Scott's New Article About Mha

[LifeOnaPlate]

If you had to miss the Mormon History Association's conference this year, Scott wrote a nice piece about one of the presentations here:

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865630241/New-generation-of-historians-presenting-a-better-view-of-Mormonism-to-the-world-speaker-says.html

Anyone here old enough to recall the salamander letter?

[Sanpitch]

Yes, I certainly remember that letter, though the details are getting foggy.  At the time I knew Jerald and Sandra Tanner slightly and they claimed the letter was a fake while the top church leaders had mostly accepted it as real.

[Okrahomer]

Yes, I certainly remember that letter, though the details are getting foggy.  At the time I knew Jerald and Sandra Tanner slightly and they claimed the letter was a fake while the top church leaders had mostly accepted it as real.

"On the question of duped church leaders — well, yes. Church leaders were duped. That’s embarrassing. Is it anything more? It does mean that if you think that Thomas S. Monson has a bat-phone directly to God, then you probably need to rethink your testimony. (And I’ll grant that quite a few CTR-8s probably have that understanding. And probably some adult members, too, which is unfortunate.) For those of us who don’t subscribe to the bat-phone model of prophetic guidance, well, the incident doesn’t mean a whole lot."

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/03/the-salamander-letter-in-a-nutshell/

[mfbukowski]

If you had to miss the Mormon History Association's conference this year, Scott wrote a nice piece about one of the presentations here:

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865630241/New-generation-of-historians-presenting-a-better-view-of-Mormonism-to-the-world-speaker-says.html

Anyone here old enough to recall the salamander letter?

Oh yes, I remember it well, oldster that I am.

 

And I also enjoyed Scott's article- thanks for the link.

 

But honestly I think that the direction that Mormon Studies is taking is absolutely essential as well.   (know anybody who has anything to do with that?)  We need to establish a credible dialog with secularists and we need to speak their language in order to communicate effectively.

 

Without that we will forever be seen as an insular cult of very peculiar people.

 

So I see these historians as part of the solution but then we also have the direction toward credible Mormon studies to pull us out of the nosedive.

[cinepro]

Okay, I've seen this odd error several times in the past few months, including the LA Times:

 

 

 

From 1980-85, Hofmann pedaled forged documents challenging the church’s traditional narrative about its origins. Ultimately, two people died in bombings perpetrated by Hofmann in a desperate attempt to keep his forgery scheme from unraveling.

 

 

 

pedal:

 

a foot-operated lever used to control certain mechanisms, as automobiles, or to play or modify the sounds of certain musical instruments, as pianos, organs, or harps.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pedal

 

 

 

 

peddle:

 

to go from place to place with goods, wares, etc., for sale at retail.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peddle

 

Did the definition of "pedal" change recently, or did Hoffman especially like to travel by bicycle when arranging business deals?

Edited June 8, 2015 by cinepro

[cinepro]

"On the question of duped church leaders — well, yes. Church leaders were duped. That’s embarrassing. Is it anything more? It does mean that if you think that Thomas S. Monson has a bat-phone directly to God, then you probably need to rethink your testimony. (And I’ll grant that quite a few CTR-8s probably have that understanding. And probably some adult members, too, which is unfortunate.) For those of us who don’t subscribe to the bat-phone model of prophetic guidance, well, the incident doesn’t mean a whole lot."

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/03/the-salamander-letter-in-a-nutshell/

 

 

Well, since Church money was used in acquiring the worthless forged documents, it does raise the question of how much latitude God gives Church leaders in spending Church funds, and whether or not that is an argument for a more open accounting of Church finances.

[Okrahomer]

Well, since Church money was used in acquiring the worthless forged documents, it does raise the question of how much latitude God gives Church leaders in spending Church funds, and whether or not that is an argument for a more open accounting of Church finances.

Please feel free to make that argument then. The quote I supplied was directed to the criticism implied in Sanpitch's response, which had nothing to do with Church finances.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Okrahomer

[Sanpitch]

Is stating a fact now criticism if it's not positive towards the church?  Do we need backup info, I'm sure that's available somewhere. 

 

edit to add:  I'm not sure about church money involved, I think originally elder ? borrowed the money from Zion's Bank in the amount of $80,000 and bought the letter.  I would think he was paid back by the church but maybe not.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Sanpitch

[Okrahomer]

Is stating a fact now criticism if it's not positive towards the church? Do we need backup info, I'm sure that's available somewhere.

edit to add: I'm not sure about church money involved, I think originally elder ? borrowed the money from Zion's Bank in the amount of $80,000 and bought the letter. I would think he was paid back by the church but maybe not.

