Here is a PDF copy of the proposal, as well as a copy of the powerpoint I had made to present my proposal.
Introduction
Before getting into the actual proposal of how to arrange the MOP Collection, it is crucial to understand various archival terms in connection with arrangement, as well as arrangement best practices. This will inevitably help LACAP determine how the MOP Collection should be defined, and therefore how it should be arranged, in order to best serve its intended audience’s use. The subsequent archival terms used and their definitions are taken from the Society of American Archivists (SAA), which is “North America’s oldest and largest professional association dedicated to the needs and interests of archives and archivists” and who “serves as the preeminent resource for the profession”. Also used are two articles on arrangement: Archival Arrangement: Five Different Operations at Five Different Levels by Oliver W. Holmes and Archival Principles of Arrangement by T.R. Schellenberg.
Firstly, what is an archive? SAA gives multiple definitions, but the most useful in this circumstance is “a physical or digital collection of historical records”. These records, then, belong to a collection, or “a set of archival or (more commonly) manuscript materials” that are “assembled by a person, organization, or repository from a variety of sources”. A collection can then either be “the holdings of a repository, taken as a whole” or as “a thematic aggregation of sets of otherwise unrelated archival materials”; examples of both will be provided in the context of LACAP’s MOP Collection in the following section. There are then two types of collections: organic collections, basically the manuscripts and other documents when held by the creating institution, and artificial collections, which are when organic collections are handed over to an archive. Once the archive receives an organic collection, it becomes an artificial collection through the process of arrangement, or the organizing of the materials “with respect to their provenance and original order”, which in turn creates an order, or “meaningful sequence”, of the record group (“a collection of records that share the same provenance or were created in the same administrative unit”). Another prominent term in conjunction with provenance, and is usually strictly an archival term, is respect des fonds, and means “the principle of maintaining records according to their origin and in the units in which they were originally accumulated”. Again, these terms will become a little more understandable once applied to the context of LACAP’s MOP Collection.
With the base definitions now out of the way, let’s turn to arrangement practices as expressed within the two aforementioned articles. As explained in Archival Arrangement: Five Different Operations at Five Different Levels, there are different levels of arrangement, and each level has a different function or purpose. However, all levels of arrangement should “preserve [the documents] in such a way and at such places that their significance will be apparent and that the evidence they contain will be preserved”. Typically this arrangement should be done in two ways: through provenance and through original order. In terms of provenance, this “means that records should be kept in separate units that correspond to their sources in organic bodies. Each unit should be treated as an integral unit. Each unit should be kept intact. Records from one source should not be merged with those from another”. Provenance, then, should coincide with the depository level, where “the breakdown of the depository’s complete holdings into a few major divisions on the broadest common denominator possible and the physical placement of holdings of each such major division to best advantage in the building’s stack areas” and is “usually reflected in parallel administrative units (divisions or branches in the depository organization that are given responsibility for these major groupings)”. Original order, however, will most likely be used in subsequent levels of arrangement (record group, series, file, and document), as it means just what you’d expect it to: the order of the documents as it was maintained by the creating institution.
There are some ‘rules’ that have been agreed upon in order to maintain both provenance and original order. First, items from one institution cannot be mixed in with items from another institution. Connectedly, there should be no overlapping between different collections/record groups/ series/etc., as “records cannot be placed physically in two different places”. Thirdly, “so far as possible, all the contents of a record group should be kept together in one place in the stacks”, in order to mitigate ease of access. Finally, “the arrangement, whatever it is, should be one that will contribute to an understanding of the significance of the records and make them intelligible to the user”. In the following section, it will become apparent that the arrangement of the MOP as it currently exists goes against these rules.
MOP Collection as it Currently Stands
Now with the definitions of archival terminology and practices of arrangement more generally explained, I will now apply them more specifically to our own work. Firstly, the collection as seen as “the holdings of a repository” is the LACAP Collection as a whole, while the more specific and “thematic aggregation” will be the MOP Collection; in this case, the MOP is a subset of LACAP, which makes sense as it is a specific part of the greater whole. However, the MOP collection as it currently stands is not really a thematic aggregation in its arrangement. I believe that this is partially due to the fact that ‘MOP’ is not consistently or well-defined as it stands as a collection, nor does it have a focused intent on how it should be viewed and used by its intended audience. Therefore, before any further arrangement can be enforced, the definition of the MOP and its audience must be clearly defined; the options for the definition of ‘MOP’ especially will subsequently tie into the different options of arrangement, which will be explored in the following section.
