Mark Hofmann: Where Was

[Dale]

I do not know of a scriptural basis that the bretheren could not have ignored negative feelings about Hofmann for five years. And if the impressines were a mix of subjective & objective impressions that is open to interpretation. I do not think they did not discern the guy had problems. I think they discerned that he was worldly. He was in the document business because he was greedy. In those years they relied on document experts rather than the gift of discernment alone. So they chose to rely on document experts over subjective feelings they had no way of knowing was, or was not a warning.

Would Jesus have given them a clearer warning if they ignored the basic gift of discernment for five years?

[Scottie]

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't most of the documents that Hofmann obtained over this 5 years legitimate documents? I thought that very few were actually forgeries. If so, what was there to discern?

[T-Shirt]

So to answer your question, no, Hofmann does not fit the description that you are trying to wedge him into.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't most of the documents that Hofmann obtained over this 5 years legitimate documents? I thought that very few were actually forgeries. If so, what was there to discern?

I believe that most of Hofmann's "discoveries" sold or given to the Church over 5 years were found to be forgeries (based on George Throckmorton's analysis). Throckmorton eventually examined 443 documents that came from or through Hofmann (including the ones in the Church's possession). 268 (60%) were found to be authentic; 68 (15%) documents were inconclusive; 107 (24%) documents were found to be forged. (Source: Salamander, pp. 531-52).

[USU78]

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't most of the documents that Hofmann obtained over this 5 years legitimate documents?  I thought that very few were actually forgeries.  If so, what was there to discern?

I believe that most of Hofmann's "discoveries" sold or given to the Church over 5 years were found to be forgeries (based on George Throckmorton's analysis). Throckmorton eventually examined 443 documents that came from or through Hofmann (including the ones in the Church's possession). 268 (60%) were found to be authentic; 68 (15%) documents were inconclusive; 107 (24%) documents were found to be forged. (Source: Salamander, pp. 531-52).

Of course, it was only after Throckmorton discovered the key for determining whether a particular document was a Hoffmann forgery, that everybody else got on board.

Throckmorton's discovery of the tell-tale running ink was brilliant, to say the least. Expert after expert had passed on all of these documents. Hoffmann fooled 'em all. It was quite surprising to all concerned that Church officials were so guarded about the authenticity. It wasn't the first time forgeries had shown up. And it wouldn't be the last.

FYI: I was working with some folks at CFS, Gary Sheets' firm, at the time a good share of these documents were being purchased by Christensen, et al.. Believe me. Nobody knew anything but what the experts were saying. They were all genuine as far as anybody, including Throckmorton, knew.

[Scottie]

I believe that most of Hofmann's "discoveries" sold or given to the Church over 5 years were found to be forgeries (based on George Throckmorton's analysis).

[Rollo Tomasi]

It was you who disputed Elder McConkie's statement regarding discernment, and using it as a weapon to make your deceptive point. I want to see you defend your use of McConkie, if you can. Tell me, what gift of the spirit was Hofmann claiming to posses that Pres. Hinckley should have discerned?. If your answer is, "none", then you need to tell us that you either misunderstood because you were too one track minded and too sloppy to actually look at quotes in context yourself, or that you intentionally tried to pull the wool over our eyes by being deceptive about McConkie's statement.

I thought I was clear on this before, but let me try again. You clearly have misunderstood or misread what McConkie wrote (you might want to go back and reread page 197). The "gift" McConkie speaks of is the "discerning of spirits" -- in other words, to discern those "spirits" that "come among the saints and practice deception." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 197). Thus, the issue here is the Brethren's failure to discern Hofmann's "spirit" (i.e., his intent to deceive the saints by rewriting Church history). The "gift" does not belong to Hofmann (as you state), but to the Brethren who dealt with Hofmann (i.e., they had the "gift" to discern Hofmann's "spirit").

And McConkie makes clear that discernment is not only triggered when a leader extends a church calling:

"Where the saints are concerned -- since they have received the right to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost -- the Lord expects them to discern, not only between the righteous and the wicked, but between false and true philosophies, educational theories, sciences, political concepts, and social schemes." (Id. at 197).

Sounds like a pretty broad list to me, and would include what Hofmann was up to.

