The Canadian Copyright Revelation

[Pahoran]

Several comments have been made on the Joseph Smith Papers thread regarding the 1830 revelation commanding four of Joseph Smith's associates to journey to Canada to secure and then sell a Canadian copyright to the Book of Mormon. Some argue that the revelation failed because the copyright was not sold; others argue that failure to sell the copyright does not make the revelation a failure because it was conditional in the first place.

On this issue, I think it's clear that the latter group is correct. With the text of the revelation finally available, we now know that it promised a sale only "if the People harden not their hearts against the enticeings of my spirit." In itself, failure to sell would not discount the revelation. On this issue, the case may simply be closed.

But you're determined to salvage some anti-Mormon utility out of this somehow, aren't you Don?

Yes, you are.

But there is a second issue, raised by one of the revelation's recipients, Hiram Page, in an 1848 letter to William McLellin. Page reported that when he and the others sent to Canada arrived they found that they had been sent to the wrong city:

So, as previously discussed on this board, here, Page's account would suggest that the revelation did "fail." If Page was correct, the revelation's conditional clause would not cover the cause of the failure. The problem would not be one of potential buyers "hardening their hearts." Whether their hearts were hard or soft, it would have been impossible for them to buy the copyright at the time because one could only be secured hundreds of miles west in "Little York" (Toronto), whereas the revelation had sent Page, et al. north, to transact the business in Kingston.

There are two questions we need to ask to know whether Page was correct and the revelation did indeed "fail" in this way:

First, was Page's recollection correct? Did the revelation send them specifically to Kingston to secure the copyright?

Second, was it true that a Canadian copyright could not be secured in Kingston but only in Toronto?

The newly available text of the revelation enables us to answer the first question. Here is the relevant portion of the transcription from the Fair Blog:

I've fixed your link so that it now works.

This text confirms Hiram Page's recollection that the group was sent specifically to Kingston--he had even recalled the exact phrase: "go to Kingston." It also confirms his memory of the incident generally, verifying his account on several points, including Martin Harris being frowned on, the identity of the men sent to Kingston, the sale being conditioned on the Canadian audience not hardening their hearts, etc.

I'm sorry, how exactly does it "confirm" the bolded portion?

That the revelation's promise of a sale--even conditionally--and its direction to go specifically "to Kingston" were later seen as problematic is evident from the fact that editing marks on the revelation indicate that these elements (along with the negative judgment on Martin) were to be omitted from the (anticipated) published version. Stricken from the revelation were Martin's name, the statement that the copyright sale was "expedient," the phrase "to Kingston," and all of the last five lines, with an "Amen" being added to terminate the text before the revelation's original ending.

Really? Can you substantiate this?

Your source includes the strikeouts and editorial insertions. It does not show Martin's name anywhere or the "last five lines." Where do you get them from? Are you perhaps referring to the fact that there is an "amen" inserted before the part that begins "& I grant unto my servent a privelige," which portion is not struck out? Is it merely your own assumption that that last portion was to be "stricken?"

Also, there is no indication of when the changes were made; on what basis do you assume that the changes were made for "the (anticipated) published version?" How do you know they weren't made on the day the revelation was recorded?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Great analysis Don.

Really?

Regards,

Pahoran

[T-Shirt]

So, as previously discussed on this board, here, Page's account would suggest that the revelation did "fail." If Page was correct, the revelation's conditional clause would not cover the cause of the failure. The problem would not be one of potential buyers "hardening their hearts." Whether their hearts were hard or soft, it would have been impossible for them to buy the copyright at the time because one could only be secured hundreds of miles west in "Little York" (Toronto), whereas the revelation had sent Page, et al. north, to transact the business in Kingston.

Two things; first, Little York was not hundreds of miles away, but only 162 miles. Second, according to one source I read, they traveled on to Little York and failed to sell the copyright there, as well.

