Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Canadian Copyright Revelation


DonBradley

Recommended Posts

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?

And this could give a clue as to why the revelation failed. Difficult to gage the heart and the human failings.

Link to comment

And this could give a clue as to why the revelation failed. Difficult to gage the heart and the human failings.

To be honest Why Me, I'm not particularly interested in the 'implications of the failure of the revelation' angle in terms of an argument that says Joseph couldn't have been a prophet because his prophecy failed or whatnot. I'm more interested in Joseph's supposed response (which no-one seems to be arguing with) on the falibility of the revelatory process.

What also stands out for me on this occassion, is that it was 1830. Joseph was, what, 24 years of age. The church had just been organised. It was all very early days and to be honest I am assuming he was still somewhat of a novice at this whole business if you like. How mature were you at 24?

Someone must have given him confidence that the task that he sent the men on, at some point through revelation using the stone or so we are told, had a reasonable chance of success. If someone got their facts wrong on the possibility of selling the copyright in Kingston, they got their facts wrong. That part wasn't Joseph's fault any more than it was Spencer Kimball's fault for trusting Mark Hoffman. We are all human after all.

As a 24 year old, Joseph probably wondered himself why it went wrong. I think his 'supposed' response was a reasonable one in the circumstances.

I think this event also shows just how much the men around him at the time trusted his 'seer' abilities in terms of the use of the stone. It seems like quite a transition period.

I wonder if he would have made the same argument for the failure of revelation when he was 38, and whether he continued to consult the seer stone later on, say 1839. That's not necessarily a bad thing either, just indicates that there was more of an overlap between his village seer activities and the way he continued to use 'faith promoting props' if you like within the church that he had organised, as he matured. (I know that's off topic though...)

I'm also interested in the duplicity (if the account is correct) when it comes to Martin Harris. It's not too big a deal, but it does indicate that Joseph could be cunning, clever and secretive if he needed to be, particularly where money was concerned. If he was in extreme poverty at the time, whilst Martin was more wealthy, then this probably isn't unreasonable and is quite understandable. Joseph had a family and children to look after, and was probably spending more and more time on the church, with less chance for manual labour?

Lots of questions.

Mary

Link to comment

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.

It's also quite possible Sidney was acting on his own part. In my interview with Robin Jensen for the Church News center-spread article I did last week, he mentioned that some of the scribal editing of the BCR manuscript actually restored material that had been deleted by Sidney Rigdon, this probably in compliance with a directive from the Prophet to be careful how they treat the revelations of God.

Also, the fact that something has been omitted, ostensibly in preparation for publication, does not necessarily invalidate it as having been inspired. Some of us tend to think of D&C 121-123, the Liberty Jail sections, as being complete in and of themselves. Actually, they are excerpts from a much larger epistle written by the Prophet while he was confined there in the dungeon at Liberty, Mo. Indeed, some scholars I've talked to are of the opinion that much more from the Prophet's letter ought to be included in the scriptural canon.

One other point: Though the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers volume have declined to identify the scribe who crossed out the material at the end of this revelation, I think the evidence is solid that it was indeed Sidney Rigdon who did the crossing out. In marginal notes, the point is made that the cross-out mark appears to have the same ink flow as the inserted "amen." If that is the case, then it is quite likely Sidney who did it.

Link to comment

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

If in fact, Page did have personal connections to Kingston, and if he or someone else suggested that the group go there to sell the copyright, it seems to me that the Lord's revelation on the matter could be read not so much as a directive to go specifically to Kingston, but rather, as a ratification of what they already had in mind. It is a pattern of divine directive that the recipient is often left to work out the details. In this instance, the intent of the revelation might have been that the group get to somewhere in Canada, where they would meet people who could tell them the specifics about where, when and how to obtain the copyright.

Another thought: In my conversation with Robin Jensen the other day, he made the point that the marked-up revelation manuscripts in the new Joseph Smith Papers volume are consistent with the understanding that the Lord gives revelation within the parameters and limitations of the individual's own language and understanding, and the written form in which they are expressed by a prophet may be subject to refinement or correction later. I'm suggesting here that the thought put into the Prophet's mind by the Lord was that the men should be sent to Canada. Joseph, having Kingston in mind because it had already been suggested to him by Page or someone else, specified that city when verbalizing the revelation he was receiving.

