Citing the Joseph Smith Papers is Annoying

One of the few things more annoying than citing a volume in a series is citing a volume in a series-within-a-series. Such is the case with the new Joseph Smith Papers volume, which is volume 1 of the Journals series within the larger Joseph Smith Papers series. To their credit, the project editors have posted citation guidelines on their website to assist the confused. They recommend the following format for footnotes and endnotes:

Dean C. Jessee, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Richard L. Jensen, eds., Journals, Volume 1: 1832–1839, vol. 1 of the Journals series of The Joseph Smith Papers, ed. Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2008), 67.

I usually prefer, though, to cite historical documents directly, followed by the notation "as published in [cite critical edition here]." When you do this, you usually move the editors' names after the book title. At this point things get ugly. I think it would look something like this:

Joseph Smith Journal, 1835-1836, p. 2, as published in Journals, Volume 1: 1832–1839, eds. Dean C. Jessee, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Richard L. Jensen, vol. 1 of the Journals series of The Joseph Smith Papers, ed. Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman (Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2008), 67.

When you start doing shortened citations, God only knows what it should look like. Believe it or not, this isn't the worst I've seen. I've seen a book that is a part of two series simultaneously, each with about a dozen different editors, and it was a different volume number in both series. It was also published in several different cities and had several volume authors and editors. I mean, come on, people. Jesus. If you expect us to use your work, make it easy to use.

That is all.