“We relied on the integrity of Mr. Hofmann…”

Looking through my files pertaining to “This Day in Mormon History” I came across this for January 14th.:

1983 – Mark Hofmann sold the [LDS] Church, through the agency of Gordon B. Hinckley, a forged letter from Joseph Smith to Josiah Stowell for the sum of $15,000.00. This letter, allegedly written in 1825, indicated that Smith believed in magical sticks, money digging, and buried treasure guarded by a “clever spirit”–at the same time as he was meeting with the angel Moroni. Believing that the document was authentic, Hinckley purchased it and placed it immediately in the First Presidency’s Vault, securing from Hofmann the assurance that no one else had a copy of the letter. (information from Robert Lindsey, A Gathering of Saints – A True Story of Money, Murder and Deceit, pages 103, 106)

In his book, A Gathering of Saints, author Robert Lindsey wrote that it is unclear “precisely when Mark Hofmann decided to blackmail his church.” Yet this is what Hofmann had in mind when he approached then-second-counselor-but-de facto-church-president Gordon Hinckley with the forged document. Lindsey wrote,

“To someone unversed in the controversies surrounding the church’s origins, the letter might have seemed a historical curiosity, but one not capable of threatening harm to a large and wealthy institution with millions of faithful members around the world. Nor did it seem on the face of it threatening enough to compel the leaders of the church, as they would do, to exact a pledge of secrecy from Hofmann regarding its existence. But as innocuous as it might seem, the letter raised an old and tender issue for the Mormon church: the possibility that Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, dabbled in black magic.” (page 101)

When Gordon Hinckley saw the document he agreed to purchase it if it could be authenticated. However, Church leaders did not want any of the Church’s document examiners or historians to see the letter. Only the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and two other Church officials were to know that it existed.

Mark Hofmann took his forged document to a respected documents dealer in New York, quickly thereafter returning to Salt Lake City with a note identifying the Stowell letter as genuine. With Gordon B. Hinckley acting as agent, the document was purchased for $15,000 and then “locked in the First Presidency’s Vault.”

It wasn’t until nearly three years later, after Mark Hofmann had sold additional forged documents to the Church and murdered two people, that Gordon B. Hinckley was informed by Salt Lake City prosecutor David Biggs that some of the documents he purchased from Mark Hofmann might be forgeries. Robert Lindsey described Mr. Hinckley’s reaction:

“The president of his church smiled paternally at Biggs and said he believed that Hofmann, as slightly as he knew him, was not a murderer or a forger. Then, in what appeared to be an afterthought, he said, ‘We relied on the integrity of Mr. Hofmann, and if we relied on his integrity wrongly, it’s to his eternal detriment.'” (page 266. Note that Mr. Hinckley was not “the president” of the LDS Church at this time, but was a member of the First Presidency)

In a biography written about Gordon B. Hinckley in 1996, Mr. Hinckley is quoted as having stated,

“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.” (Sheri L. Dew, Go Forward with Faith: The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley, page 432; FAIR sets the date of Mr. Hinckley’s statement as October 18, 1995)

Mark Hofmann was able to deceive LDS leaders for many years, producing fraudulent historical documents and convincing Church leaders they were genuine. Some suggest this casts a shadow on the religious testimonies of these men. If these “prophets, seers and revelators” lacked the discernment (or direct revelation from God) that would enable them to recognize Hofmann’s deception, can their testimonies on other things, such as the Book of Mormon, be trusted?

Others suggest that, Gordon Hinckley’s statement notwithstanding, he may have known (by revelation) that the documents were forged, but bought them anyway to keep them out of the hands of enemies of the Church until such a time as they could be exposed as fakes.

What do you think?

For more information on the Mark Hofmann forgeries see Tracking the White Salamander by Jerald Tanner.

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in Gordon B. Hinckley, Mormon History and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

102 Responses to “We relied on the integrity of Mr. Hofmann…”

  1. spartacus007 says:

    The obvious, relevant question is:

    If the First Presidency believed that the document was genuine, why did they hide it?

  2. Rick B says:

    Maybe It is just me, But it makes No sence to say, these guys knew they were frauds and bought them anyway to keep them out of the hands of Enemies. It makes no sense for many reasons.

    1. He could forge more and sell that as real to the Enemies.

    2. The LDS cannot Trust God enough to keep his Church togther despite Enemies?

    3. Since Day one when God created man and Women, their has been an Enemy, His name is Lucifer.

    4. Once they were expoused as Frauds, the so called Enemies of the Church use this as evidence to say, if the LDS fell for this, maybe they fell for other lies.

    5. This makes you wonder, is their any truth to the Charge that the LDS church is hiding damaging Documents showing JS was a fraud. Rick b

  3. GB says:

    More questions.

    6. Why would the enemies of the Church waste time and money determining the authenticity of the documents, if the documents could be used to flog the Church without such authentication?

    7. If the Church really is in league with the Devil as the enemies say, why would the Devil send one of his agents (Hofman) to cause so much trouble for it? As Jesus asked (Luke 11:18) “If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand?”

  4. MDavis says:

    I guess we can throw out these passages in the Old Testament:

    Joshua 9:3–27
    1 Kings 13:14–19

    Same thing. Can THEY be trusted? The role of a Prophet is not what this commentary alludes it to be.

  5. GB says:

    Sharon, or Aaron,

    What happened to the Glenn Beck thread? Why are comments not allowed?

    Could it be that it was going to place that would make MRM look bad?

    It is fishy that it suddenly disallowed comments!!

    Was it that some truth was going to be exposed that would hurt your cause?

    At least be honest with yourselves, even if you aren’t going to be honest with us.

  6. spartacus007 says:

    6) Which “enemies of the church” are you talking about? The way I understood it, other documents that Hofman forged came to light, and that’s when the LDS leaders realized that the doc they bought was fake.

    7) The devil didn’t send Hofman to destroy the church. Hofman just picked the LDS Church out as an easy target for blackmail. Bad things happen to all sorts of groups; it doesn’t mean there’s some sort of Satanic conspiracy

    I think that the main problem here isn’t whether or not the document was genuine or fake. It’s that

    a) the leaders of the church believed the letter was genuine, and that Joseph Smith believed in witchcraft

    and

    b) they thought that the best course of action was to suppress this information (which was true to their knowledge)

    It doesn’t “prove that the church isn’t true,” it just demonstrates a situation where the supposed prophets and seers acted in a manner inconsistent with believing that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

  7. Berean says:

    Gordon Hinckley “relied on the integrity of Mr. Hoffman” maybe because Hoffman had completed a church mission in England for two years and was a temple Mormon. Hoffman knew that the First Presidency and other GA’s were vulnerable and weak when it comes to anything of historical importance when pertaining to Joseph Smith. Make no mistake about it, Hoffman was tempted by Satan and gave into that and what he did was sinful and disgraceful.