In connection with this issue is that the provenance has been lost and the original order has been disrupted. Currently, Sheila has found very little paperwork concerning the accrual or acquisition of the items that make up the MOP Collection. It is not even known if this information exists, and even if it does, trying to collect it all would be a very time consuming and arduous undertaking. Furthermore, Evan Boyd has noted that “the Seminary was originally owned by the General Council until the formation of the ULCA, which then took over as its owner. It wasn’t until the ‘50s that LTSP became its own, separate legal entity. This complicates ownership since there are no explicit letters of gift and is further complicated by the ELCA still existing—do records created before its legal creation belong to its former owner or are they property of the new legal entity?”. These ownership issues should definitely be addressed before further action is taken.
As for the original order of the items as they came in from the various congregations, that has been completely disassembled by Luther Reed, as Sheila and I were also told by Evan. This is clearly evident in the current arrangement and call number system of the MOP Collection, which is completely arbitrary and impractical. In theory, the classification outline makes sense, especially in the call numbers beginning with A through D; these headings clearly indicate the types of materials that can be found. However, in practice, these groupings are not as helpful. For example, there is a lot of overlap between the groupings, as evident from double cutter numbers being used (i.e. A14 D50, which connects general synodical documents with conferences). Also, some of the items within these sections seem to be concerned with, not the general synodical structure, but with individual congregations. This becomes even more apparent in the subsequent call number groupings, and especially in the H call number section, which contains a lot of programs for events or anniversaries of specific congregations. In effect, this call number system depicts how broad the current MOP Collection is, and how confusing in its structure it currently stands, especially in connection to the other LACAP holdings. Evan agrees, mentioning: “Reed’s classification system is organized like how libraries organize knowledge. While the lower level letters appear to be structured like an organization, the higher you get the more subject-like it becomes. For instance: A and B appear to be executive records, such as minutes and correspondence. H appears to be “congregational”-related stuff (individual churches but also boards of education for some reason), J is the seminary, and K is Muhlenberg. Women’s Home Missions (In the F’s, I believe?) are nowhere near the general Missions (M’s?). For some of these things, like the seminary, it attempted to be the actual archive of the organization. In other cases, like Muhlenberg College, it is just a collection of random publications; more like a vertical file (and just glancing at the Muhlenberg materials, I don’t think any of that really should stay in the MOP collection; it’s not archival and Muhlenberg is the primary repository for the material—offer it to them and throw out what they don’t want)”. This subject arrangement, then, “ not only obscures the source of records in organic bodies and organic activities; it also destroys the original order imposed on them. It is thus a violation of both the principle of provenance and the principle of original order”.
A final issue with the MOP collection as it currently exists concerns location. Location issues can first be evident by the abandonment of the aforementioned arrangement schema created by Luther Reed. Evan again mentioned that, after Reed’s death in the 1970s, LACAP “stopped filing materials in Reed’s classification system and just put things in boxes on shelves. This has led to records being filed in multiple places”. Then, though a lot of items are held in shelves 1B, they are not necessarily shelved according to call number order, nor is that the only location in which MOP items can be found. This lack of unified orderliness prevents us from knowing what items are physically within the collection and where to find them. Moreover, this leads to security issues as exemplified by the George Washington letter debacle. In conjunction with the current call number arrangement, the items holding the most importance due to their rarity, content, context, etc. are not currently located where they can be easily and readily monitored. For these reasons, finding a better arrangement schema is critical.
With my previously limited knowledge and interaction with Lutheranism, Lutheran history in America, and LACAP, it was difficult for me to know what was meant by ‘MOP’ as it is used within the title of the MOP Collection. After some research as well as time working with the collection, I still have not yet pinpointed what is meant, and I think that is because there are so many potential definitions for the term MOP both in terms of the more general Lutheran history in America as well as its use in connection with LACAP’s collection. In my opinion, there are three main ways to define the MOP historically speaking that can then be applied to this collection within LACAP (which will be the respective foundations for Options 1-3 below) as well as one less clear definition that is currently being used for the collection (which will be the basis for both Options 4 and 5).