If I misunderstood you, please accept my apologies. I was not disputing that the event took place. It has been very well documented that it did. However, your comment seemed to imply that Church leaders should not have been deceived.

Edit to add: it was Steven F. Christensen--a local LDS Bishop at the time--who purchased the letter for $40,000. http://en.fairmormon.org/Question:_Did_the_Church_purchase_documents_such_as_Mark_Hofmann%27s_%22Salamander_letter%22_with_the_intent_of_hiding_and_suppressing_them%3F

Edited June 8, 2015 by Okrahomer

[Scott Lloyd]

Is stating a fact now criticism if it's not positive towards the church?  Do we need backup info, I'm sure that's available somewhere. 

 

edit to add:  I'm not sure about church money involved, I think originally elder ? borrowed the money from Zion's Bank in the amount of $80,000 and bought the letter.  I would think he was paid back by the church but maybe not.

It was Elder Hugh Pinnock, yes he used personal funds, and no he was not reimbursed by the Church.

I covered his funeral for the Church News. President Hinckley, who spoke, commended him for having the character to assume personal responsibility for it and not foist it off on someone else.

Elder Pinnock, as I recall, made a legal claim against Hofmann for the money lest Hofmann try to profit from a book deal or some such thing while in prison.

[Sanpitch]

Yes, Elder Hugh Pinnock and seems it was $80,000.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, Elder Hugh Pinnock and seems it was $80,000.

That's the figure that stands out in my mind. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay, I've seen this odd error several times in the past few months, including the LA Times:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did the definition of "pedal" change recently, or did Hoffman especially like to travel by bicycle when arranging business deals?

Aarrgh!

 

And I know better too.

 

cinepro is absolutely right, of course. I'll try to get it fixed online, but sometimes that can be like trying to turn around a battleship.

 

Question though: If you've seen it several times in a period of months -- including in the New York Times -- why is it an "odd" error?

Edited June 8, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

If you had to miss the Mormon History Association's conference this year, Scott wrote a nice piece about one of the presentations here:

http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865630241/New-generation-of-historians-presenting-a-better-view-of-Mormonism-to-the-world-speaker-says.html

Anyone here old enough to recall the salamander letter?

I clearly recall the salamander letter.

 

And I quite clearly remember when the forgeries began surfacing, long before they were detected as such. I have a clear memory of an occasion in 1980 or so when I was attending a seminar at BYU. The speaker distributed a photocopy of a letter purportedly from Lucy Mack Smith to a friend about her son Joseph's experience with the gold plates and angels. The speaker was holding forth about how this letter gave us a richer understanding about this event. Of course, the letter turned out to be a Hofmann forgery.

 

I had been at the Deseret News only a couple of months in 1985 when the bombings went down. Back then, I was living in an apartment downtown just a few blocks from my office. The car bomb explosion occurred on the walking route I often took to work. I well remember the commotion that day.

[Scott Lloyd]

"On the question of duped church leaders — well, yes. Church leaders were duped. That’s embarrassing. Is it anything more? It does mean that if you think that Thomas S. Monson has a bat-phone directly to God, then you probably need to rethink your testimony. (And I’ll grant that quite a few CTR-8s probably have that understanding. And probably some adult members, too, which is unfortunate.) For those of us who don’t subscribe to the bat-phone model of prophetic guidance, well, the incident doesn’t mean a whole lot."

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2009/03/the-salamander-letter-in-a-nutshell/

Those who want a full understanding of the Hofmann episode (and there is rampant misconception about the Church's involvement, even to this day) owe it to themselves to read Turley's book Victims, which Haws mentioned in his MHA presentation.

[readstoomuch]

When the letter came out I distinctly remember Gordon b hinckley saying that they thought it was legitimate, but it had not been authenticated. Also, since the letter was not all flattering to the Church, I thought they were forthright in bringing it out whether it was good or bad. As to what level they were fooled and how you would rate it, I have no idea

[Okrahomer]

Deleted

Edited June 8, 2015 by Okrahomer

[Scott Lloyd]

When the letter came out I distinctly remember Gordon b hinckley saying that they thought it was legitimate, but it had not been authenticated. Also, since the letter was not all flattering to the Church, I thought they were forthright in bringing it out whether it was good or bad. As to what level they were fooled and how you would rate it, I have no idea

Some insights from FairMormon:

 

 

Question: If Gordon B. Hinckley were a true prophet, why did he not discern the nature of the Hofmann forgeries? Prophets are not omniscient nor are they infallible

Critics of the Church raise the question: If Gordon B. Hinckley were a true prophet, why would he be fooled into buying the forgeries? Would he not be able to discern the fraud? ^[2]

The assumption that President Hinckley should have discerned the nature of the forgery stems from incorrect expectations of what a prophet is. Prophets are not omniscient nor infallible. The Church bought the documents when assured by experts that they were genuine.

