Bom For Sale?

[Franken]

What's with this? Their publishing the book of mormon to retail stores for like 25 dollars, when in actuallity you could get a better version for free. I'm not sure I quite understand the church's approval of this.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Franken@Nov 17 2004, 02:53 PM

What's with this?  Their publishing the book of mormon to retail stores for like 25 dollars, when in actuallity you could get a better version for free.  I'm not sure I quite understand the church's approval of this.

Heh, maybe more people will want a Book of Mormon once they see how much money they can save by getting one for free, including free delivery. :)

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Franken@Nov 17 2004, 02:53 PM

What's with this? Their publishing the book of mormon to retail stores for like 25 dollars, when in actuallity you could get a better version for free. I'm not sure I quite understand the church's approval of this.

The idea is that some people might want to read the Book of Mormon in private, on their own terms. Which tends not to be the case when one accepts a "free" Book of Mormon. The price of the "free" book is that the eager-beaver commitment-patterning young missionaries who deliver it will follow up very enthusiastically, which some curious readers may not want.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Franken@Nov 17 2004, 02:53 PM

What's with this? Their publishing the book of mormon to retail stores for like 25 dollars, when in actuallity you could get a better version for free. I'm not sure I quite understand the church's approval of this.

A "better" version? Why do you say that? The church is maintaining 100% control of the finished product--absolutely no artistic license allowed. People who like books may be willing to pay $25.00 for a beautiful book that is well bound. Anyone can go to a used book store and get an old Book of Mormon, but people may like this unique hard cover version in their libraries just because it's cool looking. This is a sweet deal for the church. It's published and marketed at someone else's expense, but the church maintains all control over the contents.

[Ray]

Have you seen one yet? I heard that this edition won't or doesn't have any of the footnotes to the other scriptures, and is pretty much like the original book, not even being divided into chapters and verses.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 17 2004, 04:38 PM

Have you seen one yet? I heard that this edition won't or doesn't have any of the footnotes to the other scriptures, and is pretty much like the original book, not even being divided into chapters and verses.

If that is true, then I say, <span style='color:orange'>"Hooray!!!"

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 17 2004, 04:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 17 2004, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 17 2004, 04:38 PM

Have you seen one yet?  I heard that this edition won't or doesn't have any of the footnotes to the other scriptures, and is pretty much like the original book, not even being divided into chapters and verses.

If that is true, then I say, <span style='color:orange'>"Hooray!!!"

Yah, well, I already have a commemoration copy like that, but I don't think it’s as good for getting into an in-depth study of the scriptures.

It’s okay for casual reading, though.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 17 2004, 04:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Nov 17 2004, 04:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 17 2004, 04:54 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 17 2004, 04:38 PM

Have you seen one yet?  I heard that this edition won't or doesn't have any of the footnotes to the other scriptures, and is pretty much like the original book, not even being divided into chapters and verses.

If that is true, then I say, <span style='color:orange'>"Hooray!!!"

Yah, well, I already have a commemoration copy like that, but I don't think it’s as good for getting into an in-depth study of the scriptures.

It’s okay for casual reading, though.

I say Hooray! because I am not comfortable with the thought of changing the versification of the book the way the LDS did. It changes the context of things, etc. It is best if scripture is left in it's original form, and for the LDS to have agreed to put it back the way it was is great.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 17 2004, 05:19 PM

I say Hooray! because I am not comfortable with the thought of changing the versification of the book the way the LDS did. It changes the context of things, etc. It is best if scripture is left in it's original form, and for the LDS to have agreed to put it back the way it was is great.

Well, no. The original transcribed manuscript was a stream on conscience with little or no punctuation. the new version most certainly is punctuated and will have chapters:

From the LDS press release... "For example, the new edition will not include the exhaustive cross-references and index included in the volume used by Church members. Footnotes have been eliminated, and the approximate dates at the bottom of many pages will appear in the brief chapter headings. A special seven-page Reference Guide will be included to help orient the reader who is less familiar with the Church and its teachings." 

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 17 2004, 06:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Nov 17 2004, 06:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 17 2004, 05:19 PM

I say Hooray! because I am not comfortable with the thought of changing the versification of the book the way the LDS did.  It changes the context of things, etc.  It is best if scripture is left in it's original form, and for the LDS to have agreed to put it back the way it was is great.