Try all you want to split hairs and try to exempt Hofmann from the Brethren's discernment, but the fact remains that he had a "false and deceptive spirit" intending to harm the Church. If that's not a basis for the exercise of discernment, then I don't know what is.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Uhh, since when is 24% considered "most"?? Wouldn't more than 50% of the documents have to be forgeries to state that "most of Hofmann's "discoveries" sold or given to the Church over 5 years were found to be forgeries"??

You misunderstood me -- the 24% figure includes ALL of Hofmann's documents, not just the ones that made it to the Church. Reading Throckmorton's report, it appears nearly all (if not all) documents sold or given to the Church by Hofmann were forgeries (at least the documents I know of).

[Rollo Tomasi]

Believe me. Nobody knew anything but what the experts were saying. They were all genuine as far as anybody, including Throckmorton, knew.

I believe you.

[Scottie]

Uhh, since when is 24% considered "most"??  Wouldn't more than 50% of the documents have to be forgeries to state that "most of Hofmann's "discoveries" sold or given to the Church over 5 years were found to be forgeries"??

You misunderstood me -- the 24% figure includes ALL of Hofmann's documents, not just the ones that made it to the Church. Reading Throckmorton's report, it appears nearly all (if not all) documents sold or given to the Church by Hofmann were forgeries (at least the documents I know of).

Thanks for clarifying.

[Edgar]

Niiiiice, Rollo.

Rather than defend your blatant misuse of "Mormon Doctrine" you merrily move along with the same old tripe. It was you who disputed Elder McConkie's statement regarding discernment, and using it as a weapon to make your deceptive point. I want to see you defend your use of McConkie, if you can.

Hi T-Shirt,

I would be interested in your thoughts about the scriptures and comments from church leaders I previously posted on this threat.

Also, would you agree or disagree that church leaders have a duty to watch over the church and to detect those who would deceive and harm the church?

[T-Shirt]

I thought I was clear on this before, but let me try again.

The only thing you were clear about is your constant spirit of deception and distrust of the Church.

You clearly have misunderstood or misread what McConkie wrote (you might want to go back and reread page 197).  The "gift" McConkie speaks of is the "discerning of spirits" -- in other words, to discern those "spirits" that "come among the saints and practice deception." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 197).

How can you get this so wrong after I posted the full quote, and then posted the scripture that McConkie referenced? You are completely wrong. I am beginning to think that the whole probelm with your lack of faith in the Church is related to your dismal level of reading comprehension.

Where did you get the quote from Mormon Doctrine? This is important. I am trying to see if you were intentionally deceptive, or if you lifted the quote from an anti site and didn't bother to check it yourself. Are you aware that at the end of his statement, Elder McConkie references D&C 46:27? Do you know what D&C 47 is about? Do you know what verse 27 is about? The whole section is about the gifts of the spirit. Everyone is given different gifts of the spirit for the benefit of the Church. Verse 27 explains that it is the presiding authorities that are given the ability to discern these gifts of the spirit, so that those professing to have a spiritual gift, but do not really have it, may be detected and they will not be able to deceive the members. The discernment of Church leaders that McConkie refers to is the ability to discern which gifts of the spirit among the members are from God and which ones are not. So I ask you again, which gift of the spirit did Hofmann claim to have that Pres. Hinckley should have discerned?

Thus, the issue here is the Brethren's failure to discern Hofmann's "spirit" (i.e., his intent to deceive the saints by rewriting Church history).  The "gift" does not belong to Hofmann (as you state), but to the Brethren who dealt with Hofmann (i.e., they had the "gift" to discern Hofmann's "spirit").

This is where you are so screwed up. I never stated that a gift belonged to Hofmann. According to McConkie and D&C 46, the presiding authorities are given the ability to discern gifts of the spirit. You claim this applies to Hofmann. If this is so, then Hofmann must have been claiming to posses a gift of the spirit and the brethren should have known that his gift was not of God. You are simply way off on this.

And McConkie makes clear that discernment is not only triggered when a leader extends a church calling:

Nobody has said that disnernment only comes with callings. Where do you get this stuff? The very first thing that McConkie says under the heading, "Discernment" is:

To all men in some degree and to the faithful saints in particular is given the spirit, gift, and power of discernment. This ability is conferred upon people generally by the operations of the light of Christ (Moro. 7:12-18), but in addition the faithful saints receive discerning power through revelation from the Holy Ghost. (D. & C. 63:41.)

