[Priesthood Restoration] Detailed Response to the "CES Letter" from a believing Latter-day Saint

Priesthood Restoration

Start:  Introduction

Previous:  Testimony & Spiritual Witness

Contents for this section:

1. Late Appearance
2. David Whitmer
3. Changed Wording
4. Not in Book of Commandments
5. 1835 Doctrine and Covenants
6. Lyman Wight

“The late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication.”

– LDS HISTORIAN AND SCHOLAR RICHARD BUSHMAN ROUGH STONE ROLLING, P.75

Richard Bushman goes on to discuss the unlikeliness of this possibility:

Did Joseph add the stories of angels to embellish his early history and make himself more of a visionary? If so, he made little of the occurrence. Cowdery was the first to recount the story of John's appearance, not Joseph himself. In an 1834 newspaper, Cowdery exulted in his still fresh memory of the experience. … When Joseph described John's visit, he was much more plainspoken. Moreover, he inserted the story into a history composed in 1838 but not published until 1842. It circulated without fanfare, more like a refurbished memory than a triumphant announcement.

It seems likely to me that Joseph Smith either did tell people about it earlier, but no one wrote it down, or that Joseph had a reason he didn't tell people about it.  Probably a combination of both.

As we will see, Jeremy believes Joseph fabricated the story, and each of the six items in this section are pieces of evidence to support that claim that it appeared late.  As I will bring up, there is evidence to the contrary and some of these are based on certain preconceptions.  But as always, one may only know the truth by revelation from the Spirit.

1. Like the first vision story, none of the members of the Church or Joseph Smith’s family had ever heard prior to 1832 about a priesthood restoration from John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John.

Jeremy makes this claim, but does not provide sources.  David Whitmer and William McLellin are the only ones I know of who who said they had never heard about it, and we will talk about them in the next item.  Other Church members and members of Joseph Smith's family make no such statement.  There is a difference between saying "no one left a record of it prior to 1832" and "no one had heard of it prior to 1832."

Although the priesthood is now taught to have been restored in 1829, Joseph and Oliver made no such claim until 1832, if that. Even in 1832, there were no claims of a restoration of the priesthood (just a ‘reception’ of the priesthood) and there certainly was no specific claims of John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John. Like the first vision accounts, the story later got more elaborate and bold with specific claims of miraculous visitations from resurrected John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John.

LDS historian and scholar, Richard Bushman, acknowledges this in Rough Stone Rolling:

“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. Not until writing in his 1832 history did Joseph include ‘reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministering of angels to administer the letter of the Gospel’ among the cardinal events of his history, a glancing reference at best…The late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication.”

Why did it take 3 plus years for Joseph or Oliver to tell members of the Church about the restoration of the priesthood under the hands of John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John? 

I'm not sure why Jeremy thinks "just a 'reception' of the priesthood" is any less than restoring the priesthood.  That's what the restoration of the priesthood means—that Joseph received the priesthood after a period of apostasy.

The reason it shows up "so late" is because 1832 is when Joseph first wrote his history.  Keep in mind that making and keeping records really wasn't something done at the time, and it is thanks to the commandment of the Lord that so much has been preserved.  In an article on Joseph Smith's History, published in the Journal of Mormon History in 1976, Dean C. Jessee wrote:

So primitive were some aspects of record keeping in nineteenth century America that much of the early Latter-day Saint experience was a pioneering effort. … [A]lthough the newly formed American Historical Association urged the establishment of a national archives in 1884, it was fifty years before an act of Congress finally gave birth to the Archives of the United States.  Understandably, the historian Hubert H. Bancroft in 1884 wondered why the Mormons had a Historian's and Recorder's Office in the 1830s when other institutions, even a half century later, generally neglected such things.  The answer given Bancroft was that the precedent had been set in an 1830 revelation to Joseph Smith and from that time record keeping among the Latter-day Saints had been a "duty imperative."  Although Mormon record keeping was inaugurated by the 1830 revelation, details for carrying out that commandment were largely hammered out on the anvil of experience in the years that followed.