Well, no. The original transcribed manuscript was a stream on conscience with little or no punctuation. the new version most certainly is punctuated and will have chapters:

From the LDS press release... "For example, the new edition will not include the exhaustive cross-references and index included in the volume used by Church members. Footnotes have been eliminated, and the approximate dates at the bottom of many pages will appear in the brief chapter headings. A special seven-page Reference Guide will be included to help orient the reader who is less familiar with the Church and its teachings." 

Must you always pick? I meant put it back to the way it was originally printed in the Palmyra edition. But then, I'm sure you already knew that.

[Snow]

No, I didn't know that. By original I assumed that you meant "the way the Lord wanted it." But the Palymyra version was "the way the printer wanted it," and I am not sure that the non-LDS printer had any better idea on how it should be than what came later with verses at the behest of the Church.

[Jenda]

Whatever.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 17 2004, 07:09 PM

Whatever.

You mean it is irrelevant what format it is in, the printer's format or a Church directed format?

Earlier you were saying that the printer's version was best. What changed?

[Franken]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 17 2004, 04:38 PM

Have you seen one yet? I heard that this edition won't or doesn't have any of the footnotes to the other scriptures, and is pretty much like the original book, not even being divided into chapters and verses.

Yeah, what I've heard is that there aren't any scriptural cross references, Dictionary, Topical guide, just the book. That's why I'm sayin you could get a better version with all of that for free.

[StrawberryFields]

Here is a news link http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,5951...5104489,00.html

[Jenda]

I don't understand why Doubleday felt that they had to work so closely with the LDS church to do this since the book is in the public domain.

[Franken]

Well they couldn't have just done it without asking the church. Definately needed the approval.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 17 2004, 09:55 PM

I don't understand why Doubleday felt that they had to work so closely with the LDS church to do this since the book is in the public domain.

The version used by the LDS Church is not in the public domain. It is copyrighted by the Trustee-in-Trust for the Church of Jesus Christ-LDS.

Perhaps Double Day could have published an unsanctioned version but then they wouldn't have the prestige and trust and respect and goodwill of the Church, something they obviously wanted and most certainly needed.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 18 2004, 12:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Nov 18 2004, 12:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 17 2004, 09:55 PM

I don't understand why Doubleday felt that they had to work so closely with the LDS church to do this since the book is in the public domain.

The version used by the LDS Church is not in the public domain. It is copyrighted by the Trustee-in-Trust for the Church of Jesus Christ-LDS.

Perhaps Double Day could have published an unsanctioned version but then they wouldn't have the prestige and trust and respect and goodwill of the Church, something they obviously wanted and most certainly needed.

When do you think the copyright of the LDS version of the BoM was first granted? How long do you think copyrights are good for? You must not know too much about copyrights to make the statement you did. That they might have wanted the respect and goodwill of the church might be true, though.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Franken@Nov 18 2004, 12:18 AM

Well they couldn't have just done it without asking the church. Definately needed the approval.

Why? If the book is in the public domain, you don't need to ask anyone.

[Guest curvette]

From what I've read, Doubleday decided to go with the version printed in the early 1980's. That particular copyright apparently is held by the LDS church. I'm no expert on copyrights, but I believe they last fifty years(????) Anyone, anyone?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by curvette@Nov 18 2004, 09:16 AM

From what I've read, Doubleday decided to go with the version printed in the early 1980's. That particular copyright apparently is held by the LDS church. I'm no expert on copyrights, but I believe they last fifty years(????) Anyone, anyone?

They changed it so much they needed a new copyright?

A copyright, extended through all the extentions it can obtain, can last 99 years. It was 75 years till Sonny Bono had it changed just before he died.

The RLDS held the copyright to the Inspired Version of the Bible just until about 4 years ago, and I know that new versions of the BoM, not owned by either church, were published about 4 years ago, so I know it is in the public domain.

Too bad they are using one that has been significantly changed to the point of needing a new copyright. Now the world will never be introduced to the truth.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Nov 17 2004, 09:42 PM

Here is a news link http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,5951...5104489,00.html

Thank you for this link. And yes, thank you very kindly.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 18 2004, 10:08 AM

They changed it so much they needed a new copyright?

I believe so. Many of the "white and delightsome"s were changed to "pure and delightsome"s, as well as punctuation and changes in grammer. I would guess those types of changes would warrant a new copyright. I really don't know how a religious, translated text stands up in law next to a text authored by a living person.

[Ray]

Hey Jenda,

Does the RLDS still maintain it's copyright on Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible, or is that in public domain now?