Paul Reeve has commented on his post of yesterday regarding the newly discovered Elijah Able document, a note which needs more prominent placement than an ordinary comment.

He writes:

I need to make a point of clarification. I did not personally find this new document. The Joseph Smith Papers team recently—and with no fanfare—updated the bio of Elijah Able at the Joseph Smith papers site. The update included these new words: “Ordained an elder by Ambrose Palmer, 25 Jan. 1836.” Intrigued, I looked at the footnote which contained a link to a digital scan of the new document [.pdf download link]. There it was, publicly available for the world to see. The JSP team sometimes does this from what I can gather—make electronic updates to their sources and say nothing about them, even when they are a big deal, like this new source seems to be. The footnote that the JSP team created reads “Joseph F. Smith, Notes on Elijah Able, undated [likely ca. 1879], CHL.” I learned that the Joseph Smith Papers team verified it was Joseph F. Smith’s handwriting and had concluded that it likely originated in 1879, as seems obvious when one is aware of the records of the Taylor investigation that year into Able’s priesthood. I also noticed that the LDS Church History Department had updated its bio of Able on its Saints history topics site. I followed their lead and updated the bio of Able at Century of Black Mormons. Ardis then agreed to host a blog post about the new document here at Keepapitchinin. I do not deserve credit for finding it. The Joseph Smith Papers and Church History Department really are doing what they can to make sources available, sometimes surprisingly so, such as when something like this shows up unannounced.

There is very little that is more distressing to an honest scholar than to be given credit that rightfully belongs to colleagues. I don’t know who at the Church History Library first laid eyes on this document and recognized its importance – would love to hear the story – but that person or persons, or the institution as a whole if their ethos won’t allow them to single out one responsible person, deserves the honors of discovery. That the historians and archivists at CHL vetted the document and then quietly placed it where it belongs, without fanfare, speaks to their commitment to scholarship and to documenting our past fully, fairly, and candidly.

Acknowledging those responsible for the discovery, however, does not in any way diminish what Paul has done in his post drawing attention to this document: The document’s importance is far greater than merely filling in a few blanks on a membership record for Elijah Able. Far beyond that, Paul’s analysis – reread the last few paragraphs of yesterday’s post – enlightens us on the “universal nature of the early gospel message” without regard to race; it further confirms the gradually hardening priesthood restriction, through, in part, the evolving memories of Joseph F. Smith.