Overview of the Priesthood Restoration

A scholarly response to the claims of ldsdiscussions.com regarding the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods.

Overview

The ldsdiscussions.com treatment of the priesthood restoration rests on four central claims: (1) that priestly language and titles were absent from the record until 1834–35 and therefore fabricated in retrospect; (2) that Sidney Rigdon introduced Aaronic/Melchizedek categories into early Mormonism after his 1830 baptism; (3) that changes made to revelations between 1835 and 1838 are evidence of fabrication rather than legitimate editorial clarification; and (4) that David Whitmer and William McLellin constitute reliable hostile witnesses against the restoration. Each of these claims, when examined against the full evidentiary record, fails to establish the conclusion the site draws from it.

What the historical record actually shows is a pattern consistent with a genuine event whose public articulation developed over time — exactly what we would expect of any event whose participants were cautious, persecuted, and operating in an environment that did not yet have the institutional vocabulary to express what had occurred. The charge of “retrofitting” assumes its conclusion: it treats the absence of detailed later language in early documents as proof of fabrication rather than as evidence of organic theological development. That is a methodological error with serious consequences for the site’s entire argument.

We address each claim in turn.

Claim 1: The Priesthood Titles Were Absent Until 1834–35 and Therefore Invented

LDS Discussions argues that because the specific terms “Aaronic Priesthood” and “Melchizedek Priesthood” do not appear in early documents from 1829–1833, the restoration narrative was invented between 1834 and 1838. This argument is a textbook example of the argument from silence, but it is a particularly weak instance of that fallacy because the silence is not actually as complete as claimed — and because the presence of substantive concepts in the historical record does not require the presence of final institutional terminology.

The Book of Mormon Contains the Conceptual Framework (1829–1830)

The Book of Mormon, whose translation was completed in 1829, contains extensive treatment of a high priesthood after the order of Melchizedek (Alma 4:20; 5:3; 13:1–20; Mosiah 18:17; 3 Nephi 11:21–25). Alma 13 is particularly significant: it describes the calling, ordination, and manner of the high priesthood with a theological precision that presupposes exactly the distinction between lesser and higher priestly orders that critics claim was invented six years later. The ldsdiscussions.com page attempts to deflect this by asserting that the relevant verses do not use the word “Melchizedek” — but that is simply false. Alma 13:14–19 identifies Melchizedek by name and describes him as the holder of the great high priesthood. The Book of Mormon text, completed and published before Sidney Rigdon joined the Church, already contains the conceptual scaffolding of the priestly distinction that critics attribute to Rigdon’s later influence.

Joseph Smith’s 1832 History Uses Priestly Language

Joseph Smith’s earliest autobiographical account, written in 1832 — before Rigdon’s influence on the Doctrine and Covenants could have shaped the narrative — explicitly references “the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels” and separately identifies the “high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God.” LDS Discussions notes this reference but dismisses it by observing that it does not name John the Baptist. That dismissal is logically confused: the question is whether priesthood language existed before 1834–35, and the 1832 history proves it did. The subsequent question of why John the Baptist is not named by this specific autobiographical fragment is a separate inquiry that does not undermine the prior point.

Contemporary Newspapers Corroborate Angelic Ordination Claims

Non-Mormon newspaper sources from 1830–1831 independently corroborate that Smith and Cowdery were publicly claiming angelic bestowal of authority well before 1834. The Painesville Telegraph of December 7, 1830 reported that Oliver Cowdery claimed “his commission directly from the God of Heaven” through personal conversation with Christ. Reverend Diedrich Willers’ June 1830 letter (cited in BYU Studies) notes that members spoke of having received authority through heavenly messengers. The Palmyra Reflector of February 1831 references “frequent interviews with angels” by Cowdery and associates. LDS Discussions acknowledges these sources but claims they do not specifically use the word “priesthood” — which is precisely the point: the underlying authority claim was present and publicly attested long before the formal terminology was finalized. The absence of the word “priesthood” in a hostile newspaper summary of 1830 missionary preaching tells us nothing about whether the event occurred; it tells us about what the reporter chose to include.

The scholarly consensus at BYU Studies, supported by editors John Welch and Erick Carlson in Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, is that the Aaronic Priesthood restoration is “clearly identified” in the documentary record and well-established by the evidence available. Even the Melchizedek Priesthood restoration, while offering a “less complete” documentary trail, has defensible contemporary corroboration.