I'm only theorizing at this point, but if the above turns out to be true, I hardly see cause to conclude that Joseph's uttered a false or failed prophecy.

Link to comment

Another thought: In my conversation with Robin Jensen the other day, he made the point that the marked-up revelation manuscripts in the new Joseph Smith Papers volume are consistent with the understanding that the Lord gives revelation within the parameters and limitations of the individual's own language and understanding, and the written form in which they are expressed by a prophet may be subject to refinement or correction later. I'm suggesting here that the thought put into the Prophet's mind by the Lord was that the men should be sent to Canada. Joseph, having Kingston in mind because it had already been suggested to him by Page or someone else, specified that city when verbalizing the revelation he was receiving.

I'm only theorizing at this point, but if the above turns out to be true, I hardly see cause to conclude that Joseph's uttered a false or failed prophecy.

Hi Scott,

I think your point is well taken. And it actually has the support of Joseph Smith's reported statement on the revelation and his apparent subsequent behavior. In making a statement on the sources of revelation he arguably would not have been entirely rejecting the copyright revelation but, rather, suggesting that portions of it were more influenced by him ("of man") than by the Spirit ("of God"). I suspect that this is the case--that Joseph did make substantially the statement Whitmer attributes to him, but ultimately took the position that the revelation was authentic but with an error (or errors) introduced through his own mind and desires.

This mixed view on the revelation would explain why Joseph commented on the various sources of revelation and also explain why this revelation was both included with his other, accepted revelations and edited where it appeared problematic. In other words, a reading like the one you offer above is not at odds with Joseph's reported statement, but supported by it.

If I were trying to offer an apologetic argument on the Canadian copyright revelation, I would take this approach (which I also happen to think is probably right).

Don

Link to comment

It's also quite possible Sidney was acting on his own part. In my interview with Robin Jensen for the Church News center-spread article I did last week, he mentioned that some of the scribal editing of the BCR manuscript actually restored material that had been deleted by Sidney Rigdon, this probably in compliance with a directive from the Prophet to be careful how they treat the revelations of God.

The identity of the scribe certainly bears further exploration. But whoever it was (and I think it was probably Sidney--see below), the pattern of his edits strongly suggests that he found some of the revelation's commandments regarding the Canada trip problematic. Did Joseph Smith share this view? There are several reasons to conclude that he did:

1. The trip failed, and, according to participant Hiram Page, could not have succeeded.

2. Joseph would have known the above from the results of the trip and the cumulative reports of Page, Cowdery, Knight, and Stowell.

3. Joseph never had the revelation published.

4. One of Joseph's inner circle--someone entrusted with care of the revelations, who knew the outcome of the Canadian copyright revelation and was in a position to know at least something of Joseph's view on it--felt sufficiently confident that it was problematic that he heavily edited it to remove all problems.

5. These edits--unlike known unauthorized changes to the revelations--were not corrected by Joseph.

6. Joseph reportedly responded to the failed trip commanded by the revelation by noting that revelation can come from sources other than God.

There are, however, also reasons to conclude that Joseph accepted the revelation as authentic:

1. The text was preserved--unlike that of Hiram Page's own laterual false revelations, which were reportedly burned.

2. It was kept in the same book as the revelations accepted as genuine--the "Book of Commandments and Revelations" (BCR).

3. It was edited in apparent anticipation of being published with these revelations (but note number 3 above).

4. The other recipients of the revelation appear to have accepted it as divinely inspired--or at least Cowdery and Page give evidence of having done so. Cowdery, as one of those in charge of the BCR, retained it in the volume. And Page, reporting on it in 1848, seems to accept it as a genuine revelation (he describes it as a "revelation" Joseph "received"), despite noting that it sent them to the wrong place and that its primary recipient, Joseph, was "not benefited" by it.

Combining these lines of evidence, we would conclude that Joseph Smith recognized the revelation as in some way or ways humanly flawed but ultimately held to its general divine inspiration.

One other point: Though the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers volume have declined to identify the scribe who crossed out the material at the end of this revelation, I think the evidence is solid that it was indeed Sidney Rigdon who did the crossing out. In marginal notes, the point is made that the cross-out mark appears to have the same ink flow as the inserted "amen." If that is the case, then it is quite likely Sidney who did it.

I made this very point above: "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."

Great minds think alike? ;-)

Don

Link to comment

I'm only theorizing at this point, but if the above turns out to be true, I hardly see cause to conclude that Joseph's uttered a false or failed prophecy.