There are two questions we need to ask to know whether Page was correct and the revelation did indeed "fail" in this way:

First, was Page's recollection correct? Did the revelation send them specifically to Kingston to secure the copyright?

Second, was it true that a Canadian copyright could not be secured in Kingston but only in Toronto?

The text of the revelation does not specifically state that they would sell the copyright in Kingston. As I read it, the revelation granted Joseph Smith's request to go to Canada and attempt to sell the copyright and it gives them permission to go to Kingston. The text is ambiguous as to who's idea it was to go to Kingston. it appears that, if the source I read is correct, since they went on to Little York, then the trip to Kingston served as a means to getting better information as to where to go. Furthermore, if they did go to Little York and were still unable to sell the copyright, the conditions of the prophecy remain potentially valid.

That the revelation's promise of a sale--even conditionally--and its direction to go specifically "to Kingston" were later seen as problematic is evident from the fact that editing marks on the revelation indicate that these elements (along with the negative judgment on Martin) were to be omitted from the (anticipated) published version.

I don't think it is known when these changes were made, is it? You seem to be indicating that you believe these changes were made years later when the Book of Commandments was being prepared for publication, even though this revelation was left out of the publication. Is that correct?

Stricken from the revelation were Martin's name, the statement that the copyright sale was "expedient,"

As I read it, one could argue that what is considered, "expedient" could have been the saving of souls and not necessarily the selling of the copyright.

the phrase "to Kingston," and all of the last five lines, with an "Amen" being added to terminate the text before the revelation's original ending.

Several sections of the D&C have "amens" scattered throughout them before the end of the revelation. There is no reason to assume that this "amen" indicated the end of the revelation.

Best,

T-Shirt

[DonBradley]

But you're determined to salvage some anti-Mormon utility out of this somehow, aren't you Don?

Yes, you are.

I've fixed your link so that it now works.

I'm sorry, how exactly does it "confirm" the bolded portion?

Really? Can you substantiate this?

Your source includes the strikeouts and editorial insertions. It does not show Martin's name anywhere or the "last five lines." Where do you get them from? Are you perhaps referring to the fact that there is an "amen" inserted before the part that begins "& I grant unto my servent a privelige," which portion is not struck out? Is it merely your own assumption that that last portion was to be "stricken?"

Also, there is no indication of when the changes were made; on what basis do you assume that the changes were made for "the (anticipated) published version?" How do you know they weren't made on the day the revelation was recorded?

Regards,

Pahoran

[dblagent007]

I'm sorry, how exactly does it "confirm" the bolded portion?

I had the same question, but after reading it again, I believe the part Don refers to is this: "Because they have done that which is pleasing in my sight (yea even all save ◊◊tin only it be one o{l\nly})"

It does not show Martin's name anywhere or the "last five lines." Where do you get them from? Are you perhaps referring to the fact that there is an "amen" inserted before the part that begins "& I grant unto my servent a privelige," which portion is not struck out? Is it merely your own assumption that that last portion was to be "stricken?"

Again, I had the same question, but if you look there is an amen inserted after "which is expedient in me". The last five lines are not shown as being stricken, but I believe Don is taking the position that the insertion of the Amen acts to strike the last five lines.

[DonBradley]

Hi Pahoran,

Thanks for fixing the link!

A few words on your post:

First, I don't want "anti-Mormon" utility from the revelation. I consider it an open question whether the copyright could have been secured in Kingston. Only legal research could settle the matter. I'll be satisfied with knowing the outcome either way. Also, I do believe it's possible to view a genuine revelator as being fallible in his revelations.

Second, the negative mention of Martin Harris is in the early part of the revelation, which I didn't quote. It's in the JSP volume, and presumably on the FAIR Blog.