"Where the saints are concerned -- since they have received the right to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost -- the Lord expects them to discern, not only between the righteous and the wicked, but between false and true philosophies, educational theories, sciences, political concepts, and social schemes." (Id. at 197).

Sounds like a pretty broad list to me, and would include what Hofmann was up to

Yes, the Lord expects us to use the Gift of the Holy Ghost to discern things, this goes for all members of the Church. No where in this statment does it say that Church leaders have a special dispensation from the Lord to discern all things for all people.

Try all you want to split hairs and try to exempt Hofmann from the Brethren's discernment,

I have not split any hairs, I am only exposing your deceitful tactics for what they are.

but the fact remains that he had a "false and deceptive spirit" intending to harm the Church.  If that's not a basis for the exercise of discernment, then I don't know what is.

Do you claim to have knowledge that the Lord wanted the brethren to detect Hofmann, but for whatever reason they were unable to? Did you miss the part of McConkie quote that I emphasized earlier:

There is no perfect operation of the power of discernment without revelation

Are we permitted to receive revelations anytime we want to, or do revelations come when the Lord choses to give them?

If the brethren did not receive revelation concerning Hofmann, why should they have been able to detect him?

I have never said that Pres. Hinckley was not fooled by Hofmann. I am not troubled by this. There is nothing in doctrine nor scripture that says he should not have been fooled, therefore your silly opining about the brethren's lack of spiritual discernment is a bogus argument.

T-Shirt

[Rollo Tomasi]

Where did you get the quote from Mormon Doctrine? This is important. I am trying to see if you were intentionally deceptive, or if you lifted the quote from an anti site and didn't bother to check it yourself. Are you aware that at the end of his statement, Elder McConkie references D&C 46:27? Do you know what D&C 47 is about? Do you know what verse 27 is about? The whole section is about the gifts of the spirit. Everyone is given different gifts of the spirit for the benefit of the Church. Verse 27 explains that it is the presiding authorities that are given the ability to discern these gifts of the spirit, so that those professing to have a spiritual gift, but do not really have it, may be detected and they will not be able to deceive the members. The discernment of Church leaders that McConkie refers to is the ability to discern which gifts of the spirit among the members are from God and which ones are not.

...

I never stated that a gift belonged to Hofmann. According to McConkie and D&C 46, the presiding authorities are given the ability to discern gifts of the spirit. You claim this applies to Hofmann. If this is so, then Hofmann must have been claiming to posses a gift of the spirit and the brethren should have known that his gift was not of God.

...

Nobody has said that disnernment only comes with callings. Where do you get this stuff?

...

Yes, the Lord expects us to use the Gift of the Holy Ghost to discern things, this goes for all members of the Church. No where in this statment does it say that Church leaders have a special dispensation from the Lord to discern all things for all people.

...

I have not split any hairs, I am only exposing your deceitful tactics for what they are.

...

Do you claim to have knowledge that the Lord wanted the brethren to detect Hofmann, but for whatever reason they were unable to?

...

I have never said that Pres. Hinckley was not fooled by Hofmann. I am not troubled by this. There is nothing in doctrine nor scripture that says he should not have been fooled ....

1. I'm trying to be patient; let me explain again. Your prior post challenged me regarding McConkie's writings on the issue. Your words:

"I want to see you defend your use of McConkie, if you can."

"Are you willing to admit that you were wrong in quoting McConkie?"