Claim 2: Sidney Rigdon Introduced the Aaronic/Melchizedek Distinction

This is the most striking claim in the ldsdiscussions.com narrative, and it directly contradicts the testimony of David Whitmer, whom the same page uses as a witness in other contexts. The argument holds that Rigdon, a former Campbellite who joined the Church in November 1830, brought the Aaronic/Melchizedek priestly framework with him and that Joseph Smith subsequently adopted it and retrojected it into the founding narrative. There are several fatal problems with this hypothesis.

The Book of Mormon Precedes Rigdon’s Membership by More Than a Year

The Book of Mormon was completed, typeset, and published by March 1830 — eight months before Rigdon joined the Church. As demonstrated above, it already contains an elaborated Melchizedek high priesthood theology in Alma 13. If Rigdon were the source of the Aaronic/Melchizedek framework, he would have had to influence the content of a text that was composed, printed, and in circulation before he ever encountered Joseph Smith. No credible historical mechanism exists for this.

The Rigdon Hypothesis Proves Too Much and Contradicts Key Witnesses

LDS Discussions quotes David Whitmer extensively to the effect that “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.” But Whitmer is here making a theological argument about the appropriateness of hierarchical priesthood orders, not a historical claim that Rigdon literally invented language that was then inserted into documents. Even taking Whitmer at face value, his testimony does not establish that the angelic ordination events did not occur; it establishes that he personally rejected the Aaronic/Melchizedek distinction as a later doctrinal innovation. These are categorically different claims. Whitmer himself continued to affirm that he, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and others received genuine authority — he simply contested the specific organizational form that authority took. Furthermore, Whitmer was not present at the Harmony events of May 1829 and his account of what occurred there is based on what he was told, not personal observation.

D&C 84 (September 1832) Predates Any Rigdon-Influenced Editing of the Canon

Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants, dictated in September 1832, provides a detailed genealogy of the Melchizedek Priesthood from Moses back through a line of patriarchal high priests to Adam and contains explicit theology distinguishing the two priestly orders. This revelation was received nearly two years before the 1834–35 publication events that LDS Discussions treats as the origin of the priestly distinction. It confirms that the two-tier priestly framework was operative in Joseph Smith’s revelatory corpus well before the alleged Rigdonite revision.

The Rigdon hypothesis, while superficially plausible to a reader unfamiliar with the primary sources, cannot survive contact with the chronology. It requires Rigdon to have influenced a text printed before he joined the Church and a revelation dictated before the editorial work that supposedly represents his influence.

Claim 3: Changes to Revelations Between 1835 and 1838 Constitute Fabrication

LDS Discussions devotes considerable space to the alterations made to D&C 13, 20, and 27 when the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants was compiled. The additions — specifically, the naming of John the Baptist in section 13 and the naming of Peter, James, and John in section 27 — are treated as proof that these angelic visits were invented in 1835. This is a non-sequitur. The addition of explanatory material to an existing revelation does not establish that the underlying event did not occur; it establishes that the editorial presentation of the revelation was updated to include information the original recipients understood but had not previously committed to print in that form.

Organic Development of Revelation Language Is Historically Attested

The process of clarifying, expanding, and annotating prophetic text as theological understanding develops has extensive precedent in the history of revealed religion. The Pauline letters were circulated with interpolations and additions in early Christianity; the Torah underwent editorial development across centuries; the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that scriptural texts were actively being updated within Second Temple Judaism. Joseph Smith himself stated explicitly that he felt authorized to expand his revelations as his understanding grew (Rough Stone Rolling, p. 299). Treating textual growth as automatically equivalent to fabrication is a methodological standard that, consistently applied, would delegitimize the entire Biblical canon.

Oliver Cowdery Introduced the John the Baptist Account in 1834 — Before the 1835 Editing

LDS Discussions correctly notes that Oliver Cowdery’s September 1834 letter to W. W. Phelps contains the first public, named account of John the Baptist’s visit. The site uses this as evidence that the account originated with Cowdery in 1834 as a politically motivated fabrication designed to elevate his authority. But the site’s own narrative undermines this reading: if the story was fabricated for political advantage in 1834, why did Cowdery persist in affirming it after being excommunicated, after breaking with Joseph Smith over the Fanny Alger matter, after having every motive to expose the fraud if there was one, and as late as 1848, on his deathbed, where he specifically testified to the reality of the angelic ordination? LDS Discussions dismisses Cowdery’s deathbed testimony by observing that repudiating it would damage his reputation — but this is an ad hoc rationalization, not an argument. A person willing to fabricate sacred history for political advantage in 1834 would not be deterred from repudiating that history by reputational concerns in 1848. The consistency of Cowdery’s testimony across a twenty-year period of conflict, estrangement, and reconciliation is precisely what we would expect of a genuine experiential claim.

