Die Mormonen - Zwischen 'Wahrheit' und Wirklichkeit

D. Michael Quinn und die Wiederherstellung des Priestertums

D. Michael Quinn war einst Kirchenhistoriker und wurde wegen seinem offenen Umgang mit der Kirchengeschichte exkommuniziert.

D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, S.14ff. (Beginn des Kapitels "The Restoration of Priesthood"):

„The lack of structure in priesthood offices—which later would become signs of privileged authority—existed because early Mormons regarded priesthood itself in a much different way. Participants at the church’s organization had a unitary sense of authority rather than a belief in dual priesthoods of different ranks. According to current tradition, both the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods functioned in the church after the spring of 1829 when Smith and Cowdery were visited first by John the Baptist, who restored the lesser or Aaronic priesthood, and then by Peter, James, and John, who restored the higher or Melchizedek priesthood. A closer look at contemporary records indicates that men were first ordained to the higher priesthood over a year after the church’s founding. No mention of angelic ordinations can be found in original documents until 1834-35. Thereafter accounts of the visit of Peter, James, and John by Cowdery and Smith remained vague and contradictory.

The distance between traditional accounts of LDS priesthood beginnings and the differing story of early documents points to retrospective changes made in the public record to create a story of logical and progressive development. For example, as now published in D&C 68:15 a revelation of November 1831 referred to "the Melchizedek Priesthood." However, the original text of the 1831 revelation did not contain that priesthood phrase which was a retroactive addition in 1835.[70]

The first evidence of angelic restoration in public discussion comes from Cowdery in 1834.[71] Cowdery confirms the idea of one priesthood at the church’s organization and indirectly suggests that Smith and he had not yet encountered Peter, James, and John or the "higher" priesthood in April 1830. Cowdery’s October 1834 history first describes a visitation of John the Baptist to Smith and himself in 1829: "and we received under his hands the Holy Priesthood." Then he quotes the angel’s words: "Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this Priesthood and this authority, which remain upon earth, that the sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."[72] This was the first time Mormons learned that a heavenly conferral of authority occurred before the church’s organization.

Cowdery’s words indicate a restoration of only one priesthood.[73] The version of this priesthood restoration prayer familiar to Mormons today was first published in 1842 (now D&C 13). An examination of the published prayer shows that Cowdery’s 1834 prayer-text was its source and that an entire central portion wasretroactively added.[74] This addition delimited the role of authority restored by John the Baptist and made the 1829 event appear to be a prelude to the later division of church authority into the lesser and the greater priesthoods. By later definitions only the Melchizedek priesthood was "the Holy Priesthood" (D&C 84:25-27).[75]

Accounts of a second priesthood restoration began appearing the year after Cowdery’s 1834 history. In August 1835 the church published the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, which added passages to some previously published revelations. One dated August 1830 (now sec. 27) added a reference concerning the 1829 visit of John the Baptist as ordaining "you unto the first Priesthood which you have received…even as Aaron." The revelation continues: "And also with Peter, James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed to them" (D&C 27:8, 12). These phrases about John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John had not appeared when the revelation was first published in 1832 in The Evening and the Morning Star or in the 1833 Book of Commandments (BofC, 60). A recent study has demonstrated that the center portion on priesthood (now D&C 27:6-13) is also missing from the revelation’s only manuscript. The added text cannot be found in any document before 1835, nor can any similar wording or concept be found prior to 1834.[76]

The reference to "keys" is an important addition to this revelation since the concept of "keys" is now central to the Mormon theology of authority. As defined in the LDS church’s Encyclopedia of Mormonism, "The keys of the priesthood refer to the right to exercise power in the name of Jesus Christ or to preside over a priesthood function, quorum, or organizational division of the Church."[77] The doctrine of "the keys of the priesthood" (and the related "keys of the kingdom") became central to the question of presidential succession.