From this, you attack my interpretation of what McConkie has said on the topic of discernment. Again, go back and reread page 197 of Mormon Doctrine. It's clear that McConkie attributes the "gift of the discerning of spirits" to "presiding officials in God's kingdon." He then goes on to differentiate (which you have failed to do) discernment as it relates to the separate topics of "gifts" and "spirits." This is clear from these words by McConkie: "[T]hey [presiding officials] have it given to them to discern all gifts and all spirits, lest any [i.e., gift or spirit] come among the saints and practice deception." I realize your refusal to differentiate between "gift" and "spirit" (as McConkie has done) is based on your misreading of D&C 46, which does indeed include a long list of "gifts." But D&C 46 also speaks to members acting in a way "that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils ...." (verse 7). In fact, McConkie says that in "its most important aspect, discernment is used to distinguish between good and evil, between the rightous and wicked, between the false or evil spirits and those spirits who truly manifest the things of God." You seem to think that McConkie only cites to D&C 46:27, but he cites to several scriptures backing up his statements on discernment. And the very "gift" he is attributing to "presiding officials" is the "gift of the discerning of spirits" listed in D&C 46:23; thus, McConkie states that the discernment by Church leaders not only relates to their discerning various "gifts" (as stated in verse 27), but also that the leaders' very discernment is "the gift of the discerning of spirits" listed in verse 23. This is how McConkie concludes that Church leaders can discern "gifts" AND "spirits" that may "come among the saints and practice deception." This is also the reason McConkie later writes of discernment concerning issues that obviously are not "gifts" listed in D&C 46 (i.e., "philosophies, educational theories, sciences, political concepts, and social schemes"). If McConkie confused you because of the way he used his citations, take it up with him -- but his own words are very clear.

2. You asked "what gift of the spirit was Hofmann claiming to posses ....?" implying this issue relates to the discernment of Hofmann's "spiritual gift.". But you totally miss the point -- the issue is not Hofmann's spiritual "gift," but his "spirit" that the Brethren failed to discern. Hence, the reason Hofmann, for 5 years, was able to "practice deception" among Church leaders and members.

3. McConkie specifically refers to "the gift of the discerning of spirits" in its fullest manifestation as "poured out upon presiding officials in God's kingdom." What do you understand "presiding officials in God's kingdom" to mean?

4. You are splitting hairs because you can't comprehend McConkie's words based on your fixation with his cite to D&C 46:27. It is clear that the discernment McConkie speaks of for Church leaders includes the discerning of the spirits of men who intend to practice deception among the saints. And either you can't or refuse to see this.

5. I'm not claiming that Church leaders have perfect discernment; indeed, my point all along has been that the Hofmann episode revealed that such power is very limited and infrequent -- for over 5 years, numerous transactions, and at least 8 of the Brethren, no one had an inkling as to what Hofmann was really up to.

6. In the prevalent teachings of the Church there certainly would be the expectation that one of the Brethren would have had an inkling of discernment about Hofmann during those 5 years. A one-time con would be more understandable than a pattern of deception running over 5 years.

[T-Shirt]

1. I'm trying to be patient;

Your "patience" is nothing more than a pathetic tap dance.

let me explain again.

You don't need to, it is obvious that you don't get it.

  If McConkie confused you because of the way he used his citations, take it up with him -- but his own words are very clear.

There is no confusion. Verse 27 is the only one that refers specifically to presiding authorities and McCconkie referenced, specifically, verse 27 as he referred to presiding authorities. It is very clear.

2. You asked "what gift of the spirit was Hofmann claiming to posses ....?" implying this issue relates to the discernment of Hofmann's "spiritual gift.".  But you totally miss the point -- the issue is not Hofmann's spiritual "gift," but his "spirit" that the Brethren failed to discern.  Hence, the reason Hofmann, for 5 years, was able to "practice deception" among Church leaders and members. 

Sigh....you just don't get it.

3.  McConkie specifically refers to "the gift of the discerning of spirits" in its fullest manifestation as "poured out upon presiding officials in God's kingdom."  What do you understand "presiding officials in God's kingdom" to mean?

There you go again. Is it that hard to be forthright in your statments? If I asked this question of you, I would be jumped all over for being deceptive.

4.  You are splitting hairs because you can't comprehend McConkie's words based on your fixation with his cite to D&C 46:27.  It is clear that the discernment McConkie speaks of for Church leaders includes the discerning of the spirits of men who intend to practice deception among the saints.  And either you can't or refuse to see this.

You still don't get it. In verse 27 (the only verse McConkie references relating to presiding authorities and the onlu one in D&C 46 regarding presiding authorities) who is the one claiming to have a special gift of the spirit?

5.  I'm not claiming that Church leaders have perfect discernment; indeed, my point all along has been that the Hofmann episode revealed that such power is very limited and infrequent -- for over 5 years, numerous transactions, and at least 8 of the Brethren, no one had an inkling as to what Hofmann was really up to.

