailed until 1835, when it was retroactively inserted into revised revelations.

This delayed appearance isn’t unique to the priesthood narrative. A similar gap exists in the Church’s account of the First Vision. Joseph Smith didn’t record that vision until 1832, more than a decade after it supposedly happened, and even then, the earliest account differs significantly from the later version officially taught today. When these two foundational narratives—priesthood restoration and the First Vision—are both revealed to be late additions to the historical record, it raises a sobering question: Are the pillars of the Restoration as firm as we’ve been led to believe, or are they built on evolving stories, carefully shaped to bolster authority?

Many who discover these issues experience a deep sense of betrayal or confusion. How are we supposed to reconcile what appear to be retrofitted revelations and shifting narratives with the Church’s claim to divine, unbroken authority? Did learning about these discrepancies challenge your testimony, or perhaps even break it? If you’ve struggled to make sense of these facts, you’re not alone. We invite you to share your story and your journey at wasmormon.org, where others are speaking openly about their experiences of faith, doubt, and discovery.

• https://sunstone.org/episode-10-restoring-what-was-lost-priesthood-restoration-narratives/
• https://cesletter.org/debunking-fairmormon/priesthood-restoration.html
• https://www.ldsdiscussions.com/priesthood
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_and_Covenants#Chart_comparison_of_editions
• https://mrm.org/priesthood-restoration
• Joseph Smith and “The” “First” “Vision”
• Timeline of the First Vision Story and Development