What does the Canadian copyright revelation show?

I can see why the instruction raised that expectation. The text directs them to Kingston and gives permission to sell if people receive the message. Where does it promise a buyer?

You acknowledge the implied expectation and ask whether the text supports it.

Nobody can evaluate a conditional revelation, so there’s nothing to discuss.

We can still evaluate the direction, the condition and what happened. The question is what the wording commits to.

In an 1848 letter, Page said the group went to Kingston, found no purchaser there, and understood that York was where the copyright business had to be done. That is a participant’s account written eighteen years later.

You distinguish what the revelation says from Page’s later report of the trip and identify the distance in time.

Page mentioned York, so the group must have tried both Kingston and Toronto.

Page places the group in Kingston and describes York as the place they were told to try. Mentioning a city gives no evidence that they reached it.

Whitmer says he was there on their return. In his 1887 account, the reply lists three possible sources. Whitmer himself concludes that the message came from a human or devilish source.

You distinguish Whitmer’s testimony about the reply from his interpretation of this particular case.

Whitmer says Joseph named the devil as a possible source, so Joseph admitted that the devil gave him this message.

Naming a possible source leaves open which one applies. Check where the reported reply ends and Whitmer’s judgment begins.

Page, a participant, made those allegations in 1848, including that they hoped for $8,000. They are important testimony about motive, but the letter is retrospective and does not independently establish that Joseph intended to deceive anyone.

You take Page’s evidence seriously while keeping its source, timing, and limits visible.

That proves the revelation was a fraud designed to enrich Joseph.

Page’s letter is evidence for his account of the participants’ motives. It does not by itself establish intent to deceive or settle the religious interpretation.