Changes to the Doctrine and Covenants — What They Show and What They Don’t

Critics point to significant additions to the Doctrine and Covenants between the 1833 Book of Commandments and the 1835 D&C — including 400+ words inserted into what became Section 27 — as evidence of retroactive fabrication of the priesthood restoration narrative. The argument is specific and deserves a specific answer.

The Specific Claim

Between 1833 (Book of Commandments) and 1835 (D&C), approximately 400 words were added to what became D&C 27 — words that introduced John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John visiting Joseph and conferring priesthood keys. Critics argue: these additions were retroactively inserted to establish a priesthood restoration narrative that did not exist in the original 1833 text, proving the priesthood restoration was invented between 1833 and 1835.

The Response

1. The Book of Commandments was not a complete collection

The 1833 Book of Commandments was a partial publication — printed under extreme time pressure with the printing press eventually destroyed by a mob. The Joseph Smith Papers Project documents that many revelations were not included in the 1833 printing. The absence of certain content from the 1833 volume does not mean that content didn’t exist — it means it wasn’t included in that particular incomplete publication.

The critics’ argument assumes a complete publication was interrupted and later supplemented with fabricated material. The historical record supports a different conclusion: an incomplete publication was later superseded by a fuller one.

2. The pattern of revelation clarification

Multiple sections of the D&C were expanded, clarified, or added to as Joseph received additional revelation on previously covered topics. This is not unique to Section 27. D&C 76 expanded on concepts first mentioned in earlier revelations. D&C 132 expanded on marriage concepts mentioned earlier. Ongoing revelation that builds on earlier foundations is the entire model of the Restoration — “line upon line, precept upon precept.”

If the critic’s standard were applied consistently — that any textual development between publications proves fabrication — it would disqualify most scriptural canon in the history of religion. The Hebrew scriptures underwent extensive editorial development. The New Testament canon was assembled over centuries. Textual development is not evidence of fraud; it is evidence of a living tradition.

3. The Jesse Gause / Frederick G. Williams substitution

D&C 81 was originally given to Jesse Gause — an early counselor in the First Presidency who apostatized. When Gause left, Frederick G. Williams was called to his position and the revelation was applied to Williams. The critics cite this as evidence of revision; it is actually evidence of how the Restoration applies eternal principles to changing human circumstances — the same pattern seen throughout scripture when leaders fall and are replaced.

Does the critic believe that when a bishop is released and replaced, his calling ceases to be legitimate? The principle of a calling transcends the individual who holds it. The Gause-to-Williams transition is not evidence of fraud; it is evidence of a functioning ecclesiastical organization dealing with the reality of human failure.

4. The transparency test

The Joseph Smith Papers Project — the Church’s own exhaustive historical publication — fully documents every textual change between the Book of Commandments and the D&C. The changes are not hidden. They are catalogued, explained, and publicly available. An institution that publishes and documents its own textual history is not engaged in cover-up.

The critics cite documents the Church itself produced. This is not the behavior of an institution with something to hide. If the goal were concealment, the Joseph Smith Papers would not exist. The transparency the Church has shown with its own difficult history is itself evidence that the institution is not afraid of what the documents say.

5. The priesthood restoration question specifically

The critics argue the priesthood restoration accounts were retroactively inserted. But the evidence they rely on — absence from the 1833 printing — is absence of evidence, not evidence of absence. David Whitmer’s testimony that he didn’t hear of angelic ordinations until 1834–35 is a single witness account written decades later, by a man who had left the Church and had personal reasons to minimize Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims.

Multiple contemporaries describe the priesthood restoration in early documents. Oliver Cowdery’s 1834–35 letters in the Messenger and Advocate describe the angelic conferral of authority before the 1835 D&C was published. The historical picture is incomplete — early restoration figures did not narrate their experiences in the systematic way a modern historian would prefer — but incompleteness is not fabrication.

The Verdict

Textual development between the 1833 Book of Commandments and the 1835 D&C is real and documented. It reflects ongoing revelation, incomplete original publication, and the application of principles to changing circumstances — not retroactive fabrication.

The Church’s own publication of these documents demonstrates institutional transparency. The critics’ argument requires treating absence from an incomplete 1833 publication as proof that something didn’t exist — a standard that would disqualify most historical claims in any field.

The honest question is not “why were things added?” — that question has multiple coherent answers. The honest question is whether the evidence for fabrication clears the bar required to overturn a living tradition supported by multiple witnesses, contemporary documents, and institutional transparency. It does not.