    The problem for the Mormon Church is having confidence in its leaders and a “prophet”. Boasting of having a modern-day prophet to the outside world makes the Mormon Church look not credible when Gordon and many of the LDS leadership are swindled by this ex-Mormon. The same goes for Hinckley when he was interviewed by that German reporter about the DNA problem with the American Indians and the Book of Mormon’s claims. All Hinckley could do was smile, shrug his shoulders and say, “I don’t know.” If you’re going to boast of having a prophet, then the Mormon Church has got to do better PR than this.

    I mainly say this all the while having the constant scream of LDS in pointing to Amos 3:7. It’s pathetic and laughable how they have taken this verse out of context and tried to validate it for having a prophet today and his supposed prophetic office. All I can ask now is, “What happened? What about Amos 3:7?”

    The Mormon god should have revealed to his prophet and the twelve this deception. The Mormon Church should have never gone through this if what they claim about Amos 3:7 is true. On a more sober note, those murders may have not taken place either. Where’s the spirit of revelation? Why didn’t the prophet prophesy and warn the people not only about this but everything else for that matter? The Mormon Church wants a modern-day prophet. Okay, then expect modern day questions that dispute your claims.

    Lastly, the documents were put in the safe that holds other Joseph Smith treasures – namely, the seer stone that Joseph Smith used for the translation of the Book of Mormon. That has been confirmed. I’d like to know if Joseph Smith’s Jupiter Talisman is in there too?

  8. falcon says:

    I have the feeling that Mark Hoffman was merely acting in the same spirit as Joseph Smith. The “prophet” however, had the good sense to use his magic rock to work his wonders and convince the gullable folks that he could translate ancient documents and plates, some of which didn’t even exist. Why did the Mormon church get all worried about some document that would expose Joseph Smith’s occult connection? That doesn’t matter to our TBM friends. In fact, they embrace this hocus pocus and think it’s the spiritual real deal. Fraud and cover-ups run rampant through the historical Mormon church. As any flim flam man will tell you, the cons are sometimes the easiest to con.

  9. faithoffathers says:

    A couple thoughts,

    First, I think critics COMPLETELY do not get our leaders. I was in a small meeting with a GA last night and he told many cool stories about being with the first presidency and Quorum of the twelve. He emphasized very strongly that they are extremely focused, always have been, on proclaiming the fundamental principles of the gospel and inviting as many people as possible to receive the ordinances of the Priesthood (by the way, he shared a cool definition for an ordinance- the mechanism by which the blessings of the atonement are shared with man.)

    Anyway, the church leadership spends an extremely small amount of time thinking about all the questions and controversies that ya’ll bring up. What a waste of their time to be side-tracked investing energy on things that make no difference. I know they are important to you guys (and me too). But truth be known, they simply don’t matter. We will never prove the Book of Mormon to your liking. Similarly, we will never prove the Bible to the liking of atheists.

    On Hoffman- I suspect President Hinckley simply desired to protect the name and image of the church and Savior he loves. We don’t know if he believed the letter was real or not. Even if the letter were authentic, it would not have proved much.

    I also think many have an unrealistic perception of a prophet. Do you really think a prophet can never be tricked? Take the reporter’s question of President Hinckley at the airport about DNA- do people really expect him to be an expert on DNA, something discovered when he was in his 60s or 70s? It doesn’t matter to him, because he understands that those questions will never lead a person to Christ. People think a prophet knows and sees everything- this is simply naive.

    keep the faith!

    fof

  10. Berean says:

    This is an interesting statement:

    “Anyway, the church leadership spends an extremely small amount of time thinking about all the questions and controversies that ya’ll bring up. What a waste of their time to be side-tracked investing energy on things that make no difference. I know they are important to you guys (and me too). But truth be known, they simply don’t matter.”

    Doesn’t matter, huh? Yeah, no big deal. It’s only spiritual matters here. It’s only eternal life or eternal damnation in outer darkness (hell). You’re right, why should they care? The GA’s have their non-authoritative and non-qualified members to do their bidding for them. They follow Joseph Smith’s example of never engaging anyone outside of their own circles on the heretical doctrines and teachings they put forth. I find that to be cowardly and not the example that the apostles in the New Testament conducted their lives in service to the Lord. The Mormon Church tells the world that it is the only true church (D&C 1:30) and that our teachings are “wrong” and our creeds are “an abomination in his sight” (Joseph Smith History 1:19) and that we are the “great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth” (1 Nephi 14:10), then runs off into hiding and expects Christianity not to defend itself. Once again, cowardly and not the example or standard that the disciples in the New Testament gave.

    Waste of time (so your leadership says)? My love and concern for the Mormon people isn’t a waste of time for me. I spend a great amount of my free time in studying and witnessing to the Mormons because the stakes are high and I care enough about their eternal destiny to tell them so. Not doing so is not the loving thing to do.

    Waste of time for the GA’s? Shall the Mormon people follow their example? If so, then we won’t be seeing you here anymore?

  11. falcon says:

    I love this new “insie-weensie” defense of Mormonism. These matters Christians bring-up are so trivial and small and our Mormon leaders spend their time on big issues like which cattle ranch they should buy next in Nebraska or where they should build a shopping mall. Well the boys in the big tall building thought enough of Mark Hoffman’s “documentation” of Joseph Smith’s occult connection that they forked over money (which I’m sure came from the faithful believers) to keep it from the public and the paying members of the Mormon lodge. These leaders can’t be troubled by these microdoctrines and historical faux paxs Christians bring-up? That’s why Hinckley couldn’t confirm that they taught that men could become gods. This too is just a minor doctrine that Christians waste their time on. Why bother? And besides, for the Mormon, it’s not a faith enhancing exercise to actually ask the tough questions. How can you identify a real true Mormon believer? Do they have a replica of Joseph Smith’s magic rock? Extra points for using it to take the kids on treasure hunts.

  12. David says:

    MDavis,

    Why is it you (though many Mormons do it too) attack the Bible when your Church is not looking so good? The two verses you cited do not help your case much. In the second passage, God actually struck down the “man of God” for not doing what he was told. The other prophet did use a lie to test the man of God, and this is something some Puritans need to get over (also see I Kings 22). However, I do not see how that bails out Hinkley.

    In the first passage, it should be noted that while Joshua was definitely a leader, one could make a case that he is not a prophet (or at least a seer). Yes, he (and the elders of Israel) were deceived but it was against Joshua’s better judgment – “But perhaps you live near us.”

