Buckeye Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 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.htmlAnyone here old enough to recall the salamander letter? I have no personal memories, but my current bishop was a missionary companion with Hoffman.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 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?Taking in MHA is always like trying to drink from a fire hose. There are typically a half-dozen or so sessions going on simultaneously, so it's impossible to get to everything. I attended a number of other sessions, some of which will be reported in the Church News, including a very enlightening one about the St George and other temples. It featured Elder Bruce C. Hafen, an emeritus General Authority. Other than Elder Marlin K. Jensen when he was Church Historian and Recorder, I'm not certain a General Authority, active or emeritus, has presented at MHA before. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 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.As I recall, Rhett James up in Logan rejected the authenticity from the get-go. But his was a rather lonely voice.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 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.)See my post #18, which quotes the FairMormon wiki, for insights on the purchase by the Church of Hofmann documents. 1
longview Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) 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.CFR please that leaders had mostly accepted it as real. I well remember that incident after having moved to Denver from SLC. I was extremely skeptical of the Salamander Letter (totally out of character compared with histories that I loved to read and become familiar with). I was very impressed with Hinckley's humility and willingness to wait out the process for further review and research. He even graciously gifted the JS III blessing to the RLDS church. Thankfully Hofmann's plot finally unraveled and he deservedly injured himself with his own bombs. Edited June 9, 2015 by longview 1
cinepro Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 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: 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? Last year, Brent Metcalfe said the following in his interview at Mormon Stories: You know people have referred to the Leonard Arrington-era of the Church History Department as the "Camelot Days", well the fact is, whatever those "Camelot Days" were, there has never been as much transparency and openness in the Church archives and the historical department as there is today. If that was "Camelot", this is Nirvana! We're in a whole new era of transparency that I think the Church should be credited for.- Brent Metcalfe, Mormonstories Interview 497, 25:19 I certainly wasn't running in Church history circles in the 1970s or 1980s, but as an outside hobbyist/observer, I do think it's amazing just to see what has happened in the last 15 years. 2
Sanpitch Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) longview, I'm not going to research it now, but I think Scott Lloyd's statement, "....Rhett James up in Logan rejected it but his was a lonely voice," also the fact that Elder Hugh Pinnock used $80,000 of his own funds, actually borrowed, to purchase the letter says something. We must remember that $80,000 in those days would be several times that today. Edited June 9, 2015 by Sanpitch
longview Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 longview, I'm not going to research it now, but I think Scott Lloyd's statement, "....Rhett James up in Logan rejected it but his was a lonely voice," also the fact that Elder Hugh Pinnock used $80,000 of his own funds, actually borrowed, to purchase the letter says something. We must remember that $80,000 in those days would be several times that today.Small portion that was paid by the Church and the rest by well to do rank and file members.
Okrahomer Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 longview, I'm not going to research it now, but I think Scott Lloyd's statement, "....Rhett James up in Logan rejected it but his was a lonely voice," also the fact that Elder Hugh Pinnock used $80,000 of his own funds, actually borrowed, to purchase the letter says something. We must remember that $80,000 in those days would be several times that today.This keeps being repeated here, but I think you are conflating two different Hoffman episodes. It was Steven F. Christensen (not Elder Hugh Pinnock) who purchased the letter, and it was for $40,000--not $80,000. The FAIR article provides this simple chronology(http://en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries_related_to_Mormonism/Mark_Hofmann/Church_reaction_to_forgeries#cite_note-4):6 January 1984: Steven F. Christensen purchases the Salamander Letter from Hofmann for $40,000.7 March 1984: Steven F. Christensen issues a press release about the letter indicating his desire to determine its authenticity.12 April 1985: Steven