Third, this document is not the original manuscript of the revelation but a copy in the collection "The Book of Commandments and Revelations." So the text as it was first written in the BCR was the text as it existed on the earlier manuscript, and the strikeouts, etc. represent changes made in the BCR. Since the BCR has many changes to other revelations that appear in the published D&C but not in the earlier manuscripts, it stands to reason that the BCR changes to this revelation were intended to prepare it for publication. Other arguments could be adduced on this point, and I doubt that you'd find the scholars who prepared this volume (e.g., Robin Jensen) disagreeing with this assessment. But by all means examine it yourself, and if you think the evidence leads another direction, please lay out that evidence as you see it.

Don

[dblagent007]

Two things; first, Little York was not hundreds of miles away, but only 162 miles. Second, according to one source I read, they traveled on to Little York and failed to sell the copyright there, as well.

The text of the revelation does not specifically state that they would sell the copyright in Kingston. As I read it, the revelation granted Joseph Smith's request to go to Canada and attempt to sell the copyright and it gives them permission to go to Kingston. The text is ambiguous as to who's idea it was to go to Kingston. it appears that, if the source I read is correct, since they went on to Little York, then the trip to Kingston served as a means to getting better information as to where to go. Furthermore, if they did go to Little York and were still unable to sell the copyright, the conditions of the prophecy remain potentially valid.

Do you have any evidence that "the trip to Kingston served as a means to getting better information as to where to go." Obviously, the people in Kingston told the party that they needed to go to Toronto, but it just seems too convenient to now use that as the argument for why the Lord sent them to Kingston in the first place.

I can't see any other evidence to show that the Lord wanted the party to go to Kingston to "get better information" about where to really go. I don't see that in the revelation or in any of the accounts. In fact, Page and Smith seemed to view it as a failed revelation.

I don't think it is known when these changes were made, is it? You seem to be indicating that you believe these changes were made years later when the Book of Commandments was being prepared for publication, even though this revelation was left out of the publication. Is that correct?

Don's theory about the changes is compelling and fits the evidence reasonably well. Do you have an alternative plausible explanation for the changes?

[DonBradley]

Theres another possibility that needs to be taken into consideration. Even if Tornoto (Little York) where the only place for a copyright to be secured. Who's to say that Kingston wasn't the beginning of this Journey? That God had a person in Kingston in mind that they should meet and who wanted to put-up-the-doe and who would then travel with the to Tornoto or where ever the transaction needed to take place.

Of course if this person hardened their heart.... the whole deal was off.

Hi Zak,

There may be a coherent reading of the text that's more complicated than the one I've done. But I'm not sure the above qualifies. To assess that we'd need to go over the revelation's content very thoroughly to understand exactly what it does and doesn't say. In the interim, here are my immediate, scattered thoughts:

It makes sense for the copyright to be secured before it is sold.

The revelation says that Cowdery, Page, Knight, and Stowell were the ones to secure the copyright: "it Pleaseth me that Oliver Cowderey Joseph Knight Hyram Page & Josiah Stowel shall do my work in this thing yea

Copy

even in securing the ^ right"

The revelation mentions only the need to travel to Kingston.

Those commanded by the revelation understood it only to say that they needed to travel to Kingston.

As discussed, the BCR editing changes to this revelation show that its material about obtaining a Canadian copyright, including going to Kingston, were seen as problematic in the succeeding years. Without the stricken portions there is nothing in the revelation to indicate that it's even talking about a Canadian copyright. If the failure of the Kingston mission were not seen as problematic, why gut the revelation of any specific reference to the attempt to obtain a Canadian copyright?

This revelation was never published, even though every other revelation in the BCR was, suggesting, again, that this one was seen as problematic.

Joseph Smith himself is said by David Whitmer to have seen the revelation as problematic, suggesting that it may not have been from God. Given that the statement attributed to Joseph by Whitmer coheres perfectly with D&C 46:7 and with Joseph's teachings in sermons (about the three sources of revelation: God, man, and the devil), and that Whitmer was in the inner circle at the time (as one of the Three Witnesses), why is this hard to believe? Surely it provides at least prima facie evidence that even Joseph Smith thought something was wrong with the revelation.

