The Canadian Copyright Revelation

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

While the very notion that the early Church would sell the Book of Mormon copyright seems odd -- even bizarre -- on its face, when viewed in the framework of a limited transfer of rights, it seems to make sense at a time when the Church was in urgent need of operating funds.

[notHagoth7]

While the very notion that the early Church would sell the Book of Mormon copyright seems odd -- even bizarre -- on its face...

I had a similar initial reaction to the recent news that the church had cooperated with a third-party publisher (Doubleday), to help that company print their own edition of the Book of Mormon. My eyebrows raised. And then I realized that as far as the church was concerned, the more hands the book gets into the better.

I'm confident Joseph saw or was shown a strikingly similar win/win potential 179 years ago.

[Black Moclips]

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-

Was there something on your mind Wade when responding to this? While that is the extreme point of view to take, I guess it could lead someone in that direction.

However, I largely agree with what you wrote. I think a lot of the angst for us active, closet doubters/skeptics is due to the clash between what we expected from a prophet/the church versus reality/how things actually happened. Of course, the reasonableness of those expectations is the heart of the matter. The TBM says "Irrelevant" "Not important for your salvation" "See look, XX prophet in Bible did it" etc. But for those that struggle, those aren't helpful or satisfying answers.

[Scott Lloyd]

I had a similar initial reaction to the recent news that the church had cooperated with a third-party publisher (Doubleday), to help that company print their own edition of the Book of Mormon. My eyebrows raised. And then I realized that as far as the church was concerned, the more hands the book gets into the better.

I'm confident Joseph saw or was shown a strikingly similar win/win potential 179 years ago.

That is, in fact, a very good comparison. I must try to remember it.

[wenglund]

Was there something on your mind Wade when responding to this?

Yes...your specific comment that I quoted--which is why I quoted it.

While that is the extreme point of view to take, I guess it could lead someone in that direction.

I don't see how my describing the broad spectrum of answers to your reasonable question can rationally be viewed as an "extreme point", but I can accept that that is how you see it.

However, I largely agree with what you wrote. I think a lot of the angst for us active, closet doubters/skeptics is due to the clash between what we expected from a prophet/the church versus reality/how things actually happened. Of course, the reasonableness of those expectations is the heart of the matter. The TBM says "Irrelevant" "Not important for your salvation" "See look, XX prophet in Bible did it" etc. But for those that struggle, those aren't helpful or satisfying answers.

Of course it isn't satisfying. Such is the unavoidable consequence of unrequited expectations. The only thing at this point that would be satisfying to you and perhaps dispell your admitted angst and struggle, is either for you to change to a reality that better conforms to your expectations (i.e adhere to a belief sytem that matches your expectations), or for you to change your expectations and ways of looking at things to conform to your current belief system.

As with most any struggle between expectations and reality, the choice to change expectations or realities or both, is most wisely a function of determining which change will best serve one's interest and the interest of those one loves. Remaining in a state of angst and struggle isn't a good option.

May I respectfully advise that you seriously consider the plausibility that your current expectations may be unreasonable, and that by changing and making them more reasonable and in conformity with the gospel of Christ, may prove most advantageous to you and your's. Such has worked for me (I am trying to be more intent on letting God conform me to his image, rather than the other way around). But, as always, the choice is your's.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pappy Fiddle]

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

Look at it as a logic diagram.

1. Either Joseph dictated this revelation, or someone else did.

11. If Joseph did, then either he intended to grant limited rights or not.

111. Also, if Joseph did, then why did the revelation specify the wrong city?

1111. Was it because the right guy was in that city and he was going to conduct them to the right city?

112. Also, why did it not come to pass?

1121. Was it because the brethren were not faithful enough?

1122. Was someone else's faith too weak?

11221. Why would the success of the Church be made to depend on the faith of a non-member?

1123. Did it really come to pass and we're in an alternate universe where it just happened not to?

etc.

etc.

ETC. almost ad infinitum.

Now, does it make any real sense to dive down and analyze this chart to far reaches of it leaving the top line unresolved?

Is there one iota of reliable evidence that he did receive it.

Pappy

Yes I really do fiddle

[T-Shirt]

While the very notion that the early Church would sell the Book of Mormon copyright seems odd -- even bizarre -- on its face, when viewed in the framework of a limited transfer of rights, it seems to make sense at a time when the Church was in urgent need of operating funds.

As I understand it, all that was to be sold was the right to publish the Book in Canada. If this had happened, the Canadian printer would have had no rights to change anything in the book.

Best,

T-Shirt

[notHagoth7]

Look at it as a logic diagram.