Joseph Smith began writing his history in 1832, and he summarized the things that he would talk about:

<​firstly​> he receiving the testamony from on high seccondly the ministering of Angels thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of—Aangels to adminster the letter of the Law <​Gospel—​> <​—the Law and commandments as they were given unto him—​> and in <​the​> ordinencs, forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God power and ordinence from on high to preach the Gospel in the administration and demonstration of the spirit the Kees of the Kingdom of God confered upon him and the continuation of the blessings of God to him &c——

However, the document only goes so far as the first vision and receiving the gold plates.  Joseph apparently intended to talk about receiving the priesthood from angels, but did not get that far, and the history ends soon after Joseph gets to the part about Oliver began writing for him.

But this wasn't the first time to hint at the restoration of the priesthood.

In 16 November 1830, the Painesville Telegraph published an article on "The Golden Bible" that reported that Oliver Cowdery claimed to have seen and conversed with angels.  Another article published December 7th said:

Those who are the friends and advocates of this wonderful book, state that 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.

The Palmyra Reflector published in 14 February 1831 that the missionaries claimed that "no one had been authorised to preach &c. for that period [1500 years]—that Jo Smith had now received a commission from God for that purpose".  What is now Doctrine and Covenants 20, probably first recorded soon after the organization of the Church in 1830 was first published in the Painesville Telegraph 19 April 1831.  There, it says that Joseph was "called of God an ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church" and Oliver Cowdery "was also called of God an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church, and ordained under his hand".

No, none of these name John the Baptist or Peter, James and John, either.  But some of these do say that Oliver Cowdery received his authority from Jesus Christ.  They also say that Oliver was telling people that they were the only ones with authority to baptize and lay on lands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.  Clearly, the restoration of the priesthood was taught earlier, just not written until later.

Jeremy quotes Richard Bushman, but Bushman doesn't talk about the shifting narrative, he only talks about the unlikeliness of later fabrication due to lack of apparent motive, as discussed in the introduction to this section.  What would be the motive of a changing narrative from being commanded by Jesus Christ to being ordained by John the Baptist, then Peter, James, and John?  We will take a look at that more in the next item.

2. David Whitmer, one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, had this to say about the Priesthood restoration:

“I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood until the year 1834[,] [183]5, or [183]6 – in Ohio…I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver…”

– Early Mormon Documents, 5:137

This comes from an 1885 interview with Zenas H. Gurley Jr. who was an elder in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  David Whitmer disagreed with the organization of the Church, and felt that the concept of a higher and lesser priesthood went against what he was taught before 1830.  David did believe in the restoration, but not in the way Joseph taught it.  He believed he was legitimately ordained an Elder, but disagreed with the office of High Priest.  He felt that the Bible and Doctrine and Covenants were sufficient, and though he believed Joseph received revelations, David did not regard them as scripture.

A recently discovered 1871 notebook from William E. McLellin tells a similar story, that although he joined in 1831, he didn't hear about John the Baptist, or of Peter, James, and John's visit until some years afterward.

According to David's family members, they believed that Joseph received authority by a command of the Lord, and that was sufficient, and he felt that Joseph made up the higher priesthood in order to usurp authority over others.  However, the concept of  a higher and lesser priesthood already existed in the Bible and Book of Mormon (see Hebrews 7, and Alma 4-5, 13), so I would argue that that also fails as a motivation.

When Oliver related the history in October 1834, that was the first time that details were published, but elements existed beforehand.  As stated in the previous item, newspapers reported Oliver claimed had seen angels, and Joseph had intended to write about it in his 1832 history.  When Joseph again compiled his history in 1838, he said, "In the meantime we were forced to keep secret the circumstances of our having been baptized, and having received this priesthood; owing to a spirit of persecution which had already manifested itself in the neighborhood."

As I study the history, it seems to me that Joseph and Oliver were ordained by angels, but they did not give the details until later, and that Joseph's understanding of the priesthood grew as he received revelation over time.

3. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery changed the wording of an earlier revelation when they compiled the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants, adding verses about the appearances of Elijah, John the Baptist, and Peter, James, and John as if those appearances were mentioned in the earlier revelation in the Book of Commandments, which they weren’t.

Compare the 1833 Book of Commandments Chapter 28 (XXVIII) to the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants Section 50 (L). The chapter in modern Doctrine and Covenants is D&C 27. This section claims to be a revelation from the Lord to Joseph Smith in August 1830.

