JS Trying to Sell BoM Copyright

[Johnpacklambert]

Considering the number of converts that Erastus Snow baptized in Salem, such as Nathaniel Felt, your using it as an attack point against Joseph Smith is clearly unwise.

On the issue of Zion's Camp, I just have to say that the things of God are understood by those who seek them and are follishness to the world. This is the message preached by the Apostle Paul. Go to the basics, and once they are in place everything else falls into place. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and repretance are the keys. The role of a prophet is to testify of Jesus Christ and to advance his work. You need to judge events on how they worked towards this overall goal and not towards the short temporal goals that we occasionally think we are striving for.

[Johnpacklambert]

There is a big difference between Joseph Smith making a false statement, and his making a false prophecy. There is also a big difference between a false prophecy and a misunderstood prophecy.

That Joseph Smith made mistakes and was not a perfect man is not a question, at least not to anyone who thinks logically on the issue. However, that Joseph Smith thinking a revelation meant one think when it was about something else, or mentioning revelations that were recieved after Joseph appears to have acted on an unwise plan as examples of failed revelations is something else.

I think the notion of Joseph Smith having recieved false spiritual promtings is a very dangerous one. I think that we need to be more wise in what we say.

Lastly, I think it is best to start with the assumption that Elder Jensen is familiar with what he speaks, that he does to some extent gain insight from the spirit of the Lord, and to avoid the destructive and hurtful accusation of "revisionism" which tends to be used most frequently by men like D. Michael Quinn, who with his utter disregard for the historical meanings of words and the applying of modern meanings onto historical quotes is one of the most distrubing practioners of this flawed methodology, even while he goes about flailing against everyone else as an example of it.

[Johnpacklambert]

If you were to have included what it said in the paragraph before the one you quoted the answer would be "yes, the revelation is all that different".

Elder Jensen describes this as the "previously unpublished" manuscript of the revelation. It had not been published before. He also identifies that David Whitmer made statements about this revelation after he left the Church. It has been pointed out that David Whitmer had a view on Joseph Smith's method of translating the Book of Mormon that does not really agree with what is said on the subject in the Doctrine and Covenants. He was an extreme literalist, who never really grasped the notion that the Lord communicates with people in their own language, and thus in a flawed manner, at least by the measure of other men.

Add to this the fact that David Whitmer's statements were made no earlier than 1838. He had when he made this statement every reason to suggest that Joseph Smith had recieved false revelations, and we have to bear in mind that this is reacalling events after several years as opposed to the manuscript that tells us what was written very close to these events.

Elder Jensen is clearly speaking based on material that has not been printed, so it will in fact be at variance with previous statements on the topic.

[Brade]

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.

This is exactly what I was trying to get people to draw out. The way that Jensen seems to arrive at the conclusion that the revelation in question was from God is by something like this:

P1: All revelations received by Joseph Smith are from God.

P2: This is a revelation received by Joseph Smith.

C: Therefore, this revelation is from God

Is this right?

[auteur55]

I'd still like to know why they wanted to sell the copyright anyway. Why would the Lord want this done?

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'd still like to know why they wanted to sell the copyright anyway. Why would the Lord want this done?

Good question. Why did the Lord want Abraham to murder his own son?

[Manny]

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.

From your perspective, I'm sure they are. From mine, I'm not so sure.

[Manny]

Considering the number of converts that Erastus Snow baptized in Salem, such as Nathaniel Felt, your using it as an attack point against Joseph Smith is clearly unwise.

On the issue of Zion's Camp, I just have to say that the things of God are understood by those who seek them and are follishness to the world. This is the message preached by the Apostle Paul. Go to the basics, and once they are in place everything else falls into place. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and repretance are the keys. The role of a prophet is to testify of Jesus Christ and to advance his work. You need to judge events on how they worked towards this overall goal and not towards the short temporal goals that we occasionally think we are striving for.

While I've heard (and employed) these arguments before, after reading the plain meaning of the revelation, it becomes clear that either JS was wrong or God speaks in riddles. Either may be true. Personally, I no longer feel the need to scratch and claw for a meaning when it seems clear that the prophecy was false (or that implicit conditions were not met).

As for Zion's camp, you side-stepped the issue, and that's okay. It's difficult to reconcile "redeeming Zion" with what actually happened. The whole Missouri thing was just one huge mess.

[cinepro]

I'd still like to know why they wanted to sell the copyright anyway. Why would the Lord want this done?

A good question.