    In one instance God spoke and a man of God failed to follow the instructions. In another instance a leader of Israel failed to inquire of the Lord. Are you saying Hinkley did either of these?

    One should also note that the nature of the entire Mark Hoffman affair. LDS leaders were not just deceived; it seems they were trying to mislead others by covering up unsavory aspects of LDS church history. It is not the first time such a thing has been done. For about a hundred years the Mormon church had the Egyptian alphabet grammar that Smith had made (the one that he gleaned from his workings with the Book of Abraham Papyri) locked away in their vault . An interesting side note – the one person/persons that Mark Hoffman did not fool were the Tanners. How is it a couple of Mormon apostates got it right and the top guys of your religion got it wrong?

    MDavis, I will admit that the Mark Hoffman thing is not a smoking gun (although I think the Book of Abraham thing is) if you will admit that Mark Hoffman affair does not inspire confidence in your church. Deal?

    Faithoffathers,

    What would matter? It seems like you are saying people should not seek
    out and weigh the truthfulness of a religion. Is that what you are saying? How is any person supposed to detect false prophets if it is not even a worthwhile endeavor? How could we legitimately give the OK to your leaders but not those prophets who are found all over rural Utah (and even some in Salt Lake).

    I think you, and many other Mormons, completely do not get Christians who a know a thing or two about Mormonism. Mormonism is at its core a religious system founded on the rejection of basic Christian truths. Joseph Smith and early Mormonism at times defined Mormonism by what it is not. Does the phrase “daughters of the whore” ring a bell? And you wonder why no one wants to “play nice” with you.

    I understand most of the GA’s to be (former) businessmen who just wished all these questions would go away. Is that an accurate assessment?

  13. mrgermit says:

    FoF: you wrote

    First, I think critics COMPLETELY do not get our leaders

    No shocker here, you can put me in this category…..you use the word “focused” in describing your leaders…..hmmm, OK. I’m supposed to sit still for decisions about large real estate deals , malls, etc as being more important than hashing out doctrine or doctrinal misunderstanding to the world at large: granted, those kind of things CAN become needless “wrangling about words”. The contrast to other church leaders of virtually EVERY christian tradition I can think of could not be greater. The point that several have made about “handing the heavy lifting off to others” couldn’t be any more to the point. I have 100X more respect for YOU, RALPH and others here at MC who try to defend your faith and doctrine than those who sequester themselves in SLCj and leave the word to you, FAIR and FARMS. I know the rationale, but just doesn’t fly, at least not with me. More here in a min, my comment got chopped)

  14. mrgermit says:

    A fundamental problem with Hinckleys approach to this whole letter thing is the SECRECY and HIDDENESS of the SLC culture…..why in the world hide the letters, why the need to BUY them to protect AnYBODY from AnYTHING ?? Protect them from WHAT ?? I can see politicians and business leaders doing this, to protect stock prices from tanking due to new information…..I get that, but if the information is TRUE, we ALL (Mormon or not) should know….if it’s FALSE, show it to be so. Not that complicated. If it’s TRUE but EMBARASSING, well, what of that ??? So was David’s history with Bathsheba, etc. but the story got told anyway……
    Your culture of secrecy and less than biblical honesty is showing…..

    GERmIT PS: that’s SLC culture, by the way, I”m convinced that PERSONALLY, you, FoF, would not sit still for that standard.

  15. Rick B says:

    FoF,
    I have a few problems with you saying the GA’s and other pretty much dont care. You say they dont care, but people “LDS” like your self do, and I know many LDS from the fair boards and other blogs and websites who do care.

    Well if the GA’s and others do not care about these issues, Why do I want to be a mormon. Yes even Athiests and non-believers come to the truth and believe at some point, not everyone of them, but some do.

    Sharing about me, I grew up an Athiest, I was so evil and hateful I was kicked out of High School and was told if I ever come back I would be arrested. I had a restraing order put on me by a pastor of a church, My parents kicked me out of the house when I was 16 years old, So I went and traveled with the Fair as a carnie. I could go on. I know these things almost sound so far fetched it’s hard to believe.

    Anyway, I came to Jesus and know I defended My faith, I love my wife and Kids and would lay down my life, Not try and take one. Yet this would have never happend if it were not for people who cared enough to answer the most basic and trival questions I had.

    So, If these GA’s dont care enough about me and the Issues I have, How can you expect me ever to come to the LDS faith. I know you what your saying is true, they do not care, How do I know, I had many LDS mm’s who could not answer my Questions, so I called the LDS church and asked to speak to one of the higher up’s, Like a Stake president or Higher. They refused to answer my Questions, they told me that is what the MM’s are for.

    I see no love or care among the LDS for the “Lost” I only see the LDS viewing us as Haters and Enemies because we have honest questions.

    I gotta run, I will add my other problems when I get back. Rick b

  16. GB says:

    “b) they thought that the best course of action was to suppress this information”?

    Talk about “some sort of Satanic conspiracy”. LOL!!!

    That is a constant accusation about a lot of information that is commonly available to the public.

    There is no doubt that Hoffman sold his soul to the devil. What other Church did he go after?

    So again, as Jesus asked (Luke 11:18) “If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand?”

  17. GB says:

    Sharon, Aaron,

    So I will ask again, why are no comments allowed on the Glenn Beck thread?

    Some thing to hide?

    Will you also delete these honest questions?

  18. gundeck says:

    I know absolutely nothing about this topic except for a show I saw on A&E so I will only comment on the two passages that you quote.

    The Key passage for Joshua Chapter 9 is Joshua 9:13, the Children of Israel, “…failed to ask the Lord’s advice”. The men of Israel in Joshua 9:7 suspected that “…Perhaps you live near us. So how can we make a treaty with you…” The men of Israel knew that they were forbidden by God from making treaties with the inhabitants of the Land of Canaan (Exodus 23:32, 33) and they knew why, “…lest they make you sin against me…” The Men of Israel chose to trust their own judgment and their failure to ask the Lord’s advice before going against God’s Law and making a treaty was sinful and is not an excuse for us to do the same.

    The unnamed Prophet (Man of God) in 1 Kings 13 had specific instructions from God. In response to Jeroboam institution of Idolatry in the Northern Kingdom as laid out in 1 Kings 12:25-32 and after Jeroboam “offered sacrifices on the altar he had made” (1 Kings 12:33) God sent his prophet and, “with the authority of the Lord he cried out against the altar…” etc. We only find out in 1 Kings 13:9 that the “Man of God” had “strict orders, ‘Do not eat or drink there and do not go home the way you came.'” It is shown later that the “Man of God” was lied to when the “old prophet” told him that he had a revelation from an angel of the Lord to, “Bring him back with you to your house so he can eat and drink” (1 Kings 13:18). In a twist of providence God uses the “old prophet” to announce His wrath against the “Man of God” for failing to follow His command. As you can see the “Man of Gods” failure to follow his instructions from God and believing a man claiming to be a “prophet” was sinful and is not an excuse for us to do the same. It is also of note that God held the “Man of God” responsible for being fooled by the false prophet. We have in 1 Kings 13:20-21 a clear example that God will hold us accountable for following false prophets.