1. Either Joseph dictated this revelation, or someone else did.

11. If Joseph did, then either he intended to grant limited rights or not.

...1123. Did it really come to pass and we're in an alternate universe where it just happened not to?

I'll vote for 1123.

[Black Moclips]

May I respectfully advise that you seriously consider the plausibility that your current expectations may be unreasonable, and that by changing and making them more reasonable and in conformity with the gospel of Christ, may prove most advantageous to you and your's. Such has worked for me (I am trying to be more intent on letting God conform me to his image, rather than the other way around). But, as always, the choice is your's.

I wouldn't expect any other answer from you Wade. Is that reasonable?

I seriously consider I could be wrong all the time. In fact, I've tried not to form solid conclusions on anything related to the church, religion, or God in general. I'm open to a lot of ideas. But expectations are formed by a thousand different things and are not so easily changed. But I'm certainly willing to try and change them, given I have a good reason to.

[Scott Lloyd]

As I understand it, all that was to be sold was the right to publish the Book in Canada. If this had happened, the Canadian printer would have had no rights to change anything in the book.

Best,

T-Shirt

If that's true, then it seems to me that what was contemplated was not so much a sale of the copyright as it was a sale of a license to publish, similar to what Doubleday received from the Church when Doubleday published its commercial edition of the Book of Mormon.

And I tend to go with those on this thread who suggest that such a transaction could have been negotiated anywhere in Canada

[Scott Lloyd]

Is there one iota of reliable evidence that he did receive it.

Pappy

Yes I really do fiddle

You mean aside from its inclusion with the other revelations in the Book of Commandments and Revelations, the one that was published in the most recently released volume in the Joseph Smith Papers series?

What are you looking for in terms of an "iota" of evidence?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I didn't see this in he thread, but here is an insightful point of view from the FAIR blog:

#

Stephen Kent Ehat Says:

October 16th, 2009 at 1:15 pm

In his discussion of the 1830 revelation regarding the proposed sale of the copyright to the Book of Mormon in Kingston, Don Bradley states that there is a question

[LifeOnaPlate]

Part two from Ehat, excellent:

11. Stephen Kent Ehat Says:

October 20th, 2009 at 1:39 am

Here are the results of some preliminary literary and legal research regarding the question of

[wenglund]

I wouldn't expect any other answer from you Wade. Is that reasonable?

I seriously consider I could be wrong all the time. In fact, I've tried not to form solid conclusions on anything related to the church, religion, or God in general. I'm open to a lot of ideas. But expectations are formed by a thousand different things and are not so easily changed. But I'm certainly willing to try and change them, given I have a good reason to.

Fair enough! But, I would think that ridding yourself of your self-admitted angst and continued struggle would be "a good reason to". Your choice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pappy Fiddle]

I, Pappy Fiddle, said

Is there one iota of reliable evidence that he did receive it.

You mean aside from its inclusion with the other revelations in the Book of Commandments and Revelations, the one that was published in the most recently released volume in the Joseph Smith Papers series?

What are you looking for in terms of an "iota" of evidence?

What evidence is there. I haven't seen the new book, you see. What does it say about it? Is it handwritten in a notebook with numerous other known and respected revelations dictated by Joseph Smith? Or was it in a pile of handwritten papers? A loose pile isn't hard to insert into.

Remember, there were two prophets receiving revelations in 1830. DC 28:11 How do we know which one dictated this? Handwriting in Oliver Cowdery's hand wouldn't do the job.

To me it looks like some fool (I'd look at Hiram Page) wasn't 100% persuaded that the revelation came from Satan, or maybe they wanted to just preserve it for the record, or maybe they ... who knows, but somehow instead of burning the thing or at least stamping it BOGUS diagonally in big red letters they just saved it and it somehow got swept into the pile. Is there anything on the revelation itself that says it was dictated by JS. Is there any provenance trail, chain of evidence. That kind of thing.

Pappy

Yes I really do fiddle

[Tchild2]

Failed revelation or not, what is this about?:

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

Selling the BoM for a "sum of money", for the "exclusive benefit of the Smith family", and selling the copyright in a "sly manner to keep Martin Harris from drawing a share of the money"?

Sounds like a money making venture to me.

[why me]

Selling the BoM for a "sum of money", for the "exclusive benefit of the Smith family", and selling the copyright in a "sly manner to keep Martin Harris from drawing a share of the money"?

Sounds like a money making venture to me.