I see, since you have no knowledge of every act of discernment manifested by all the brethren over the course of the history of the Church, you conclude that because of the Hofmann episode, Church authorities have limmitted and infrequent ability to discern. That is a pathetic conclusion from so little information.

6.  In the prevalent teachings of the Church there certainly would be the expectation that one of the Brethren would have had an inkling of discernment about Hofmann during those 5 years.

1) Why?

2) You and I discussed this earlier. There is evidence that as time went on, Hofmann was seen as someone rather suspicious.

A one-time con would be more understandable than a pattern of deception running over 5 years.

Over the course of these five years, how much time was actually spent dealing with Hofmann? Take a guess. Then ask yourself, what other matters were these men dealing with at the time. Was Hofmann even a blip on the radar screen in the face of all other things going on over those five years. Do you know what went on during those five years in Pres. Hinckley's life? Let me give you a sample:

Elder Hinckley was called as a third counselor to President Spencer W. Kimball in July 1981. Earlier there were incidents that suggested the prophet's confidence in Elder Hinckley and that foreshadowed his call to the First Presidency: Elder Hinckley accompanied President Kimball to Fayette, New York, for the events connected with the sesquicentennial celebration of the Church in April 1980. There Elder Hinckley read a proclamation to the world from the First Presidency and the Twelve. In March 1981 Elder Hinckley accompanied the prophet to Washington, D.C., for a personal interview with President Ronald Reagan. In May 1981 a statement crafted by Elder Hinckley and the Special Affairs Committee, opposing construction of the MX missile site in western Utah and eastern Nevada, was approved and signed by the First Presidency.Hinckley, Gordon B.PPWhen Elder Hinckley was called to the First Presidency, all three of its members had serious physical problems, although their mentality was unimpaired: President Kimball, in addition to long-standing heart, throat, and other problems, had undergone two recent operations for subdural hematomas; President Tanner suffered from Parkinson's disease and was losing his sight; and President Romney was quite feeble and practically blind. Thus the responsibility to carry on the day-to-day work of the First Presidency fell largely on President Hinckley, acting under delegations of authority from the prophet. That responsibility increased markedly when President Tanner died on November 27, 1982, and President Hinckley became chairman of the Budget Committee, the Personnel Committee, and the Investment Committee. These added responsibilities had a crushing effect at first, causing weariness and a sense of oppression at the ever-mounting problems. The crisis came to a head in February 1983, when one morning, upon entering his office and seeing the large volume of paperwork on his desk, President Hinckley fell to his knees and implored God for strength and direction. In answer there came into his mind the words "Be still and know that I am God" (Doctrine and Covenants 101:16), and with that came a calm assurance that the problems would be solved in time and one at a time.Hinckley, Gordon B.PPDuring the years President Hinckley served as a counselor to President Spencer W. Kimball, he walked a fine line. He was careful not to exceed the limits of his delegated authority. Yet he was unwilling to allow the Church to drift or stagnate. As a result, several major initiatives were undertaken that originated with him but were endorsed and authorized by President Kimball.Hinckley, Gordon B.PPIn March 1982, for instance, three executive councils were created and given policy jurisdiction over headquarters organizations falling under the captions of Missionary, Priesthood, and Temple and Genealogy Work. Also the ecclesiastical units throughout the world were divided into three groups, with each executive council having jurisdiction over one of them. Originally each council was composed of three members of the Twelve, two members of the Presidency of the Seventy, and a member of the Presiding Bishopric, with a member of the First Presidency as chairman. Later, members of the Twelve were appointed chairmen. At this time the Coordinating Council was dissolved. This action simplified and improved headquarters administration and provided a direct-line access to specified General Authorities from the field. Any matter an executive council could not resolve was referred to the Twelve or to the Council of the First Presidency and the Twelve.Hinckley, Gordon B.PPThe international administration of the Church was further improved in August 1984 when the world was divided into thirteen areas, each to be presided over by an Area Presidency composed of three members of the Seventy. In time the directors of temporal affairs in the international areas were placed directly under the Area Presidencies.Hinckley, Gordon B.PPThese two key changes provided for greater integration and control of the administrative machinery of the Church while allowing for more latitude and independence in the field as the Area Presidencies were able to provide direct and consistent supervision on the ground. And the format was flexible so that as the Church grew, new areas were created by divisions.Hinckley, Gordon B.PPAs these changes were implemented and as the work moved forward, President Hinckley reported regularly to President Kimball, keeping him fully advised and seeking his direction on any matters beyond the scope of his delegated authority. And he regularly briefed the Twelve so that all were apprised of the status of affairs.Hinckley, Gordon B.PPBeginning with the April general conference in 1983, President Hinckley called on President Ezra Taft Benson, president of the Quorum of the Twelve, to conduct some of the sessions and to carry a heavier speaking load. A few months later he also invited President Benson to meet with him weekly as he considered sensitive cases dealing with temple blessings and appeals from judgments of local disciplinary councils.Hinckley, Gordon B.PPThe effective manner in which the Church continued to progress, despite the disabilities of two members of the First Presidency, is a testament to the inspired nature of the Church organization, the apostolic unity among the First Presidency and the Twelve, and the skill and persistence of Gordon B. Hinckley.Hinckley, Gordon B.PPThese qualities were clearly evident as he handled a wide variety of duties with composure. For instance, in August 1982 he dedicated twelve of the restored homes in Nauvoo; a few weeks later he hosted President Ronald Reagan in visiting a Church cannery in Utah; on April 3, 1983, he rededicated the Assembly Hall on Temple Square; two days later he dedicated the N. Eldon Tanner Building on the BYU campus; and in September 1984 again hosted a visit to Salt Lake City by President Reagan. President Hinckley spoke at many funerals, including those of President Tanner and Elder Bruce R. McConkie, and was the featured speaker at special Church and civic gatherings. During the same period, he was often away from Salt Lake City dedicating or rededicating temples in various parts of the world; and in the spring of 1984 he held a series of solemn assemblies in which priesthood leaders were given special instruction. He continued to serve on the board of directors of many Church-owned or Church-controlled corporations, as well as on the boards of the Utah Power and Light Company and Zion's First National Bank.Hinckley, Gordon B.PPThis hectic routine ended with the death of President Spencer W. Kimball on November 5, 1985. Soon after, Elder Hinckley was called as First Counselor to President Ezra Taft Benson.