  19. gundeck says:

    Paul defined the “mechanism by which the blessings of the atonement are shared with man” as Grace (Romans 3:24; Ephesians 1:7).

  20. MDavis says:

    My point is that there is no biblical basis that Prophets or Apostles are under a continual influence of divine revelation 24/7.

    The only biblical basis that is there is that God inspires when God wills it. Bad things happen to good people all the time, even the Lord’s people. To assume that God will continually help His people at every moment is to deny the Bible’s teachings and History’s example.

    Joseph Smith even said, “a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.”

    Shall we condemn Jonah for shirking his duties? Or Moses for not circumcising his son? Or how about Peter denying Christ three times?

    There is biblical basis for good men making mistakes. They are not infallible. So to somehow put Gordon B. Hinckley on a different standard is ridiculous and heads towards deception.

  21. spartacus007 says:

    MDavis, I think you misunderstand the issue here. No one here is saying that prophets never make mistakes.

    The issue is that when the top church leadership – the 12 and the Presidency – was presented with evidence that ran contrary to established church history, they hid it. They didn’t give to historians or say “Joseph Smith could never do something like this!” They accepted it as true and shut it in a vault.

    This doesn’t prove anything, like David says, it’s not a “smoking gun.” But they did exactly the opposite of what anyone would expect them to if the church were true, and exactly what anyone would expect if the church wasn’t.

  22. GB says:

    And what about the ordinance of Baptism?

    Paul mentioned the importance of Baptism. Rom 6:4, Col 2:12.

    Peter also mentioned the importance of Baptism. 1 Pet 3:21.

    What part about “even baptism doth also now save us” isn’t understandable?

  23. GB says:

    If “they hid it”, why does everyone know about it?

    Obviously they did NOT hide it.

    Now you could argue that they tried to hide it. But of course there is no evidence to either support or deny this accusation.

    Lack of evidence or support doesn’t stop enemies of the church from making the accusation.

  24. MDavis says:

    January 3, 1984 – Gordon B. Hinckley sees the letter.

    April 1985 – Steven F. Christiansen purchases the letter and donates it to the Church.

    April 28, 1985 – Church News publishes the letter along with a statement from the First Presidency:

    “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.”

    June 23, 1985 – Gordon B. Hinckley talks about the letter at a Young Adult fireside broadcast from Temple Square.

    August 16, 1985 – Elder Oaks talks about the documents

    October 15, 1985 – Two bombs made by Hofmann go off, killing two people.

    October 16, 1985 – Hofmann injures himself with one of his bombs.

    October 18, 1995 – After lies and murders are revealed, President Hinckley issues this statement:

    “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.”

    So I guess you are right. Releasing documents to the public, talking openly about them, and issuing official statements from the First presidency about them is hiding evidence.

  25. Rick B says:

    FoF,
    Let me First say, BBBRRRRR!!!!!!!!!
    It is -13 normal temp where I live, With Wind Chill it is -35. I ran my brother to work so he did not have to walk.

    Now Another problem I have with the GA’s is, You said You care about these Issues and their are the avrage low ranking LDS who also care, But lets be honest, The President, GA’s The 12 and others will someday Die, who will replace them? People in the low ranks like you and others. So you mean to tell me you care about these Issues, but once you make it to the Postion of a GA or one of the 12, you stop caring?

    If you guys do not stop caring, then these issues should be addressed by them. Another issue I have is this, Do you think God cares About these Issues? I do, I see all through Scripture God cares for us and cares what were going through. If God cares, then I would think He would Speak to the President and the GA’s and the 12 and say to them, Please address these Issues, Since it is causing some to reject me as savior.

    Also I am sure you know the 14 fundamentals of the Prophet. Let me point out a few and explain why I am using them.


    First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

    If the First one is true, then as I said, Why does He not clear up these Issues for us? I really find God in Scripture caring for us more than the Mormon god does.


    Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

    If number 2 is true, Then we really do not need the BoM, and Since the BoM does not clear up the confusion, then Again, the GA’s, 12 and President should, but they wont.


    Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

    If number 4 is true, then how was he decived by Mark H? and How come the prophet gets a lot wrong? LDS keep saying the Prophets are not perfect and are able to make mistakes, yet if He cannot lead you astray, they we have a problem.


    Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

    If this is true, then we can never tell when the Prophet gives truth or not, If it fails or is proven a fraud, he can fall back on the, It was a human error not God. But if it comes to pass, he can say, See it was from God, Good way to avoid being accountable.


    Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

    If this is true, then Again, clear up the issues and lets move on, it tells me this is not true and the Prophet is in fact a false prophet since He never seems to care or wants to get invloved.


    Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency–the living prophet and the First Presidency–follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.

    If this was true, then we have a problem, I know many LDS who have followed and suffered, and I know many people, My self included reject them them yet I do not suffer.
    So those are just my Thoughts, What do the LDS think? Rick b, AKA, The Hammer

  26. gundeck says:

    GB,

    I think that I have stated on this site that to neglect Baptism is a sin (Luke 7:30). Scripture also tells us that salvation is not inseparable from Baptism (Romans 4:11; Acts 10:47; Luke 23:43). It is the Grace of God that saves us. Baptism is a gift from God an ordinary means for administering His Grace. Even the act of Baptism is not the administration of Grace (John 3:5). We cannot tie the hands of the Sovereign God to our outward signs, the administration of Grace belongs to will of God and to his own council (Romans 4:12; Titus 3:5).

  27. Rick B says:

    MDavis,
    I want to address theses issues,
    You said

    Joseph Smith even said, “a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such.”

    Shall we condemn Jonah for shirking his duties? Or Moses for not circumcising his son? Or how about Peter denying Christ three times?

    There is biblical basis for good men making mistakes. They are not infallible.

    If you read your Bible it tells you why Jonah did not want to Go to Nineveh. He did not go because those people were brutal and Hated God and the Jews, Yet as Jonah stated in Chapter 4, He knew God would spare them and Jonah did not want that, that was why he ran away.