The first proposed definition of the MOP is by far the most narrow, for it is concerned solely with “the first permanent Lutheran synodical structure in America, an organization that came to be known as the Ministerium of Pennsylvania”. Under this definition, the MOP Collection would only contain documents associated with the formation of this organization in 1748, and probably lasting only until the early- to mid-1800s, as well as any documents concerning Henry Melchoir Muhlenberg and other prominent early Lutheran figures. Only slightly broader is the second proposed definition, which would build on the first definition by adding documents from “The Original Congregations of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania”. Most inclusive by far of the three historically-based definitions of the MOP is this third one, which follows the Lutheran Chart of Mergers. This definition also has the most room for interpretation amongst the three, depending on how many stages are desired to be reflected in the arrangement (for example, Sheila and I have discussed having the MOP encompass the years 1748 through to 1918 despite the fact that three other ‘eras’ are within that timeline; subsequent ‘eras’ would be ULC from 1918-1962, LCA from 1962-1988, and finally ELCA from 1988 to present). Finally, the last two options would have the MOP being arbitrarily defined in connection with what items are already contained within the MOP Collection; for example, Evan provides this definition: “the materials composed by the Ministerium of Pennsylvania and General Council archives up until the creation of the 501(c)3 organization, the Lutheran Archives Center at Philadelphia”.
The last thing to go over before going into the various options for arrangement is defining the potential audience. This will definitely need to be explored via discussion among Sheila, Lisa, and I, and potentially further discussed with the board, but in my limited view, the audience for this collection are researchers. Obviously the type of researcher and their needs would depend on the definition of the collection, and as we go through the definitions, the type of researcher would broaden. A slightly more in-depth analysis of the audience and their needs will be addressed in the subsequent section within the various options.
Options for Arrangement of the MOP Collection
In total, I have come up with five options for the arrangement of the MOP Collection which have been determined through the definition of ‘MOP’ to be used. These options can be separated into three different categories in terms of arrangement: completely overhauling the MOP Collection as it currently stands (Options 1-3); reorganizing the MOP Collection as it currently stands (Option 4); and implementing no reorganization to the MOP Collection (Option 5). Each option will be explained below, and pros and cons of each option will be discussed. As an aside, these options are not set in stone, but are rather a framework, (based on my limited knowledge in Lutheran history and my more in-depth, personal interaction with the items currently held within the collection) that can be altered once further discussions have been conducted.
Option 1
This option follows the narrowest of the aforementioned definitions of the MOP: the creation of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania by Henry Melchoir Muhlenberg in 1748 and subsequent related documents. Now, the latter part of this definition is a little vague, and would need to be determined through further discussion, but I see this to include any items pertaining to the formation of the synodical structure of Lutheranism in America, such as minutes, constitutions and by-laws, financial records, etc. that have to do with this structuring. In addition, I see this as also encompassing personal papers of the prominent figures who helped form this structure, for example, those papers pertaining to Muhlenberg. I am less confident on what years this definition would encompass, probably the early- or mid-1800s, but further research and discussions can be held concerning this topic. After my own research, I have determined three potential cut-off dates: 1787, when Henry Melchior Muhlenberg died; 1820, when “the initial outlines of American Lutheran structures were becoming evident…” and also when the General Synod was formed; or 1853, when the Ministerium of Pennsylvania rejoined the General Synod.
In terms of arrangement, I see this option as having two main series that will then have subsequent subseries. The first series would include all administrative records, which would then be broken down by type: minutes, ‘legal’ documents (i.e. constitutions and by-laws), financial records, etc. The second would focus on personal papers and would be broken down by person; for example, what immediately comes to mind are all the diaries and personal papers written by Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, though I am sure there are other figures who can have their own subseries. This arrangement would therefore reflect the needs of its audience, which could be defined quite specifically as researchers interested in or concerned with early Lutheran history in America as well as prominent early American Lutheran figures.
If this option is chosen, there would be quite a number of positive results. Firstly, I believe this option would get as close as possible to the original order of the items. This is because it would remove items that came from specific congregations, which clearly came from different provenances. Connectedly, this will make the MOP Collection into a smaller special collection within LACAP’s holdings, therefore ensuring that all ‘important, unique, and rare’ items are actually emphasized instead of being hidden within its current larger and less structured collection. This would then lead to a further benefit concerning location. Firstly, because the collection will be a lot smaller, it should all fit in one location, which would most likely be the shelves in 1B. Secondly, because of this, the location will address security issues, as 1B is located within eyesight of any archivist working within the vault (and by security cameras?). Finally, this would also alleviate our job in assisting researchers as all of the items pertaining to this proposed MOP definition are held in one spot, making it easier to find relevant items.