If what happened is simply that a conditional revelation didn't have its conditions met, why was it seen as a significant problem? Plenty of

conditional revelations didn't have their conditions met. But when did this lead to them being gutted and omitted from scripture? And why would the participants in the incident and others hearing about it find it so confusing and faith-shaking? It should never have become an issue at all. They saw it as a problem.

Perhaps those to whom the revelation was given misunderstood it and we, who are distant from it, understand it better. But I think the opposite far more likely.

Now, should the legal evidence prove that the copyright could have been secured in Kingston, then I think the "hardening of the hearts" explanation could work: the officials in Kingston would be the ones hardening their hearts and giving Cowdery, Page, et al. the run around.

But if the legal evidence shows that the copyright could not possibly have been secured in Kingston, then the explanation attributed to Joseph Smith would make the most sense: the apparent revelation was either not from God or was only imperfectly so, with an admixture of non-divine influences.

Don

[DonBradley]

T-Shirt,

First, let's assume that the party could have traveled to Little York via the route one can get from MapQuest today, and that it was a 162 mile journey, rather than more than 199. I can't see how this would change anything.

Second, Hiram Page--who was one of those sent--indicates in 1848 that they went to Kingston and then returned to Palmyra. It's David Whitmer--who was not one of those sent--who indicated in the 1880s that they went to Little York. Note that Whitmer doesn't say they went to Little York "as well" as Kingston--only that they went to Little York. Unless we privilege a secondhand source over half century after the fact over a firsthand source eighteen years after the fact, we would most reasonably and parsimoniously conclude that Whitmer simply confused where they did go (Kingston) with where they should have gone (Little York). And the further arguments you build on your multiple-journeys would be at least as dubious as the hypothesis on which they are premised.

Third, if it's only the saving of souls that's understood to be expedient, why remove this part of the revelation? Had soul-saving ceased to be expedient? Obviously not. The "expedient" part was removed precisely because the editor, at least, read it to mean that the Canadian expedition was necessary or very important in God's eyes, though it ends in failure. My point is simply that the pattern of changes of which this omission is part indicate that the revelation was seen as problematic.

Fourth, I've addressed your question about why the changes were made in my response to Pahoran. I could say more in this vein, but it would take a lot of time and largely duplicate things that are in this volume of the Joseph Smith Papers. But I don't expect you to take my word for this. What what I'd suggest is that you get hold of this volume and look at the changes made to the revelation and those made to the surrounding revelations, and read the analysis offered by the volume editors. If you then think the evidence suggests the changes were not made preparatory to publication, I would be (genuinely) interested in hearing your take.

Fifth, the interpretation that the "Amen" was added to end the revelation before the stricken text is made by the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers. I could argue in favor of this interpretation, but, again, I'd prefer not to duplicate what you could get by reading in the volume. And you ought to look at the evidence for yourself and make up your own mind anyway, as I have no doubt you will.

Cheers,

Don

[DonBradley]

Hey All,

I won't be able to participate for long on this thread. I am now in grad school and too busy for a lot of online posting. Plus, despite some folks' misimpressions to the contrary, I am not much interested in apologetic-critical debate these days.

I started this thread because I think the issues surrounding the Canadian copyright revelation are usually poorly framed. The real issue, as it pertains to faith and theological understanding, is not the failure to make a sale--this is covered under the revelation's conditional clause. The issue is that the revelation was understood by its original audience, or members thereof, to have commanded something that could not be done--the securing and sale of a copyright in Kingston. Whether this understanding was correct is a different matter. I have expressed and argued for my view that the accuracy of the revelation hinges on the legal issue of whether a copyright could be obtained in Kingston. And I've offered the view, by reference to the reported views of Joseph Smith, that a prophet could err in presenting revelation and still be a prophet.