Here's how the Fair Wiki summarizes it:

Joseph Smith had been told there were people in Canada willing to buy the copyrights to useful books. Due to the dire financial position of the Church, he decided this could be an opportunity to relieve some of the financial pressure associated with publishing the Book of Mormon. Four men went to Canada. Before leaving, Joseph Smith received a revelation directing them to go to Kingston, Canada, with other conditions for success.

Once the issue of "conditions" is raised, I'm not interested in whether it was a "true" revelation or "false" revelation, but whether or not we could even call it a revelation at all?

As far as I can tell, a "revelation" only has two purposes:

1. To give knowledge that was heretofore unknown.

2. To confirm knowledge and eliminate uncertainty between different choices.

If neither of these are factors, then there is no need for revelation. If someone already knows something, they don't need a revelation to tell them what they already know. If someone is certain about something, then they don't need revelation to tell them what they already know.

So what is the value of God giving Joseph Smith a revelation about selling the copyright in Canada? According to the Fair Wiki, Joseph already knew it was a possibility to raise money by selling the copyright; that wasn't new "revealed" knowledge. He may have been uncertain about the outcome, so a revelation telling him that he would be successful would have been useful. But that wasn't what he got. He may have been unsure about who to send, but hopefully a revelation on the matter would suggest those most likely to meet the conditions necessary for a successful endeavor.

And if there are no people worthy of selling the copyright (or no one willing to buy it regardless of the character of those who are sent), a revelation would be useful to tell Joseph that even though he has heard people are buying copyrights in this case, it isn't a good use of Church resources to attempt a sale at this time.

Ultimately, the revelation only claims that a successful outcome is dependent on finding a willing buyer. Duh! Joseph (and everyone else) already knew that.

What would have been the practical difference if Joseph had just said:

"Listen guys. The Church needs money, and about the only asset we have is the Book of Mormon copyright. I've heard that book publishers in Canada will buy the copyrights to American books, so our best shot might be to sell the copyright. But it's not a sure thing. Do your best, and if it doesn't pan out, we'll find another way to stay solvent.

And remember: Postum's for closers. First prize is a new buggy. Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is...you're excommunicated."

[Scott Lloyd]

As for Zion's camp, you side-stepped the issue, and that's okay. It's difficult to reconcile "redeeming Zion" with what actually happened. The whole Missouri thing was just one huge mess.

As I see it, there are two main reasons why Zion's Camp failed in its stated objective.

One, the governor of Missouri, Daniel Dunklin, failed to fulfill his pledge to provide state militia support to the Latter-day Saints in regaining their Jackson County lands.

Two, the Zion's Camp expedition itself was marred and weakened by division, rancor and murmuring.

Had these two conditions been different, Zion's Camp may well have succeeded.

Which is why I say that divine decrees and directives are not necessarily predictions of the future. Under normal circumstances, God honors the moral agency of man by leaving open the possibility of failure. Thus men are free to ignore or disobey his commands or be unfaithful (as was the case with some of the Zion's Camp members) or be unrighteous (as was the case with Gov. Dunklin). If they do, and if they thus fail to fulfill his directive, that does not mean the directive was not divine or that it didn't reflect his will. It only means that fallible men did not measure up to what was required of them. With his foreknowledge, God knows when they will thus fail, and he plans accordingly, as in the instance of the lost 115 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript.

With their limited understanding, critics are too quick to label as "false prophecy," what was never meant in the first place as an invariable prediction of the future.

[Scott Lloyd]

A good question.

Here's how the Fair Wiki summarizes it:

Once the issue of "conditions" is raised, I'm not interested in whether it was a "true" revelation or "false" revelation, but whether or not we could even call it a revelation at all?

As far as I can tell, a "revelation" only has two purposes:

1. To give knowledge that was heretofore unknown.

2. To confirm knowledge and eliminate uncertainty between different choices.

If neither of these are factors, then there is no need for revelation. If someone already knows something, they don't need a revelation to tell them what they already know. If someone is certain about something, then they don't need revelation to tell them what they already know.

So what is the value of God giving Joseph Smith a revelation about selling the copyright in Canada? According to the Fair Wiki, Joseph already knew it was a possibility to raise money by selling the copyright; that wasn't new "revealed" knowledge. He may have been uncertain about the outcome, so a revelation telling him that he would be successful would have been useful. But that wasn't what he got. He may have been unsure about who to send, but hopefully a revelation on the matter would suggest those most likely to meet the conditions necessary for a successful endeavor.

And if there are no people worthy of selling the copyright (or no one willing to buy it regardless of the character of those who are sent), a revelation would be useful to tell Joseph that even though he has heard people are buying copyrights in this case, it isn't a good use of Church resources to attempt a sale at this time.