Prophets do not generally act to take away the free agent choices of others. President Hinckley's decision to purchase the documents allowed them to be examined, and kept them available for further study so that the forgery could be discovered. (Had a private collector, especially one hostile to the Church, acquired the documents, access might have been much more difficult.)

Some think it strange that a prophet could have been deceived. President Hinckley's public statements make it clear that he was not entirely convinced of the document's provenance, but provisionally accepted the judgment of the experts. (For a discussion of the decision to promptly make the document public when owned by the Church by an author who declared the document a forgery early on, see Rhett S. James, "Writing History Must Not Be an Act of Magic (Review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, revised and enlarged edition, by D. Michael Quinn)," FARMS Review of Books 12/2 (2000): 395–414. [{{{url}}} off-site].)

The Lord made it clear to Joseph Smith that a prophet is not granted to know all the designs of those who seek to destroy the Church:

But as you cannot always judge the righteous, or as you cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous, therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter. (

DC 10:37

)

The LDS doctrine of agency requires that those who plot evil be allowed a certain latitude, though (as President Hinckley prophetically noted) permanent harm to the Lord's work will not be permitted.

 

Question: Was President Hinckley suspicious that the Salamander letter might not be authentic? President Hinckley advised caution in accepting the documents' authenticity

President Hinckley, at a Young Adult fireside broadcast from Temple Square, spoke about Martin Harris and others mentioned in the Salamander Letter, and advised caution in accepting the documents' authenticity. He was careful not to proclaim that they were authentic:

As most of you know, recently there have been great stirrings over two old letters. One was purportedly written in 1825 by Joseph Smith to Josiah Stowell. If it is genuine, it is the oldest known product of Joseph Smith’s handwriting. It concerns the employment of Joseph by Mr. Stowell, who was engaged in a mining operation looking for old coins and precious metals. The other carries the date of October 23, 1830, and was purportedly written by Martin Harris to W. W. Phelps.

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.

I knew there would be a great fuss. Scholars have pored over them, discussed them, written about them, differed in their opinions, and even argued about them.

I am glad we have them.

They are interesting documents of whose authenticity we are not certain and may never be.

However, assuming that they are authentic, they are valuable writings of the period out of which they have come. But they have no real relevancy to the question of the authenticity of the Church or of the divine origin of the Book of Mormon.

Much has been said about the Martin Harris/W. W. Phelps letter. I ask: Shall two men, their character, their faith, their lives, the testimonies to which they gave voice to the end of their days, be judged by a few words on a sheet of paper that may or may not have been written by the one and received by the other?

If you have been troubled in any way by press reports concerning this letter, I ask only that you look closer at the man who presumably wrote it and at the man who presumably received it Martin Harris and W. W. Phelps.

The letter is dated subsequent to the declaration of the Testimony of the Three Witnesses, one of whom was Martin Harris. In language unequivocal and certain he and his associates had declared to the world: "Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record,...And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.... And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon."

Would Martin Harris have mortgaged his farm, eventually losing it, to pay for the printing of the Book of Mormon if he had thought of that book as a fraud? He endured ridicule, persecution, and poverty. He lived to the age of ninety-two and died in full faith, voicing his testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon to the end of his life.

What about W. W. Phelps? Five years subsequent to the date of the letter, he wrote: "Now, notwithstanding my body was not baptized into this Church till Thursday, the 10th of June 1831, yet my heart was there from the time I became acquainted with the Book of Mormon; and my hope, steadfast like an anchor, and my faith increased like the grass after a refreshing shower, when I for the first time, held a conversation with our beloved Brother Joseph whom I was willing to acknowledge as the prophet of the Lord, and to whom, and to whose godly account of himself and the work he was engaged in, I owe my first determination to quit the folly of my way, and the fancy and fame of this world, and seek the Lord and His righteousness."

