Mark Hofmann: Where Was

[Rollo Tomasi]

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.

Btw, SWK in Miracle of Forgiveness uses D&C 46:27 much like McConkie did:

"In connection with men's thoughts, I discussed in a previous chapter the discernment given to God's servants. If they are in sweet attunement, Church leaders are entitled '... to have it given unto them to discern ... lest there shall be any among you professing and yet be not of God.' (D&C 46:27) Not only the General Authorities but bishops and stake and mission presidents have often discerned situations and thereby been enabled to protect the Church and bring the sinner to repentance." (elllipses in original; bold mine for emphasis).

Notice that SWK makes no mention of "gifts of the spirit." Hmm ....

[T-Shirt]

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).

Yes, the same Peter who was slow to accept Paul's call to take the gspel to the Gentiles, and the Lord had to send him a vision three times to convince him.

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).

Yes, the same Heber who failed to discern Joseph's real intent in asking him to give Vilate to him as a plural wife.

  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).

Yes, the same Joseph who repeatedly gave John C Bennett the benefit of the doubt when he feigned repentance.

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.

Fact?

At least now I see you are admitting that leaders of the Church do in deed have the gift of discernment. And, you now see that these same leaders, on other occassions were unable to discern properly. This is the whole point Rollo, with you everything is "either, or", "black or white", "hot or cold", "is or isn't". It is deeply flawed logic. The Lord works very different than what you think, and as usual, if you don't witness it, it didn't happen.

T-Shirt

[USU78]

In connection with men's thoughts, I discussed in a previous chapter the discernment given to God's servants. If they are in sweet attunement, Church leaders are entitled '... to have it given unto them to discern ... lest there shall be any among you professing and yet be not of God.' (D&C 46:27) Not only the General Authorities but bishops and stake and mission presidents have often discerned situations and thereby been enabled to protect the Church and bring the sinner to repentance." (elllipses in original; bold mine for emphasis).

Note the "have often," above.

Somewhat different from "must always" asserted by RT, n'est-ce pas?

[Rollo Tomasi]

At least now I see you are admitting that leaders of the Church do in deed have the gift of discernment. And, you now see that these same leaders, on other occassions were unable to discern properly.

I've always admitted that Church leaders have discernment; we all do. My only point is that Church leaders do NOT have discernment in any greater degree or frequency than the rest of us, as evidenced by the Hofmann affair.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Somewhat different from "must always" asserted by RT ....

I have never asserted "must always."

[T-Shirt]

Btw, SWK in Miracle of Forgiveness uses D&C 46:27 much like McConkie did:

Nice try.

Do you notice that he quotes the part about "professing"? He then goes on to give an example of a young man professing to be morally clean, but wasn't. What gift or virtue was Hofmann professing? Was he professing to be of God? You continually sidestep this question.

In addition, did you catch the highlighted parts:

"In connection with men's thoughts, I discussed in a previous chapter the discernment given to God's servants. If they are in sweet attunement, Church leaders are entitled '... to have it given unto them to discern ... lest there shall be any among you professing and yet be not of God.' (D&C 46:27) Not only the General Authorities but bishops and stake and mission presidents have often discerned situations and thereby been enabled to protect the Church and bring the sinner to repentance." (elllipses in original; bold mine for emphasis).

Notice that SWK makes no mention of "gifts of the spirit."  Hmm ....

No need to.

T-Shirt

[maxrep12]

This argument almost appears to lead to a "deist" line of thought, where God created the Earth and Mankind, but doesn't get involved in the day-to-day affairs of people for good or for worse. Yet, LDS believe we can influence God to act on our behalf if we stop eating, or pray enough. How can that be reconciled with the idea that God won't act if it actually has any influence on anybody's "agency"?

Great paragraph, Cinepro.

Over the years, I have modified my view of Gods dealings with mankind. Starting from the point where God is involved on an intimate basis with his children, I gradually saw that we are essentially on our own with but a small amount of intercession from the divine. As the years passed, I began to see that it may be more likely that we our here by ourselves! Just my thoughts.

[charity]

maxrep12, this would be a great topic. I would like to participate on that thread. Why don't you start one?

[Rollo Tomasi]

Do you notice that he quotes the part about "professing"? He then goes on to give an example of a young man professing to be morally clean, but wasn't. What gift or virtue was Hofmann professing? Was he professing to be of God? You continually sidestep this question.

...