I, personally, don't think LDS faith itself hangs in the balance here. But I do think that one's conclusions on the issue can be significant, particularly for believers. If the copyright revelation was in error, then this should inform views on the nature of revelation--on how perfectly and clearly it is delivered. And if the copyright revelation is not in error, then this is at least consistent with a view that revelation is infallible.

I'll check in on the thread and maybe make a few comments between grading essay exams for the class I'm TA-ing, but by and large I've said my piece. I don't expect anyone to take my word for what's in the revelation manuscript or what's in the accounts. I hope people will dig into the Joseph Smith Papers volume itself and the accounts and flesh out the issue far more than I have time to do. And I particularly hope someone will look into Canadian copyright law for 1830 (specifically for Ontario).

Cheers,

Don

[Ah Pook]

Playing the critic here these "conditional" revelations are par for the course for a "charlatan" who once earned a living as a treasure hunter aided by a "peep stone". Successfully obtaining the treasure was always conditioned upon not offending the spirit guarding it. And of course the spirit was always offended in some manner and the treasure was never had.

I don't see how the "Canadian Copyright Revelation" differs from this. Treasure was to be had in Canada by selling the copyright there. The guardian spirit, the Lord in this case giving the revelation, was willing to surrender the treasure so far as He was not offended by the people of Canada which in this case would be them hardening their hearts. Alas, he was offended because those sent to Canada returned empty handed and thus no treasure.

I know Joseph lays blame on a fraudulent revelation given by a corrupt spirit but is it possible Joseph gave what he thought was a safe revelation and assumed that the party sent to Canada would return with money in hand? Confronted with the reality that his revelation turned out to be false is it possible that the fraudulent revelation explanation was just an escape to protect himself from suspicions of his prophetic powers?

I'm just playing the critic here. It's possible Joseph's explanation is the valid one.

[DonBradley]

Any idea of the identity of the editor?

Hey SC,

Nice sig line!! 8-)

I don't know who this editor was. And neither do the editors of the JSP volume. They actually color-code the handwriting so you can tell which scribe it's from, but they haven't yet identified this one.

BTW, some of the arguments and conclusions I've presented about the editing of the revelation, which are greeted here as anti-Mormon diatribe, are taken directly from the analysis and notes in the JSP volume itself.

Don

[T-Shirt]

Do you have any evidence that "the trip to Kingston served as a means to getting better information as to where to go." Obviously, the people in Kingston told the party that they needed to go to Toronto, but it just seems too convenient to now use that as the argument for why the Lord sent them to Kingston in the first place.

I don't think it is clear that it was the Lord who had the idea of going to Kingston. Many of the sections in the D&C, if not most, are the result of Joseph Smith going to the Lord for answers to a question. I don't see this as any different. I don't think that a revelation telling Joseph Smith to sell the copyright in Kingston, Ontario came out of the blue. The way I see it, Joseph was looking for a way to fund the printing of the Book of Mormon and became aware of the possibility of selling the copyright in Canada. It is very possible that Joseph's source for this information told him that Kingston was the place to go and so he went to the Lord asking Him if it was appropriate to attempt the sale. The revelation, then, is a response from the Lord, approving Joseph's request and allowing him to go to Kingston. This does not mean that the Lord was telling him that Kingston was the final destination.

I can't see any other evidence to show that the Lord wanted the party to go to Kingston to "get better information" about where to really go. I don't see that in the revelation or in any of the accounts. In fact, Page and Smith seemed to view it as a failed revelation.

I am not saying that the Lord sent them there in order to get more information, rather, He allowed them to go where they thought they should go, knowing they would find better information once they got there.

Don's theory about the changes is compelling and fits the evidence reasonably well. Do you have an alternative plausible explanation for the changes?

Frankly, Don's theory doesn't really add up. As I stated earlier, the word, "amen" is often found several times in the text of a revelation, it is not always at the end. Now, assuming for a minute that the, "amen" was inserted to indicate a new ending point in anticipation of future publication, it makes no sense, then, that the editor did not strike a line through the lines following the, "amen". I believe that if the editor intended to leave out the lines following the, "amen" he would have crossed them out, as is done throughout Joseph's journals. It is quite clear that those succeeding lines were intended to remain.