    Moses was simply being Lazy, yet Moses not circumcising his son has nothing to do with being a prophet or speaking for the Lord. The Bible is clear, when a PROPHET SPEAKS for God, and says, THUS SAITH THE LORD, It either will come to pass 100% And prove it was from God, or it will only be 99% or less accurate and show it was not of God. With God it is 100% accuracy or it is not of Him.

    Did Prophets do stupid things? Yes they Did, But when they did these stupid things were they saying, God said do this or that? No they were not.

    As for Peter, he was honestly not Sure if Jesus was who he said, Jesus had not been Crucifed and then Rose from the dead as of yet. So Peter was running scared, But after Jesus rose from the Dead, Peter was a different man, and Yes he still made mistakes.

    Lastly, some one said, bad things happen to Good People, This is not true, it should be said, Bad things happen to bad people and Good things happen to bad people. Read your Bible, Jer 17:11 Says the heart is wicked. A person said to Jesus, Good Master, Jesus said, NO ONE BUT GOD IS GOOD. If Scripture is true, then NO ONE IS GOOD.

    If I am wrong and Bad things Happen to Good people, then show me in scripture. Rick b

  28. Rick B says:

    Sorry Guys, I meant Jer 17:9 Not 17:11. Rick b

  29. MDavis says:

    No idea what you mean by Jonah. It is clear that what Jonah wanted done was not what God wanted done. So he shirked his duty by leaving.

    This is laughable. So Moses was just lazy? Wow, that sure explains it all then. Now I know that if God tells me to do something, I can get off the hook by being “lazy.” Circumcision was a token of the Abrahamic Covenant. You would think that a Prophet would follow that. So apparently it is ok for a Prophet, in your book, to FOLLOW God 99% percent of the time but declare the will of God with 100% accuracy.

    Second, prophecies of God are accurate when played out. That does not mean that every Prophecy uttered by a Prophet MUST come to pass. The Bible even mentions people being spared after a Prophet has told them they are to be destroyed. God reserves the right to fulfill his words and to change them if He so pleases.

    I am glad you agree that Prophets do stupid things. I agree because they are men.

    I agree with you about Peter. People learn as they walk the path of life. They make mistakes. To fault Gordon B. Hinckley for not receiving some divine revelation about these whole letters is to say that Peter should have known Jesus was the Savior through revelation too.

    You’re equivocating what I said. I am looking at good things people can do while on this earth, you are looking at their human nature. I agree with what you say, but that is not what I was trying to mean.

  30. Sharon Lindbloom says:

    MDavis, the timeline you’ve provided here is not referring to the Josiah Stowell letter, but to a different fraudulent Hofmann document. Gordon Hinckley purchased the Stowell letter directly from Mark Hofmann on January 14th, 1983.

  31. faithoffathers says:

    Berean, mcgermit, RickB,

    Graci for the responses.

    It is my opinion, based on observing the leadership of the church for almost 4 decades, that they seek to lead the church the way the Lord wants them to. If He wanted them to go toe to toe with every critic who wanted to argue about all the details of every historical event that could possibly be seen in a negative light, He would direct them accordingly. What they are interested in, and what they spend their time doing, is leading people to Christ. You may disagree, but that is what I see very clearly. Historical trivia does not change people’s lives. The doctrines of Christ and testimony of Him change people’s lives. How many people’s lives on this website have been changed as a result of our conversations? Follow me?

    The claim that the leaders are “hid” away in SLC is simply crazy. They travel and see more of the world than almost anybody else. They are typically in a different city of the world every weekend, meeting thousands of people. They confront big and small problems constantly. They hear more whining than we could endure in a lifetime. They deal with what needs to be dealt with, and preach Christ- that is their commission.

    Think about the ministry of Christ. He taught the gospel on His terms. He controlled the conversation. For those humble enough to follow what He outlined, there was peace and forgiveness and salvation. If people found fault with Him or found excuses to not follow, He did not try to talk them into it. He lovingly taught and invited people to follow. Plain and simple

    I was thinking this morning about something I found interesting- why do we come to different conclusions? Have you ever wondered about that? We know a lot of the same details, history, and facts. I am sure the critics here think they know more about the church than me and others, and maybe we think we know more. (there hasn’t been much presented here that I wasn’t aware of before). So why such drastically different conclusions?

    Within every single post are assumptions, some more obvious than others. We all have different sets of assumptions. We are what we think. Some have said that at the end of life, what we will have is the sum of our thoughts. Ultimately, we make the assumptions that we choose. I think the difference between us is the difference of the Spirit. I do not say that critics don’t feel the spirit. What I am saying is that I have felt the Spirit testify to me of certain things which influence my assumptions. I know certain things from God, and that knowledge changes the assumptions I make.

    “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” In the Book of Mormon, the anti-Christ Korihor said after acknowledging his wicked ways that he had taught those things which “were pleasing unto the carnal mind.” Do you think it is possible to make assumptions based on things that are similarly pleasurable?

    A question- what assumptions did you make when hearing the doctrines of the LDS church for the first time? Did you see the critical stuff first? Did you hear something from a minister? Or did you honestly approach the church in a sincere, fair, objective, and spirit-guided manner? What has been the guiding desire behind your efforts to learn more about the church?

    It seems to me that the critics who seem to only find fault with the church might be teaching those things which “are pleasing unto the carnal mind.” There IS some pleasure in it! Admit it. Why else spend so much time and energy? This is where honesty is everything, I believe. Do you really think the Spirit is the influence leading to your assumptions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I am sure the Spirit guided you to Christ at some point in your life. Was it the same influence that affects your view of us?

    fof

  32. SteveH says:

    FOF,

    I appreciate your words, well put.

  33. faithoffathers says:

    David,

    You asked “What would matter?” What matters is teaching the true doctrine of Christ and inviting people to come unto Him. Everything else is secondary. Or tertiary, etc…

    I have even wondered if it was a waste of the time God has given me to post on this website. No offense to anybody. Will my blogging really change anybody else for the better? Probably not. Is it a selfish indulgence? Maybe.

    My point is, if I wonder about this use of time, I can imagine someone who has enormous responsiblities like the president of the church, responsible for leading millions of people and spreading the restored gospel to all the world. Even if only from a standpoint of effeciency and effectiveness, it would make no sense to spend time arguing with critics. It is not that they don’t care about those individuals, I think they realize they are not likely to make any difference by trying to appease or those critics.

    Another point about the leadership of the church. One thing that troubles me about people of the liberal persuasion is that, to me, they seem to have very little ability to judge human nature and character- or at least do not seem to care about it. I think the same could be said about many critics of President Monson, President Hinckley, and the others. The idea that they are cowardly, dishonest, or hiding things, in some selfish deceibtful way is simply laughable. A person who believes such things clearly does not know these men. Plain and simple. Or they have no judgement in character. They are absolutely beautiful servants who are enormously caricaturized by critics. And I am not some rose-glass dupe who worships them.

    fof

  34. faithoffathers says:

    Berean,

    Question- if someday all your questions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were sufficiently answered, would you convert? My guess is no- but that is my assumption. In other words, answering trivia satisfactorily will not change anybody. Removing negatves does not result in positives. Does that make sense? Ridding onself of doubt does not necessarily result in faith. Follow?