The section heading (not the section itself) claims it was in September 1830 (not August) in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.  The earlier Book of Commandments specified September 4th.  In later editions when the section heading was updated, they specified that the revelation was in August and the first part was written at the time, and the rest in September.

This explanation comes from Joseph Smith's history.  No one is claiming the revelation was written all at once.  Since the explanation is in the chapter header, it isn't exactly hidden, either.

The only thing it doesn't mention is that the second half wasn't originally published with the first half.  But you can learn about it from the Church, see this January 1985 Ensign article for more information on how the Doctrine and Covenants was edited (including section 27).  More recently, we of course have the Joseph Smith Papers itself, but I would like to bring up Joseph Smith’s Revelations, a recently published resource from the Joseph Smith Papers which serves as a study companion for the Doctrine and Covenants that reproduces the earliest text of each section of the Doctrine and Covenants and each with a historical introduction.  This is available in the Gospel Library, so much more accessible.

The following text is what Joseph and Oliver added to the 1830 revelation in 1835 while presenting it as if this was already part of the original revelation given to Joseph by the Lord in August 1830. Notice how it’s packed with miraculous claims of visitations and receptions of authority by these resurrected beings that the original 1830 revelation does not contain.

2. …and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel; to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim; and also with Elias, to whom I have committed the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things, or the restorer of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began, concerning the last days: and also John the son of Zacharias, which Zachari as he (Elias) visited and gave promise that he should have a son, and his name should be John, and he should be filled with the spirit of Elias; which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, jr. and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto this first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron: and also Elijah, unto whom I have committed the keys of the power of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children and the hearts of the children to the fathers, that the whole earth may not be smitten with a curse: and also, with Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham your fathers; by whom the promises remain; and also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days:

3. And also with Peter, and 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 unto them: unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom, and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fulness of times, in the which I will gather together in one all things both which are in heaven and which are on earth: and also with all those whom my Father hath given me out of the world: wherefore lift up your hearts and rejoice, and gird up your loins, and take upon you my whole armor, that ye may be able to withstand the evil day, having done all ye may be able to stand. Stand, therefore, having your loins girt about with truth; having on the breastplate of righteousness; and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace which I have sent mine angels to commit unto you, taking the shield of faith wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of my Spirit, which I will pour out upon you, and my word which I reveal unto you, and be agreed as touching all things whatsoever ye ask of me, and be faithful until I come, and ye shall be caught up that where I am ye shall be also. Amen.

You can see and compare for yourself on the Joseph Smith Papers (LDS owned and operated) website. The direct links are above.

The Joseph Smith Papers notes that while an earlier manuscript may have existed for the September portion, the earliest extant text for the expanded version of the revelation is the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.  As I noted above, Joseph Smith claimed the last part was part of the August 1830 revelation, but was not written until September.  He does not explain why it wasn't written all at once, but that would explain why it wasn't included in earlier publications, since the copy they used was missing that portion.

4. Had the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood under the hand of John the Baptist been recorded prior to 1833, it would have been expected to appear in the Book of Commandments. However, nowhere in the Book of Commandments is this miraculous and doctrinally vital event recorded.

Had the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood under the hands of Peter, James, and John been recorded prior to 1833, it likewise would have been expected to appear in the Book of Commandments. However, nowhere in the Book of Commandments is this miraculous and doctrinally vital event recorded.

Jeremy makes this argument from the previous item.  The original manuscript for Doctrine and Covenants 27 does not exist, the earliest existing copy of the first part was made in about March 1831, and no earlier manuscript exists for the longer part than the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants itself.  Jeremy is arguing that if the full revelation really were recorded before 1833, then it would have appeared in the Book of Commandments.

Here are a couple of my observations.

Section 27 just briefly mentions the restoration of the priesthood.  Joseph described in more fully in his 1838 history, which appears in the Pearl of Great Price as Joseph Smith—History along with Oliver Cowdery's 1834 description.  Part of that became section 13, but was not added until the 1876 edition.  The Pearl of Great Price itself was not canonized until 1880.

Yet, the 1838 history still didn't elaborate on the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood, only saying that John the Baptist, "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".  In 1842, Joseph made another brief mention, but still without providing details we would like to have.