Best,

T-Shirt

[dblagent007]

And I particularly hope someone will look into Canadian copyright law for 1830 (specifically for Ontario).

Ontario was a British province in 1830. I looked around and even found a number of Ontario statutes from the time period, but I couldn't conclusively determine whether Ontario had its own copyright law or was governed by Britain's copyright law (enacted in 1814, I believe).

I found a lot of references that discuss how American's copied British books (without paying any royalties to British publishers) and shipped them into the British provinces to the north. The books were much cheaper than the British copies or copies printed in the provinces. This leads me to believe that the provinces were bound by the British copyright laws, but I don't really have anything conclusive.

I also realized that one of the most difficult aspects of this research is that even if the applicable copyright law is identified, I doubt that it will specify the location where one has to go to obtain a copyright. More likely, someone will have to determine that there were no governmental offices in Kingston authorized to issue copyrights and that the nearest one was in York - a task that is beyond traditional legal research and is more akin to historical research.

[DonBradley]

Frankly, Don's theory doesn't really add up. As I stated earlier, the word, "amen" is often found several times in the text of a revelation, it is not always at the end. Now, assuming for a minute that the, "amen" was inserted to indicate a new ending point in anticipation of future publication, it makes no sense, then, that the editor did not strike a line through the lines following the, "amen". I believe that if the editor intended to leave out the lines following the, "amen" he would have crossed them out, as is done throughout Joseph's journals. It is quite clear that those succeeding lines were intended to remain.

T-Shirt,

The editor did cross out (literally--with crossing vertical and horizontal strokes) all the lines following the inserted "Amen," as can be seen in the photograph and transcription in the JSP volume. In fact, I've mentioned this several times during the thread, referring to the final five (and a half) lines having been "stricken."

The Fair Blog transcription doesn't reflect this strikeout, perhaps because the transcriber missed note 37: "An unidentified scribe crossed out the text from this point to the end of the revelation, presumably indicating that the revelation should end with [the inserted] 'amen.' The ink flow of the lines used to cross out the text possibly matches the ink flow of the inserted 'amen.' The final five and a half lines are stricken and an "Amen" is added right where the cross out begins, indicating a new termination point for the text. It is therefore quite clear, paraphrasing you, that those succeeding lines were intended to be cut. And this, to repeat, is what the JSP editors have concluded as well.

What would be your explanation of the edits removing "to Kingston," "it is expedient in me," and terminating the revelation five lines early, before it refers to selling a copyright for "the four Provinces" (thus omitting all mention that its about a Canadian copyright) and how the Lord will "prepare" "means" and a "way" for this to be accomphlished?

BTW, I just noticed that the inserted concluding "Amen" is supposed to have been added in Sidney Rigdon's hand. So, if the cross-out was (as suggested in note 37 quoted above) added at the same time, then it was Sidney Rigdon who indicated that the text should conclude at this point. I would imagine that this would have been done under Joseph Smith's direction, since Sidney was in the same geographical location with him during most of the early 1830s, was his first counselor, and sometimes acted as his scribe (e.g., in the JST). But the matter obviously bears further exploration.

Goodnight,

Don

[DonBradley]

Thanks, 007!

"Little York" was the provincial capital. Perhaps the law specified that such business had to be done in the capital, or more likely the provincial copyright office was located there. Or maybe not!

I also appreciate your complimentary remarks.

Cheers,

Don

[T-Shirt]

T-Shirt,

The editor did cross out (literally--with crossing vertical and horizontal strokes) all the lines following the inserted "Amen," as can be seen in the photograph and transcription in the JSP volume. In fact, I've mentioned this several times during the thread, referring to the final five (and a half) lines having been "stricken."