Maybe not. Critics are now attempting to equate bofm authorship to Rigdon, Cowdery and Smith. If that is the case, the Smith family would have difficulties in receiving the exclusive benefit. Oliver and Sidney would want their cut. And if Smith, Rigdon and Cowdery were the authors they had a funny way of trying to collect on their profit in canada. And how much of a profit would they have received? Certainly not enough to compensate their work on the book of mormon, if they wrote the book. And their 'goal' of forming a new 'religion' and making a killing from such an enterprise would have went up in smoke with the canadian venture, if they wrote the book.

[erichard]

Failed revelation or not, what is this about?:

Selling the BoM for a "sum of money", for the "exclusive benefit of the Smith family", and selling the copyright in a "sly manner to keep Martin Harris from drawing a share of the money"?

Sounds like a money making venture to me.

Interesting.

They were going to sell the right to print "Book of Mormons" in Canada to someone-- something being done in Canada with books. When you say, "selling the BoM" it sounds as if they were getting rid of their rights over the Book, which was not the case.

But I wonder why they did not want Martin Harris to get any money. After all, he had financed the first printing. It does sound like "human nature" had kicked in.

D&C 70, given later in November 1831, gives six members a stewardship over the "revelations and commandments", and gives them rights over the "benefits thereof", which must mean the income from sales of these things. Martin Harris is part of this stewardship, along with Joseph, Oliver Cowdery, John Witmer, Sidney Rigdon and WW Phelps.

1 Behold, and hearken, O ye inhabitants of Zion, and all ye people of my church who are afar off, and hear the word of the Lord which I give unto my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and also unto my servant Martin Harris, and also unto my servant Oliver Cowdery, and also unto my servant John Whitmer, and also unto my servant Sidney Rigdon, and also unto my servant William W. Phelps, by the way of commandment unto them.

2 For I give unto them a commandment; wherefore hearken and hear, for thus saith the Lord unto them--

3 I, the Lord, have appointed them, and ordained them to be stewards over the revelations and commandments which I have given unto them, and which I shall hereafter give unto them;

4 And an account of this stewardship will I require of them in the day of judgment.

5 Wherefore, I have appointed unto them, and this is their business in the church of God, to manage them and the concerns thereof, yea, the benefits thereof.

6 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not give these things unto the church, neither unto the world;

7 Nevertheless, inasmuch as they receive more than is needful for their necessities and their wants, it shall be given into my storehouse;

8 And the benefits shall be consecrated unto the inhabitants of Zion, and unto their generations, inasmuch as they become heirs according to the laws of the kingdom. --D&C 70

20 And again, let my servants who are appointed as stewards over the literary concerns of my church have claim for assistance upon the bishop or bishops in all things--

21 That the revelations may be published, and go forth unto the ends of the earth; that they also may obtain funds which shall benefit the church in all things;

22 That they also may render themselves approved in all things, and be accounted as wise stewards. --D&C 72

Richard

[notHagoth7]

But I wonder why they did not want Martin Harris to get any money. After all, he had financed the first printing.

Why assume he had any claim to ancillary rights?

Unless you believe that the implied arrangement w/Joseph is that Martin would be reimbursed for his $5k contribution w/proceeds from the book? (I frankly don't know whether it was more of a donation or a losn.)

It does sound like "human nature" had kicked in.

Perhaps. And it could have played out as simply as this. For funding the first printing, Martin might have presumed that he thereby deserved to be treated as a fiduciary partner. (You'd be surprised how common that inclination can be.) And therefore he could have felt slighted if he had found out that another financial contributor was entering the scene without him being consulted (people who want to presume that they're partners want to be consulted). And, he could have also felt slighted if a few thousand dollars resulted from the sale, and none of it was used to reimburse his $5k contribution.

When money changes hands, things tend to get messy. Feelings sometimes get hurt. It gets oddly personal. (Which is why family/friends often don't do business.)

So this could just as easily be Joseph buffering Martin from getting all huffy about something that was frankly none of his business. Why let/make Martin get all offended?

D&C 70, given later in November 1831, gives six members a stewardship over the "revelations and commandments", and gives them rights over the "benefits thereof", which must mean the income from sales of these things. Martin Harris is part of this stewardship, along with Joseph, Oliver Cowdery, John Witmer, Sidney Rigdon and WW Phelps.

Feel free to correct me if my memory is fuzzy here. But as I recall, in the earliest days, missionaries also functioned as literary agents. And they earned a commission for selling subscriptions, etc - and forwarded the rest of the proceeds to the printing office.

And the verbiage here may just be that those functioning as editors, typesetters, etc. were to also receive proceeds from the sale of such things - in exchange for their time and effort. (It happens in church-owned publishing entities today, but it's called a salary instead.)

