AML Invited to JSPP Book of Mormon Manuscript Release Event

The AML was invited to a very interesting release event recently for the latest volume of the Joseph Smith Papers (Revelations and Translations, vol. 5: Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon – Facsimile Edition). There were some unique challenges in creating this volume—the fragmentary and often illegible quality of the original manuscript made presenting images and transcripts very difficult. Volume editor Robin Jensen and editor/designer Riley Lorimer discussed some of these challenges. Here is a (paraphrased) summary of the event: 

Robin Jensen: In 1841, the Saints had a cornerstone ceremony for the in-progress Nauvoo House. It was sort of a time capsule where they deposited various things. As they are about to finish, Joseph Smith runs across the street and grabs the original, dictated manuscript of the Book of Mormon to deposit it. It does seem like they were trying to preserve the manuscript—they poured molten lead around the seams of the box, for example. Then, years later, it’s pulled out and pieces are given out. Today, when you visit Nauvoo, you can get fudge or a brick. Then, you could get a leaf from the Book of Mormon! Various people over the years came back to Utah with whole leaves or fragments. Damage in the cornerstone plus the subsequent harm that came with transporting the pieces back to Utah means that we don’t have all of it. There is about 3% of the portions in private hands, 25% in church possession. There were about 500 or 600 pages—we have portions of 232.

In the late 1940s/early 1950s Ernst Kohler took images of the leaves in LDS Church possession. The manuscript suffered further damage after this so his work was very important. They weren’t as interested in preserving small fragments at that point so pieces were likely thrown away in this process.  In the late 1960s, the manuscript underwent further preservation. They slit the pages down the middle and then sent the pages to a conservation lab in the East where they were laminated (per the best practices of the day). This did some damage so in the 2000s we undid the lamination but, for some of the pages, the damage had been done. Thus, in some cases, the photos from the 1950s are more legible and show the pages in better condition. As part of the 1968 process, the photos show that fragments had been identified and replaced since the photographing of the 1950s.

We have used multispectral imaging which shows the ink differently depending on the light source. We have about 25 images for each page/fragment so we can choose the best image and then, using Photoshop also, we present the portion as legibly as possible. First Nephi is mostly legible. Second Nephi, however, is nearly impossible to read with natural light. Through the multispectral techniques, we can pull out the text to some degree.

We have, then, three sets of images for the text (1950s, 1968 and current images) that you need to be aware of. We have identified fragments (some in private hands) and they have been added in their proper location. Not all of them—for example, we have one with “and it came to pass.” Where, in the 100 possible places, would it go? This has been our task—piecing together all of these fragments so that we can offer to the reader better access to this manuscript than even coming to the Church History Library. We have tried to make the images as legible as humanly possible.

Riley Lorimer: Robin told a  reporter that, if he had a time machine, he would have thrown his body in front of the manuscript to prevent it from being put in the cornerstone. Even after figuring out where the fragments go, bringing it together in a cohesive way in the book is difficult. For example, you photograph a Mylar encased sheet of fragments—they aren’t all from the same original page, though. It looks easy to demonstrate how we made all of this happen but, in real life, it was very difficult! My job, as an editor (not a volume editor but a “wordsmith editor”), was also to design this in a way that it would work for a reader.

I would come to a page of fragment images with Royal’s notes indicating where each one belonged. There were about five to six steps in this process of actually placing these pieces where they needed to go. The pandemic made this much trickier as we had to do this remotely. The naming systems for the fragments were all different which didn’t help. In some cases, the Church History Library doesn’t house them so we had to work with various images from various sources.  Then, “magically” (after hundreds of hours) we have the final page for the book. The transcript mirrors the fragmentary nature with the extant text with white background and the lost text with gray background (this had to be done with individual gray boxes that had to be placed!). So much of the text placement had to be done by eye, comparing the scan of the page/fragment with the typeset transcription. Robin and I would do hours-long video calls where we compared them. Of all the books we have published, this was the most technically difficult to complete and I’m very proud of how it turned out.

Q—Stephen Smoot: You can’t convince me that seer stones isn’t how multispectral imagery works! Suddenly the text appears. It is fascinating to see how the technology has improved over the years.

Robin: Who is to say what kind of technology will come along that will make these images even more readable in the future. Without our MSI team, we couldn’t have done this. Royal (who couldn’t make it today) was brought on to take advantage of his previous work and expertise. We modified his apparatus slightly to conform to the JSP style.

Riley: Nothing gives you a sense of the scope of Royal’s work better than reading through his transcript.

Q—Dan McClellan: I worked on a critical edition of the Psalms scroll so I recognize the amount of work that went into this. Did you consult the Discoveries in the Judean Deseret volumes in producing the book? There may be some elements in those that could improve volumes like this. There are mentions of pre-publication discussion of the text in the introduction. Did those ever help you in transcription?

Robin: We were sort of backed into a corner as this was the final volume in the Revelations & Translations series and we had a design model in place. We wanted people to be able to open any of the JSP volumes and know how they look and work. I’ve looked at other critical text editions—we are 19^th century documentary experts so we have somewhat of a model already of how those are presented.