Despite these advantages, there are also a few downsides to this option that would need to be weighed against the positives. Namely, this would be a complete overhaul of, not only the MOP Collection, but also to the rest of LACAP’s holdings. Therefore, this could shock board members and other interested parties, leading to discussions that might overshadow and stall action from being taken. Similarly, we would need to find a way to move items removed from the current MOP Collection into the main stacks of the vault, while also maintaining separation from items in the stacks of which we do have provenance and original order preserved. I believe, though, that this can be easily accomplished: all we would need to do is put items from the MOP that concern the same congregation in a separate box, and note in the box’s record that it was previously part of the pre-2022 MOP Collection. A final hardship with choosing this option is determining a cut-off date; however, I believe there will be a natural endpoint that can be discovered through further research of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania’s formation as well as by going through the items held within the current MOP Collection.
Option 2
This option would follow the second, slightly broader definition that combines Option 1 with documents from the original congregations. These original congregations are already determined by a list existing in LACAP’s holdings, and include 25 congregations: New Hanover (1700); Trinity, Hecktown (1703); Zion, Reeds, Stouchsburg (1727); St. Michaels, Germantown (1728); Augustus, Trappe (1730); Little Zion, Earlington (1730); Emmanuel, Brickerville (1730); Frieden’s, Bernville (1730); Christ, Strausstown (1730); St. Luke’s, Hellertown (1730); St. Joseph’s, Hill Church (1731); Alsace, Reading (1732); Muddy Creek (1732); Old Goshenhoppen (1732); Jordan, Orefield (1734); Zion, Moselem (1737); Schwartzwald (1737); St. Paul’s, Red Hill (1739); St. Paul’s, Coopersburg (1739); St. John’s, Easton (1740); Jerusalem, 2 mi. W. Allentown (1741); St. Michael-Zion, Philadelphia, Ger. (1742); Zion, East Pikeland (1743); Christ, Stouchsburg (1743); and Peace, Weisel (1743). Any documents pertaining to these congregations, whether they be minutes, financial records, programs, etc., would remain within the MOP, while documents from other congregations will be removed from this collection.
Subsequently, I would imagine that the arrangement would go as follows. The first series would be an amalgamation of all the items mentioned in Option 1, and could be titled ‘Creation of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania as a Synodical Structure’. The subseries within this series would go along the lines of minutes, financial records, and personal papers. The next 25 series will be separated by the aforementioned congregations, and will follow the same subseries structure: there would be a subseries for constitutions and by-laws, for minutes, for financial records, and for records tied to specific events (such as programs, correspondence, etc). I believe this organizational structure would be helpful for researchers concerned with early Lutheran history in America in connection with both early congregations as well as the formation of the synodical structure, which would include prominent figures; as well, it would benefit genealogists who specifically are looking for baptism, marriage, and/or death records from these early congregations.
Like Option 1, Option 2 provides similar benefits and drawbacks in its proposed arrangement. Firstly for benefits, it continues Option 1’s status of a smaller special collection, which would lead to the aforementioned location-related advantages (one spot, security, researchers). In addition, this is less dramatic than Option 1, making it an easier option to defend, especially because there is actual document support for this as evident by Figure 2 in the Appendix. However, this leads to various questions concerning the items within the stacks of the vault, though I do have some prospective solutions. What should the cut-off year be? This becomes tricky because some of the original congregations might have continued to be in use up until the present, and might then make this collection larger than it should be. I propose, then, to have the cut-off date reflect whatever date we would have decided for Option 1, so probably sometime mid-1800s. Again, a more specific date would need to be decided by further research and discussion. What would we do with items that fall outside of this cut-off date? What do we do with items currently in the MOP that don’t adhere to this proposed definition? As mentioned in Option 1, anything currently in the MOP Collection that would need to be removed can go in the regular stacks, being separated by congregation and then separated further from the items already in the stacks by separate boxes that has a note in the record stating that these items came from the pre-2022 MOP Collection. What about items from these congregations located in the stacks of the vault that are before the cut-off date? Do we move those into the MOP Collection? The solution to these two questions is a little trickier, though we could follow the same guidelines for the previous question: they would be held in separate boxes and the record would note that these items were not part of the pre-2022 MOP Collection as well as any accrual information we possess.