In addition, did you catch the highlighted parts:

"... If they are in sweet attunement, Church leaders are entitled '... to have it given unto them to discern ... lest there shall be any among you professing and yet be not of God.' (D&C 46:27) Not only the General Authorities but bishops and stake and mission presidents have often discerned situations and thereby been enabled to protect the Church and bring the sinner to repentance."

The young man was not "professing" a "gift of the spirit" (unless you are now claiming that chastity is a "gift of the spirit" -- I don't see that listed in D&C 46). He was lying to a presiding Church leader, and SWK discerned that young man was lying. Hofmann also was lying to Church leaders (including the one designated as the presiding authority over the world as God's prophet); alas, no such discernment. Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly.

I've said it innumerable times, but I'll say it again: I have never claimed that Church leaders should have discernment 24/7. Rather, it would have been nice if the several GA's who met Hofmann during that 5-year period would have had just a moment's discernment about him.

[T-Shirt]

The young man was not "professing" a "gift of the spirit" (unless you are now claiming that chastity is a "gift of the spirit" -- I don't see that listed in D&C 46).  He was lying to a presiding Church leader, and SWK discerned that young man was lying.  Hofmann also was lying to Church leaders (including the one designated as the presiding authority over the world as God's prophet); alas, no such discernment.  Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly.

sigh...I grow weary. It is evident, you will never get it.

Regardless, I am not disputing what Pres. Hinckley did or did not discern, it is irrelevant. You are the one that finds it important to point out that he was fooled and somehow equate that to him being a false prophet. We all know he was fooled, but that in no way nulifies the fact that priesthood leaders have the right to disernment that the average member does not.

I've said it innumerable times, but I'll say it again: I have never claimed that Church leaders should have discernment 24/7.

[Pahoran]

At least now I see you are admitting that leaders of the Church do in deed have the gift of discernment.  And, you now see that these same leaders, on other occassions were unable to discern properly.

I've always admitted that Church leaders have discernment; we all do. My only point is that Church leaders do NOT have discernment in any greater degree or frequency than the rest of us, as evidenced by the Hofmann affair.

That's not "evidence" at all.

I live in a part of the world which I am confident gets a whole lot more rain than Utah. If someone were to get on a plane in SLC on a rainy day and land in Auckland on a sunny day, would that one trip have "evidenced" that New Zealand "does NOT have [rain] in any greater degree or frequency than" Utah does?

Or not?

The only thing the "evidence" you've ever brought forth proves about the leaders of the Church is that you don't sustain them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cjcampbell]

Personally, I knew that Hoffman was a fake from the very first. However, it did not bother me that he fooled some other people, including even some prominent members of the church. I figured that he would be exposed as a fake eventually and he was.

[Edgar]

it is a great error to assume that all of this means that every presiding authority can look into every member's heart at any time and know that person's thoughts and feelings. The Lord reveals such things as He sees fit and in His own time.

T-Shirt

T-Shirt,

My post with the scriptures and comments clearly states you may find them out of context but I can certainly liken them to this or other circumstances as Nephi suggests.

Your quote I have listed seems pretty close to the point Rollo has been making.

Cheers

[Dale]

I don't think a prophet can read minds. They can see if they are hiding sin. But the nature & extent of sin was not known until after his murders. Before that with handwriting experts telling LDS leaders the stuff was authentic I could see LDS leaders thinking he could be guilty of any sin but selling fake stuff. And basically LDS leaders have an interview process whereby the person has opportunity to confess sin. If Hofmann would have to confess to LDS officials specific they did not have a mind-reading gift.

[cjcampbell]

I don't think a prophet can read minds.

Exactly. See D&C 6:16

"there is none save God that knowest thy thoughts and the intents of thy heart."

However, God can reveal these things to others on a case by case basis. That is not the gift of discernment, which is the ability to know through the spirit when someone is telling the truth.

The prophet may have known that Hoffman was lying, but not specifically what the lie was, as you said, which I think was an interesting point and one which I had not considered before.

[Rollo Tomasi]

Regardless, I am not disputing what Pres. Hinckley did or did not discern, it is irrelevant. You are the one that finds it important to point out that he was fooled and somehow equate that to him being a false prophet. We all know he was fooled, but that in no way nulifies the fact that priesthood leaders have the right to disernment that the average member does not.

...

You have yet to show how you know they never did. What difference would it have made if they did discern his intent in the beginning?

...

I agree that we all have the right to discernment, but by virtue of priesthood callings, some have rights to special discernment that the average member does not. Instances of failure to discern by some leaders does not equate to no special ability to discern.

...