We relied mostly on Royal’s transcription—he did make some changes since 2001. Some discoveries were made in producing this volume, for example. We really did just update his apparatus for this volume, rather than beginning a new transcription from scratch. If I were to do that, it would look different (that is not a critique, just the reality of two different people). I look forward to this volume paving the way for further work.

Part of the problem with looking at early documents and comparing them to the original manuscript is that we don’t have dictated versions, just copies. If only we had the letters in 1829 between David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery, for example!

Q—Steve Evans: As you look at the text, are you seeing— in real time—changes in location/scribe, etc?

Robin: Yes, with a giant caveat. With a change in scribe, there is a change in real time (Oliver gets tired, they are done for the week, etc.). There are more subtle changes—dulling in quill pens and then sudden sharpening. Does that indicate a break? Maybe—it does take a few minutes to sharpen a quill. Or it could be the beginning of a new day’s work. You can sense when a scribe gets tired sometimes, also. We try to show the data in documentary editing and then there is also interpolation. Oliver is making more mistakes—does that mean he is tired or is something else going on? Some of that can’t be reflected in a transcription. There is an XRF (X-ray fluorescence) scanner that can detect different ink composition so you could scan each page and then create a database with all of that. Historians, however, don’t often consult these types of data. We are trying to make the volumes as useful to as broad a swatch of readers as possible. It’s a tricky balance. But fun!

Q—Ardis Parshall: The first and most exciting thing I noticed was the gray background text. Pages with just a scrap of text. Did you run down the hall screaming when you figured out where they fit?

Robin: Yes, I can admit that here. Christy Best at the CHL had also worked on this as well as Royal over the years. I added my notes and then Riley had to make sense of all three batches of notes! I enjoy puzzles but this goes beyond the average holiday get-together endeavor.

Ardis: This was like putting together the BoM with an Ikea kit. How many leftover pieces were there?

Riley: There are tons of tiny little shards that are unable to be identified.

Robin: However, there are no scraps with recognizable words that weren’t placed. If there are just letters then, no, those weren’t placed, obviously. Those gray boxes come from Royal’s Earliest Text to provide that conjectured text.

Q—Ben Park: Coming from an educator’s perspective and I haul in this volume to class, what would you recommend as a way to dig into this? My students will not be familiar with the Book of Mormon or textual criticism.

Robin: I would suggest introducing the principles of textual criticism. Here we have a text that predates the copy that any missionary would love to give you. What are the limitations of reconstructing a text?

Q—Bryan Buchanan: I thought that the appendix on the University of Chicago leaves was very interesting. I would like to hear more about that element of the book.

Robin: The Chicago manuscripts have quite a history. In 1984, the LDS Church purchased two leaves from the University of Chicago right at the height of Mark Hofmann. They almost immediately became associated with him. When that happened, the documents would be placed aside. This was a good immediate response but we know now that he dealt in legitimate materials also. This is moot, however, because we have good proof that these leaves were in their possession since at least the 1950s (per living memory) and 1920s via other data.

This became a point of scholarly disagreement as to whether they were legitimate leaves. The resolution was to have two signed essays—one from me, one from Royal—which is unusual. Royal argues that there are too many textual oddities. I can appreciate that we need to be careful but I make the argument that they are certainly not Hofmann and also how the textual variants can be there and still be authentic.

Q—Trevor Holyoak: There are a few scribes discussed in the introduction that aren’t usually mentioned. Is some of this new?

Robin: We were able to identify scribes in two ways: 1. historical reconstruction—witnesses to the translation, 2. The text itself—handwriting identification. Oliver Cowdery  did most of the original inscription but John Whitmer is a new find. Royal had his writing as “unidentified” earlier but we are now very confident on him. We do still have an unidentified scribe—Royal is convinced that it is Christian Whitmer. I tend to agree but we only have a signature from him to compare. I’m not comfortable yet but I think it’s a good guess—they are in Fayette for that portion, for example. Joseph Smith wrote two and a half lines—some have speculated that this is when Oliver tries translating but that’s just speculation.

Riley: “Unidentified” scribe is not the one we think might be Christian Whitmer—that is “Scribe 3.” In many cases, there is not enough text there to make a ruling.

Q—Stephen: God forbid, the CHL is on fire. You can only save the original manuscript or the printer’s manuscript—which one do you grab?

Robin: This is the most unfair question ever—I have two arms, don’t I? This depends on which day you ask me. The OM is the original text for a sacred scripture of a world religion. Biblical scholars would kill for this. The PM is complete, however, which is so helpful.

Q—Dan: I have been advocating restoring some of the early readings to the canonized text. Which would you vote for and against?

Robin: I haven’t done a lot of the work necessary to compare the options. Royal is of the opinion that there aren’t many substantial readings that could be added. There are some more subtle ones that could be done. One of the most famous is the “white and delightsome” vs. “pure and delightsome.” I wish we could be a little more transparent on that one—maybe a good, beefy footnote that addresses that and race. I guess what I’m advocating for is more critical style footnotes.