JS Trying to Sell BoM Copyright

[bjw]

The current Ensign (July 2009) has an article by Marlin Jensen about the Joseph Smith Papers. It mentions on P.51 the revelation when JS was told to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon in Canada. This failed to happen. The story I had always heard was that JS was told that some revelations are of man and some are of the devil, which is why the promised success in selling the copyright did not come true.

However, in this month's Ensign, we see this:

Although we still do not know the whole story, particularly Joseph Smithâ??s own view of the situation, we do know that calling the divine communication a â??failed revelationâ? is not warranted. The Lordâ??s directive clearly conditions the successful sale of the copyright on the worthiness of those seeking to make the sale as well as on the spiritual receptivity of the potential purchasers.5

This is a complete turn-around from what I have always heard about this, and what Mclellin, Whitmer, and Page apparently said about it. Was the actual revelation that drastically different? Is this an attempt from the church to change this revelation, or were additional documents recently recovered that give more light on what JS actually said? Anyone know more?

If you'd like to see the article you can find it here:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?loca...0004d82620aRCRD

[Joseph Antley]

I think this has been discussed here before.

The Canadian copyright revelation found in the BCR made the prophecy very conditional; Whitmer later seemed to not remember the conditions laid out. I can't remember the exact details of the revelation, but Grant Underwood showed a copy of it at a presentation he gave earlier this year.

[bjw]

Interesting. I know a lot of antimormons try to use this to get people to doubt all of JS's revelations, saying that JS can't tell if one is from Satan, man, or God. However, if the revelation was instead conditional upon certain factors, that changes things. It sounds like maybe the witnesses changed things because they were hostile at JS, and now it looks like we have the first-hand account. I can't wait to see the end result of the Joseph Smith Papers.

[Tchild2]

The current Ensign (July 2009) has an article by Marlin Jensen about the Joseph Smith Papers. It mentions on P.51 the revelation when JS was told to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon in Canada. This failed to happen. The story I had always heard was that JS was told that some revelations are of man and some are of the devil, which is why the promised success in selling the copyright did not come true.

However, in this month's Ensign, we see this:

This is a complete turn-around from what I have always heard about this, and what Mclellin, Whitmer, and Page apparently said about it. Was the actual revelation that drastically different? Is this an attempt from the church to change this revelation, or were additional documents recently recovered that give more light on what JS actually said? Anyone know more?

If you'd like to see the article you can find it here:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?loca...0004d82620aRCRD

Why did God want J.S to sell the BoM copyright in the first place?

[Brade]

So, historians find something that appears to be a revelation. The supposed revelation is written as a conditional. According to history, the consequent (or prediction) of the revelation does not come about–the selling of the copyright. This means, of course, that the antecedent conditions were not satisfied. But what follows from that? Does it follow from all that that the supposed revelation really was from God? Man? Devils? What's justifying the conclusion that this was certainly an authentic revelation from the Lord? Jensen clearly draws that conclusion or makes that assumption–"The Lord’s directive clearly conditions the successful sale of the copyright on the worthiness of those seeking to make the sale as well as on the spiritual receptivity of the potential purchasers." Also, if it is an authentic revelation from the Lord, is that suppose to undermine the idea that some revelations are from God, some are from man, and some are from the devil?

[bjw]

So, historians find something that appears to be a revelation. The supposed revelation is written as a conditional. According to history, the consequent (or prediction) of the revelation does not come aboutâ??the selling of the copyright. This means, of course, that the antecedent conditions were not satisfied. But what follows from that? Does it follow from all that that the supposed revelation really was from God? Man? Devils? What's justifying the conclusion that this was certainly an authentic revelation from the Lord? Jensen clearly draws that conclusion or makes that assumptionâ??"The Lordâ??s directive clearly conditions the successful sale of the copyright on the worthiness of those seeking to make the sale as well as on the spiritual receptivity of the potential purchasers." Also, if it is an authentic revelation from the Lord, is that suppose to undermine the idea that some revelations are from God, some are from man, and some are from the devil?

This is what I was thinking. If the revelation didn't come true because conditions weren't met, then it was from God, if it didn't come true for no other reason then it was from man or the devil. Which is it? I had always heard this revelation was said to be false when JS gazed into the stone and it told him that some revelations were from God, some from man, and some from the devil. Was the original historical account that we heard wrong, or is Jensen's new account wrong? I'm confused.

[Brade]

This is what I was thinking. If the revelation didn't come true because conditions weren't met, then it was from God, if it didn't come true for no other reason then it was from man or the devil. Which is it? I had always heard this revelation was said to be false when JS gazed into the stone and it told him that some revelations were from God, some from man, and some from the devil. Was the original historical account that we heard wrong, or is Jensen's new account wrong? I'm confused.