Was Hoffman really a big issue at the time? Rollo, you have tunnel vision. If you don't have knowlege of something happening, you assume it didn't happen.

T-Shirt

[Rollo Tomasi]

There is no confusion. Verse 27 is the only one that refers specifically to presiding authorities and McCconkie referenced, specifically, verse 27 as he referred to presiding authorities. It is very clear.

...

In verse 27 (the only verse McConkie references relating to presiding authorities and the onlu one in D&C 46 regarding presiding authorities) who is the one claiming to have a special gift of the spirit?

...

Over the course of these five years, how much time was actually spent dealing with Hofmann? Take a guess. Then ask yourself, what other matters were these men dealing with at the time. Was Hofmann even a blip on the radar screen in the face of all other things going on over those five years. Do you know what went on during those five years in Pres. Hinckley's life?

1. McConkie is very clear in what he says. If you have a problem with his use of citations or reliance on certain scriptures, take it up with him. But he very clearly states that presiding leaders receive discernment regarding "gifts" AND "spirits" that may "come among the saints to practice deception." If you disagree with McConkie, then explain yourself, but don't attack me for simply stating what he has very clearly written.

2. Concerning GBH's involvement with Hofmann, off the top of my head I know GBH was involved with the following Hofmann documents: (1) the Anthon transcript; (2) the Joseph Smith III blessing (which he must have thought a lot about, since he gave a talk about it); (3) Salamander Letter; (4) Josiah Stowell money-digging letter (the one GBH had hidden away for over 2 years); (5) the David Whitmer letter to Walter Conrad; (6) Martin Harris copy of Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews"; (7) McLellin collection; ( Lucy Mack Smith letter; (9) E.B. Grandin BofM contract; (10) Martin Harris BofM testimony; and (11) Thomas Bullock letter to Brigham Young (confirming JS's money-digging activities). I'm sure GBH was a busy man then, but it appears that GBH made time for Bro. Hofmann, much to his later regret.