Cowdery was also writing about two angelic ministrations by late 1835. When introducing the church’s first book of recorded patriarchal blessings on 28 September 1835, he referred to both angelic ministrations. He referred to the appearance of the first angel who "bestowed upon us this priesthood, as I have said, we repaired to the water and were baptized. After this we received the high and holy priesthood: but an account of this will be given elsewhere, or in an other place." Four days later in the same book, Cowdery recorded Smith’s blessing to him which said that the two had been ordained "by the hand of the angel in the bush, unto the lesser priesthood and after received the holy priesthood under the hands of they who had been held in reserve for a long season, even those who received it under the hand of the Messiah."[78]

Cowdery’s 1835 document claimed this was a blessing Smith gave him on 18 December 1833, but the blessing was received almost two years later on 22 September 1835, which John Whitmer’s history verifies.[79] In December 1833 the prophet had recorded on Cowdery’s behalf a prayer-blessing which warned him of "two evils in him that he must needs forsake."[80] No contemporary details are available, but Brigham Young and others later described Cowdery’s "evils": In 1833 newly married Cowdery had either committed adultery or entered into an unauthorized plural marriage which Smith defined as adulterous.[81] Cowdery’s substitution of the 1835 blessing for the 1833 document had two benefits. It omitted the earlier document’s allusion to his misconduct and retroactively provided a pre-1835 reference to Peter, James, and John. This was consistent with the reference to three angels Smith and Cowdery had already added to an 1830 revelation in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.[82]

One significant problem created by such changes has been the difficulty in dating the visit of Peter, James, and John. Official histories have varied from caution to assertion about the date. Assistant church historian B. H. Roberts concluded that the ordination "doubtless occurred some time between May 15, 1829, and the expiration of the month of June of that same year." Church historian Joseph Fielding Smith announced that "it was only a few days after the first ordination."[83] The LDS church’s encyclopedia reflects Roberts’s less dogmatic conclusion: "The documents available and the date of the formal organization of the Church give support to a time of restoration before April 6, 1830. Many students have concluded that late May or early June 1829 is the most probable time frame."[84] Despite acknowledging the evidence for a much later date, one historian also asserts: "A positive[,] circumstantial case can be made that Peter, James, and John must have appeared in late May or early June 1829…"[85] Aware of the historical problems in giving an 1829 dating to the visit of Peter, James, and John, a semi-official LDS history by two professional historians states: "The date of their appearance is uncertain, but, as indicated in a subsequent revelation to Joseph Smith, sometime later they ordained and confirmed Joseph and Oliver…"[86]

Unsatisfied with such imprecision, one Mormon writer evidently invented a day and duration for the second angelic restoration of authority. Without offering any evidence, he asserted, "[I]t was early on Tuesday morning, the 2nd of June 1829, that three ancient Apostles, now resurrected, came to Smith and Cowdery and restored the Melchizedek Priesthood back to the earth." He added that the experience involved "many hours of instructions."[87] In fact when retroactive changes are eliminated from original documents, evidence shows that the second angelic restoration of apostolic authority could not have occurred before the church’s organization on 6 April 1830.

Cowdery and Smith said nothing about these two angelic restorations for years. When Cowdery referred to baptism in his 1829 "A commandment from God" (or "Articles of the Church"), he wrote that this authority was "given me of Jesus Christ" but mentioned no ministration by John the Baptist.[88] Smith’s official history of these early years, written beginning in 1838, offers an explanation for this secrecy: "In the meantime we were forced to keep secret the circumstances of having received the Priesthood and our having been baptized, owing to a spirit of persecution which had already been manifested in the neighborhood."[89]

As early as the fall of 1830 some non-Mormons said that Smith and Cowdery claimed to have seen God and angels and to have received divine authority. The Painesville Telegraph reported in November 1830 that Cowdery "pretends to have a divine mission, and to have seen and conversed with Angels," perhaps referring to the published testimony of Cowdery and the other Three Witnesses in the Book of Mormon. The following month this Ohio newspaper linked "authority" with Cowdery’s visions, although no angels are mentioned:

