Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studiesand sufficiently "ashamed" of it that he would "never have it recorded, printed, or published." Some have argued that while the revelation sent the four emissaries to Kingston, Upper Canada, to sell the copyright there, no one in Kingston was "authorized" to buy it and therefore the revelation must have been a false one-the revelation having sent them to Kingston instead of York (later known as Toronto), where, they argue, the revelation should have sent them.Some have claimed that those sent to Kingston could not possibly "copyright the book" there.Some have claimed the revelation promised there would be a purchaser in Canada.Some have characterized the revelation as one that promised success in Canada, both in "obtaining" and in selling a copyright there.Others have even argued that in 1829 there was no such thing as Canadian copyright law.These concerns can be addressed now by reference both to the newly available text of the revelation and to the likely historical and legal contexts in which that text and this episode can now more accurately be placed.The following discussion will be organized around various features of the text of the revelation and supply a likely historical and, where appropriate, legal context for each feature.Among the historical and legal particulars to be discussed are the location and timing of the revelation, the journey of Joseph Smith's emissaries to Canada, the meaning in the revelation of the phrases "securing the copyright" and "sell a copyright, " and possible reasons Joseph's messengers were sent to Kingston instead of York.correct, but the desires of man or temptations of Satan have prevented them from being fulfilled."In the same year of the Canadian [copyright] revelation, Hiram Page received revelations, and Oliver Cowdery was told to inform Hiram that 'Satan deceiveth him' (D&C 28); right afterward David Whitmer (who accepted Page's revelations for a time) was told he was 'persuaded' by men and left to 'inquire for yourself ' (D&C 30:2-3).David claims (Address to All Believers in Christ, 31) that JS was confronted as to why the copyright deal was not made, and got the answer, 'Some revelations are of God: some . . . of man: some . . .are of the devil' (italics Whitmer's).David quits the quotation of JS's revelation at this point and adds, 'So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copyright was not of God.' "As far as the text itself, that conclusion of a failed revelation comes from David Whitmer, not from this poorly evidenced revelation from JS, which has no parallel.All of JS's known revelations in this period sustained their divine origin, and condemned the early Saints (and Joseph himself) for not living up to their challenge.Shown by the above quotations, revelations told David Whitmer and Page that they believed in revelations through Page that came from man or from the Devil.Did David mix up the late 1830 rebukes with an early 1830 revelation right after the return from Canada?No one can answer that, but the parallels throw reasonable doubt on David's memory."
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.914 | 0.846 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".