The Fair Blog transcription doesn't reflect this strikeout, perhaps because the transcriber missed note 37: "An unidentified scribe crossed out the text from this point to the end of the revelation, presumably indicating that the revelation should end with [the inserted] 'amen.' The ink flow of the lines used to cross out the text possibly matches the ink flow of the inserted 'amen.' The final five and a half lines are stricken and an "Amen" is added right where the cross out begins, indicating a new termination point for the text. It is therefore quite clear, paraphrasing you, that those succeeding lines were intended to be cut. And this, to repeat, is what the JSP editors have concluded as well.

Thanks for that information. I do not have the book. The only reference I have is your link to the FAIR blog and one other website, which also does not show the strike through.

T-Shirt

[DonBradley]

Thanks for that information. I do not have the book. The only reference I have is your link to the FAIR blog and one other website, which also does not show the strike through.

T-Shirt

Understandable, T-Shirt. The Internet transcribers are just looking at the text of JSP volume--which also does not show the strikeout of the last five lines. This is not shown in that way because the words are not individually crossed through. Rather, a large cross or tilted "X" is drawn over this section of lines. This is visible in the photograph and described in note 37, but a transcriber only paying attention to marks on the text will miss it.

I tried to describe this cross-out and the placement of the inserted "Amen" in my posts, but obviously it's much clearer when you have the actual volume!

Don

[Abulafia]

Copyright Revelation

Commandment AD 1830

[line break]

A Revelation given to [crossed out "Joseph"] Oliver Hyram Josiah & Joseph Knight given at Manchester Ontario C New York

[line break]

Behold I the Lord am God I Created the Heavens & the Earth & all things that in them is wherefore they are mine

& I sway my scepter over all the Earth & ye are in my hands to will & to do that I can deliver you out of evry difficulty & affliction according to your faith & dilligence & uprightness Before me

& I have covenanted with my Servent Joseph that earth nor Hell combined against him shall not take the Blessing out of his hands which I have prepared for him if he walketh uprightly before me neither the spiritual nor the temporal Blessing

& Behold I also covenanted with those who have assisted him in my work that I will do unto them even the same Because they have done that which is pleasing in my sight (yeah even all save [crossed out three times, "Martin only"] it be one only)

Wherefore be dilligent in Securing the Copy right of my [crossed out "Servent"] work upon all the face of the Earth of which is known by you unto [crossed out "unto"] my Servent Joseph & unto him whom he willeth accordinng as I shall command him that the faithful & the righteous may retain the temperal Blessing as well as the Spiritual

& also that my work be not destroyed by the workers of iniquity to their own distruction & damnation when they are fully ripe

& now Behold I say unto you that I have covenanted & it Pleaseth me that Oliver Cowdery Joseph Knight Hyram Page & Josiah Stowel shall do my work in this thing yea even in securing the Copy right

& they shall do it with an eye single to my Glory that it may be the means of bringing souls unto [crossed out "me"] Salvation through mine only Begotten Behold I am God I have spoken it [crossed out "& it is expedient in me"]

Wherefor I say unto you that he shall go [crossed out "to Kingston"] seeking me continually through mine only Begotten

& if ye do this ye shall have my spirit to go with you & ye shall have an addition of all things which is expedient in me [inserted "amen"].

[remainder of revelation is struck through, presumably indicating the revelation was to end at the inserted 'amen']

& I grant unto my servent a privelige that he may sell a copyright through you speaking after the manner of men for the four Provinces if the People harden not their hearts against the enticings of my spirit & my word

for Behold it lieth in themselves to their condemnation [crossed out "&"] or to their salvation

Behold my way is before you & the means I will prepare

& the Blessing I hold in mine own hand

& if ye are faithful I will pour out upon you even as much as ye are able to Bear & thus it shall be

Behold I am the father & it is through mine only begotten which is Jesus Christ your Redeemer

amen

Here's the full text, from http://www.examiner.com/x-19393-Salt-Lake-City-Mormon-History-Examiner~y2009m9d22-Joseph-Smiths-Copyright-Revelation

I was interested in this because of Joseph's response that some revelations were of God, some of men and some of the devil. The implications of those words in terms of the process of revelation being fallible are quite profound I think.