Maybe before asserting that "it would have been expected to appear" in the scriptures, we should ask who expects it to appear, and why?  Jeremy expects it, but by using the passive voice, he gives the impression that his expectation is shared by everyone.  Perhaps the reason he expects it to appear is because it is "miraculous and doctrinally vital" and maybe he believes that was the purpose of the Book of Commandments?

I think it may help to read Doctrine and Covenants 1, which was a revelation to Joseph Smith to serve as the preface to the Book of Commandments.  You can also read the Introduction which gives a historical overview.  Joseph Smith received revelations "in answer to prayer, in times of need, and came out of real-life situations involving real people."  The purpose of the book isn't to convince us that the truth and authority are here, but to teach principles to guide our lives.

As mentioned earlier, the importance of record keeping was revealed to Joseph Smith in 1830, and so these revelations were copied into a book known as Revelation Book 1.  It is a good thing they were, as most earlier manuscripts that they were copied from no longer exist.  In November 1831, it was decided to review and publish these revelations as the Book of Commandments.  It wasn't the sole source, nor was everything in it published, but most were.

The Book of Commandments never finished publication.  On 20 July 1833, a mob destroyed the printing office.  Several Saints were able to save sheets that were later bound into a book.  It has 65 chapters, and had it finished printing, perhaps 12 other chapters.  Some of these chapters were later combined into one section, so it had close to half the sections we do today.

Many sections one might "expect" to be in the Book of Commandments aren't in there.  D&C 76, Joseph Smith's vision of heaven received in February 1832 is not in there.  And of course, many revelations received afterwards were added later.  You can also think of things like the First Vision, only only slightly mentioned in the Doctrine and Covenants, and only added to scripture with the Pearl of Great Price in 1880.

We believe in an open canon of scripture and continuous revelation.  Not all revelations have been added to scripture, and there will be more revelation in the future.

5. It wasn’t until the 1835 edition Doctrine & Covenants that Joseph and Oliver backdated and retrofitted Priesthood restoration events to an 1829-30 time period

This is what Jeremy was building to with the last two items.  Jeremy states it as if it is a fact, but it is rather the conclusion that he is drawing from the previous items in this section.

For some clarification, Doctrine and Covenants 27 only names Peter, James, and John as the individuals who ordained Joseph and Oliver to be apostles.  The time period comes in with the context that there was a June 1829 revelation where the Lord spoke to Oliver Cowdery "even as unto Paul mine apostle, for you are called even with that same calling with which he was called" indicating the restoration was before that time.

Jeremy is also focused on where it specifically names John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John, and ignores earlier references that indicate that Church members were teaching that they had received authority from Jesus Christ.  Besides the references before 1832 that I talked about in the first item, there were still some more before 1835.

In 1833, a month after Reverend Richmond Taggart had established the First Baptist Church of Cleveland, he wrote a letter to Reverend Jonathan Going, the corresponding secretary of the Home Mission Society to report on his congregation.  In it, he mentioned an incident involving Joseph Smith:

The following Curious occurrence occurred last week in Newburg about 6 miles from this Place. Joe Smith the great Mormonosity was there and held forth, and among other things he told them he had seen Jesus Christ and the Apostles and conversed with them, and that he could perform Miracles.

In the minutes for a 12 February 1834 council meeting, Joseph Smith said, "I shall now endeavour to set forth before this Council, the dignity of the office which has been conferred upon me by the ministering of the Angel of God, by his own voice and by the voice of this Church."

In the minutes for a 12 April 1834 conference of elders it says Joseph "gave a relation of obtaining and translating the Book of Mormon, the revelation of the priesthood of Aaron, the organization of the Church in the year 1830, the revelation of the high priesthood, and the gift of the Holy Spirit poured out upon the church, &c."

I linked it before, but on 7 September 1834, Oliver Cowdery wrote a letter addressed to William W. Phelps and published in the October 1834 Messenger and Advocate.  In poetic language, Oliver Cowdery described an angel appearing in answer to prayer after translating a Book of Mormon passage about baptism.