There is another explanation. It is difficult to say just what Joseph was experiencing at this point in his prophethood. He was young and inexperienced. He could have misread much at this time or his head was getting a little bloated with pride and he needed a reality check. Who knows what was in his heart.

And if this were so, what happened after the failure. It does seem that Joseph came into his own and into his prophethood. And the men who went to canada seemed to still have faith in him as a prophet. I think that there was more to Joseph than this revelation and the people around him knew it.

Link to comment

To be honest Why Me, I'm not particularly interested in the 'implications of the failure of the revelation' angle in terms of an argument that says Joseph couldn't have been a prophet because his prophecy failed or whatnot. I'm more interested in Joseph's supposed response (which no-one seems to be arguing with) on the falibility of the revelatory process.

What also stands out for me on this occassion, is that it was 1830. Joseph was, what, 24 years of age. The church had just been organised. It was all very early days and to be honest I am assuming he was still somewhat of a novice at this whole business if you like. How mature were you at 24?

Lots of questions.

Mary

Actually, a bigger question for a critic like Don would be: if Joseph was a young conartist how did he pull this failed revelation off, if the revelation failed. And if he were a conartist how could he start with the revelationary process at all. It would have been huge risk and one where failure would be predictable. And Joseph would have known it. But it seems that we have a young man who actually believed in his revelatory process and was surprised at the failure. This would lead to the idea that he believed himself to be a prophet with a mission and not a fraudster with a con to be made. This is what I take from the whole episode.

Link to comment

I wonder if Abraham considered the following a 'failed revelation':

1 AND it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt [נסה--to test, try, or prove] Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

(Genesis 22:1 - 2)

Link to comment

I don't know if it has any bearing on the matter, but just found this:

April 1830: Samuel Smith, a brother of Prophet Joseph, gave preacher Phineas Young a copy of the Book of Mormon.

- August 1830: In Kingston, Phineas Young gave first recorded discourse on Book of Mormon in Canada.- Early 1832: Brigham Young, Phineas' brother, though not baptized, went to Kingston to share message of the gospel with another brother, Joseph Young. In April, all three were baptized, along with their father and Heber C. Kimball.

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/28854/Eastern-Canada-Church-historical-highlights.html

April 1830 is early. When exactly was the copyright revelation given, what date? (sorry if I have missed it..)

As I've said before I'm not particularly interested in any discrediting of Joseph because the revelation failed, but I do think that concentrating on the conditions of worthiness of the participants and of the spiritual condition of those at Kingston, is probably a little off the mark.

From what I can tell the revelation failed because the men were sent to Kingston, where it seems there was no possible chance of success anyway (sorry if I'm repeating what Don has already alluded to). This would then refocus back on to Joseph's own reasons for the failure of the project, which is far more likely, and theologically interesting in my opinion.

Mary

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Hate to be the wet blanket here, but it looks to me like you've all missed the leetle clue that leads to the secret door that leads to freedom from your prison.

I mean, y'all having just sech endless fun that I hate to pop the bubble, but I wish to walk the path of the the plain road in the low valley.

A revelation was received instructing the guys to go to Canada and sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon.

Doesn't anything at all here trigger any alarms in you guys?

WHO received this revelation. ? And how do you know. ?

Yumpin' Yiminy.

Link to comment

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:

I disagree.

I haven't read the whole thread, but being a Canadian, that of course entitles me to comment anyway. :P

So apologies if I'm repeating something already brought up.

Hiram is assuming people couldn't negotiate a purchase price in any city, town, or hamlet in Canada.

Securing a copyright is one thing.

Finding a willing buyer is another.

It appears that as soon as they were told they couldn't secure the copyright in Kingston, they concluded that the revelation must have been in error. (**They** were the ones to harden their hearts.)

Thus they stopped looking for a buyer.

That's quite a different thing from saying there was no buyer to be found.

So stop blaming it on the Canadians. [::pausing to wave a maple leaf ever so briefly:::]

I'm willing to bet that if they had proceeded as commanded, in faith, they would have found a willing buyer in Kingston.

Link to comment

A revelation was received instructing the guys to go to Canada and sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon.

Doesn't anything at all here trigger any alarms in you guys?

It does seem odd at first brush that such a right would be sold.

However, individuals and corporations spin off and sell assets and intellectual property rights all the time. Strategically.