Ultimately, the revelation only claims that a successful outcome is dependent on finding a willing buyer. Duh! Joseph (and everyone else) already knew that.

Your analysis neglects what I pointed out in my post just after yours, namely that, under normal circumstances, the Lord honors the moral agency of man by leaving open the possibility that a venture will fail as a consequence of unrighteousness.

In this case it is possible the venture would have succeeded had the potential buyers been amenable to the influence of the Holy Spirit and softened their hearts, or, perhaps, if the men sent on the mission had more faithfully discharged their responsibility. (I'm not well enough acquainted with the circumstances to say for certain whether they were as faithful as they should have been.)

Again, the failure of the endeavor does not mean that the revelation was not a directive from God. And again I say, revelation is not necessarily to be regarded as an invariable prediction of the future.

[Manny]

As I see it, there are two main reasons why Zion's Camp failed in its stated directive.

One, the governor of Missouri, Daniel Dunklin, failed to fulfill his pledge to provide state militia support to the Latter-day Saints in regaining their Jackson County lands.

Two, the Zion's Camp expedition itself was marred and weakened by division, rancor and murmuring.

Had these two conditions been different, Zion's Camp may well have succeeded.

Which is why I say that divine decrees and directives are not necessarily predictions of the future. Under normal circumstances, God honors the moral agency of man by leaving open the possibility of failure. Thus men are free to ignore or disobey his commands or be unfaithful (as was the case with some of the Zion's Camp members) or be unrighteous (as was the case with Gov. Dunklin). If they do, and if they thus fail to honor his directive, that does not mean the directive was not divine or that it didn't reflect his will. It only means that fallible men did not measure up to what was required of them. With his foreknowledge, God knows when they will thus fail, and he plans accordingly, as in the instance of the lost 115 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript.

With their limited understanding, critics are too quick to label as "false prophecy," what was never meant in the first place as an invariable prediction of the future.

I hear you on this. But if I were God (and I most certainly am not), I guess I don't see the value in making predictions that I have no control over, nor can I affect. But then again, if he spelled everything out for us, I guess the whole free will thing becomes a little less useful (okay, a lot less useful).

[Scott Lloyd]

I hear you on this. But if I were God (and I most certainly am not), I guess I don't see the value in making predictions that I have no control over, nor can I affect.

As I said, divine communication and directives from God are not necessarily predictions of the future.

And as I also said, God in his foreknowledge is always in complete control in that he makes allowances for the failure of men and plans accordingly, as in the case of the lost 115 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript.

Why does he give directives when he knows men, though they are able, will fail to fulfill them? To test them, teach them through experience and to make them accountable for the proper use of their agency.

[Manny]

As I said, divine communication and directives from God are not necessarily predictions of the future.

And as I also said, God in his foreknowledge is always in complete control in that he makes allowances for the failure of men and plans accordingly, as in the case of the lost 115 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript.

Why does he give directives when he knows men, though they are able, will fail to fulfill them? To test them, teach them through experience and to make them accountable for the proper use of their agency.

Okay so even if we assume that they are not intended to be accurate predictions of the future, can we agree that often they are presented and/or worded like they are?

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay so even if we assume that they are not intended to be accurate predictions of the future, can we agree that often they are presented and/or worded like they are?

No, I would not concede that.

[cinepro]

Again, the failure of the endeavor does not mean that the revelation was not a directive from God. And again I say, revelation is not necessarily to be regarded as an invariable prediction of the future.

Ultimately, what's the value of knowing what might happen if certain uncertain conditions are met (and you only know if those conditions are met after the outcome is known)?

If I prophesied that an omniscient, omnipotent being has told me that a coin flip would result heads, or it might not, and if it did or didn't was dependent on the velocity of the flip, the rotational force of the coin in motion, and the other factors such as wind resistance and gravity, would that count as a prophecy? And would you be impressed?

Wouldn't the real value of getting revelation from an omniscient, omnipotent being be that He knows what the expected outcome will be and thus can point you in directions that are positive?

After reading this thread, it appears that revelations from God are about as reliable as the weather forecasts on the evening news, with all those complex variables and stuff.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ultimately, what's the value of knowing what might happen if certain uncertain conditions are met (and you only know if those conditions are met after the outcome is known)?

In the instance of, say, my patriarchal blessing, it gives me a glimpse of blessings God has in store for me and thus provides motivation and impetus for faithfulness on my part.

In the instance of, say, a mission or other Church calling, it shows what God wants me to accomplish and lets me know I can expect divine aid to the extent that I am faithful and diligent.