Option 3
Admittedly, Option 3, with the MOP being defined as an era, is the most difficult to pin down concretely, and this is because, throughout the history of Lutheranism in America, there have been many mergers and dispersals and readmissions to various Lutheran synodical organizations. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the strict end-point of one organization from the beginning of another. However, as mentioned in the definition, we could try to limit the eras of Lutheranism in America to four different time periods, each of which would constitute its own series: the Pennsylvania Ministerium (1748-1918), the ULC (1918-1962), the LCA (1962-1988), and the ELCA (1988-present). Subseries would be uniform throughout: each subseries would be for a specific congregation with further subcategories for different kinds of documents: administrative (minutes, constitutions, by-laws, financial records), personal papers, event records (programs, correspondence), etc. In short, the arrangement of this would be quite complicated, especially because this would most likely mean an overhaul, not just of the MOP Collection, but the other LACAP holdings.
There are some benefits in considering this option. Firstly, there is documentary evidence in support of this arrangement, as provided in Figure 3 of the Appendix. Another benefit is that there would be consistency in arrangement throughout all of LACAP’s holdings. That, though, is the end of the benefits, and there are quite a few more negatives. Firstly, and most importantly, this would potentially separate like items, such as minutes held in various volumes, due to their date, therefore disrupting original order. Even though provenance and original order could be retained through the digital record, it still does not make sense to implement this change. Additionally, this would further separate items from the same congregation, which is an aspect of the current MOP Collection arrangement that should be addressed by a new arrangement scheme, not continued or worsened. Finally, this would not change the efficacy in assisting researchers, as information would be widespread throughout LACAP’s entire holdings.
Option 4
Option 4 presents an arrangement scheme that requires a slight reorganization of the current MOP Collection. I would amend Evan’s proposed definition as follows: the reorganized materials composed by the Ministerium of Pennsylvania and General Council archives up until the creation of the 501(c)3 organization, the Lutheran Archives Center at Philadelphia. I have emphasized ‘reorganized’ because, even though no items would be removed from or added to this collection, as would be done in Options 1 through 3, this option would still abolish the current call number schema as it currently exists. This is because items concerning the same congregation are separated due to the subject they pertain to; I believe this is not functional because, for example, most researchers will want to access information about a single congregation, rather than all of the anniversary programs across congregations.
To fix this issue, the arrangement would probably be organized as follows. The first series would be reserved for general documents, such as Ministerium of Pennsylvania materials (subseries 1a) and personal papers (subseries 1b). The following series would be broken down by congregation, and the subseries for each congregation would follow the same pattern: minutes (a); financial records (b); programs for events or anniversaries (c); etc.. This pattern would then inevitably be mimicked by the other collections within the main stacks of the vault, therefore ensuring consistency and allowing researchers to more easily determine where the item(s) they are looking for are probably located.
Not only does this option provide more consistency throughout LACAP’s holdings and therefore ease of access by researchers, but it provides other benefits. Firstly, this option is not as jarring of a change as Options 1 through 3, and therefore could be more popular with the board and other relevant parties. However, this option provides the groundwork to carry out the larger changes of Options 1 or 2 in the future, because Series 1 would basically be comprised of most if not all of the items that would be presented in these two aforementioned smaller special collections, while the subsequent series would be the items that could be integrated into the main stacks of the vault. This can similarly combat security issues, depending on how it is physically shelved (I would definitely recommend putting the proposed first series of general documents in a highly visible area, because they would contain the ‘most important’ items). Despite these advantages, there are a few negatives in choosing this option. Firstly, further rearrangement will probably need to be carried out again in the future, as already mentioned, meaning even more time will need to be spent on this collection, which is probably not preferable. This option also does not address items from the same congregations that are located outside of the MOP Collection, and might be found in NEPA/SEPA/etc; will connecting them digitally be enough? Finally, this collection would serve an extremely broad audience with
diverse needs, which is not the intended goal of a thematically aggregated collection.
Option 5
This last option, which would follow Evan’s proposed definition of the MOP Collection as “the materials composed by the Ministerium of Pennsylvania and General Council archives up until the creation of the 501(c)3 organization, the Lutheran archives Center at Philadelphia” following Luther Reed’s classificaton, keeps the MOP Collection as is. There would be no dismantling of the current call number schema, and the only reorganization would be to ensure that the items are in call number order (currently this is not strictly the case). Obviously, then, the arrangement does not need to be discussed, as there is already an organizational system imposed on the collection.