The June 1831 Conference Does Not Negate the 1829 Events

A centerpiece of the ldsdiscussions.com argument is the June 1831 conference, at which the “high priesthood” was conferred on elders — and at which Joseph Smith himself was ordained to the high priesthood by Lyman Wight. Richard Bushman’s statement in Rough Stone Rolling is quoted as a concession: “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?” LDS Discussions presents this as a fatal contradiction. But Bushman goes on to analyze the question precisely and does not conclude fabrication. The resolution is straightforward from a Latter-day Saint perspective: the authority bestowed in 1829 by Peter, James, and John constituted the apostolic/foundational power of the Melchizedek Priesthood, but the specific office of high priest — associated with presiding authority over the full assembled Church — was conferred as an ecclesiastical office for the first time in 1831. The distinction between priesthood authority and priestly office is standard in LDS ecclesiology and explains why both events can be authentic without contradiction. The June 1831 conference was the first time the office was formally activated at a Church-wide level; it was not the first time the underlying authority was held.

Furthermore, that Joseph Smith was ordained to the high priesthood by Lyman Wight at that conference is not a contradiction of his having previously received apostolic authority; it is consistent with the LDS understanding that ordinations to office within the priesthood are performed by those already holding the relevant authority — and Wight had just been ordained moments before.

Claim 4: David Whitmer and William McLellin Are Reliable Hostile Witnesses

LDS Discussions relies heavily on statements by David Whitmer and William McLellin to the effect that they never heard of John the Baptist’s ordination of Joseph and Oliver until years after the alleged event. These witnesses deserve careful scrutiny.

David Whitmer’s Testimony Is Self-Contradictory on This Point

Whitmer states he never heard of the John the Baptist ordination until 1834–36. But Whitmer was in Fayette, New York, during the spring and summer of 1829 and was not present at the Harmony, Pennsylvania events of May 1829 where the Aaronic Priesthood restoration occurred. His not having heard of it in that window is unremarkable. It does not follow that Smith and Cowdery did not experience it. Whitmer’s knowledge of what occurred in Harmony before he met Joseph and Oliver is necessarily secondhand. His statement that he “never heard” of the Baptist until 1834 is a statement about the limits of his information, not a positive historical claim that the event did not occur. By the same logic, the fact that most early Church members did not publicly discuss many sacred experiences for years would invalidate nearly all miraculous restoration claims — including the First Vision, which Whitmer himself never disputed.

Whitmer Remained a Believer in Angelic Authority Throughout His Life

Despite his rejection of the Aaronic/Melchizedek organizational framework, Whitmer never denied that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received genuine authority from heavenly messengers. His 1888 work An Address to All Believers in Christ affirms the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon and the reality of angelic visitation; he merely contested the specific priestly offices and organizational structures built on that foundation. This is a theological disagreement, not a historical refutation of the restoration events themselves.

McLellin Joined the Church in 1831 — After the Events He Claims No Knowledge Of

William McLellin joined the Church in 1831 — two years after the alleged Aaronic Priesthood restoration. His statement that he “never heard of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver” for years after joining is entirely consistent with a community that treated sacred experiences with discretion. McLellin was an embittered apostate by the time he wrote the relevant letter in 1872 — forty-three years after the events. His testimony is the recollection of a hostile witness writing from memory four decades after the fact about what he was or was not told in his first years of Church membership. This does not constitute reliable historical evidence against the restoration.

Lucy Mack Smith’s 1845 account, also cited by ldsdiscussions.com, is similarly not a positive denial of the event. Her description of Joseph and Oliver receiving authority by commandment to baptize one another does not exclude a prior angelic ordination; it simply does not describe it in the portion of the narrative the site cites. Absence of detail in a narrative is not evidence of absence of the event described.

The Coherence of the Restoration Narrative

Stripped of the rhetorical framing of ldsdiscussions.com, the actual historical record is this: Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, from 1829 onward, consistently claimed to have received authority from heavenly messengers. This claim was corroborated publicly by contemporary non-Mormon newspapers from 1830 onward. The Book of Mormon, completed before any of the alleged fabrication, contains the theological framework of the two priestly orders. The 1832 history explicitly references angelic ordination. The September 1832 revelation (D&C 84) elaborates the Melchizedek Priesthood lineage in detail. Detailed public accounts naming John the Baptist emerged in 1834, with Oliver Cowdery maintaining those accounts until his death in 1850 through estrangement, excommunication, and reconciliation. The hostile witnesses cited against the narrative do not deny angelic ordination; they contest specific organizational titles and, in McLellin’s case, record their own limited secondhand awareness of events that occurred before they joined.