Here's Whitmer's account:

â??Joseph looked into the hat in which he placed the stone, and received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and that they would sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery went to Toronto on this mission, but they failed entirely to sell the copyright, returning without any money. Joseph was at my father's house when they returned. I was there also, and am an eye witness to these facts. Jacob Whitmer and John Whitmer were also present when Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery returned from Canada. Well, we were all in great trouble; and we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copyright, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copyright was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man.â?

Based only on the above quote, I don't think Whitmer's conclusion is any more justified than Jensen's. Whitmer seems to be doing this:

P1: If the sale fails, then the revelation was from man or the devil

C: Therefore, the revelation was from man or the devil

The antecedent turned out to be true. For clarity, we can be explicit in the following way:

P1: If the sale fails, then the revelation was from man or the devil

P2: The sale failed

C: Therefore, the revelation was from man or the devil

Of course, it's not contradictory, implausible, or absurd for things to have been such that the revelation was from God and it failed because the participants didn't satisfy the sufficient conditions of the sale. P1 is unjustified simply because the sale could have failed even if it was from God. Jensen is apparently on to this. But, does it follow from the fact that the failed-revelation conclusion is unwarranted and the prediction of the revelation didn't come true that we are justified in concluding that the revelation was from God? Jensen seems to think so, but how does he get there? I'll barrow the suggestion you write in your post:

P1: If the revelation didn't come true because conditions weren't met, then it was from God

C: Therefore, the revelation was from God

Is that a satisfactory argument for the conclusion that the revelation was from God?

[Manny]

This is what I was thinking. If the revelation didn't come true because conditions weren't met, then it was from God, if it didn't come true for no other reason then it was from man or the devil. Which is it? I had always heard this revelation was said to be false when JS gazed into the stone and it told him that some revelations were from God, some from man, and some from the devil. Was the original historical account that we heard wrong, or is Jensen's new account wrong? I'm confused.

You can use this sort of explanation to explain away every one of the failed prophecies of JS. it may in fact be true, but it does nothing to appease skeptical minds.

[Brade]

You can use this sort of explanation to explain away every one of the failed prophecies of JS. it may in fact be true, but it does nothing to appease skeptical minds.

"It may in fact be true" that "the revelation didn't come true because conditions weren't met", but the direction that I'm trying to push this is whether it follows from that that the revelation was from God. Jensen, from the quote in the OP, seems to conclude that the revelation was from God. His conclusion seems to be somehow related to the "newly discovered fact" of the revelation being conditional. Jensen isn't clear about how he makes the move from the conditional nature of the revelation to the conclusion that the revelation was actually from God. I'd like to know how he's making that inference.

I'm not saying that the proposition that this revelation was from God ought not or cannot be believed, or that it cannot be justified. I'm just suggesting that it hasn't been justified. I'm not convinced that the conditional nature of the revelation plus the fact that the prediction didn't come about gives me any more reason to believe it was from God than the unconditional nature of the revelation plus the fact that the prediction didn't come about gives me reason to believe it wasn't from God. Additionally, although Jensen doesn't seem to be making any moves in this direction, none of this seems to undermine the idea that some revelations are from God, some are from men, and some are from the devil.

[maklelan]

You can use this sort of explanation to explain away every one of the failed prophecies of JS. it may in fact be true, but it does nothing to appease skeptical minds.

If skeptical minds reject that explicit conditionality means a revelation may not come to pass then they're not skeptical minds, they're ignorant and cynical minds.

[Reklaw]

If skeptical minds reject that explicit conditionality means a revelation may not come to pass then they're not skeptical minds, they're ignorant and cynical minds.

I was thinking the same thing.

[Manny]

If skeptical minds reject that explicit conditionality means a revelation may not come to pass then they're not skeptical minds, they're ignorant and cynical minds.

Lol.

Signed,

Zion's Camp and the City of Salem, MA.

We all see what we want to see.

[Brade]

If skeptical minds reject that explicit conditionality means a revelation may not come to pass then they're not skeptical minds, they're ignorant and cynical minds.

Wait, who's rejecting that conditionality means that the consequent of a conditional (revelation) may not come to pass?

[maklelan]

We all see what we want to see.

This doesn't address my concern.

[Joseph Antley]

Lol.

Signed,

Zion's Camp and the City of Salem, MA.

We all see what we want to see.

Watching someone stick their fingers in their ears and singing, "lalalalala", is a little amusing.

[maklelan]

Wait, who's rejecting that conditionality means that the consequent of a conditional (revelation) may not come to pass?

Those ostensibly "skeptical minds" who believe that pointing to a conditional statement does not satisfactorily account for a putatively failed revelation.