Consider it a *very* smart garage sale.

Anyone buying the Canadian rights would by definition have helped the church grow - both by the seed money they paid to purchase those rights, and by publicizing/distributing the book in Canada. The church would sprout up in Canada wherever the book had been distributed.

It's actually brilliant, if you think about it. A distribution channel which, rather than costing the church money, time, focus, manpower, or other resources, would have instead provided the church money and hands-free, ongoing marketing/proselyting/distribution, at no cost.

Link to comment

Below is the section in "An Address to All Believers in Christ" by David Whitmer discussing the copyright issue. My difficulty with this event has always been whether or not the revelation received by Joseph was from the proper source. If he could receive revelations from the Devil and not know it, then what else do we have that could be suspect? Which is part of the larger problem of religious claims to begin with. Its hard enough to know if the voices in your own head are good or bad, let alone trying to conclude on the voices in someone else's head.

When the Book of Mormon was in the hands of the printer, more money was needed to finish the printing of it. We were waiting on Martin Harris who was doing his best to sell a part of his farm, in order to raise the necessary funds. After a time Hyrum Smith and others began to get impatient, thinking that Martin was too slow and under transgression for not selling his land at once, even if at a great sacrifice. Brother Hyrum thought they should not wait any longer on Martin Harris, and that the money should be raised in some other way. Brother Hyrum was vexed with Brother Martin, and thought they should get the money by some means outside of him, and not let him have anything to do with the publication of the Book, or receiving any of the profits thereof if any profits should accrue. He was wrong in thus judging Bro: Martin, because he was doing all he could toward selling his land. Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon for considerable money: and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it. Joseph concluded to do so. He had not yet given up the stone. 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. When a man enquires of the Lord concerning a matter, if he is deceived by his own carnal desires, and is in error, he will receive an answer according to his erring heart, but it will not be a revelation from the Lord. This was a lesson for our benefit and we should have profited by it in future more than we did. Without much explanation you can see the error of Hyrum Smith in thinking evil of Martin Harris without a cause, and desiring to leave him out in the publication of the Book; and also the error of Brother Joseph in listening to the persuasions of men and inquiring of the Lord to see if they might not go to Toronto to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon, when it was made known to Brother Joseph that the will of the Lord was to have Martin Harris raise the money.
Link to comment

I am pleased to see such intense interest in a latter-day revelation. Now, if only the same level of interest could be devoted to all of latter-day revelations, and if the bulk of that interest could be devoted to complying with those revelations to our benefit and towards becoming like Christ, that would be great.

Beyond mentioning this, I would just like to say that my own experience with personal revelation comports with the sentiments suggested by Robin Jensen, Scott Lloyd, Don Bradley, and Joseph Smith--i.e. "...the Lord gives revelation within the parameters and limitations of the individual's own language and understanding, and the written form in which they are expressed by a prophet may be subject to refinement or correction later."

There were more than a few occasions in my early twenties where I inadvertantly loaded up undeniable revelations with some of my own mental and emotional baggage. And, it was only after following the revelation through to fruition, and misthinking the revelation had totally failed, that I was able to descern that parts of the revelations were from God and parts were from me, and this in part by see which parts of the revelation were actually fulfilled and which weren't.

I believe that this nuanced insight into the nature of revelation is necessary at some point in one's spiritual progression in order to fascillitate continuance in spiritual progression.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

Below is the section in "An Address to All Believers in Christ" by David Whitmer discussing the copyright issue. My difficulty with this event has always been whether or not the revelation received by Joseph was from the proper source. If he could receive revelations from the Devil and not know it, then what else do we have that could be suspect? Which is part of the larger problem of religious claims to begin with. Its hard enough to know if the voices in your own head are good or bad, let alone trying to conclude on the voices in someone else's head.

Hi Moclips,

It has already been argued in this thread, quite effectively I believe, that Joseph probably did NOT think it was a revelation from the adversary. But he may have thought it had problems that stemmed from his own weaknesses.

That would mean that every scripture you read may have flaws in it. That would mean that everyone needs something more than just the scriptures if they do not want to be deceived.

Can you handle that scenario?

Richard

Link to comment

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.

I think you're largely correct here. And there would be no need to go through the additional effort/travel/expense to secure the Canadian copyright unless/until they located a willing buyer.

From the outside looking in, it really does look like Hiram and those with him threw up their hands and gave up.