Oliver Cowdery, 1848 — History of the Church, Vol. 1, p. 40 footnote

“I was also present with Joseph when the higher or Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred by the holy angel from on high. This Priesthood, we then conferred on each other by the will and commandment of God.”

This statement was made fourteen years after Cowdery and Joseph Smith parted ways acrimoniously, and two years after Cowdery had been rebaptized into the Church he previously left. It is the testimony of a man who had no remaining political motive for fabrication and every personal motive for honesty about his spiritual experiences. It is corroborated by Hiram Page (1848), by Brigham Young’s consistent public teaching, and by the unbroken institutional memory of the Church.

The ldsdiscussions.com narrative depends entirely on a selective reading of the evidence: it credits hostile witnesses speaking decades after the fact about events they did not witness, while dismissing the consistent lifetime testimony of Oliver Cowdery — the only person besides Joseph Smith who was actually present at both restorations. That is not scholarship; it is advocacy.

The Theological Logic of the Restoration

The ldsdiscussions.com page frames the authority question as fundamentally circular: if the Church lost priesthood authority after the death of the apostles, there was no one left with authority to restore it. This is the classic Protestant argument against a formal restoration of authority, and it has a straightforward theological answer within the Latter-day Saint framework. The LDS claim is not that someone on earth transmitted authority in an unbroken chain; it is that resurrected beings who hold priesthood authority in the post-mortal state returned to confer that authority directly. The theological coherence of this claim is grounded in the New Testament’s own attestation of post-resurrection appearances and ministry, and in the broader biblical theology of the heavens remaining open and accessible to prophets. Whether one finds this claim credible is a matter of faith, but the logical circularity objection is not logically valid against the specific Latter-day Saint claim — which does not require an unbroken earthly chain at all.

Key Scriptural Foundations

• Hebrews 7 — Establishes the Melchizedek Priesthood as superior to the Levitical/Aaronic, eternal in nature, and not dependent on physical lineage
• Alma 13 — Describes ordination to the high priesthood “after the order of the Son” with exact correspondence to Hebrews 5–7 theology, written into the Book of Mormon before Rigdon joined the Church
• D&C 84 — Received September 1832, establishes the complete Melchizedek Priesthood lineage and distinguishes the two orders in detail, predating the alleged 1835 fabrication
• D&C 13 — Records the words of John the Baptist at the Aaronic Priesthood restoration, first recorded in Oliver Cowdery’s 1834 letter and canonized in 1835

Conclusion

The ldsdiscussions.com treatment of the priesthood restoration is characterized throughout by a methodological double standard: hostile witnesses speaking decades after events they did not witness are treated as authoritative; contemporary evidence is dismissed by noting what it fails to say rather than what it does say; textual development is characterized as fabrication without establishing what fabrication would look like in contrast to organic development; and the Book of Mormon’s prior establishment of the conceptual framework is ignored or misrepresented.

The actual evidentiary record supports the following conclusions: angelic ordination was claimed publicly from 1830 onward and corroborated by contemporary non-Mormon sources; the theological framework of two priestly orders appears in the Book of Mormon before any alleged Rigdonite influence; the evolution of priestly terminology from generic to specific follows a pattern entirely consistent with genuine experiential recall and institutional development; and the only eyewitness besides Joseph Smith — Oliver Cowdery — testified to the reality of both restorations consistently and under circumstances where fabrication served no plausible interest.

The priesthood restoration is not a case of fabrication. It is a case of gradual public articulation of a genuine founding experience, shaped by persecution, institutional immaturity, and the normal patterns of sacred reticence. Dismissing it requires dismissing Oliver Cowdery’s lifetime testimony, misreading the Book of Mormon’s priestly theology, and ignoring contemporary corroboration — none of which constitutes a persuasive scholarly argument.

Further Reading

• Welch & Carlson, eds. — Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820–1844, BYU Studies, 2nd ed. — Primary source compilation with scholarly commentary
• Richard Bushman — Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (2005) — Standard scholarly biography; does not conclude fabrication despite acknowledging historical complexity
• John S. Thompson — “Restoring the Melchizedek Priesthood,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, Vol. 62 (2024) — Scholarly analysis of the four historical sources and their resolution
• FAIR Latter-day Saints — Detailed Response to CES Letter: Priesthood Restoration — Comprehensive apologetic treatment of the historical evidence