[KevinG]

Is anyone here bold enough to come out and say that the failure to out Hoffman as a forger earlier on in the process would be proof of the lack of Apostolic authority on the part of the LDS Church leaders?

If so on what basis do you consider this "error" on their part disqualifies them?

Do you expect the brethren to be inerrant or all seeing?

Did this Hoffman case in fact "harm the Church" or provide more wheat and tare separation?

[T-Shirt]

1. McConkie is very clear in what he says.  If you have a problem with his use of citations or reliance on certain scriptures, take it up with him.  But he very clearly states that presiding leaders receive discernment regarding "gifts" AND "spirits" that may "come among the saints to practice deception."  If you disagree with McConkie, then explain yourself, but don't attack me for simply stating what he has very clearly written.

That's pretty much what I expected, a refusal to actually read things in context and continuing to repeat the same old, tired, nonsense.

2. Concerning GBH's involvement with Hofmann, off the top of my head I know GBH was involved with the following Hofmann documents: (1) the Anthon transcript; (2) the Joseph Smith III blessing (which he must have thought a lot about, since he gave a talk about it); (3) Salamander Letter; (4) Josiah Stowell money-digging letter (the one GBH had hidden away for over 2 years); (5) the David Whitmer letter to Walter Conrad; (6) Martin Harris copy of Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews"; (7) McLellin collection; ( Lucy Mack Smith letter; (9) E.B. Grandin BofM contract; (10) Martin Harris BofM testimony; and (11) Thomas Bullock letter to Brigham Young (confirming JS's money-digging activities).

Okay, now make an estimate as to how many hours you think he may have spent dealing with these things and then figure out a percentage of time spent dealing with it over five years.

I'm sure GBH was a busy man then, but it appears that GBH made time for Bro. Hofmann, much to his later regret.

Are you sure he was a busy man?

You know he "regrets" these experiences?

Did you bother to read the information I posted covering this five year period of time that you make so much hay over? Do you really believe that Hofmann was a significant figure to Pres. Hinckley during this time period?

T-Shirt

[Rollo Tomasi]

Okay, now make an estimate as to how many hours you think he may have spent dealing with these things and then figure out a percentage of time spent dealing with it over five years.

It doesn't take hours to get a moment's worth of discernment.

[Zakuska]

It took Saul quite a few days for his "discernemnt" to kick in.

1 Sam 28

6 And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.

[charity]

Rollo, as far as I know, having a gift of any kind does not force the Lord or the Spirit into any course of action. A gift of healing does not mean that every individual given a blessing will be healed. The Lord may have other plans. A gift of discernment does not mean that the Lord or the Spirit reveals every single thing. It may not be in the Lord's plan.

At another time, Rollo, I suggested that you take way to much to yourself when you pressume to know all of God's dealings with His children. You certainly present yourself as having a monumental ego.

[Rollo Tomasi]

At another time, Rollo, I suggested that you take way to much to yourself when you pressume to know all of God's dealings with His children. You certainly present yourself as having a monumental ego.

Rather than presuming God's will or intent, I am presuming that the prevalent LDS belief/teaching that LDS leaders have a greater degree of discernment, simply by virtue of their callings, is not all it's cracked up to be. Has nothing to do with ego; just the facts.

[charity]

Rollol, presumptions are facts? Since when?

[Pokatator]

This guy goes into a clothing store and asks the clerk for 2 sets of underwear. The clerk asks, "Why 2 sets of underwear?" The guy replies, "One to wash and one to wear."

Another guy goes into the same clothing store and asks the clerk for 3 sets of underwear. A little puzzled the clerk asks, "Why 3 sets of underwear?" The guy replies, "One to wash, one to wear and one to dry."

Still another guy goes into the clothing store and asks the clerk for 12 sets of underwear. The clerk is totally miffed and asks, "Why do you want 12 sets of underwear?" The guy replies, "January, February, March........"

Moral: It's time to change your T-Shirt, it's getting old.

[T-Shirt]

Hi T-Shirt,

Hi Edgar.

I would be interested in your thoughts about the scriptures and comments from church leaders I previously posted on this threat.

Sure.

Also, would you agree or disagree that church leaders have a duty to watch over the church and to detect those who would deceive and harm the church?

Yes, as do all members.

