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 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.
Long before he received the priesthood, Joseph Smith learned of it from Moroni. According to an Oliver Cowdery account published in 1835, Moroni appeared to Joseph in September 1823 and informed him, “When they [the golden plates] are interpreted the Lord will give the holy priesthood to some, and they shall begin to proclaim this gospel and baptize by water, and after that they shall have power to give the Holy Ghost by the laying on of their hands.”1 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. From the golden plates, Joseph learned that power was necessary to perform ordinances including baptism (3 Ne. 11:22), the sacrament (3 Ne. 18:5), and conferring the Holy Ghost (3 Ne. 18:37; Moro. 2:1–3); that this power was conferred by the laying on of hands (3 Ne. 18:38; Moro. 2:1; 3:2); that one could be ordained to the calling of disciple or elder, who in turn could ordain priests and teachers (Moro. 3:1); and that elders or disciples, unlike priests and teachers, could confer the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (Moro. 2:1–2). Additionally, a passage in Alma 13 discussed the calling and ordination of high priests including Melchizedek to the “high priesthood of the holy order of God” (Alma 13:6, 14, 18).
Having learned through the writings of ancient prophets that baptism by proper authority was necessary, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery sought that ordinance. In response to their supplication, John the Baptist appeared and conferred the priesthood of Aaron upon them. At a later date, Peter, James, and John appeared and bestowed what is known today as the Melchizedek Priesthood.2
The Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood
The historical record clearly identifies the circumstances surrounding the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood, including the date that it occurred, and unambiguous evidence links Joseph and Oliver’s quest for that priesthood to knowledge they gained while translating the Book of Mormon. An 1829 document in Oliver Cowdery’s handwriting entitled “Articles of the Church of Christ” testified that Cowdery had been given power to baptize “of Jesus Christ” (document 1 below).
Details regarding the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood, including John the Baptist’s role in that event, however, were seldom if ever shared prior to 1832 “<owing to> a spirit of persecution,” as Joseph Smith indicated in 1838.3 Two of Joseph and Oliver’s close associates, David Whitmer and William McLellin, recalled in 1885 and 1878, respectively, that they first learned of John the Baptist’s 1829 appearance two to four years after the Church’s organization.4 In writing, Joseph Smith first referred to this event in 1832 (document 6), describing “the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring— of Aangels [sic] to adminster the letter of the Law <Gospel—>.” Oliver Cowdery offered the first detailed, recorded account of the restoration of the lower priesthood in 1834 (document 20). The following year, Cowdery specified the date and location of the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood (document 23). Joseph Smith’s fullest account of the event (document 12) corroborated Oliver’s record and added new details: for instance, Joseph recorded words used by John regarding the nature of the keys that he bestowed; explained that John had acted under the direction of Peter, James, and John; and indicated that John promised them that later they would receive power to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost. In 1844 (documents 17–19), Joseph Smith referred to the preparatory priesthood as “the power of Elias” and indicated that John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Savior, was “the Spirit of Elias.”5
Early members read Joseph’s and Oliver’s testimonies regarding the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood and used the information in their missionary work. For instance, Orson Hyde (documents 50, 51) quoted directly from Oliver Cowdery’s 1834 account (document 20), while Reuben Miller in an 1847 publication (document 67) relied on Joseph Smith’s accounts of John’s visitation (documents 12, 14). Many accounts mention John the Baptist by name (documents 4, 12, 26, 29, 66, 69, 70); others call him “the angel John” (document 23), “the angel of the Lord” (document 41), simply “the angel” (documents 13, 14, 21), or some other similar appellation (documents 8, 12, 21, 27, 68).
Despite detailed accounts by Joseph and Oliver, some errors crept into the record: William Appleby, for instance, erroneously indicated in a tract published in 1844 that the power to baptize had been restored in 1830 (document 62). Additionally, ambiguity and imprecision arose through leaders’ and members’ frequent use of the phrase “the holy priesthood” to refer to the Aaronic Priesthood on some occasions (document 20), to the Melchizedek Priesthood on others (documents 8, 23, 58, 71), and to the priesthood in general on yet other occasions (documents 24, 28, 37, 47, 48, 49, 59, 62, 63). Still, the documentary record demonstrates that detailed accounts of the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood were available to members of the Church as early as 1834 and that early members used those accounts in teaching others about the Aaronic Priesthood’s restoration.
