The Canadian Copyright Revelation

[notHagoth7]

Good points. I make no assertions.

Apologies for returning with way too much topspin on the first draft of my response. (I was in a rush to get out the door.)

I do not know the situation that well.

Ditto. The Palmyra period isn't something I've spent much time on.

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.

You may well be right on both counts. If so, it adds helpful texture to the situation.

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....

Sounds about right.

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.

Interesting. If it's not too personal, I'd enjoy hearing more about it.

[notHagoth7]

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.

I agree. And it was also from someone who had a potential conflict of interest against telling (or even perceiving) the whole truth.

It is noteworthy how the most frequent criticisms of early church history gravitate around issues of money or intimacy.

People who prefer to take a jaundiced look at such things are likely better served outside the church anyway.

Until/unless they're ready for a more optimistic outlook. Ready to give their neighbor the benefit of the doubt.

[erichard]

...

Interesting. If it's not too personal, I'd enjoy hearing more about it.

Well, I am a close friend, since 1982, of a man who has been recieving revelations since 1961. I am one of a few, in our United Order, that are stewards with him over the revelations now called the Second Book of Commandments.

We also have a volume named the First Book of Commandments which we use in the School of the Prophets, but have never sold. But we might at some point. The 1BC contains all of the D&C revelations, plus others from the History of the Church and other sources, plus all the known John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff revelations. All in chronological order. It also includes a few Sections concerning Spiritual manifestions-- beginning with the First Vision.

We were very interested in the recent Joseph Smith papers volume which contained revelations we had not seen before. We are extremely interested to see if the records of the Council of Fifty will be published ever in the Joseph Smith papers.

When the Year of Cleansing comes to the Church, as predicted in 2BC 24, we will be in a better position to perfect the 1BC and make it available.

Richard

[DonBradley]

LoaP,

Thanks for providing that discussion from the FAIR Blogs. I had not seen it.

I'm glad Stephen Ehat is pursuing the legal angle. I have neither the inclination nor the qualification for it, but it helps inform an interesting question. I think his research is suggestive, but incomplete. As he notes, he has not done complete research on the applicable law of the time and place.

I also found some interesting comments on the thread by RetroProphet, which would tend to suggest that Stephen's reading of Hiram Page is in error. Stephen reads Page as saying only that there was no buyer at Kingston, whereas Page seems to say that this was the case and *also* that the needed business *could not* be transacted at Kingston.

RetroProphet says:

Regarding Hiram Page

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks Don.