The Lord, who is rich in mercy, and ever willing to answer the consistent prayer of the humble, after we had called upon him in a fervent manner, aside from the abodes of men, condescended to manifest to us his will.  On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace to us, while the vail was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the gospel of repentance!—What joy! what wonder! what amazement!  While the world were racked and distracted—while millions were grouping as the blind for the wall, and while all men were resting upon uncertainty, as a general mass, our eyes beheld—our ears heard.  As in the "blaze of day:" yes, more—above the glitter of the May Sun beam, which then shed its brilliancy over the face of nature!  Then his voice, though mild, pierced to the center, and his words, "I am thy fellow-servant," dispelled every fear.  We listened—we gazed—we admired!  'Twas the voice of the angel from glory—'twas a message from the Most High! and as we heard we rejoiced, while his love enkindled upon our souls, and we were rapt in the vision of the Almighty!  Where was room for doubt?  No where: uncertainty had fled, doubt had sunk, no more to rise, while fiction and deception had fled forever!

But, dear brother think, further think for a moment, what joy filled our hearts and with what surprise we must have bowed, (for who would not have bowed the knee for such a blessing?) when we received under his hand the holy priesthood, as he said, "upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer this priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon the earth, that the sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!"

I shall not attempt to paint to you the feelings of this heart, nor the majestic beauty and glory which surrounded us on this occasion; but you will believe me when I say, that earth, nor men, with the eloquence of time, cannot begin to clothe language in as interesting and sublime a manner as this holy personage.  No; nor has this earth power to give the joy, to bestow the peace, or comprehend the wisdom which was contained in each sentence as they were delivered by the power of the Holy Spirit!  Man may deceive his fellow man; deception may follow deception, and the children of the wicked one may have power to seduce the foolish and untaught, fill nought but fiction feeds the many, and the fruit of falsehood carries in its current the giddy to the grave; but one touch with the finger of his love, yes, one ray of glory from the upper world, or one word from the mouth of the Savior, from the bosom of eternity, strikes it all into insignificance, and blots it forever from the mind!  The assurance that we were in the presence of an angel; the certainty that we heard the voice of Jesus, and the truth unsullied as it flowed from a pure personage, dictated by the will of God, is to me, past description, and I shall ever look upon this expression of the Savior's goodness with wonder and thanksgiving while I am permitted to tarry, and in those mansions where perfection dwells and sin never comes, I hope to adore in that DAY which shall never cease!

Like I said before, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had already talked about receiving the priesthood, this is just added detail.

– none of which existed in any previous Church records; including Doctrine & Covenants’ precursor, Book of Commandments, nor the original Church history as published in The Evening and Morning Star.

The Evening and Morning Star didn't really publish "the original Church history" at least not the way we think about it.

For some background, it was a monthly newspaper and 14 issues were published in Independence in 1832-33 before it was destroyed, then 10 issues in Kirtland in 1833-34.  In January 1833, Joseph wrote a letter to W. W. Phelps in Missouri and said he desired the paper to set "forth the rise and progress and faith of the church".  He reported in the March issue to look forward to a future article where they would "give the particulars of the rise and progress of the church," which they did in the next month's issue.  However, it wasn't really on Church history as we think about it—ministering of angels and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.  Instead, it was on more recent history, how the Church had left New York for Ohio, and then moved to Missouri.  It was quite literally the rise and progress of the Church: how it had increased in members and had begun to spread.  Similar articles appeared in June and July.

Maybe instead of Church history, Jeremy is thinking about where The Evening and Morning Star published some earlier revelations, including the first part of what is now Doctrine and Covenants 27, as discussed in the previous item

When I think of "the original Church history" I think of the "official" Church history that Joseph began putting together in 1838 and was published in 1842 in the Millenial Star.  However, Oliver Cowdery was the first to publish a history of the Church in beginning 1834 in the Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate, which was the successor to The Evening and Morning Star.  Oliver began writing a history beginning with the October 1834 issue that I just quoted.

I've referenced many earlier Church records that reference the restoration of the Priesthood.  The Joseph Smith Papers have a page on the Priesthood Restoration that links to all of these, as well as secondary sources not from the Church.

Just because they didn't speak of it or write about it at the time doesn't mean it didn't happen.  If that is how we should view history, then we might end up concluding that Joseph Smith was actually a monogamist, and dozens of women backdated and retrofitted plural marriage events to Joseph Smith's lifetime.