Mr. Oliver Cowd[e]ry has his commission directly from the God of heaven, and that he has his credentials, written and signed by the hand of Jesus Christ, with whom he has personally conversed, and as such, said Cowd[e]ry 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 their sins …must be forever miserable.[90]

In New York the Palmyra Reflector stated in February 1831 that Mormon missionaries were preaching that "Joseph Smith had now received a commission from God" and that "Smith (they affirmed) had seen God frequently and personaly—Cowdery and his friends had frequent interviews with angels."[91] Newspaper accounts seem consistent in quoting Mormon sources that Smith and Cowdery had seen angels but had obtained "authority" directly from God, not through angelic ministration.

Smith’s own mother made no reference to angelic restoration of authority in an 1831 letter she wrote to her brother about the new church.[92] If she knew about it, Lucy Mack Smith chose not to mention it in her defense of the new church. Although appointed apostle in 1829, David Whitmer was later told of ordinations, which he had not heard of before. He insisted that "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." Whitmer continued: "Oliver stated to me in Josephs 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 to be an Elder, and Oliver ordained Joseph to be an Elder in the Church of Christ." Whitmer repeated that he did not learn of angel ordination until 1834 or later and concluded: "I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver as stated and believed by some."[93] It is irrelevant that Whitmer disbelieved someone else’s metaphysical experience, but his lack of knowledge until 1834 of the angelic restoration is significant.

William E. McLellin made a similar statement. "In 1831 I heard Joseph tell his experience about angel visits many times, and about finding the plates, and their contents coming to light," he wrote. "But I never heard one word of John the baptist, or of Peter, James, and John’s visit and ordination till I was told some year or two afterward in Ohio."[94] In August 1832 McLellin had written a long letter explaining and defending Mormonism to his family. McLellin’s 1832 letter referred to the angel Moroni but showed no knowledge of other angelic ministrations.[95]

It is especially puzzling that as late as 1833 Joseph Knight had no knowledge of priesthood restoration. Knight had been a confidant and ally of Smith since the early 1820s. About 1833 Knight wrote a history of important events of Mormonism up to that year. Knight’s history made no reference to either John the Baptist or to Peter, James, and John. This omission is significant because Knight was eager to discuss angelic ministrations. His history is the only Mormon source for details of the angel Moroni’s annual visits with Smith from 1823 to 1827.[96] Smith himself delivered a public sermon in February 1833 in which he claimed to have seen Jesus Christ’s ancient apostles without mentioning a commission of authority from them, even though he also said he could perform miracles, like the ancient apostles.[97] Nor was there any reference to visitations from John the Baptist and three apostles in the church’s first official compilation of revelations, the 1833 Book of Commandments.

Mass ignorance does not prove that an event never occurred, but the silence about angelic restorations does show something significant about early Mormons. A Catholic historian noted that Mormonism’s claims to authority had tremendous appeal to early converts.98 That is certainly reflected in the newspaper report of December 1830 that Oliver Cowdery claimed "he and his associates are the only persons on earth who are qualified to administer in his [God’s] name."[99] Since the 1840s every explanation of the church’s claim to authority has included some mention of the angelic restorations by John the Baptist and by Peter, James, and John.[100] Early converts heard no such claims, and therefore emphasized authority based on "charismatic or spiritual power, not on priesthood ordination."[101]

This public silence by Smith and Cowdery about angelic visits is only part of the problem. Cowdery rarely identified the angelic ministers for the second priesthood restoration and never gave a time or place for the event. His 1834 published history made no reference to an angelic visitation after John the Baptist’s ministration.[102] His manuscript history of 1835 dated John the Baptist’s visit precisely as "Friday the 15th day of May, 1829," then referred to the second priesthood restoration only as: "After this we received the high and holy priesthood" from "others…those who received it under the hand of the Messiah."[103]

