JS Trying to Sell BoM Copyright

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I haven't seen the revelation yet. Elder Jensen obviously has and regards it as divine. I trust his judgment.

[Manny]

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.

And how do we distinguish the two? If they come true, then they were inteded to be predictions of the future and if they don't, they were conditional?

Of course, I'm being a smart alec, but that is sort of what it seems like you're saying (even though it isn't what you're saying). Now who's talking in riddles?

[Manny]

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.

See, I'd use this example as a way to demonstrate that God leaves the lion's share of decisionmaking to us...even if we attribute (in good faith, even) our own decisions to him.

This is one of the issues I have with local leadership. I struggle accepting that any of them are actually called by direct revelation, even though I feel like they often remind me of it when we have a difference of opinion. But, before I further hijack this thread, I'd better STOP!!

[Scott Lloyd]

And how do we distinguish the two? If they come true, then they were inteded to be predictions of the future and if they don't, they were conditional?

Of course, I'm being a smart alec, but that is sort of what it seems like you're saying (even though it isn't what you're saying). Now who's talking in riddles?

As a personal policy, I would regard any prophetic utterance as probably being conditional unless I am specificially told otherwise -- by the prophet, by the Lord, or both.

If, for example, I am promised good health in a patriarchal blessing, my default assumption is that the promise is conditional upon my taking care of my body, obeying the Word of Wisdom, taking reasonable precautions, etc.

If, on the other hand, I am taught that the Lord Jesus Christ will return again to the earth in glory and that Satan and his forces will be bound for a thousand years while the Lord reigns personally upon the earth, I regard that as being an inevitable foretelling of the future.

[DonBradley]

We may all be leaping to premature conclusions here.

The men for whom the Canadian copyright revelation was received were plenty bright enough to recognize a conditional statement. And, indeed, Hiram Page--the chief one of these men--reported nineteen years later that it said the copyright could be sold to parties in Canada "if they would not harden their hearts."

What raised questions in Page's mind was not this but the fact that the revelation sent them to Kingston, Ontario to secure and sell the Canadian copyright, yet when they arrived they were told that this could only be done at Little York (Toronto).

To determine whether Page was correct we would have to read the revelation's forthcoming text and determine if what it instructed the men to do was possible under the law of the day. If it was possible, then the failure to sell the copyright could be chalked up to the hardness of those Canadian hearts, and there was no problem with the revelation; if it was not possible, then there would be a problem with the revelation, which would account for Joseph Smith's reported statement about it and for its never appearing in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Here is the relevant text of Page's letter, transcribed by my old seminary and institute teacher Bruce Stewart and lifted by me from Elden Watson's website:

[Letter, Hiram Page to William McLellin, Fishingriver, Feb. 2, 1848; Community of Christ Archives, spelling and punctuation standardized]

Joseph heard that there was a chance to sell a copy right in Canada for any useful book that was used in the States. Joseph thought this would be a good opportunity to get a hand on a sum of money which was to be (after the expenses were taken out) for the exclusive benefit of the Smith family and was to be at the disposal of Joseph. Accordingly Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Knight, Hiram Page and Joseph Stoel were chosen (as I understand by revelation) to do the business; we were living from 30 to 100 miles apart. The necessary preparation was made (by them) in a sly manner so as to keep Martin Harris from drawing a share of the money. It was told me we were to go by revelation, but when we had assembled at Father Smiths, there was no revelation for us to go, but we were all anxious to get a revelation to go; and when it came we were to go to Kingston where we were to sell if they would not harden their hearts; but when we got there, there was no purchaser, neither were they authorized at Kingston to buy rights for the Provence; but little York was the place where such business had to be done. We were to get 8,000 dollars. We were treated with the best of respect by all we met with in Kingston - by the above we may learn how a revelation may be received and the person receiving it not be benefitted.

Don

[Scott Lloyd]

We may all be leaping to premature conclusions here.

The men for whom the Canadian copyright revelation was received were plenty bright enough to recognize a conditional statement. And, indeed, Hiram Page--the chief one of these men--reported nineteen years later that it said the copyright could be sold to parties in Canada "if they would not harden their hearts."

What raised questions in Page's mind was not this but the fact that the revelation sent them to Kingston, Ontario to secure and sell the Canadian copyright, yet when they arrived they were told that this could only be done at Little York (Toronto).

To determine whether Page was correct we would have to read the revelation's forthcoming text and determine if what it instructed the men to do was possible under the law of the day. If it was possible, then the failure to sell the copyright could be chalked up to the hardness of those Canadian hearts, and there was no problem with the revelation; if it was not possible, then there would be a problem with the revelation, which would account for Joseph Smith's reported statement about it and for its never appearing in the Doctrine and Covenants.

Even in the latter case, there are other possible scenarios that would warrant keeping the question open. Say, for example, that there was a person at Kingston who, if willing, could have facilitated the sale of the copyright, whether such business were actually transacted at Kingston or at Little York, but that person hardened his heart. If the aid of that person was indispensable, that would fit the explanation of the fulfillment of the prophecy being conditional.

[DonBradley]

Hi Scott,

I would agree that there may still be possibilities as you suggest, though which possibilities would be live options may depend on the exact content and wording of the revelation.

I would also suggest that it may be a faithful option to believe that Joseph Smith was fallible as a revelator.

Don

[Scott Lloyd]

Hi Scott,

I would agree that there may still be possibilities as you suggest, though which possibilities would be live options may depend on the exact content and wording of the revelation.

Yes. Another reason to look forward to the publication of the next installment in the Joseph Smith Papers project.

I would also suggest that it may be a faithful option to believe that Joseph Smith was fallible as a revelator.

It's theoretically possible, of course. However, when I see an accusation that Joseph Smith made a false or failed prophecy, it seems invariably a matter of a faulty expectation on the part of the accuser of what constitutes a prophecy or a prophetic utterance.