What knowledge do you have of all the oportunities to discern things that Pres. Hinckley has had in his years of service? Of these opportunities, how many times was he succesful and how many times was he not? Yet you draw a conclusion with one incident.

1. I have never claimed that GBH is a "false prophet" because he (and others) failed to discern Hofmann. My point all along has been that the myth Church leaders have greater discernment than other folks, is just that -- a myth. Do Church leaders have discernment? Yes, but so do we all. I think many members just believe their leaders have greater discernment by virtue of their callings, and the Hofmann affair made clear this is not necessarily the case.

2. I know of no evidence that demonstrates the Brethren had any discernment about Hofmann's true nature and intent. Do you? If so, please share. Fact is, if they had discerned from the get-go that Hofmann was a fraud intent on rewriting Church history, then that would have been the end of his document career (the Church was his best customer). And perhaps it would have saved the Christensen and Sheets families a lot of sorrow 5 years later.

3. I do not believe priesthood office gives a man greater discernment than what the average member already has. It's my opinion, based on what I've observed (the Hofmann affair, etc.).

4. I only draw conclusions from what I know (like the Hofmann affair) -- I agree that GBH may have had numerous episodes of discernment that I know nothing about (just like I have had my own episodes of discernment that he knows nothing about). The Hofmann affair is just one evidence, yes, but that was a major one (others also exist that are not as extreme or significant, given the tragic consequences of the Hofmann con).

[cdowis]

> 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 etc etc etc

I am grateful that our church is lead by a living prophet rather than the professional theologian and self-proclaimed scholars.

The wisdom of man is unable to comprehend the things of the Lord, as Paul teaches.

You and I see things so very differently that perhaps we live on different planets.

[Rollo Tomasi]

That's not "evidence" at all.

I would venture a bet that even in your uber-TBM mind, you wondered why the Brethren did not figure Hofmann out over the 5 years they dealt with him. Apparently many members did, lest why would Dallin Oaks later give a public speech at BYU answering the question "why was Hofmann able to deceive the Brethren"? Twenty years later, many faithful LDS are still troubled about the Brethren's lack of discernment with Hofmann. They obviously see the Hofmann affair as some evidence that not necessarily "all is well in Zion."

[Rollo Tomasi]

Exactly. See D&C 6:16

"there is none save God that knowest thy thoughts and the intents of thy heart."

However, God can reveal these things to others on a case by case basis. That is not the gift of discernment, which is the ability to know through the spirit when someone is telling the truth.

The prophet may have known that Hoffman was lying, but not specifically what the lie was, as you said, which I think was an interesting point and one which I had not considered before.

Some scriptures that indicate a prophet can know one's thoughts:

Alma 18:16-18

Jacob 2:5

Moreover, Boyd K. Packer has preached that "[priesthood leaders] can discern thoughts when the purpose of their office is served." (Boyd K. Packer, That All May be Edified, p. 34).

SWK described it as "discernment" when Heber C. Kimball held up the temple session, saying he knew the sin (adultery) and the names of the persons involved. (Spencer W. Kimball, Miracle of Forgiveness).

Peter knew that Ananias and Sapphira had stolen from the Church (Acts 5:1-10).

In other words, discernment can tell the recipient anything.

I know of no evidence that GBH thought Hofmann was lying, and GBH certainly never said this during his press conference shortly after the bombings (nor in his interviews with police). And Dallin Oaks, in addressing at BY in 1987 why Hofmann was able to deceive the Brethren, made nary a mention that they had any misgivings about Hofmann; instead, he excused away their failure to discern Hofmann because the Brethren must be trusting in their ministry.

[Rollo Tomasi]

You and I see things so very differently that perhaps we live on different planets.

No, you and I peacefully co-exist on the same planet.

[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?

Bump- I really would like to see if anyone is arguing this...

I personally think it's a what and tares situation and that the Hoffman incident was not "discerned" early on simply because in the last analysis, it wouldn't destroy the Church either way and the truth would come out in the end.

I suspect the Church vaults are filled with scraps of old forgeries mixed with authentic wonders, and neither one had the ability to give a testimony like the Power of the Holy Ghost, so it doesn't amount to a hill of beans either way. I also suspect that the Brethren are grateful for gifts of historic interest, but don't spend much time waving seer stones over the gifts or the givers, or waste any time pondering and praying to discern anything about them once a Church historical department employee has given them the once over.

Perhaps the question we should be asking is why we didn't hire better document experts at the Church museum of History and Art back in the 1980's?