Joseph's perception seemed to have been that the sale of copyright in Kingston would be relatively easy (and possibly lucrative at a time when his family were in severe financial hardship). I would be interested to know who would have told him this information. Who were his associates with Canadian links?

[DonBradley]

Here's the full text, from http://www.examiner.com/x-19393-Salt-Lake-City-Mormon-History-Examiner~y2009m9d22-Joseph-Smiths-Copyright-Revelation

I was interested in this because of Joseph's response that some revelations were of God, some of men and some of the devil. The implications of those words in terms of the process of revelation being fallible are quite profound I think.

Joseph's perception seemed to have been that the sale of copyright in Kingston would be relatively easy (and possibly lucrative at a time when his family were in severe financial hardship). I would be interested to know who would have told him this information. Who were his associates with Canadian links?

Thanks Abulafia.

Hiram Page himself was the Canadian link. As I understand it, he was from Kingston--hence his being sent as one of the party.

Don

[Abulafia]

Thanks Abulafia.

Hiram Page himself was the Canadian link. As I understand it, he was from Kingston--hence his being sent as one of the party.

Don

Ah okay. I was following a Phineas Young link. He and an associate were travelling to Kingston at some point late in 1830. Probably well after this occurance then.

http://www.chapmanresearch.org/PDF/Samuel%20Smith%20The%20First%20Missionary.pdf

[DonBradley]

Ah okay. I was following a Phineas Young link. He and an associate were travelling to Kingston at some point late in 1830. Probably well after this occurance then.

http://www.chapmanresearch.org/PDF/Samuel%20Smith%20The%20First%20Missionary.pdf

Actually, that's quite interesting!

I looked for a little more info on Page. He was apparently born in Vermont, but traveled, lived, and studied medicine in Canada part of the time. I thought I had read of his specific connections to Kingston, but would have to dig to confirm or disconfirm that. In either case, he was a natural for the group sent to obtain the copyright, both because he had personal connections in Canada and because he kept them from being the Kingston Trio.

Don

[T-Shirt]

Joseph's perception seemed to have been that the sale of copyright in Kingston would be relatively easy (and possibly lucrative at a time when his family were in severe financial hardship). I would be interested to know who would have told him this information. Who were his associates with Canadian links?

According to David Whitmer, it was Hyrum Smith who suggested to Joseph that they try to sell the copyright in Canada. Whitmer, also, said that Toronto was the city they were sent to.

Best,

T-Shirt

[DonBradley]

According to David Whitmer, it was Hyrum Smith who suggested to Joseph that they try to sell the copyright in Canada. Whitmer, also, said that Toronto was the city they were sent to.

<sigh>

T-Shirt,

It's been explained on this thread (and was implied in the account given in the OP) that Hiram Page was actually one of those sent by the revelation to obtain the copyright, and that he left his firsthand account eighteen years later while David Whitmer was not on the trip and wrote his seconhand account a half century later.

I assume that if you accept Whitmer's word on what happened in Canada even when it's contradicted by Page, then, being evenhanded in using the sources, you also accept Whitmer's word on what happened in New York, which is contradicted by no one--that Joseph Smith acknowledged the revelation might not have been from God.

Don

[why me]

Thanks Abulafia.

Hiram Page himself was the Canadian link. As I understand it, he was from Kingston--hence his being sent as one of the party.

Don

The other angle is the response of the party that went to Canada and were part of the 'failed' revelation. What was their reaction? Did they question the prophethood of JS? Or did they remain in the church right after that event?

I would think that much has been lost from that time. Many words said by Joseph are now lost in the wind. But I would have to assume that the explanation was satisfactory to the participants and to many others. Perhaps there is more to the story than what we know. And I would assume that there is.