![]() |
Edward Stevenson (1820-1897) |
I’ve recently been doing some research on Martin Harris, and
specifically trying to document all the occasions we have on record of when he
bore testimony of the Book of Mormon. While reading H. Michael Marquardt’s
paper “Martin
Harris: The Kirtland Years, 1831–1870,” I noticed he referenced a journal entry by
Edward Stevenson in a footnote (p. 39 n.154, brackets Marquardt’s):
Stevenson recorded in his journal: “[F]ou[n]d Bond Temple & Keeper Mertin harris Who Bore testamoney of the angle [angel] Reccords & the T[—] &c took through Temple” (Edward Stevenson Journal, typed copy, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, original in LDS archives, entry for 9 Feb. 1870).
Edward Stevenson, who was instrumental in bringing Martin
Harris back to Utah, published several accounts of his visits with Martin
Harris in the 1880s and ’90s, and the Deseret News published a letter he
sent about his conversation with Martin in August 1870. But I hadn’t previously
been aware of his contemporary documentation in his journal. Since this was an
example of the exact thing I was looking for, I decided it was worth it to try
hunting down the original source, rather than just rely on Marquardt. I am
glad I did.
Marquardt, as you can see, is citing the typed copy of
Stevenson’s journal, which is available online from the Church
History Library (you’ll want to go to p. 259 of the PDF). First, I noticed that
it is not the entry for Feb. 9, 1870, as Martquardt cites it, but rather Feb.
11, 1870, which accords with later sources from Stevenson. On the PDF, you can
see the paragraph does start with reference to “Wds 9,” that is Wednesday, Feb.
9, 1870, but the next sentence has “Ths 10,” and before we reach Kirtland and
Martin Harris, we have a reference to “Fri 5 A M,” which clearly means they
arrived at Willoby at 5 in the morning
on Friday, Feb. 11, 1870.
You can also see that as opposed to Martquardt’s placement
of “keeper” after the ampersand (&), it’s actually above:
This is a minor point, to be sure, but it does mean that the
choice to place keeper after the ampersand is an interpretation on
Marquardt’s part—a reasonable one, based this transcript.
Also note that there is indeed a word beginning with a “T” that
was deemed illegible by the transcriptionist, represented as “T[—]” by
Marquardt, and as a T with a written squiggling line and a question mark on the
official transcript.
Well, I wanted to know what that word was. It’s only a minor
thing, but it is something Martin testified to along with the appearance of the
angel and the record, so it is important to what I am trying to study here, not
to mention that historians in general value getting even the most minute
details figured out.
Fortunately for me, the actual handwritten journal is also
online from the Church
History Library (p. 98/126 in the file):
One of the first things I noticed (not the least of which
being because the ink’s been smudged so it sort of glows here) is that “keeper”
looks like it was actually wedged in at an angle in front of and above the “+”
sign (transcribed as &), suggesting it is actually meant to be read before,
not after after the “and”. Whether this means the “Bond Temple Keeper” was
someone separate from Martin Harris or not is unclear, but that does become a
possible reading here.
More interesting to me, however, is that illegible word at
the end of the screenshot above. That’s the word transcribed as T[—]. Here’s a
close up:
My initial thought was that it started with a “Tr” toward
the end had either an “set” or “slt.” I wracked my brain trying to think what the
rest of the word could be, and kept asking myself “What else would Martin
Harris testify to with the plates and the angel?” but could not come up with
anything that seemed to fit. So I gave up.
Several hours later, however, that same day, I was casually
flipping through a recently acquired book, it dawned on me: translation.
(Actually, truth be told, I first thought “translated,” but eventually realized
“translation” made more sense.) The moment the word came to my mind, it seemed
so obvious—in the same vision in which Martin saw the angel and the plates, he
heard the voice of God testify that the translation was correct. So in recording
what he heard Martin testify of in his journal (no doubt a mere summary of a
more detailed conversation), Stevenson could reasonably have written that Martin
“bore testimony of the angel, records, and the translation, etc.” (I’ve obviously
corrected spelling and punctuation here).
So I naturally went back to look at it again. Carefully scrutinizing
the scribbled word, I’ll admit “translation” might seem like a bit of a
stretch, but I do think it is plausible, and can’t think of a more sensible
word in context. Let me walk you through my thinking:
This looks like the “Tr”:
And this looks like either “slt” or “set”
So that gives us “Tr[…]s{l/e}t[…].”
This would be an incompletely formed “a”, thus looking a
more like a “u”:
There is a weird hump on the back of the “s” that looks like
nothing, but could be an attempt to add an “n” after the fact:
If the loop after the “s” is read as an “e”, then I assume
he used the wrong vowel and accidently omitted the “l.” I think it is more
likely that the loop should be read as an “l” and either the “a” was accidentally
omitted, or the small jut on the line sloping up into the “t” was intended to
be the “a”:
The final part after the “t” is the trickiest. As I read it,
I assume that he initially excluded the “i” and so his pen stroke coming down
from the “t” leads into a very smushed together “on”:
It then looks like maybe he tried adding the “i” afterwards:
Admittedly, this is not a certain reading. And whether I am
right or not, it’s clear enough that Stevenson heard Martin bear witness his
testimony as one of the three witnesses—of seeing the angel and the plates. But
if I am correct, then it means that Martin also mentioned hearing the voice
bear witness of the translation on this occasion.
Perhaps not a momentous observation, but an added detail
that, I imagine, most would historians would be happy to have.
Anyhow, I know this was not the most exciting post (especially
after several months of not posting anything at all!), but I hope it was of
interest to some. I’d welcome any feedback on my reading on this mysterious
word and any alternative proposals others can think of.
UPDATE 10/29/2019: In a private conversation, Gregory L. Smith
suggested to me that translation is indeed the correct word, but that is
it written without vowels in order to abbreviate, i.e. Trnsltn. I won’t do
another character-by-character evaluation, but looking over the hard to read
word again, I think this is plausible and requires less creative interpretation
than my own proposal does. Interested Readers can look over the word and
decided from themselves.
UPDATE 10/30/2019: In an article about his visit with Martin
Harris in the Millennial Star 48, no. 23 (June 7, 1886), Stevenson
mentions a “Mr. Bond” who let him preach in the temple. “Bond Temple Keeper”
likely refers to this Mr. Bond and not Martin Harris.
Fascinating contribution, thanks! If "Trnsltn.", which does seem reasonable, is there any sense to adding the apparent "i" above the other letters? Or is that an "io" to clarify the abbreviation in a quick afterthought?
ReplyDeleteHi Jeff,
DeleteGood question. I think that "Trnsltn" is probably the most reasonable reading; based on that I would guess that the blot of ink I thought might be an attempt to add an "i" is more likely just an ink blot that from a drip of the pen or something along those lines.
Fascinating. Good to know trivia!
ReplyDelete