The question I never hear addressed by the critics in all of this is, "What harm did this cause the Church?"

If this episode played out the way the critics say it should have if Pres. Hinckley was a real prophet, what do you think the outcome would have been? Which way would have caused the Church more harm?

Now to your quotes:

Heb. 4: 12

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

If you read through verse 14, you will see that Paul is speaking about Christ in these verses.

Alma 5: 59

59 For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock? And behold, if a wolf enter his flock doth he not drive him out? Yea, and at the last, if he can, he will destroy him.

This verse is referring to those who come into the Church and preach false doctrine

D&C 46: 27

27 And unto the bishop of the church, and unto such as God shall appoint and ordain to watch over the church and to be elders unto the church, are to have it given unto them to discern all those gifts lest there shall be any among you professing and yet be not of God.

This is the one I have been discussing with Rollo. Read the whole section. Presiding authorities are the ones who have the right to declare which gifts of the spirit are genuine and which ones are not. That is all this verse is saying. Since Hofmann was not claiming to have a gift of the spirit, it does not apply.

Guide to the Scriptures from LDS.org

Discernment, Gift of

To understand or know something through the power of the Spirit. The gift of discernment is one of the gifts of the Spirit. It includes perceiving the true character of people and the source and meaning of spiritual manifestations.

I agree with this. I also know that this discernment works according to the Spirit of the Lord. From personal experience, I know that this is a very real thing. I also know that the Spirit does not always offer this discernment for reasons known to the Lord. I can give you some of these reasons, but I will forgo that for now.

Gifts of the Spirit

Covet earnestly the best gifts, 1 Cor. 12: 31 (1 Cor. 14: 1). The Nephites were given many gifts of the Spirit, Alma 9: 21. Wo to him who says the Lord no longer works by gifts or by the power of the Holy Ghost, 3 Ne. 29: 6. God gives gifts to the faithful, Morm. 9: 7. Gifts come by the Spirit of Christ, Moro. 10: 17. There are many gifts and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit, D&C 46: 11. Church leaders are given power to discern the gifts of the Spirit, D&C 46: 27. The President of the Church has all the gifts of God, D&C 107: 92.

What is your question witth this one? Are you aware that Pres. Hinckley was not the president of the Church during the Hofmann affair. In fact he was only a third counselor to President Kimball. He and the two other counselors were very ill and largely incapacitated and the responsibility of running the entire Church rested on Pres. Hinckley's shoulders. It was a daunting task and very overwhelming (read the quote I posted to Rollo). His dealings with Hofmann were a very minute issue considering all that he had to do. He was buying historical documents which was something the Church ahd been doing for years as a response to the Lord's mandate to keep a record. Given all this, I am not surprised that Hinckley did not discern the whole truth. Hofmann was a known document dealer and only a portion of his documents were forgeries. Hofmann is the one responsible for the murders, not the Church. How do you think things would have played out if at the very beginning, Hinckley declared Hofmann a fraud and refused to deal with him any longer?

Judge, Judgment

To evaluate behavior in relation to the principles of the gospel; to decide; to discern good from evil.

Is it your feeling that since a leader of the Church failed to recognize one conman, that he therfore never has nor never will be able to make such a judgement? If so, do you see how silly that is?

Carlos Asay

Tambuli Aug 1988

Would you like to have powers of discernment

[Rollo Tomasi]

It took Saul quite a few days for his "discernemnt" to kick in.

1 Sam 28

6 And when Saul enquired of the LORD, the LORD answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets.

Ammon (Alma 18:16-18) and Jacob (Jacob 2:5) sure seemed to figure it out pretty quickly. And let's not forget Peter, who seemed to have instant discernment when Ananias and Sapphira tried to cheat the Church (Acts 5:1-10). And let's not forget Heber C. Kimball's refusing to begin a temple ordinance because he discerned that two patrons present were in adultery, and threatened to call out their names to the group unless they left (which they did) (this story is recounted in SWK's Miracle of Forgiveness). Or JS's instant discernment that Philbus Hurlburt was not being honest at his disciplinary council (recounted by George A. Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 113). Fact is, it doesn't take 5 years and 40-plus deals to discern someone is a fraud (and future murderer) trying to destroy the Church by rewriting its history.