Church reaction to the Hofmann forgeries

Revision as of 01:37, 18 July 2006 by GregSmith (talk | contribs) (→‎Endnotes)

Criticism

Critics claim that the Church behaved itself improperly with regard to the Salamander letter. They argue that the Church acquired the letter with the intent of 'supressing' it, or 'hiding history.'

Response

The historical record is clear that the Church did nothing to hide the Hofmann "Salamander Letter," even though it 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.[1]
  • April 1985: Steven F. Christiansen purchased the Salamander Letter from Hofmann, and donated it 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.[2]
  • 16 August 1985: Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke to the issues raised by the documents (as yet unknown as forgeries):
Some recent news stories about developments in Church history rest on scientific assumptions or assertions, such as the authenticity of a letter. Whether experts or amateurs, most of us have a tendency to be quite dogmatic about so-called scientific facts. Since news writers are not immune from this tendency, news stories based on scientific assumptions should be read or viewed with some skepticism...
The contents of most media stories are dictated not by what is necessary to a full understanding of the subject but by what information is currently available and can be communicated within the limitations of time and space.
As a result, the news media are particularly susceptible to conveying erroneous information about facts, including historical developments that are based on what I have called scientific uncertainties. This susceptibility obviously applies to newly discovered documents whose authenticity turns on an evaluation of handwriting, paper, ink, and so on. Readers should be skeptical about the authenticity of such documents, especially when there is uncertainty where they were found or who had custody of them for 150 years. Newly found historically important documents can be extremely valuable, so there is a powerful incentive for those who own them to advocate and support their authenticity. The recent spectacular fraud involving the so-called Hitler diaries reminds us of this, and should convince us to be cautious.[3]
  • 15 October 1985: Two Hofmann bombs murder Steven Christiansen and Kathy Sheets
  • 16 October 1985: Hofmann injures himself with one of his own bombs
  • 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.[4]

Conclusion

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 authority statements as scripture

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:

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. (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.

It is clear, though, that the Church did not seek to hide the potentially damaging letter or its text.

Mark Hofmann gave anonymous tips to the media,[5] informing them that the Church had a hidden "Oliver Cowdery History" in their vaults.[6] This claim was repeated uncritically. The Church denied having such a document.[7] It is, of course, virtually impossible to prove such a negative—how could the Church prove it didn't have something or didn't destroy it?

Ironically, some modern critics continue to spread Hofmann's lies about his forgeries after he has confessed them. And, a retired CES teacher, Grant Palmer, published a book which based its explanation for the Book of Mormon on Hofmann's forgery, twenty years after the documents were shown to be a fraud.

Endnotes

  1. [note]  Gordon B. Hinckley Journal, 10 February 1984.
  2. [note]  Church News, 28 April 1985.
  3. [note]  Dallin H. Oaks, Address to CES teachers, 16 August 1985.
  4. [note]  Interview with Gordon B. Hinckley, 18 October 1995.
  5. [note] Los Angeles Times (13 June 1985) Part 1: 3.
  6. [note] Dawn Tracy, “Hofmann Told Others He Was Shown Secret LDS History,” Salt Lake Tribune (17 Oct. 1986) :C-13.
  7. [note] Church Public Communications Department, No Oliver Cowdery History Found, News Release (16 Oct. 1986) :3–4. The whole document is quoted extensively in Anonymous, "News of the Church: Rumor Concerning Early Oliver Cowdery History Refuted by Church Researchers," Ensign (December 1986): 71. off-site

Further reading

FAIR web site

External links

  • Richard Lloyd Anderson, "The Alvin Smith Story: Fact and Fiction," Ensign (August 1987): 58.*
  • Anonymous, "Fraudulent Documents from Forger Mark Hofmann Noted," Ensign (October 1987): 79.*: this article lists Hofmann documents used in Church publications.
  • Dallin H. Oaks, "Recent Events Involving Church History and Forged Documents," Ensign (October 1987): 63. *

Printed material

  • Linda Sillitoe and Allen Roberts, Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders, 2nd. ed. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989. ISBN 0941214877
  • 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=4362"