Difference between revisions of "Church reaction to the Hofmann forgeries"

m (→‎Response)
m (→‎Response)
Line 17: Line 17:
 
<tt>No one, of course, can be certain that Martin Harris wrote the document. However, at this point we accept the judgment of the examiner that there is no indication that it is a forgery. This does not preclude the possibility that it may have been forged at a time when the Church had many enemies. It is, however, an interesting document of the times.</tt><br><small> - ''Church News'', 28 April 1985</small>
 
<tt>No one, of course, can be certain that Martin Harris wrote the document. However, at this point we accept the judgment of the examiner that there is no indication that it is a forgery. This does not preclude the possibility that it may have been forged at a time when the Church had many enemies. It is, however, an interesting document of the times.</tt><br><small> - ''Church News'', 28 April 1985</small>
  
−
* After Hofmann's lies and murders were revealed, President Hinckley:
+
* After Hofmann's lies and murders were revealed, President Hinckley said:
−
 
+
<tt>I frankly admit that Hofmann tricked us. He also tricked experts from New York to Utah, however. We bought those documents only after the assurance that they were genuine. And when we released documents to the press, we stated that we had no way of knowing for sure if they were authentic. I am not ashamed to admit that we were victimized. It is not the first time the Church has found itself in such a position. Joseph Smith was victimized again and again. The Savior was victimized. I am sorry to say that sometimes it happens. </tt><br><small>-Interview with Gordon B. Hinckley, 18 October 1995</small>
−
 
 
−
Some think it strange that a prophet could have been deceived. President Hinckley's public statements make it clear that he was not entirely convinced of the document's provenance, but provisionally accepted the judgment of the experts.
 
−
 
 
−
However, one should not be surprised if a prophet is deceived. The LDS do not understand their prophets to be infallible. ''See: [[General_authorities%27_statements_as_scripture General authority statements as scripture]]
 
−
 
 
−
And, the Lord made it clear to Joseph Smith that a prophet is not granted to know all the designs of those who seek to destroy the Church:
 
−
 
 
−
<tt> But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter.</tt> -[http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/10/37#37 D&C 10:37]
 
−
 
 
−
The LDS doctrine of [[free agency]] requires that those who plot evil be allowed a certain latitude, though (as President Hinckley prophetically noted) permanent harm to the Lord's work will not be permitted.
 
  
 
==Conclusion==  
 
==Conclusion==  

Revision as of 23:18, 23 September 2005

Criticism

It is claimed that the Church behaved itself improperly with regard to the Hofmann forgeries. It is claimed that the Church acquired the forgeries with the intent of 'supressing' them, or 'hiding history.'

Source(s) of the Criticism

Response

The historical record is clear that the Church did nothing to hide the Hofmann forgeries, even though they appeared to pose problems for the Church's story of its origins.

  • 3 January 1984: President [Gordon B. Hinckley] first saw the [Salamander Letter]. He wrote soon thereafter:

We have nothing to hide. Our enemies will try to make much of this letter, but any fair-minded individual who will read it in terms of the time it was written and the language of the day will not see it as detrimental to the history of those events connected with the restoration of the gospel.
- Gordon B. Hinckley Journal, 10 February 1984.

  • April 1985 [Stephen F. Christiansen] purchased the Salamander Letter from Hofmann, and donated to the Church. President Hinckley accepted the donation.
  • 28 April 1985 The [Church News] published the full text of the Salamander Letter. The [First Presidency] included a statement, quoting President Hinckley:

No one, of course, can be certain that Martin Harris wrote the document. However, at this point we accept the judgment of the examiner that there is no indication that it is a forgery. This does not preclude the possibility that it may have been forged at a time when the Church had many enemies. It is, however, an interesting document of the times.
- Church News, 28 April 1985

  • After Hofmann's lies and murders were revealed, President Hinckley said:

I frankly admit that Hofmann tricked us. He also tricked experts from New York to Utah, however. We bought those documents only after the assurance that they were genuine. And when we released documents to the press, we stated that we had no way of knowing for sure if they were authentic. I am not ashamed to admit that we were victimized. It is not the first time the Church has found itself in such a position. Joseph Smith was victimized again and again. The Savior was victimized. I am sorry to say that sometimes it happens.
-Interview with Gordon B. Hinckley, 18 October 1995

Conclusion

A summary of the argument against the criticism.

Further reading

FAIR wiki articles

  • Links to related articles in the wiki

FAIR web site

  • Links to articles on the FAIR web site; Topical Guide entries go first

External links

Printed material

  • Richard E. Turley, Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case, Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992. ISBN 0252018850
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Church_reaction_to_the_Hofmann_forgeries&oldid=343"