The Events of the Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood
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 (documents 4, 15, 16, 29) or referring alternatively to “apostles” (document 7), “Peter” (document 26), “angels” (documents 6, 27), or “those who had been held in reserve” (document 8), 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 beyond “declaring themselves as possessing the keys” (document 16; see also 40). Oliver Cowdery’s accounts concerning the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood corroborate the accounts of Joseph; whereas Oliver Cowdery provided the earliest detailed report of the visit of John the Baptist, his accounts of the visit of Peter, James, and John seldom add new information.
Significant evidence suggests that the Melchizedek Priesthood may have been restored in connection with the translation of the Book of Mormon. A revelation dated June 1829 (documents 1, 3) referred to the apostolic calling of David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery, likening their calling to Paul’s, although the revelation did not detail the restoration of priesthood authority or any ordination in connection with that calling. Additionally, David Whitmer recalled in 1887 that he was “baptized, confirmed, and ordained an Elder” in June 1829 and that “previous to this, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had baptized, confirmed and ordained each other to the office of an Elder.”6 The Book of Mormon, which was being translated at that time, described the ancient ordination of disciples, known as elders, who had power to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost (3 Ne. 18; Moro. 2–3). Inasmuch as the translation of 3 Nephi 11 had made Joseph and Oliver sensitive to their lack of power to baptize and impelled them to seek that power, it is possible that the translation of 3 Nephi 18 and Moroni 2–3 had a similar effect upon them, motivating them to pray to receive by the laying on of hands the additional power to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost.
The first printed reference to Joseph’s and Oliver’s ordination as apostles appeared in 1831. It indicated that Joseph and Oliver were each “called of God and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ” (document 2). In 1833, Joseph Smith discussed the restoration of apostolic authority in greater detail. Thereafter, most of his and Oliver’s written accounts expressly mentioned that angels played a role in the restoration of apostolic authority and of the power to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost. In 1833 (document 7), Joseph Smith testified that he had seen “the Apostles” and could perform miracles. The following year, Joseph met with the Kirtland Stake High Council. On February 12, 1834, he discussed “the dignity of the office which has been conferred upon me by the ministring of the Angel of God” (document 9). While this might have been a reference to John the Baptist, it is also possible that Joseph was referring to Peter’s role in conferring the Melchizedek Priesthood upon him. Five days later he instructed the same group that anciently “the apostle, Peter, was the president of the council in ancient days and held the Keys of the Kingdom of God.”7 In a blessing which Oliver Cowdery dated 1833 and copied in 1835, Joseph Smith referred to the reception of “the holy priesthood under the hands of those who . . . received it under the hand of the Messiah” (document 8).
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.8 This edition indicated that the three ancient apostles had “ordained” and “confirmed” Joseph and Oliver as “apostles” and granted them “the keys of your ministry” (document 4). In subsequent statements, Joseph reiterated the role of Peter, James, and John in the restoration of the “priesthood” and “the keys” of the kingdom (documents 15, 16) and indicated that the angelic ministrants’ voices had come to them “in the wilderness” between Harmony, Pennsylvania, and Colesville, New York (document 16).9 Following the Prophet’s death, Oliver Cowdery testified repeatedly and fervently that he had received the higher priesthood under the hands of angelic ministrants (documents 26–29).10 In 1846 he mentioned only Peter’s role in the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood (document 26), but in 1849 he confirmed that James and John had also been present (document 29).
