The editors for the 1920 LDS edition supplied the preposition in at the beginning of the relative clause “which they were” (giving “in the same state in which they were”). Originally, I proposed that this preposition in should have been placed at the end of that relative clause (giving “in the same state which they were in”). I argued under 2 Nephi 2:22 that usage elsewhere in the text supported that emendation.
Later I discovered that a relative clause could lack its expected preposition if that preposition occurred in an immediately preceding prepositional phrase (thus “in the same state which they were”). Under Helaman 13:22, I have listed two other instances of this kind of construction in the earliest text:
The critical text will therefore restore the earliest text here in 2 Nephi 2:22, “in the same state which they were”.
Summary: Restore in 2 Nephi 2:22 the earliest reading without any preposition for the relative clause “which they were” since there is an immediately preceding prepositional phrase, “in the same state”, headed by the expected preposition, in.
2 Nephi 3:14, page 517, line –4