As I see it, there are two positives to choosing this option. Firstly, no large changes have to be made, and so the board and other relevant parties do not need to be alerted. Secondly, because there is no organizational upheaval, the collection can be more quickly catalogued and uploaded to PastPerfect, therefore allowing for more immediate access to the collection by researchers. However, there are a number of negatives to this option. Firstly, there is no meaningful organization that attempts to address previous provenance and original order. This, then, makes it more difficult to find like items, especially all items from a single congregation. Furthermore, this does not combat location and connected security issues, because the ‘more important’ items are distributed between call numbers (namely call numbers beginning with A and P). Finally, this option would have an extremely broad audience with various research needs.
Personal Recommendation and Reasons
After debating the different options and actually working with the materials within the collection as it currently stands, I have personal opinions on each of them as well as a personal recommendation on which option should be implemented.
I definitely believe that Option 1 is the best option for the collection moving forward. The MOP Collection as it currently stands has been disrupted in terms of original order as created by the donating institution as well as in terms of provenance as there is currently no accession paperwork to be found. If the current arrangement facilitated its use by researchers, this would not be such a big deal. However, there is no given benefit to maintaining the collection as it currently exists. To rectify this, Option 1 would provide the most benefits: it would ensure that the most interesting/rare/important parts of the MOP are highlighted; it would address security issues by moving all of these most interesting/rare/important documents to the open shelves where an eye can be kept on them; and it prevents congregation records from one, hiding the more important documents, and two, being in multiple locations. Retaining the fact that the proposed removed items were once part of the MOP Collection is easy: we can either give the same accession number to all current MOP items (especially if no accession information can otherwise be found), or we can just note in the record that these items ‘once belonged to the pre-2022 MOP Collection’ and give a brief explanation as to the decision of why they were removed. Similarly, I think Option 2 is preferable for most of the same reasons, the only real difference being that a few more items will remain in the MOP Collection, leading to a few more series and subseries to be constructed.
Option 4 is definitely a middle of the road choice, as it retains the MOP Collection as it currently is, but allows for better usability. We would not have to do much, I believe, to elicit board approval, because all of the items that are currently in the MOP Collection would remain in the collection. Instead, work would be done to try to get back as close as possible to the original arrangement, because it would organize the collection according to congregation, which would most likely be the institutional source of the items (i.e. would reflect possible provenance). It would also remove the arbitrary and unhelpful call number schema. However this option will only be fully functional if items from specific congregations can be digitally connected to the relevant items in the main stacks within the vault, meaning that more headway would need to be made in processing the backlist items (which should be more easily done now, as a new part-time archivist has been hired).
Finally, I believe Option 3 and Option 5 are the least desirable options. Option 3 brings up the question of how to incorporate the rest of LACAP’s items into the schema, which is inevitably more work than it's worth. In order to implement this option, all of LACAP’s holdings would need to be overhauled, that way the different eras could be satisfied. While this would create consistency throughout the holdings, it would increase the current issues instead of solving them, and would create further questions. In fact, upon further reflection, Option 3 might actually be the worst option to choose, even compared to Option 5, which essentially leaves the MOP Collection as it currently stands. However, Option 5 still decreases the usability of the collection and does not address the location and security issues that are currently encountered, as mentioned in the pros and cons section of Option 5 in the previous section.
Conclusions
As the SAA Dictionary states, arrangement is “the process of organizing materials with respect to their provenance and original order, to protect their context and to achieve physical or intellectual control over the materials”. The MOP Collection, as it currently stands, does not follow this definition due to the organizational choices made by Luther Reed and the subsequent decision to start anew after his death. In order to fix this problem, it is necessary to first determine the vision for the MOP Collection moving forward, firstly in defining the collection and its audience, then finally choosing how to best arrange the materials within the collection. I have provided four potential definitions for the MOP Collection which can then be applied to five different options for arrangement that cover a range of levels of reorganization. The goal of this proposition is to provide a better arrangement system of the MOP Collection, and I am therefore a strong proponent for Option 1 as it will inevitably lead to more widespread use by researchers due to the fact that a more tangible importance can be applied to this collection and will allow for better security measures to be followed. However, choosing any of the options, apart from Options 3 or 5, will create a more functional collection within LACAP’s holdings.
Appendix
Figure 1: Image of the document found within LACAP’s archive detailing the current call number system.
Figure 2: Image of the document found within LACAP’s archive detailing “The Original Congregations of the Ministerium of Pennsylvania”.
Figure 3: Chart showing the mergers of the Lutheran Church throughout time. Most important is the path going from the Pennsylvania Ministerium to the United Lutheran Church in America to The Lutheran Church in America to The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Comments