F. Christensen donates the letter to the Church.Elder Pinnock did not become involved with Mark Hoffman until several months after the Salamander Letter episode. Hoffman claimed he had acquired the collected diaries of early LDS apostle William E. McLellin and had determined to donate it to the Church. However, his deteriorating financial situation demanded that he sell the collection. So Elder Pinnock helped arrange a $185,000 loan for Hoffman. The bombs that killed Steven F. Christensen and Kathleen Sheets (and nearly killed Hoffman himself) were Hoffman's diabolical attempt at misdirection, because people he had been dealing with (like Steven F. Christensen) were beginning to suspect he did not actually have the collection. Please see http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635153542/Tales-of-Hofmann-Forgeries-deceit-continue-to-intrigue-20-years-later.html?pg=all 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 This keeps being repeated here, but I think you are conflating two different Hoffman episodes. It was Steven F. Christensen (not Elder Hugh Pinnock) who purchased the letter, and it was for $40,000--not $80,000. The FAIR article provides this simple chronology (http://en.fairmormon.org/Forgeries_related_to_Mormonism/Mark_Hofmann/Church_reaction_to_forgeries#cite_note-4): 6 January 1984: Steven F. Christensen purchases the Salamander Letter from Hofmann for $40,000. 7 March 1984: Steven F. Christensen issues a press release about the letter indicating his desire to determine its authenticity. 12 April 1985: Steven F. Christensen donates the letter to the Church. Elder Pinnock did not become involved with Mark Hoffman until several months after the Salamander Letter episode. Hoffman claimed he had acquired the collected diaries of early LDS apostle William E. McLellin and had determined to donate it to the Church. However, his deteriorating financial situation demanded that he sell the collection. So Elder Pinnock helped arrange a $185,000 loan for Hoffman. The bombs that killed Steven F. Christensen and Kathleen Sheets (and nearly killed Hoffman himself) were Hoffman's diabolical attempt at misdirection, because people he had been dealing with (like Steven F. Christensen) were beginning to suspect he did not actually have the collection. Please see http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635153542/Tales-of-Hofmann-Forgeries-deceit-continue-to-intrigue-20-years-later.html?pg=allThis comports with my recollection. Elder Pinnock guaranteed the loan and was liable for the money when Hofmann defaulted after it was revealed there was never any such McClellan collection.
Sanpitch Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Robert F Smith, can you cite your reference to Sandra Tanner accepting the Salamander Letter as authentic? It's a minor point and not important but I am curious. I always assumed the Tanners felt it was a fraud after they had studied it for some time.
Okrahomer Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Robert F Smith, can you cite your reference to Sandra Tanner accepting the Salamander Letter as authentic? It's a minor point and not important but I am curious. I always assumed the Tanners felt it was a fraud after they had studied it for some time. Robert F. Smith may have a more direct response; however, I did find this: "Three times Sandra Tanner sent her husband into their backyard to pray for God's guidance. Three times Tanner came back and said the letter was a fake." It seems Sandra must have at least "hoped" it was authentic. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 As I recall, Rhett James up in Logan rejected the authenticity from the get-go. But his was a rather lonely voice.Yes, James communicated directly with me at FARMS then about that matter. However, there were also colleagues (only a few) at BYU then who rejected its authenticity. But there was a dearth of forensic argument on the matter.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) Robert F Smith, can you cite your reference to Sandra Tanner accepting the Salamander Letter as authentic? It's a minor point and not important but I am curious. I always assumed the Tanners felt it was a fraud after they had studied it for some time.Jerald Tanner first suspected Kerry R. Boren of the forgeries (J. Tanner, Mr. Boren and the White Salamander [1985]). I can't find Sandra's comment right now, but it may be in J. Tanner, Tracking the White Salamander (1986), or in their "Moroni or Salamander? Reported Find of Letter by Book of Mormon Witness," Salt Lake City Messenger, 53 (Mar 1984):1-4. Both of them spoke openly and frankly of their disagreement. Based on a syntax study, Rhett James first suggested forgery in an Oct 24, 1984, letter to Glen Rowe of the LDS Church Historian’s Office, and in subsequent letters to Steven F. Christensen (James, FARMS Review of Books, 12/2 [2000]:409-411); James also sent early copies of his study to FARMS. Edited June 9, 2015 by Robert F. Smith 1
Recommended Posts