In 1846 Cowdery for the first time named an angel involved in the second priesthood restoration. He wrote that he "stood in the presence of John, with our departed Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood—and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater." In a public talk two years later he said that "the higher or Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred by the holy angel[s] from on high." Cowdery’s only other description was a signed statement in 1849 finally identifying all the ministers of the second restoration: "Peter, James and John, holding the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood have also ministered." Even this said nothing else about the restoration.[104]

Smith’s 1832 history mentioned only "the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Angels [sic],"[105] which was much more general than Cowdery’s 1834 reference to a specific visit from John the Baptist. Smith may have intended this 1832 reference to mean deity rather than John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John. For example, Smith once described his first vision of God the Father and Jesus as "the first visitation of Angels which was when I was about 14. years old."[106]

In any case Smith never published or circulated his 1832 history and first spoke to others in February 1834 about having previously received an angelic conferral of authority. At the organization of the Kirtland high council, he said: "I shall now endeavour to set forth before this council, the dignity of the office which has been conferred upon me by the ministring [sic] of the Angel of God, by his own will and by the voice of this Church."[107] Significantly, Smith still mentioned only one angel as the agent of restoration. At that time he gave early Mormons no reason to look beyond the angel Moroni for that unnamed angel’s identity. Eight months later Cowdery announced that it was actually John the Baptist.

There is no record of Smith giving further details about angelic restorations until he began his expanded historical narrative in 1838. Then he announced that he prepared this official history to "put all inquirers after truth in possession of the facts, as they have transpired, in relation both to myself and the Church, so far as I have such facts in my possession."[108] In this document Smith identified John the Baptist as appearing on 15 May 1829 but only vaguely added that this angel "acted under the direction of Peter, James and John who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood he said would in due time be conferred on us."[109] It seems extraordinary that in his official history Smith would say that a crucial event was to occur "in due time" and then drop the subject completely.

Subsequent church histories have lamented this lack of dating for the "High Priesthood" restoration, but they ignore the inevitable question. Why did Smith and Cowdery repeatedly avoid saying that Peter, James, and John restored this priesthood in 1829? Such vagueness is more than accidental in Smith’s history which gave at least season, month, and year for the first vision, Moroni, John the Baptist, and Three Witnesses experiences with angels and deity. For those who regard these claims of Smith and Cowdery as fraudulent or delusional, this vagueness is equally puzzling. Why would the two men refrain from simply inventing a date for an experience only they could confirm? Perhaps they were vague to avoid being dishonest. There is no evidence that a restoration of what was later called the Melchizedek priesthood happened in June 1829. But historical evidence indicates that the second priesthood restoration occurred more than a year later than assumed in traditional Mormon histories.“


> [70] Woodford, "Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants," 2:861, cf. 73-74. The textual addition first appeared in the Kirtland publication Evening and Morning Star of 1835 which revised the revelations previously published in The Evening and the Morning Star at Independence, Missouri, of 1832-33. Even though they cited Woodford’s study, Edwin J. Firmage and Edwin B. Firmage did not recognize the differences in the revelations published in the above periodicals of similar name. Therefore, they mistakenly identified this November 1831 revelation as the first use of the phrase "Melchizedek priesthood" in an unaltered revelation, even as they presented their revisionist view of priesthood development. Firmage and Firmage, "Priesthood In the Early LDS Tradition: A Sketch," paper delivered at Sunstone Theological Symposium, Salt Lake City, Utah, 20 Aug. 1994. Allegedly written in November 1831, D&C 68:15 also refers to "the First Presidency" which did not exist until March 1832. See chap. 2.

> [71] Joseph Smith’s 1832 history mentioned "the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aa[sic]ngels." But he did not publish or circulate this history and gave no further details until he began an expanded narrative in 1838. See Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith, 1:1-3; Faulring, An American Prophet’s Record, 3-4.

> [72] Latter Day Saints Messenger and Advocate 1 (Oct. 1834): 15-16; History of the Church, 1:43n; Cowdery’s original draft is in Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith, 1:31.