[Manny]

Those ostensibly "skeptical minds" who believe that pointing to a conditional statement does not satisfactorily account for a putatively failed revelation.

Sorry, I derailed the thread a bit by not being specific enough. Whether a condition is explicit or not, certain people will always look to unrighteousness of the saints when a prophecy fails, and not to the prophecy itself. This doesn't appear to be the case here, since the fulfilment was apparently conditioned on the personal righteousness of a few people.

As for me, I'm fine wth JS being wrong. I've felt that I've had spiritual manifestations and I've been completely wrong. It happens. It doesn't necessarily means he's a false prophet...just one that is subject to error.

[Brade]

Sorry, I derailed the thread a bit by not being specific enough. Whether a condition is explicit or not, certain people will always look to unrighteousness of the saints when a prophecy fails, and not to the prophecy itself. This doesn't appear to be the case here, since the fulfilment was apparently conditioned on the personal righteousness of a few people.

As for me, I'm fine wth JS being wrong. I've felt that I've had spiritual manifestations and I've been completely wrong. It happens. It doesn't necessarily means he's a false prophet...just one that is subject to error.

I see. I'm slow today. In any case, I agree with you completely.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think this has been discussed here before.

The Canadian copyright revelation found in the BCR made the prophecy very conditional; Whitmer later seemed to not remember the conditions laid out. I can't remember the exact details of the revelation, but Grant Underwood showed a copy of it at a presentation he gave earlier this year.

The Book of Commandments and Revelations (BCR) was discussed at a plenary session of the recent Mormon History Assocation Conference in Springfield, Ill. See my Church News report here.

I didn't mention the Canadian copyright revelation in my story, but it was mentioned at the MHA session as being in the contents of the BCR.

I've not yet read Elder Jensen's Ensign piece, so I don't know whether he mentions the BCR as a source for the revelation.

Add on: I see that Elder Jensen does indeed discuss the BCR. It will be published in the forthcoming volume of the Joseph Smith Papers project. The BCR pages will be provided as photo images with typescripts of their content on facing pages. I eagerly await the publication.

[Scott Lloyd]

You can use this sort of explanation to explain away every one of the failed prophecies of JS. it may in fact be true, but it does nothing to appease skeptical minds.

It may well be that such "skeptical minds" fail to understand the nature of the prophecy or the intent of the revelations in question.

Hint: A prophecy may be but is not necessarily a prediction of future events. If it is a directive from God, which recipients may or may not choose to follow, it is no less a divine communication.

[maklelan]

Sorry, I derailed the thread a bit by not being specific enough. Whether a condition is explicit or not, certain people will always look to unrighteousness of the saints when a prophecy fails, and not to the prophecy itself. This doesn't appear to be the case here, since the fulfilment was apparently conditioned on the personal righteousness of a few people.

My apologies for misunderstanding. I understood that the idea of conditions was what you were concerned with, not the righteousness question. My bad.

As for me, I'm fine wth JS being wrong. I've felt that I've had spiritual manifestations and I've been completely wrong. It happens. It doesn't necessarily means he's a false prophet...just one that is subject to error.

I feel pretty much the same.

[dblagent007]

I can understand the conditional nature of the revelation. What I don't understand is the response given when JS inquired of the Lord. Why didn't the Lord just say that the condition wasn't fulfilled? Instead we get this (from one of the above posts):

[W]e asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copyright, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copyright was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man.â?

[Joseph Antley]

As for me, I'm fine wth JS being wrong. I've felt that I've had spiritual manifestations and I've been completely wrong. It happens. It doesn't necessarily means he's a false prophet...just one that is subject to error.

I like to think that Joseph Smith's detailed, "thus-saith-the-Lord" revelations are a little different than your (or my) personal spiritual manifestations.

[Johnpacklambert]

However, in this month's Ensign, we see this:

This is a complete turn-around from what I have always heard about this, and what Mclellin, Whitmer, and Page apparently said about it. Was the actual revelation that drastically different? Is this an attempt from the church to change this revelation, or were additional documents recently recovered that give more light on what JS actually said? Anyone know more?

I would not take Page, McLellin and Whitmer as an authority on anything. I think your initial flaw is thinking that the Church engages in trying to rewrite history. Your undersntading of the past would be a lot better if you started with the assumption that Joseph Smith told the truth and then tried to see how his statements fit together.

You could also argue that Zion's Camp and many other things were failed revelation. The fact that people did not acheive what they were originally instructed to do does not mean that the Lord's instruction to them was not valid.

[Johnpacklambert]

Scott, I am with you on being excited about the Revelations installment of the Joseph Smith papers, but it will be a bit pricy. I hope some institutions here in Michigan will purchase it though. I am not holding my breath.