Jump to content

Hoffman and Mountain Meadows


smac97

Recommended Posts

...

Interesting stuff.

...

You'd think that Mark would have been smart enough

to have used a 1920s typewriter for a purported 1920s

affidavit document.

But perhaps this was just one of those "extra" items

he was manufacturing, to boost his credentials, and

since it was not meant to gain him money, he was

sloppy in its execution.

UD

Link to comment

You'd think that Mark would have been smart enough

to have used a 1920s typewriter for a purported 1920s

affidavit document.

But perhaps this was just one of those "extra" items

he was manufacturing, to boost his credentials, and

since it was not meant to gain him money, he was

sloppy in its execution.

UD

Possibly an early effort, before he mastered his craft.

Throckmorton is the one person in the world that, if I'm Bagley, I'm not taking on when it comes to Hoffmann matters.

Perhaps he's extra motivated? Perhaps he sees BY getting away from him yet again?

Link to comment

Well, its not the first time that Bagley has relied on a forgery to prove a point. He's still convinced the Dead Lee Scroll is real too. And the SLTrib published this? Wow. I wonder if Curt Bench knows.

Kudos to Turley for investigating things further. Perhaps said quote will be removed from future editions of Turley, Walker, and Leonard's book.

Link to comment

Well, its not the first time that Bagley has relied on a forgery to prove a point. He's still convinced the Dead Lee Scroll is real too. And the SLTrib published this? Wow. I wonder if Curt Bench knows.

Kudos to Turley for investigating things further. Perhaps said quote will be removed from future editions of Turley, Walker, and Leonard's book.

I predict a mean marathon 3-way rock paper scissors fight to see who gets to write the revised paragraph and footnote.

Link to comment

I predict a mean marathon 3-way rock paper scissors fight to see who gets to write the revised paragraph and footnote.

Perhaps they'll sit in a triangle each starting with one word, then passing it on to the next person in the triangle to write the next word.....and so on and so forth until the paragraph is properly revised. But, considering it was Turley who has written the most about Hoffman and who is directly involved in the find, I say Turley gets to write it by default. :P

Link to comment

IIRC Lyn Jacobs was Hofmann's friend of one kind or another. I seem to recall him saying that they shot uzi's on the weekend or some such thing! I am not sure if he was a member of the Church or not or if he was in on Hofmann's forgeries

Link to comment

IMO any document that has connection to Mark Hoffmann needs to be taken with a certain degree of caution.

And when an author, desperate to find anything indicting a certain Latter-day prophet, uses questionable, polemic sources about a certain event in history and proclaims it as the gospel truth, I think that author should also be taken with a certain degree of caution.

Link to comment

This is the main reason I am not distressed or upset by so-called historical documents that seem to refute truth claims of the Church. Another way of saying "trust not in the arm of flesh."

Link to comment

You'd think that Mark would have been smart enough

to have used a 1920s typewriter for a purported 1920s

affidavit document.

But perhaps this was just one of those "extra" items

he was manufacturing, to boost his credentials, and

since it was not meant to gain him money, he was

sloppy in its execution.

UD

That's my first impression too. Not all of his finds could be so earth-shaking, so he needed some like this to get a little money and a little credibility here and there.

Link to comment

Well, its not the first time that Bagley has relied on a forgery to prove a point. He's still convinced the Dead Lee Scroll is real too. And the SLTrib published this? Wow. I wonder if Curt Bench knows.

Kudos to Turley for investigating things further. Perhaps said quote will be removed from future editions of Turley, Walker, and Leonard's book.

I don't know that any of Bagley's major claims hang on this affidavit, though. I don't have the book handy, does anyone know how Bagley used it compared to how Turley, Walker, Leonard used it?

Link to comment

I don't think he talks about it to anyone, especially in any interviews.

Hoffman can't be trusted anyway. He wasn't motivated to peddle his forgeries solely by money - one of his goals was also to discredit the Church.

Link to comment
Perhaps [bagley is] extra motivated? Perhaps he sees BY getting away from him yet again?

The affidavit doesn't mention BY. It exculpates the affiant and Haight and only implicates Lee. Surprise, surprise - if it's a forgery, at least it follows the party line of the time. Nowadays, of course, Haight is considered one of the local leaders who are to blame for the massacre.

Bigler & Bagley only comment on Edwards' young age. They also speculate (although I don't see how Edwards' affidavit supports this) that "The demanding strictures of the Reformation compelled many decent men and their young sons to join a massacre they later blamed on the Indians".

Link to comment
Bigler & Bagley only comment on Edwards' young age. They also speculate (although I don't see how Edwards' affidavit supports this) that "The demanding strictures of the Reformation compelled many decent men and their young sons to join a massacre they later blamed on the Indians".

Walker, Turley and Leonard basically do the same, i.e. use the affidavit to illustrate how young Edwards was; they do not link massacre participation to the Reformation but to similar sentiments caused by the stress of the approaching US army.

I'd say they are probably both (well, four, really) right in supposing that these were contributing factors that turned ordinary men into murderers.

Link to comment

Unfortunately, I think that any document that suddenly surfaced between 1976 and 1985 without prior verification is suspect (because of Hoffman.) The damage that he did is really unmeasurable. I don't think a document even would necessarily need to be linked to him because he could have planted forged documents just for his own demented pleasure and I would not put it past him.

Link to comment

This is the main reason I am not distressed or upset by so-called historical documents that seem to refute truth claims of the Church. Another way of saying "trust not in the arm of flesh."

:P

Link to comment

I don't think he talks about it to anyone, especially in any interviews.

My memory of the Hofmann case is that one of the conditions of his non-death penalty charge was that he would co-operate in admitting all his forgeries. It was certainly something like that. Could he still be held to that? Probably not.

Even though no one could ever fully trust anything he said, I think that a good detective could interview him, possibly claim he would be given the death penalty if he did not cooperate, and ask carefully designed questions about this William Edwards affidavit and determine within reason if Hofmann forged it.

Richard

Link to comment

Update:

I was at a funeral with one of the authors of the newish Mountain Meadows work. He reported having seen Throckmorton's report of his analysis of the letter. Seems the same indicators were present here as were present in many of the other established Hoffmann forgeries: the traced signature with the hesitation marks . . . the artificially aged ink. He wasn't sure if the same unidirectional running of the ink was also present.

Thematically and in details, he found the letter borrowed heavily from the Lee "enhanced" autobiography.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...