> [73] Cowdery’s 1834 history puzzles modern Mormons for two reasons. First, he says John the Baptist restored "the Holy Priesthood," when modern Mormons have been taught that he conferred the Aaronic priesthood not the "Holy Priesthood" of Melchizedek. Second, Cowdery in 1834 does not refer to restoration of a second priesthood. All official church histories after 1834 refer to a visitation of the ancient apostles Peter, James, and John, who gave the holy Melchizedek priesthood to Smith and Cowdery "shortly after" the visit by John the Baptist in 1829.

> [74] First written in 1839 (see Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith, 1:290), and first published in Times and Seasons 3 (1 Aug. 1842): 865-66; later History of the Church, 1:39. Compare D&C 13 with the ordination words by Oliver Cowdery in History of the Church, 1:43n, or Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith, 1:31; Woodford, "Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants," 1:233-41, does not make this obvious comparison of the prayer texts.

> [75] My analysis uses this later definition of Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods—as lesser and greater priesthoods—in discussing the first years of Mormonism. This suggests how the 1830 church was understood by its earliest members once they adopted the rigid concepts of Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods. Such analysis also helps current Mormons who perceive all religious history from that dual priesthood perspective. However, it is anachronistic to apply the terms Melchizedek and Aaronic to Mormon concepts of authority before 1832 and even up to 1835. It is difficult to avoid all anachronisms in a situation where virtually every standard and familiar published text has been filled with statements introduced after the dates of the original events and manuscript texts. An effort to avoid such anachronism is Prince, Having Authority, which analyzes the evolution of Mormon authority concepts in chronological order of their documentary formulation.

> [76] History of the Church, 1:40n; Woodford, "Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants," 1:393-403.

> [77] Alan K. Parrish, "Keys of the Priesthood," in Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:780.

> [78] Oliver Cowdery statement, 28 Sept. 1835, in Joseph Smith, Sr., Patriarchal Blessing Book, 1:9, 12, LDS archives, with complete transcription (though dated as 18 Dec. 1833, with tentative identification of Smith and Cowdery), in Gregory A. Prince papers, Manuscripts Division, Marriott Library; Richard L. Anderson, "Second Witness of Priesthood Restoration," Improvement Era 71 (Sept. 1968): 16; Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation: Sermons and Writings of Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, comp., 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-56), 3:100.

> [79] F. Mark McKiernan and Roger D. Launius, eds., An Early Latter Day Saint History: The Book of John Whitmer, Kept by Commandment (Independence, MO: Herald Publishing House, 1980), 151-52, referring to September-October 1835: "Therefore Joseph dictated blessings for himself[,] Hyrum Smith, Sidney Rigdon, F. G. Williams, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, W. W. Phelps and myself. As you will find recorded in the Patriarchal Blessing Book in Kirtland Ohio—Book A pages [blank]."

> [80] The manuscript text of Oliver Cowdery’s actual 1833 blessing is in History of the Church, 1:465, in Faulring, An American Prophet’s Record, 17, in Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 23-24, and in Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith, 2:15-16.

> [81] Kenney, Wilford Woodrufj’s Journal, 5 (26 Aug. 1857): 84; Brigham Young statement, 26 July 1872, in A. Karl Larson and Katharine Miles Larson, eds., Diary of Charles Lowell Walker, 2 vols. (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1980), 1:349; T. B. H. Stenhouse, The Rocky Mountain Saints... (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1873), 193-94; Joseph Smith III’s 1876 diary, memo at back, RLDS archives; Journal of Discourses 20:29 (J.F. Smith/1878); George Q. Cannon, "History of the Church," Juvenile Instructor 16 (15 Sept. 1881): 206; George Q. Cannon, "Editorial Thoughts," Juvenile Instructor 20 (1 Dec. 1885): 360; Dean R. Zimmerman, ed., I Knew the Prophets: An Analysis of the Letter of Benjamin F. Johnson to George F. [S.] Gibbs, Reporting Doctrinal Views of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (Bountiful, UT: Horizon Publishers, 1976), 38.