    Your comment that Christianity is “defending itself” from us is horse hockey- sorry for the cheezy lingo from M.A.S.H. What other church or religion gets more negative attention than the LDS church? What other church has more organized, dedicated critics? Which faith has more websites dedicated to “exposing” it? I think you would be hard pressed to come up with another that compares.

    Look at this website for example. Is this site designed to “defend Christianity” from the LDS church? If that is your take, I don’t know what to say. Which church is on the defensive here and almost all the other such sites? Criticism of what organization intitiated this thread? I am not claiming victimhood here, just pointing out the craziness in what you stated.

    As far as your saying “It’s only spiritual matters here. It’s only eternal life or eternal damnation in outer darkness (hell).” My point is that these issues having VERY little to do with “spiritual matters…eternal life or eternal damnation…..” That is my very point.

    It is impossible to satisfy a dedicated doubter. (I am saying this in general terms- not referring to you!).

    fof

  35. faithoffathers says:

    RickB,

    I sincerely respect the road you have been down and commend you in every way for the changes you have made in your life. I have no doubt God had a hand in that. I can personally relate to your story in a big way!

    I believe the leaders of the church, to your surprise, care quite profoundly for you and others with questions. But in my opinion, they recognize that answering every question will not always lead to Christ. Teaching doctrine and Testifying of Christ changes people. Hope you can understand this.

    Thanks for the note!

    fof

  36. faithoffathers says:

    Berean,

    By the way- in response to your answering my questions on the BOM- there was no icon to respond to your response. So I will post it on this thread instead.

    I appreciate that you have actually read the Book of Mormon. That says a lot about you. Most critics don’t have that much integrity.

    One more question if I may: why did you read it? Did you really read it to know if it was true. Or did you know when you started that it was false and a fraud? Did you read it to allow you to better criticize it?

    This probably sounds judgemental or nit-picky, but I am truly interested in your honesty!

    thanks,

    fof

  37. MDavis says:

    Thank you for catching that. However, I do wish to refer to statements made by Gordon B. Hinckley on June 23, 1985:

    “I acquired for the Church both of these letters, the first by purchase. The second was given to the Church by its generous owner. I am, of course, familiar with both letters, having held them in my hands and having read them in their original form. It was I, also, who made the decision to make them public. Copies were issued to the media, and both have received wide publicity.”

  38. Ralph says:

    RickB

    No one said the leaders do not care about you. They care about every individual on this earth. What they do not ‘care’ about are the trivial little questions that can be answered by someone else, or that play no importance in one’s salvation. They do not answer members’ questions either, in fact there have been many letters from the First Presidency that I can remember over my long 38 years of life that state if one has a question see their immediate priesthood leader – ie bishop. If he can’t answer it and he believes that it is a reasonable answer it then goes to the stake president- next the area authorities before it goes to the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency. This is an example of chain of authority. The First Presidency’s and Quorum of the 12s main responsibilities directly from God are to testify of Jesus Christ and His Atonement, to invite all to come unto Christ and to run the church on this earth under God’s guidance until the Second Coming.

    Look at it from a CEO’s position. They have many people working under them. In most cases they would be worried about these people’s health, well-being and efficiency, etc. But will they have an open door policy that if anyone who wanted from his employees could come and ask him any trivial little question about the company was able to come and do it whenever they wanted or make an appointment to do so? Most of the CEOs I know would not, they have their administrative assistants to do that work, like Human Resource management, Financial Department, etc. My immediate boss in my last lab only had 16 people at the most work for him. I was second in charge and I had to field the questions and maintain the lab for him. He worried about the financial side of things as well as political – he also listened to the personal problems if they affected work efficiency.

    This is the same with the Gas – they have their work to do in maintaining the running of the church as a temporal/earthly thing, but their main mandate is testifying of Christ. If they fielded all the questions that was sent to them they would be inundated so much as to inhibit their efficiency to do what they are supposed to do. They are not running away from it, they just know it’s a ‘waste of time’ (for want of a better phrase). Neal Maxwell started FARMS, so apparently they do take these things seriously enough to have a group look at them – but most people here like to discredit FARMS and FAIRLDS – proving the GAs can’t please everyone.

    Yes, I said that most of these questions are trivial – the DNA, BoM history or lack there-of, etc. What is important to one’s salvation? The Atonement of Jesus Christ and a correct belief in Him. Everything else IS trivial, as facts and figures and evidences can be falsified, misinterpreted or absent, whether by human device or because God wants it to be that way for now. From what I know of statistics and data representation from my work, I can use the same set of data to prove three totally different things. Religion is FAITH and SPIRITUAL, not facts and figures. Only God can prove these and His proof is absolute.

  39. David says:

    Fof,

    When I wrote “what would matter” I wasking what would be a problem for your faith. By reading the posts of Mormons here I gather that nothing would be a problem. It seems like a “prophet” can do anything and get away with it and its all chocked up to “they are not infallible”. Anytime sometime tries to examine a supposed prophet, to determine if he is a real prophet, then the one who questions has the problem.

    The issue of who is the real Jesus and what is his true doctrine is the very issue at hand. We feel you have a different Jesus and fa alse gospel; you may feel the same about us. I do not see accessing the truthfulness of a religion as a waste of time. Indeed, if your religion is false everything you have done in it is a waste of time. Again, what would be a problem? Is your faith unassailable?

  40. Rick B says:

    MDavis said,

    No idea what you mean by Jonah. It is clear that what Jonah wanted done was not what God wanted done. So he shirked his duty by leaving.

    What do you mean you dont understand? It was Clear, Jonah wanted to see the people destoryed by God, so He knew God would spare them, that was why He ran away. That is far different than saying Jonah simply shirked his duties. Then as far as I am concrened, Any one that says, God Failed or the Prophet failed because God did not Destroy an entire Nation is a sick Man.

    Your saying you would rather see a nation killed in order to say, well God did what He said he would do.

    Then Moses was Lazy, he almost paid for it with His life though, it was His wife that saved his hide. So Mdavis, no you cannot get out of something by being Lazy, I never said you could, and again it almost Cost moses his life.

    As to the Issue of Prophets speaking for God, Read this, I really think Due 18:22 sums it up and is as clear as it gets. Rick b

    deu 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

    Deu 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

    Deu 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

    Deu 13:4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

    Deu 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn [you] away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.

    Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

    Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

    Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

  41. faithoffathers says:

    David,

    Good question. My hope is that nothing could break my faith. I think that would be the ideal for any follower of Christ- being able to withstand any influence, temptation, or information and maintain pure, humble faith. In saying that, I must honestly say that I have not felt especially challenged in my faith by studying all these issues discussed here and elsewhere. It is not because I turn my brain off. Quite the opposite. I believe if you take these arguments far enough (which is what I try to do), the BOM, the church, and its leader are vindicated.

    You are right in saying it is “not a waste of time to assess the truthfulness of a religion.” But remember that from the beginning, the church has always said the way to know its truthfulness was by humbly studying the Book of Mormon, and pleading with God to know if it is true. It the church really is true, then that is the only way to know it is true- the peripheral evidences simply won’t answer that question.

    Thanks for the response

    fof

  42. Sharon Lindbloom says:

    This is in reply to MDavis’ above comment of January 15th (no direct reply button available) wherein Gordon Hinckley is quoted saying he had released the Stowell letter to the press.

    Things are often more complicated than they first appear. From the Juanita Brooks Lecture Series:

    Hofmann said that Hinckley told him that only top church leaders would know of its [the Josiah Stowell letter’s] existence. In point of fact, the letter was released to the public two years later, after the salamander letter surfaced, and scholars discussed both letters at the Mormon History Association meeting in 1985. How did the scholars know about the Stowell letter? Hofmann had leaked it to various people in the history community, and then blamed the leaks on Charles Hamilton, the letter’s unwary authenticator in New York City. The church’s denial that it had the letter, followed by its release, began a chain of image-tarnishing events that ultimately led to the church’s involvement in the McLellin collection transaction, a high-pressured deal that eventually resulted in tragedy.

  43. Ralph says:

    RickB,

    Regardless of whether God wanted to destroy the people or not, He told Jonah to prophecy destruction of their city in the name of God – no equivocation, no ‘outs’ like repentance – just straight out “God will destroy this city because of its wickedness”.

    We see this in these verses –

    Jonah 1:1-2 Now the word of the Lord came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me.

    Jonah 3:1-4 And the word of the Lord came unto Jonah the second time, saying, Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee. So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days’ journey. And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

    We even get the testimony from the people in the city that the only message they received was destruction –

    Jonah 3: 9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

    So according to the Deuteronomy scriptures you have quoted, the thing that Jonah prophesied in the name of God did not come to pass – so Jonah is a false prophet and is worthy of death. Can you show otherwise? Did God say anywhere that if the people repented or did something else they would be spared? The book is only 4 chapters and I read them all before I wrote this to make sure of my stance.

    I am not saying I want the city destroyed because that was what God told His prophet to say, I am saying that prophecies can be dependent on other influences and God knows all this before hand. The Deuteronomy verses you have cited are discussing false prophets, not tried and tested true prophets that have said and done what God wanted them to and it has turned out differently.

  44. David says:

    Fof,

    I am guessing that your faith is unassailable, and that is not a good thing. If (new) information that contradicts a previously held position does not have the ability to affect a person’s belief then his/her beliefs are not grounded in reality. There are things that could make me ditch my faith and I will gladly tell you what those types of things would be.

    “But remember that from the beginning, the church has always said the way to know its truthfulness was by humbly studying the Book of Mormon, and pleading with God to know if it is true. It the church really is true, then that is the only way to know it is true- the peripheral evidences simply won’t answer that question.”

    So how do you react to people who have earnestly prayed about the Book of Mormon and got either no answer at all or one that said it was false? How about others who have had some kind of “spiritual” confirmation that their (non-Mormon) faith is true?

    That is why those here at MRM deal in information that is transferable. They could go on and on how they sense evil at temples or have a sense of relief after leaving your church but that really does “prove” much. Why can “periphery” things be used in our everyday life to tell if something is false, but if one slaps the title of “religion” on it then logic, reason, and evidence go out the window?

    I will tell you that on this issue (Mark Hoffman forgeries) it is not a smoking gun, but the problem is no “smoking gun” could exist in your worldview. No case could be built, no evidence presented, that could change your mind. If you were an anomaly, Fof, I would just chock it up to human idiosyncrasies but your view is a common one among Mormons. If evidence does not matter then let me tell you now, you are wasting your time and ours as well. If my evidence cannot assail your faith then why should I allow your evidence to assail mine?

  45. mrgermit says:

    FoF you wrote:

    It seems to me that the critics who seem to only find fault with the church might be teaching those things which “are pleasing unto the carnal mind.” There IS some pleasure in it! Admit it. Why else spend so much time and energy? This is where honesty is everything, I believe. Do you really think the Spirit is the influence leading to your assumptions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I am sure the Spirit guided you to Christ at some point in your life. Was it the same influence that affects your view of us?

    Let’s start with the last question first: Absolutely….and I say that as one who is confident about less and less as I get older (how does that happen…..?) That is NOT to say that everything I write, both in content and tone, is done IN THE SPIRIT, but is my basic view of the LDS church formed by, and empowered by the Holy Spirit?? I have no doubt that the answer is YES….this puts us at somewhat of an impasse, as you are equally convinced that the Spirit of the Holy God has led you to the LDS church…hmmmmmm…… one of us is quite deceived.
    Are there the occaisional “fleshly” pleasures from posting here at MC ?? Yes,…..here and there…..does that discount what I just said about the real Holy Spirit leading me in my position ?? NO, I don’t think so, any more than God can lead you into a certain job, a certain friendship, a certain marriage, that does not mean that all future actions and conversations will be Christ-honoring…..so do our insecurities and power plays get the better of us from time to time……oh yeah…… does that mean my basic position is false ?? Not that I can see…..and the truth of what I do is not built upon the foundation of GERMIT’s level of sanctification , but on Jesus Himself, who rose again on the third day……but of course you’ll say the same thing.
    I don’t think your path of examining “fleshly mindedness” will really get a satisfactory answer for you OR me……there are really bad examples of attitudes on BOTH sides of this argument…..and I’ve seen the same on many other blogs, in all honesty YOUR attitude is better than many christians that I’ve read posting here and other places….that’s to your credit, but it doesn’t show that what you’re teaching is true…..it might just mean you had awesome parents.
    You are probably right about assumptions, and assumptions should ALWAYS be tested, and I recommend testing them in a variety of ways….and I think you’ve been there done that……

    Here’s hoping that in those efforts, we find HIM, the Keeper of all Truth

    GERMIT

    PS: I don’t mean to imply tht I know your leaders,, I don’t know them at all, but I have a pretty keen sense for dysfunctional leaders and dysfunctional institutions, having been in some for many years…..that’s another story; sometimes a METHOD or APPROaCH trips my radar…..more on that later.