If that is the case, there's nothing odd or questionable about that kind of arrangement at all. Especially in 19th century religion. (By way of example, at the same juncture, other faiths functioned similarly. For example, Adventist printers and editors earned their living off the sale of the things they edited/printed.)

[Black Moclips]

Fair enough! But, I would think that ridding yourself of your self-admitted angst and continued struggle would be "a good reason to". Your choice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Several years ago, I corresponded with an aquaintence who was a very well-read amatuer apologist. He gave me what I call a "Matrix Moment". He told me, if I kept reading and investigating certain issues, it could shake my world up. It might be better to just leave it alone and be happy he said. Which pill do you want to take? In my opinion, I think the Matrix is a very parallel concept. So while being unplugged, flushed down the slimy pink toilet, and ejected out of the core isn't pleasant, its a necessary step to further progress. This struggle has got me reading and thinking about things I never would have before. I consider that a good thing and a growing experience, regardless of how it turns out. Maybe when its all said and done, I won't like roaming the desolate world in a crappy spaceship and I will want to be like Cypher and plug back in. Who knows?

[erichard]

Why would you assume he had any claim to ancillary rights? Unless you're going to claim he was an author, your assertion makes no sense. Or unless you're going to argue that the implied arrangement w/Joseph is that Martin would be reimbursed for his $5k contribution w/proceeds from the book? ...

So this could just as easily be Joseph buffering Martin from getting all huffy about something that was frankly none of his business. Why let/make Martin get all offended?

Good points. I make no assertions. I do not know the situation that well. It just comes across to me that Martin might want to be reimbursed. For one thing, his wife did not agree with his investment, as you know.

Feel free to correct me if my memory is fuzzy here. But as I recall, in the earliest days, missionaries also functioned as literary agents. And they earned a commission for selling subscriptions, etc - and forwarded the rest of the proceeds to the printing office.

That seems right to me, but again, I am not that good of an early church historian to remember much about it. As I remember, once Brigham Young was put on the spot for using funds he was given, and he replied something about not muzzling the ox that treads out the corn. Early missionaries went without purse and script, and we have to sympathize for their situation.

I am a believer in the Doctrine and Covenants, and have no issue whatsoever with the literary stewardship set up in D&C 70. I am involved in a similar stewardship myself, it turns out. (I am not suggesting I make any money at it.)

Richard

[Alf O'Mega]

So here is the discussion: http://www.fairblog.org/2009/09/22/copyright-revelation/comment-page-1/

Oh, yeah. Now I remember why I didn't go to law school.

[Scott Lloyd]

Failed revelation or not, what is this about?:

Selling the BoM for a "sum of money", for the "exclusive benefit of the Smith family", and selling the copyright in a "sly manner to keep Martin Harris from drawing a share of the money"?

Sounds like a money making venture to me.

The quote sounds to me like a cynical spin from one who had long since parted company with the Prophet and not on the best of terms.

If the proceeds from the sale were to be used to pay the living expenses for Joseph and his family, thus wholly or partly freeing him up to devote his time to his prophet's role (inspired translation of the Bible, receiving revelation, administering the affairs of the Church, preaching the gospel, etc.), that strikes me as an appropriate expenditure of the money to be raised. Even today, the president of the Church is not expected to go earn a wage from outside employment; rather, the Church takes care of his living expenses.

[wenglund]

Several years ago, I corresponded with an aquaintence who was a very well-read amatuer apologist. He gave me what I call a "Matrix Moment". He told me, if I kept reading and investigating certain issues, it could shake my world up. It might be better to just leave it alone and be happy he said. Which pill do you want to take? In my opinion, I think the Matrix is a very parallel concept. So while being unplugged, flushed down the slimy pink toilet, and ejected out of the core isn't pleasant, its a necessary step to further progress. This struggle has got me reading and thinking about things I never would have before. I consider that a good thing and a growing experience, regardless of how it turns out. Maybe when its all said and done, I won't like roaming the desolate world in a crappy spaceship and I will want to be like Cypher and plug back in. Who knows?

If it is of any comfort, there are not a few of us in the Church who kept reading and investigating, and who are as happy if not more so now as we ever were. It is just that our goal in doing the reading and investigating was happiness and love and a Godly character rather than simply roaming the desolate world in a crappy space ship.

In other words, there are more options than just the pink and blue pills. There is also the healing and edifying gospel of Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zakuska]

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.

Lets play off this theme a little more... what happend the first time Joseph saw the plates?

Thoughts of getting gain came to mind and he was forbidden to even touch them, until those thoughts were perged from his soul several years latrer.

Perhaps this one did infact come from God, as a lesson that they werent to try and get money for Gods word. IOW God gave them the run arround. Who ever said God didn't have a sense of Humor?