Supplementing Joseph’s and Oliver’s own accounts in several respects are Addison Everett’s recollections, written in 1881, 1882, and 1883, of statements he had heard Joseph Smith make in a conversation in 1844. According to Everett’s longest account, Joseph Smith indicated that while translating the Book of Mormon in Harmony, Pennsylvania, he and Oliver had been arrested; after escaping from a courtroom, they spent the night in the woods eluding their enemies. At daybreak, Peter, James, and John appeared to them and “ordained to us <to> the Holy Apostelship and gave <unto> us the Keys of the Disp<e>nsation of the fullness of times.”11
The foregoing accounts all seem to describe a single event: a restoration between Harmony and Colesville of (what came to be known as) the Melchizedek Priesthood under the Savior’s direction by Peter with the assistance of James and John. However, the draft and final version of an 1839 account by Joseph Smith may describe a separate set of events connected with the restoration of “the Melchesidec Priesthood, which holds the authority of the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost” (documents 13, 14). Those documents indicate that after Joseph and Oliver had prayed for this authority, “the Word of the Lord” came to them in a second location, the Whitmer home in Fayette, commanding them to ordain one another to the office of Elder once they had “called the Chur together our brethren and had their sanction” and then to “attend to the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost.”12
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.”13
In their written accounts, most of which were produced for didactic purposes, many early members compressed all the events of priesthood restoration into a general reference to a visitation by a holy messenger or angel (documents 33–35, 39, 43, 50, 52, 53, 55, 56, 60–63). Although a published revelation (document 4) referring to separate ministrations by John the Baptist and by Peter, James, and John was widely disseminated and readily available beginning in 1835, more details were circulated about the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood, probably because that authority was more immediately relevant to the issue of conversion and baptism. Under these circumstances, it is possible that some members regarded the restoration of the authority to baptize as the primary facet of priesthood restoration and therefore focused on that restoration in their teachings.
It is also likely that some writers focused on a single messenger’s role in the restoration of the priesthood in order to simplify the Restoration for hymns or missionary work, particularly when they desired to draw a parallel between the other angel mentioned in Revelation 14:6 and the Restoration of the gospel. Charles Thompson, for instance, borrowed heavily from John’s prophecy in Revelation when he wrote, “God sent an holy angel from the midst of heaven, with the Priesthood and authority of Jesus Christ, to preach the everlasting Gospel unto them who dwell on the earth, and to every nation, kindred, tongue and people” (document 53).
Statements by William McLellin (document 68) and David Patten (document 41) demonstrate that some members who had studied Doctrine and Covenants 27 understood clearly that the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods were restored on separate occasions. Similarly, other leaders and missionaries, including Brigham Young (document 70) and Reuben Miller (documents 66, 67), referred to two separate appearances in their sermons and writings.
The accounts by Joseph’s and Oliver’s contemporaries show that early members arrived at different conclusions regarding the timing of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood. In the 1880s, Everett calculated that it probably occurred in August 1829. Although William McLellin recognized the importance of Peter, James, and John’s visitation (document 68), he seems to trace the reception of the Melchizedek Priesthood to the ordination of Joseph and Oliver as elders on April 6, 1830 (document 69). Hiram Page, one of the Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, was convinced that Joseph and Oliver received the Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, James, and John “before the 6th of april 1830” (document 71). Agreeing with Hiram Page, in 1853 and again in 1874, Brigham Young emphasized that Joseph Smith received apostolic power from Peter, James, and John prior to the organization of the Church. Independent historian D. Michael Quinn’s reading of Brigham Young’s comment that “Peter, James, and John came to him [Joseph Smith] . . . in Kirtland” led Quinn to conclude that key words and contextual information found in that discussion by President Young concerning several revelations regarding the priesthood were omitted.14