> [82] Prince, Having Authority, 23 and 23n25, accepts the 1833 date of this blessing and argues against its being an "updated" 1835 version.

> [83] History of the Church, 1:41n; Smith, Essentials in Church History, 58. See derivative versions in Anderson, "The Second Witness of Priesthood Restoration," 15-24, and Larry C. Porter, "Dating the Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood," Ensign 9 (June 1979): 5-10; Deseret News 1993-1994 Church Almanac, 338.

> [84] Jae R. Ballif, "Melchizedek Priesthood: Restoration," in Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:886; also Hoyt W. Brewster, Jr., Prophets, Priesthood Keys and Succession (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1991), 23, says: "Sometime between May 15 and May 29, 1829..."

> [85] William G. Hartley, "’Upon You My Fellow Servants’: Restoration of the Priesthood," in Larry C. Porter and Susan Easton Black, eds, The Prophet Joseph: Essays On the Life and Mission of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1988), 55-56, with acknowledgement of contrary evidence on 70n20. Similarly, Cook, "Joseph Smith and the High Priesthood," acknowledged the evidence for a post-1829 restoration but affirmed that the visit of Peter, James, and John "must have occurred before June 1830," because Smith and Cowdery each signed documents as "an apostle" on 9 June. However, their vision of John the Baptist qualified them as apostles charismatically, without the need for ordination, a point Cook emphasized earlier in his presentation about the primacy of charismatic authority in early Mormonism.

> [86] Allen and Leonard, Story of the Latter-day Saints, 50.

> [87] Ronald Vern Jackson, The Seer, Joseph Smith: His Education from the Most High, 3rd ed. rev. (Salt Lake City: Hawkes Publishing, Inc., 1977), 105. Wilford C. Wood, a Mormon document collector, claimed a revelation in 1960 in which he saw and heard the ordination prayer by Peter, James, and John, and heard Joseph Smith declare that the event occurred on 27 June 1829, exactly fifteen years before Smith’s martyrdom. See LaMar C. Berrett, The Wilford C. Wood Collection (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Printing Service, 1972), entries 1-H-o-7 and 1-H-o-13. Heber C. Kimball, a member of the First Presidency, said: "Peter, James and John, came to confer the apostleship upon Joseph. John came in the flesh, and Peter and James in the Spirit." Apostle Orson Pratt gave his "opinion" that "Peter & James came in the Spirit and placed their hands on the head of Joseph in connexion with John in the flesh, John being mouth." Heber C. Kimball remarks in Bishops’ Meetings minutes, 30 Jan. 1862, LDS archives; remarks by Pratt in Salt Lake City School of the Prophets minutes, 23 Dec. 1872, LDS archives.

> [88] Oliver Cowdery’s 1829 manuscript, "A commandment from God" (or "Articles of the Church"), in Woodford, "Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants," 1:288.

> [89] History of the Church, 1:43-44; "entirely secret" in the first draft of this history. See Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith, 1:231.

> [90] Painesville Telegraph, 16 Nov, 7 Dec. 1830.

> [91] Palmyra Reflector, 14 Feb. 1831.

> [92] Lucy Mack Smith to Solomon Mack, Jr., 6 Jan. 1831, in Ben E. Rich, ed., Scrap Boor of Mormon Literature (Chicago: Henry C. Etten and Co., [1913]), 1:544-45.

> [93] David Whitmer interview by Zenas H. Gurley, 14 Jan. 1885, questions 13 and 14 in Cook, David Whitmer Interviews, 154. Recent scholars sometimes spell his first name "Zenos," but he spelled it both ways during his life. For example, Gurley signed "Zenos" in his notice for the 21st Quorum of Seventies and "Zenas" for his business advertisement in Nauvoo Neighbor, 13 Aug. 1845, [3, 4]. I have followed the spelling of Gurley’s first name as I have found it in most manuscripts.