  46. mobaby says:

    I have read the book “The Poet and the Murderer” which chronicles the story of Mark Hofmann’s career as a forger. He also sold a forged Emily Dickinson poem. Why did he choose to forge Emily Dickinson? – because he knew there would be a market, people willing to pay a large sum of money for a “lost work” of Emily Dickinson. Those who purchased the fake poem did so to proudly display and claim ownership of an Emily Dickinson original work.

    Mark Hofmann also knew there would be a market for his Joseph Smith forgery. He knew not only would the LDS Church pay a large sum of money for a work pertaining to Joseph Smith dabbling in the occult, but he knew they would fall for it. The LDS Church did not announce the aquisition of the fake Joseph Smith work or put in on public display. They bought it to bury it – because they BELIEVED the story Mark Hofmann constructed for their consumption – a story involving Joseph Smith and occult practices. A story bought and believed by the LDS Church leadership.

    Mark Hofmann knew he could fool the Emily Dickinson International Society and the librarian who bought the poem because they so admired her work and wanted to own an original autograph tp display it. However, the impulses that Mr. Hofmann was playing on in the Mormon Church – the impulse to hide and cover up the past, to obscure the true history of the LDS religion, the impulse to suppress those things which are not “faith promoting” – this is the impulse that the master forger played on in Salt Lake City. And they believed it, they believed a tale of occultic salamanders and believed that Joseph Smith authored it. Why would those who trust the truth of the LDS Church believe such a thing about their own prophet?

    Two different groups, two very different motives for buying the works of a very talent con-artist – a forger who fooled some of the best. Which group had good motives for buying the forgery, and which had bad motives? Which group believed the best and which group believed the worst?

  47. Berean says:

    FoF,

    All my questions don’t have to be answered for me to convert to Mormonism. It would only take two and they aren’t questions…they are scriptural texts that I want shown to me that I can reference to support a stated doctrine. If you can demonstrate to me from the Bible these two fundamental beliefs I will convert and let you baptize me. They are:

    1. God (Father) of the Bible is an exalted man. (Please don’t be silly like some Mormons have and point to Jesus because that is ignorant. He was God before He got here and He was God when He took on the form of man and was born on earth. You can’t exalt to something that you already are. Isaiah 9:6; Matthew 1:23; John 1:1, 14)

    2. Show me the word “Gods” (just like it is spelled) from Abraham 4 & 5 anywhere in the Bible.

    It’s really that simple. Let me know when you have it.

    Yes, Christianity is defending itself against the claims of Mormonism. You obviously aren’t reading my posts and looking at the LDS scripture references. Christendom was minding its own business in the days of Joseph Smith and then Joseph said this from Joseph Smith History 1:

    “18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
    19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

    That statement means that the teachings of Christianity were all wrong, our creeds were an abomination in his sight and our professors are all corrupt. What do we have left? Nothing! Joseph Smith in one sentence wiped out 18 centuries of Christianity. What are Christians supposed to do in light of this? We are to defend ourselves by use of the scriptures against these claims. This has nothing to do with the LDS’s support of prop 8. We are talking about the very beginning of the accusations against us. Joseph Smith started it. Christians will attempt to end it if it’s God’s will that your church comes to the end of itself in this age just like what happened to the Worldwide Church of God. They realized they were teaching heresy and that they were a non-Christian cult. They repented, rejected the heretical teachings and have asked for fellowship with Christians. We can only hope the Mormon Church will too.

  48. Ralph says:

    Mobaby,

    I take it from your comments –

    “…the impulse to hide and cover up the past, to obscure the true history of the LDS religion, the impulse to suppress those things which are not “faith promoting” – this is the impulse that the master forger played on in Salt Lake City. And they believed it, they believed a tale of occultic salamanders and believed that Joseph Smith authored it.”

    – that you have the ability to read other people’s thoughts and minds. Wow, what a great ability that is. I wish I had it, then I could determine which politician to vote for next election, especially since the last few have been very difficult to see who would be the better leader.

    Maybe you could come over here and help me with my wife. I’d love to know what she is thinking and how I could get on her better side more often. It would also help me understand her more as she has a mental disorder.

    Basically, save the conjecture on their thoughts/beliefs as you do not know what they were. All you can say is that because the papers were not shown to the general congregation that the church leaders put them away for some reason. It does not indicate that they believed the stories and it does not indicate that they did not believe them either.

  49. Rick B says:

    Ralph,
    I think you need to re-read these verses,

    Jon 4:1 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.

    Jon 4:2 And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, [was] not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou [art] a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.

    Jon 4:3 Therefore now, O LORD, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for [it is] better for me to die than to live.

    Jon 4:4 Then said the LORD, Doest thou well to be angry?

    Jon 4:5 So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a booth, and sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the city.

    Jon 4:6 And the LORD God prepared a gourd, and made [it] to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd.

    Jon 4:7 But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered.

    Jon 4:8 And it came to pass, when the sun did arise, that God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he fainted, and wished in himself to die, and said, [It is] better for me to die than to live.

    Jon 4:9 And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd? And he said, I do well to be angry, [even] unto death.

    Jon 4:10 Then said the LORD, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night:

    Jon 4:11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and [also] much cattle?

    Verse 1 Shows Jonah is mad because he knew God would not kill them. Verse 2 proves that.

    verses4-9 God uses the Gourd as an Example for Jonah, Jonah gets mad over the Gourd, but not mad or Caring over the death of thousands, including Babies as verse 11 Shows, God even says to Jonah, Should I not spare them. Then As far as Duet Goes, This still came to pass years later as God did end up destorying Nineveh.

    Plus, God told Jonah to say something, But it was God you Changed his judgment,, When JS made False prophecies, Their is no evidence that these failed Prophecies of Joseph Smith was halted by God, Like the Temple that has yet to be built in MS.

    That is a failed one if their ever was one, that alone shows Mr Smith to be a fraud. Rick b

  50. MDavis says:

    So Hofmann said that Hinckley, “told him that only top church leaders would know of its [the Josiah Stowell letter’s] existence.” I am sorry but that passage you quote here is based on Hofmann, a known liar and murderer. Somehow you want me to believe what he said he did?

    What evidence is there that the Church deliberately held the letter? Usually there are stipulations placed upon items like this. Do we have copies of the actual agreement?

    Yet the Church releases the Salamander letter to the press right away. It does not add up and I feel you fail to provide any conclusive evidence showing that the Church deliberately suppressed these documents.

Leave a Reply