[Scott Lloyd]

Wouldn't the real value of getting revelation from an omniscient, omnipotent being be that He knows what the expected outcome will be and thus can point you in directions that are positive?

For me, the value is knowing what the Lord expects of me.

[Manny]

In the instance of, say, my patriarchal blessing, it gives me a glimpse of blessings God has in store for me and thus provides motivation and impetus for faithfulness on my part.

In the instance of, say, a mission or other Church calling, it shows what God wants me to accomplish and lets me know I can expect divine aid to the extent that I am faithful and diligent.

I get that. But, does your patriarchal blessing contain words like "shall" or "will come to pass," etc.? Mine explicitly states that it is contingent upon my faithfulness. Sometimes scriptures sound absolute. If they're not, then we might as well throw out Revelation. I mean really...two millenia of free will could quite possibly render that book completely useless under your reasoning.

[Scott Lloyd]

I get that. But, does your patriarchal blessing contain words like "shall" or "will come to pass," etc.? Mine explicitly states that it is contingent upon my faithfulness. Sometimes scriptures sound absolute. If they're not, then we might as well throw out Revelation. I mean really...two millenia of free will could quite possibly render that book completely useless under your reasoning.

Some prophecies do amount to predictions of the future. I'm only saying that not all do.

Anti-Mormons like to point to the mission call of David Patten in the Doctrine and Covenants as an example of a "failed prophecy" of Joseph Smith. (Elder Patten was killed at the battle of Crooked River in Missouri before he could fulfill the call.) What they don't understand is that Elder Patten's mission call was just that, a mission call, not a prediction of the future.

[Cold Steel]

So little is known about the conditions and situations that it's just guessing now. Conditional revelations are always based on God's blessings providing the people do as they're instructed. In the days of Moses, the Lord was willing to disseminate the Holy Priesthood much as he's done now. When the people found themselves unworthy of that blessing, the Lord established the Law of Moses and, instead, established the lesser priesthood. The people still inherited the promised land, but the greater blessings of the gospel were denied them. As I assume this revelation was geared towards generating money, the people ultimately had to make do with what they had.

Jonah's cursing of Nineveh also was conditional, but it still troubled Jonah that the Lord failed to carry out his promised destruction. In a similar vein, the Lord, through the Book of Mormon prophets, gave the Gentiles a conditional promise that if they accepted the Gospel and cooperated with the Lord's people, that they could join in the building up of Zion and the great temple. Sadly, this great promise has now been repealed due to the rejection of these blessings by the Gentiles. In fact, President Benson declared years ago that we've passed the point of no return. In other words, that blessing is no longer an option.

As was noted in the article, very little is known about the circumstances about the revelation and what happened to prevent its fulfillment, but these weak links are where the enemies of the church concentrate. They profess to know what can't be known and in many cases what happened behind closed doors. I'm happy to see the church address such things, but it can only point out possibilities that mitigate the situation.

[Scott Lloyd]

Jonah's cursing of Nineveh also was conditional, but it still troubled Jonah that the Lord failed to carry out his promised destruction.

Bible-professing anti-Mormons are fond of attacking Joseph Smith by saying it only takes one "failed prophecy" (which they define as a supposed prediction that didn't come true) to make a false prophet. When they are confronted with the incident of Jonah and Nineveh, it always leaves them floundering.

[Scott Lloyd]

After reading this thread, it appears that revelations from God are about as reliable as the weather forecasts on the evening news, with all those complex variables and stuff.

Again, not all revelations from God are intended as predictions of the future. It is a common misconception that revelation/prophecy = prediction. There is much in the way of divine communication that does not fit that concept.

[cinepro]

Again, not all revelations from God are intended as predictions of the future. It is a common misconception that revelation/prophecy = prediction. There is much in the way of divine communication that does not fit that concept.

I agree.

[Brade]

Again, the failure of the endeavor does not mean that the revelation was not a directive from God. And again I say, revelation is not necessarily to be regarded as an invariable prediction of the future.

I agree with both points. What I want to know from you and anyone else interested in offering their thoughts is whether the newly discovered conditional nature of the revelation justifies the conclusion that the revelation was from God. Certainly the fact that a revelation failed doesn't entail that it wasn't from God. But does the fact that a revelation is conditional entail that it is? If that doesn't follow, and it seems obvious that it doesn't, what is doing the work of justifying the conclusion that the revelation was from God. Is it something like this, for example: All revelations from Joseph Smith are identical with revelations from God to Joseph Smith.