(We should keep in mind that this is the same Hiram who months later [earlier?] competed w/Joseph, claiming that he too could receive revelations for the church through a seer stone. And his insistence on having a revelation in hand before going (as if being told to go wasn't sufficient revelation) suggests there may have been the inklings of an ego tug of war on his part.)

So I think this was more likely a Laman/Lemuel event (giving up way too quickly on getting Laban's plates - being too quick to doubt.)

Link to comment

But what about the question. Who received this revelation and how do we know?

? You're suggesting Joseph didn't receive it?

Link to comment

Hi Moclips,

It has already been argued in this thread, quite effectively I believe, that Joseph probably did NOT think it was a revelation from the adversary. But he may have thought it had problems that stemmed from his own weaknesses.

That would mean that every scripture you read may have flaws in it. That would mean that everyone needs something more than just the scriptures if they do not want to be deceived.

Can you handle that scenario?

Richard

Hello Erichard -

When it comes down to it, we don't know where the revelation came from and just have to speculate about it. Most believers here I imagine still hold to the revelation coming from God, while others might believe he was just throwing out what he wanted to hear, while some still might hold it was from the dark lord (Satan, not Voldemort). Whitmer, who was an eye witness to the event, leaves it open to being from Joseph's own carnal desires or from Satan. Though really, what real distinction is that? Who is the one tempting you to listen to and put you own desires before God's? The devil. So it sounds like one of those distinctions without a difference.

Can I handle the scenario? Oh yeah, I can handle it. In fact, I agree with you. You do need something more. However, the practical application of that scenario within the church is a bit sketchy. Most members would heartily agree that you need the spirit to know the truth; however, the implied caveat is as long as the spirit confirms the position of the church. You said:

That would mean that every scripture you read may have flaws in it

Try pointing those flaws out to anyone at church and you will see what I mean.

Link to comment

What if the transaction included a contract expressly forbidding that it be changed or halted?

Yep. Such a transfer wouldn't require a conveyance of all rights. And based on his experience with the 116 pages, that is probably precisely what Joseph would have required as a stipulation.

And the fact that it would have limited the buying party to copying within the Canadian market is a clear example that they understood the nature of a limited transfer of rights.

Link to comment
Below is the section in "An Address to All Believers in Christ" by David Whitmer discussing the copyright issue. My difficulty with this event has always been whether or not the revelation received by Joseph was from the proper source. If he could receive revelations from the Devil and not know it, then what else do we have that could be suspect? Which is part of the larger problem of religious claims to begin with. Its hard enough to know if the voices in your own head are good or bad, let alone trying to conclude on the voices in someone else's head.

This is a reasonable question, and one that I have asked, myself. It also is a question that doesn't have a pat answer, and has engendered diverse conclusions depending upon a number of things, not the least of which is:

1) Preconceptions and expectations. For those who believe that revelations from God ought to be infallible regardless of fallible humans being involved, then the instance of any "revelation" that may come from a source other than God, may be sufficient to rule out all revelations. Whereas, for those who accept the fallibility of revelations because of the fallibility of humans, will view revelations to be as reliable as deemed to have come from God.

2) Perception. In relation to the point above, for those inclined to judging the whole of revelations based on a single instance of revelation, or who tend to view things in black and white and absolute terms, then any instance of revelation deemed from a source other than God, is sufficient to rule out all revelations. Whereas, those who judge the whole of revelations on balance, who take into consideration the revelations deemed to have come from God as well as those that may have come from other sources, will view revelations to be as reliable as deemed to have come from God.

3) Risk tolerance. For those who are risk adverse, and who require the complete security of infallibility and certitude at all times, who are uncomfortable with anything less than fact, then any instance of revelation deemed from a source other than God, is sufficient to abandon all revelations. Whereas, those who are open to taking chances and who are comfortable with various degrees of unknowns at times, and who are comfortable with varied degrees of faith, will rely on revelations based on how they calculate the risk/reward relationship, as well as based on their experience following the revelations.

4) Objective. Finally, for those who have skepticism or alsways being right or zero risk as their ultimate objective, then any instance of revelation deemed from a source other than God, is sufficient to abandon all revelations. Whereas, those who have as their objective personal and interpersonal growth in coming to Christ and becoming like Christ, and finding what works and what matters, will rely on revelation to the extent that it enables them to achieve this objective.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...