© 2023 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
While most changes to PMS were made for the 1837 ed. the 1830 typesetter did make a few, and I suspect Skousen was able to tell the difference simply by quantity, as well as by correspondence to 1830/1837. The main problem is we still don’t have easy access to OMS that I’m aware of, let alone electronic copy susceptible to computerized analysis. But I will note that according to Stan Larson’s comparison Hel 13:7 is not extant in OMS, nor Hel 13:3 or 12:20. So who’s right, Larson or Skousen (abstract, 1st sentence)?
Anyway I have found orthographic evidence to support Skousen’s claim, for what it’s worth: the variant spelling of led/lead. Both Gilbert and Cowdery tended to correct ‘lead’ to ‘led’ when necessary, yet in at least three instances 1830 reads ‘lead” where PMS reads ‘led,’ suggesting that in those instances 1830 relied on OMS. These three instances are Hel 13:29, 15:7 and 3Ne 18:25, all within the text under question. No doubt numerous other spelling variants could be brought to bear on the problem. –AGF
I missed 2 out of 3 Larson references, one critical. They are Hel 13:3, 13:17, and 13:20, not extant in OMS. –AGF
RS’ attribution (2nd paragraph) of MS emendation to the typesetter is contradicted not only by the MS evidence but by the typesetter himself, who insisted that the only changes made were of punctuation, none of which can be found in the MSS. Unemended PMS agrees with 1830; emended PMS with 1837. The editors of the 1837 ed. evidently went back to the MSS expecting to find a better text than the printer’s, and never changed course (maybe indicating the then perceived value of loose paper vs. bound book). We will have to find other lines of evidence to show that OMS and PMS were ever switched by Hyrum. –AGF