6. Melchizedek Priesthood given by Lyman Wight – not Peter, James, and John:

“During the turbulent meeting, Joseph ordained five men to the high priesthood, and Lyman Wight ordained eighteen others, including Joseph. The ordinations to the high priesthood marked a milestone in Mormon ecclesiology. Until that time, the word ‘priesthood,’ although it appeared in the Book of Mormon, had not been used in Mormon sermonizing or modern revelations. Later accounts applied the term retroactively, but the June 1831 conference marked its first appearance in contemporary records… 

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? Joseph Smith himself was ordained to this ‘high priesthood’ by Lyman Wight. If Joseph was already an elder and apostle, what was the necessity of being ordained again?”

– Rough Stone Rolling, p.157-158 (emphasis added)

IF PETER, JAMES, AND JOHN ORDAINED JOSEPH SMITH TO THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD IN 1829, WHY DID LYMAN WIGHT ORDAIN JOSEPH SMITH TO THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD AGAIN IN 1831?

The actual minutes of this June 1831 conference showing “Joseph Smith jr. & Sidney Rigdon were ordained to the High Priesthood under the hand of br. Lyman Wight” can be viewed on the official Joseph Smith Papers website.

In the Historical Introduction for this conference in the Joseph Smith Papers, they note that there was some confusion as to what it meant to participants.  Records show the "High Priesthood" as another office in the priesthood—what we would call today as a High Priest.  Others associated it with the Melchizedek Priesthood itself, and it appears likely this is how participants understood it.

Given Jeremy's distrust for late sources, I should also note that these minutes were copied in the spring of 1838 by Ebenezer Robinson.  The manuscript of John Whitmer's original June 1831 minutes no longer exists.  Parenthetical remarks appear to have been added in early 1833, which Ebenezer Robinson apparently faithfully copied.

Then again, Jeremy did seem to trust David Whitmer's 1885 interview in an earlier item.  I have no reason to distrust these, but I find it interesting that Jeremy only seems to distrust late claims when they disagree with his point of view.

Anyway, for the actual question: "Why did Lyman Wight ordain Joseph Smith to the Melchizedek Priesthood?" To answer it, I think a reasonable question to first ask is "but who ordained Lyman Wight?"  And in the same minutes, you can see that was Joseph Smith.  This seems to be following the same pattern where Joseph reported in his history that at the organization of the Church, he ordained Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder, and Oliver ordained Joseph, and that this was done by commandment of the Lord.  This is also similar to how Joseph explained that after being ordained by John the Baptist, after Joseph and Oliver baptized each other, they ordained each other.

Joseph Fielding Smith explained that "The priesthood is greater than the office, and all offices in the priesthood, we are taught, are appendages tot he priesthood.  For this reason the keys of the priesthood were conferred upon these men and not the appendages to that priesthood, which were held by common consent in the Church after the organization. … The priesthood with its keys existed before the Church organization, but not the offices in the Church, which belong to the Church and are held by the consent of the same."

I want to go back to talk about some of the confusion in the early days on the High Priesthood, using Parley P. Pratt's 1874 autobiography as an example, where he wrote of the experience, saying "This was the first occasion in which this priesthood had been revealed and conferred upon the Elders in this dispensation, although the office of an Elder is the same in a certain degree, but not in the fulness."  Richard Bushman speaks about the confusion:

The confusion may indicate that the division into two priesthoods, with elders in the higher and priests and teachers in the lower, was not clear before 1831.  Joseph may not have realized that elders were part of the Melchizedek Priesthood already and were being ordained to the office of high priest rather than receiving the powers of the high priesthood.  Although he understood the distinction by the 1840s, he seems to have fallen back into the confusion of those early years when he wrote about the ordinations.  In this case, experience may have outrun comprehension.  Because he knew so little about priesthood at the beginning, Joseph could no more grasp its meaning than he comprehended the full significance of the First Vision as a teenager.  Although he understood such Church offices as teacher and elder, it took time to comprehend that the powers of priesthood were included in the authority that went with those offices.

There's a lot we don't know, sure, but that's true of all history.  And it's a double-edged sword.  They lived it, but didn't write everything down, so they knew it better than we can.  But at the same time, they had to live it, and so didn't know it all at once, while we have the advantage of hindsight.

Next:  Witnesses