Modern readers have also arrived at divergent conclusions regarding the timing of the Melchizedek Priesthood restoration and Joseph Smith’s early understanding of the distinction between the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods. Two recent interpretations are illustrative. Larry C. Porter, professor emeritus of Church history and doctrine at Brigham Young University, maintains that “the evidence suggests a date near the end of May 1829” and “certainly before the organization of the Church on 6 April 1830.”15 In support of this conclusion, Porter highlights the revelation received prior to June 14, 1829, and first printed in the “Articles of the Church of Christ” (documents 1, 3) that identifies Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer as apostles who are “called even with that same calling” as “Paul mine apostle.” As evidence that this call to the apostleship included priesthood authority, Porter highlights the Prophet’s preface to a later publication of this revelation: “The following commandment will further illustrate the nature of our calling to this Priesthood as well as that of others who were yet to be sought after” (document 14). Porter also notes that Joseph and Oliver conferred the gift of the Holy Ghost upon members of the Church on April 6, 1830, and assumes that they used the priesthood that they had received from Peter, James, and John to do so. Based on Joseph Smith’s later recollections of instructions he had received in 1829 from John the Baptist, Porter infers that by April 1830 “Joseph Smith recognized the limitations of John’s power”16 and thus would not have conferred the Holy Ghost on members unless he had already received the power to do so from Peter, James, and John. To support this view, Porter cites Joseph Smith’s 1844 statement:
He [John] told the people that his mission was to preach repentance and baptize with water; but it was he that should come after him, that should baptize with fire, and the Holy Ghost. If he had been an impostor, he might ha[v]e gone to work beyond his bounds, and undertook to have performed ordinances which did not belong to that office and calling, under the Spirit of Elias. . . . John’s mission was limited to preaching and baptizing; but what he did was legal, and when Jesus Christ came to any of John’s disciples, he baptized them with fire and the Holy Ghost. We find the Apostles endowed with greater power than John. . . . John did not transcend his bounds, but faithfully performed that part belonging to his office.17
Whereas Porter identifies spring 1829 as the time for the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood, D. Michael Quinn concludes that Joseph Smith did not receive the higher priesthood from Peter, James, and John until July 1830.18 He acknowledges the 1829 reference to the calling of apostles (documents 1, 3), but he argues that the revelation merely likens Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer to Paul. Then, overlooking Paul’s assertion in 1 Timothy 2:7, “I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not),” Quinn follows Dan Vogel’s interpretation and suggests that Paul may have been an unordained “charismatic apostle and special witness”19 rather than an ordained apostle, citing the LDS Bible Dictionary for general support. Quinn argues that Cowdery and Whitmer as witnesses of the Book of Mormon were called apostles in that sense prior to 1830.20 Quinn admits that elders were ordained as early as mid-1829, but he suggests that those ordinations and all confirmations prior to that time might have been performed solely on the basis of the revelation received in June 1829 instructing Joseph and Oliver to ordain each other (documents 13, 14). He suggests further that the ordinations carried out on April 6, 1830, were reordinations.21
Quinn looks mainly to documents 10 and 16, and to the 1881 and 1882 Addison Everett accounts to support his conclusion that the Melchizedek Priesthood was formally restored by Peter, James, and John in July 1830. In document 10, Joseph Smith mentions the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood and the pouring out of “the gift of the Holy Spirit” upon the Church after referring to the Church’s organization. Quinn infers that this document as well as document 16 (also found in D&C 128:20) are a chronological listing of events. But document 16 helps Quinn’s case only if one assumes that one can date to June 1830 the event referred to in document 16 as “the voice of Michael on the banks of the Susquehanna, detecting the devil when he appeared as an angel of light.”22 While he acknowledges that the date specified by Everett for the restoration of the higher priesthood is 1829, Quinn notes that this date does not match the events that Everett described surrounding Joseph’s arrest and court trial, which occurred in June and July 1830. Thus, for Quinn, Everett’s account “seems to confirm the July 1830 date.”23
While Porter acknowledges the statements by Everett and believes that “Addison Everett was a man of veracity,” he is more skeptical of Everett’s statements because thirty-seven years had passed between the time that Everett heard the Prophet’s statements and the time that he recorded them, and because Everett admitted his limitations and “lack of technical skills” as a historian. Porter concludes that “portions of his [Everett’s] remembrance are inconsistent enough to warrant some obvious cautions when attempting to reconstruct the sequence of events surrounding the restoration process from his citations.”24
Conclusion
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, and further work remains to be done in analyzing and interpreting these documents, the record is extensive and rich in many 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.
This article was originally published in BYU Studies 35, no. 4 (1995–96): 162–207.