Did the priesthood restoration story change over time?

It shows Joseph’s early outline already connected priesthood with angels, but it does not identify the later visitors. The missing names leave a real question about when those details were disclosed.

You state both what the 1832 record supports and what it leaves open. That gap is worth examining, but it is not by itself proof that the later account was invented.

The 1832 record mentions angels, so it already contains the complete story.

It supports an early general claim of priesthood through angels. It does not name the visitors or narrate a second conferral, so don’t claim more than the document says.

He describes both a vision and receiving priesthood under the angel’s hand. His letter is about the authority connected with baptism.

Both descriptions appear in one early account. That complicates a simple shift from visionary language to concrete detail. The letter concerns baptismal authority.

It describes a vision, so the details about receiving authority under an angel’s hand must have appeared later.

Cowdery uses both descriptions in the same passage. A source can recount visionary and concrete details together.

No. The early form is brief and concerns sacrament. The 1835 revision adds a list of heavenly messengers, including Peter, James, and John, and says they ordained Joseph and Oliver as apostles.

You accurately describe the textual development. The named visitors are a later addition to the surviving revelation text, so acknowledge that chronology directly.

The 1835 text is still scripture, so the difference between versions doesn’t matter.

Its canonical status is a faith question, but the textual difference matters to your friend’s historical question. Explain what the early and expanded versions contain.

It says their voice was heard in the wilderness between Harmony and Colesville, but it does not give a date. The timing remains uncertain in the historical record.

You distinguish a location from a date. The letter supports the claimed event and place, but it cannot settle when the visit occurred.

Yes, D&C 128 gives enough detail to date the visit to 1829.

The letter situates the voice geographically, not chronologically. D&C 128 does not specify a calendar date for Peter, James, and John.