> [94] William E. McLellin statement, 10, numbered item 28, photocopy at Salt Lake Tribune office, Salt Lake City, Utah, as of 24 December 1985. Original manuscript in possession of Otis Trauber of Texas at that time. Also McLellin letters quoted in Saints’ Herald 17 (15 Sept. 1870): 556, and Salt Lake Tribune, 4 Dec. 1985, B-1.

> [95] William E. McLellin to "Samuel McLelin," 4 Aug. 1832, fd 6, P 13, Miscellaneous Letters and Papers, RLDS archives; in Jan Shipps and John W. Welch, eds., The Journals of William E. McLellin (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Studies, and Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994).

> [96] Dean C. Jessee, ed., "Joseph Knight’s Recollection of Early Mormon History," Brigham Young University Studies 17 (Autumn 1976): 29-39; Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 123-24, 134-43; Garrard, "Colesville, New York," in Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1:289.

> [97] Rev. Richmond Taggart to Reverend Jonathan Goings, 2 Mar. 1833, manuscript in American Baptist Historical Society, Rochester, New York, quoted in Prince, Having Authority, 23.

> [98] Mario S. DePillis, "The Quest for Religious Authority and the Rise of Mormonism," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 1 (Spring 1966): 68-88; see also Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, "The Appeals of Mormonism," in their The Mormon Experience (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), 20-43.

> [99] Painesville Telegraph, 7 Dec. 1830.

> [100] For example, Kim S. Cameron, "Authority," and Richard G. Ellsworth and Melvin J. Luthy, "Priesthood," in Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1:89, 3:1134-35.

> [101] Vogel, Religious Seekers, 104; also Cook, "Joseph Smith and the High Priesthood."

> [102] Latter Day Saints Messenger and Advocate 1 (Oct. 1834): 15-16; History of the Church, 1:43n.

> [103] Oliver Cowdery statement, 28 Sept. 1835, in Joseph Smith, Sr., Patriarchal Blessing Book, 1:9, 12, with transcriptions (attributed erroneously to 18 Dec. 1833), in 1833 transcripts, 3, 7, Prince papers, Marriott Library; Cook, Revelations of Joseph Smith, 22-23.

> [104] Oliver Cowdery to Phineas Young, 23 Mar. 1846, quoted in April 1934 Conference Report (Salt Lake City: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1934), 129, and in Stanley R. Gunn, Oliver Cowdery: Second Elder and Scribe (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1962), 250-51; Oliver Cowdery statement, 17 Oct. 1848, quoted by Reuben Miller in LDS Millennial Star 21 (20 Aug. 1859): 544; Oliver Cowdery signed statement, 13 Jan. 1849 in History of the Church, 1:42n; Anderson, "Second Witness of Priesthood Restoration," 16; Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:100. For comment on Cowdery’s published reference to "angel" rather than "angels," see Richard L. Anderson, "Reuben Miller: Recorder of Oliver Cowdery’s Reaffirmations," Brigham Young University Studies 8 (Spring 1968): 277-78, 282-85; Bushman, Joseph Smith, 240n55; and Cook, Revelations of Joseph Smith, 23.

> [105] Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 4; Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith, 1:1-3; Faulring, An American Prophet’s Record, 3-4.

> [106] Joseph Smith diary, 14 Nov. 1835, in Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 84, Jessee, Papers of Joseph Smith, 2:79, Faulring, An American Prophet’s Record, 59, also in "Life of Joseph Smith," Deseret News [weekly], 29 May 1852, [1], but changed to "my first vision" in History of the Church, 2:312.

> [107] Kirtland Council Minute Book, 12 Feb. 1834, 27, exact type-script, with pagination the same as original holograph, box 76, H. Michael Marquardt papers, Manuscripts Division, Marriott Library.

> [108] History of the Church, 1:3.

> [109] Ibid., 40.