This is the same man who wrote that majestic and marvelous hymn of tribute to the Prophet Joseph — "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah! Jesus anointed that Prophet and Seer. Blessed to open the last dispensation, Kings shall extol him, and nations revere."

He had no doubt concerning the divine origin of the Book of Mormon or the divine calling of him who was the instrument in the hands of the Almighty in bringing it forth. William W. Phelps died as a high priest in Salt Lake City in full faith.

Marvelous and enduring love and loyalty of the kind shown by these two men do not come from an experience with a "salamander" as we generally interpret that word.

Would these two men have so endured, so declared their testimonies, and so lived out their lives in faith had there been any doubt about the way in which the Book of Mormon plates were received from the hands of Moroni and translated by the gift and power of God?

[3]

 

 

I'll just take this opportunity to say that Roger Nicholson, who manages the FairMormon wiki, is a rock star!

[Okrahomer]

Those who want a full understanding of the Hofmann episode (and there is rampant misconception about the Church's involvement, even to this day) owe it to themselves to read Turley's book Victims, which Haws mentioned in his MHA presentation.

Fair enough. I have it, I just need to read it now.

[Scott Lloyd]

While the comments on this thread so far have mostly revisited the Hofmann affair, I'm wondering if there is to be any commentary on the thrust of Haws's presentation, which seems to be summarized in this paragraph:

 

“However, my sense of it is that this current era — this current moment — is something rather different than that Camelot era,” said Haws, a professor of church history and doctrine at Brigham Young University. “It feels less experimental and more mainstream, even as it is as bold and daring — in terms of historical output and publishing — as anything that came out of the 1970s.”

 

How about it? Have we really entered an age in the study of Mormon history that eclipses anything in the past? Or are there still some here inclined to gaze back nostalgically on the Arrington era and, with a wistful sigh, echo the words of Lerner and Loewe?

 

Don't let it be forgot

That once there was a spot,

For one brief shining moment,

That was known as Camelot

 

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, I certainly remember that letter, though the details are getting foggy.  At the time I knew Jerald and Sandra Tanner slightly and they claimed the letter was a fake while the top church leaders had mostly accepted it as real.

That is a fantasy version of history.

Actually, Sandra thought it authentic (so did I) and said so publicly, while Jerald considered it a forgery from the get go.  There were differences of opinion among faithful Mormons on its vaunted authenticity.  The primary problem was a lack of professional document handlers at the LDS Archives.  Those had to be brought in from outside, and those in charge were slow to see the need.  However, that sloth was characteristic of many of us in those days.

[Robert F. Smith]

While the comments on this thread so far have mostly revisited the Hofmann affair, I'm wondering if there is to be any commentary on the thrust of Haws's presentation, which seems to be summarized in this paragraph:

 

......................................................................................  

Yours was an excellent article, Scott.

 

Did you attend the Don Bradley session on early Mormon knicknacks?   How about any of the Early Mormon Translation session?  Anything else of interest?

[ALarson]

When the letter came out I distinctly remember Gordon b hinckley saying that they thought it was legitimate, but it had not been authenticated. Also, since the letter was not all flattering to the Church, I thought they were forthright in bringing it out whether it was good or bad. As to what level they were fooled and how you would rate it, I have no idea

IIRC, it was Hofmann who publicized the letter.  But, maybe I'm mistaken.

 

Also, I do think there were church funds used to purchase items from Hofmann, such as the Anthon Transcript for which they paid more than $20,000 for it. Or did private collectors purchase that too?

 

There was also the purchase of the 1825 Joseph Smith holograph that Gordon B. Hinckley or the church purchased for $15,000 from Hofmann.

 

Interesting article, Scott. (And, a very interesting topic too.)

Edited June 8, 2015 by ALarson

[rockpond]

It was Elder Hugh Pinnock, yes he used personal funds, and no he was not reimbursed by the Church.

 

Scott -- Nice article!

 

I liked the quote you used for your concluding note...

 

“Richard Bushman and the colleagues that joined him in leading the seminars — like Claudia Bushman and Terryl Givens — shaped a generation of scholars just at the time that their church was ready for their services. And this generation of scholars, with their publications and their positions in the classrooms across the country, nudged their church community to think in new ways and provided tools for doing so.”

[Tacenda]

One of the comment below the article had this question.  

 

"I will believe there is a new openness regarding history when BYU again offers graduate degrees in the field. BYU houses an impressive collection of documents, which graduate students from other universities use."

 

Why has BYU discontinued the graduate degree in history?  Is it just church history?  I'm assuming it is.