Bom For Sale?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 18 2004, 10:55 AM

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?

I answered that 4 posts up, but I will answer it again.

It is public domain now.

[Ray]

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

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.

:shock :disbelief :absolutely flabbergasted

Do you realize that you are now held accountable for this testimony? Are you always so quick to judge? Have you ever even examined the 1981 copyright edition? Would you ever be willing to reconsider your position, even if you never learn that obtaining a new copyright had nothing to do with altering the text to the extent that it is no longer truthful? Such stoops, you make.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray+Nov 18 2004, 11:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Nov 18 2004, 11:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@ Nov 18 2004, 10:08 AM

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.

:shock :disbelief :absolutely flabbergasted

Do you realize that you are now held accountable for this testimony? Are you always so quick to judge? Have you ever even examined the 1981 copyright edition? Would you ever be willing to reconsider your position, even if you never learn that obtaining a new copyright had nothing to do with altering the text to the extent that it is no longer truthful? Such stoops, you make.

:abashed :sorrowful

Sorry to sound so harsh. I don't approve of changing any scripture, no matter what book it is in. I even bought and study the version of the BoM that was printed by the Zarahemla Research Foundation called the Restored Covenant Edition for the simple reason that the text changes that were made in the Kirtland (and all succeeding editions) was restored to the original. And the text changes were significant. Much more significant than just changing "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome" (which I thought was done prior to Joseph Smith's death, and not in 1981.)

I also refer back to the original revelations printed in the Book of Commandments before accepting what they say in the D&C (which is really just "and Covenants" now.)

So it is not just the LDS 1981 version I have trouble with. Get my drift?

[Setheus]

you want to know the truth? Ask and ye shall recieve.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 18 2004, 06:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 18 2004, 06:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Nov 18 2004, 12:37 AM

<!--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.

Ah Jenda,

I see that you are taking that arrogant approach. It's not a bad approach. I use it all the time, but here's a little word to the wise: if you are going to try and get away with it, don't bluff - you ought to actually know what you are talking about - which in this case would mean that I don't know much about copyrights and that you do.

Unfortunately for you, I do know something. I checked on it before posting just to avoid someone who thought they could bluff their way throught a rebuttal. The current version of the Book of Mormon was copyrighted in 1981. Under copyright law, it could be copyrighted for a quite awhile still.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.html

To answer your question, the BoM copyright was first granted in 1824 but that is hardly relevant to this discussion, now is it?

Thanks for playing.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 18 2004, 12:13 PM

I don't approve of changing any scripture, no matter what book it is in.

I'm not sure what you difficulty is. Joseph Smith had no problem changing scripture (refer to the Inspired Version of the Bible) ever his own revelation/scripture - refining and reworking some of them continually as he saw them with greater light and understanding.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 18 2004, 08:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Nov 18 2004, 08:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 18 2004, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by -Snow@Nov 18 2004, 12:37 AM

<!--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.

Ah Jenda,

I see that you are taking that arrogant approach. It's not a bad approach. I use it all the time, but here's a little word to the wise: if you are going to try and get away with it, don't bluff - you ought to actually know what you are talking about - which in this case would mean that I don't know much about copyrights and that you do.

Unfortunately for you, I do know something. I checked on it before posting just to avoid someone who thought they could bluff their way throught a rebuttal. The current version of the Book of Mormon was copyrighted in 1981. Under copyright law, it could be copyrighted for a quite awhile still.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.html

To answer your question, the BoM copyright was first granted in 1824 but that is hardly relevant to this discussion, now is it?

Thanks for playing.

Thanks for your concern, Snow, but your advice and information was a day late and a dollar short.

[Snow]

Jenda,

I demand that you accord me some respect.

[Snow]

I mean it.

I am going to hold my breath until I turn green and use big words:

"superintendent"

until you respect me.

[Jenda]

I'd say, Don't hold your breath, but you already did.

[ST:DS9]

Snow.....Snow......Snow.......SNOW.......Come on dude.........You can breathe now.........take a breath.........bump [snow falls to the ground].........Crud, we lost Snow.

[shanstress70]

Let the war begin...

Amazon BoM reviews

[Amillia]

Originally posted by ST:DS9@Nov 24 2004, 01:00 AM

Snow.....Snow......Snow.......SNOW.......Come on dude.........You can breathe now.........take a breath.........bump [snow falls to the ground].........Crud, we lost Snow.     

dream on.

[Ray]

Originally posted by shanstress70@Dec 1 2004, 10:17 AM

Let the war begin...

Amazon BoM reviews

Heh, this war has been going on for a long, long time.

Thanks for the heads up about the reviews, though. I added my testimony for all the world to see there too, just as I've been giving my testimony here.

Btw, I recommend that you read the reviews of the Bible too, showing that some people see little or no value in any of the scriptures.