Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Article In Slt On Hofmann 30 Years Later


Recommended Posts

Because, as you as you will read in President Hinkley's 6/23/85 address below, he thought it was likely "something was rotten in Denmark." And since there was a very real suspicion some shenanigans were involved, it turned out keeping the "documents" for safekeeping turned out to be a very wise move. As the Book of Mormon teaches, sometimes the Lord inspires his servants to do things, the reasons for which do not become clear until sometime later. )

I'm not sure if I following your reasoning here. Instead of inspiring the brethren to safeguard the documents so they could be used as evidence, wouldn't it have made more sense to inspire the brethren to expose the forgery when Hofmann first approached the church?

This would have: 1) provided a powerful testimony of the power of discernment; 2) avoided an embarrassing episode in church history; and 3) most importantly prevented the murder of two innocent individuals.

Link to comment

I wonder what Brent Ashworth found in the notebook, has it been published?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_E._M%27Lellin#Personal_writings

In the aftermath of these crimes, the LDS Church discovered McLellin's writings were already in the church's possession, having been acquired and forgotten in 1908. These were later published in two works, The Journals of William E. McLellin, 1831–1836, edited by Jan Shipps and John W. Welch in 1994, and The William E. McLellin Papers, 1854–1880, edited by Stan Larson and Samuel J. Passey in 2007. However, these collections did not contain a certain notebook, which was known from photographs in a 1920s newspaper published by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In January 2009, this notebook was located and acquired by Brent Ashworth, one of the original collectors interested in Hofmann's supposed McLellin collection.[9]

Link to comment

I wish Peggy, in summarizing the things Richard Turley did after being hired as managing director of the Church History Department, would have mentioned that soon after his hiring, he wrote his own account of the Hofmann episode, giving the perspective of Church leaders involved. This book, Victims, already mentioned above, sets the record straight regarding the involvement of the Church leaders, their intent, etc. Unfortunately, the book appeared after public interest in the affair had already faded to a great degree, and it was not as well read as it should have been. Thus, as indicated on this very thread, some still harbor misconceptions concerning the role the Church leaders played.

 

I agree. Turley is brilliant. If one is to understand the Hofmann episode from the church's perspective, Turley's book Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case, is a must-read.

 

Also, Salamander by Linda sillitoe Allen Roberts is an excellent account from journalists who covered the bombings.

 

The Mormon Murders by Steven Naifeh is crap.

Link to comment

I agree. Turley is brilliant. If one is to understand the Hofmann episode from the church's perspective, Turley's book Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case, is a must-read.

 

Also, Salamander by Linda sillitoe Allen Roberts is an excellent account from journalists who covered the bombings.

 

The Mormon Murders by Steven Naifeh is crap.

 

Just curious, but did you read all three?  I have not read Turley's book.

Link to comment

Thanks to Robert Smith for adding some intriguing observations.

 

I read all the Hoffman books.  Salamander and VIctims are the best. The Mormon Murders has the advantage of being remotely controlled by the Tanners, and including such insights as you can't trust Mormons because their health code makes them look "younger than they really are."

 

I have two personal bits of Hofmann trivia.  One is that  must have run against him in cross country a few times in the fall of 1971, when I was on the Viewmont team and he was at Highland.

 

Another is when I managed to get invited to Sam Taylor's house after a Sunstone in the 90s, while one of his relatives was doing the "crisis of faith" dance, and was probing for faith demoting stories.  He asked Taylor about the Hofmann case, at a time when the forgeries had been exposed.  Rather than showing any kind of shame or cynicism or embaressment or defensiveness, Taylor beamed and declared "Best damn mystery story in the past hundred years!"

 

FWIW

 

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Link to comment

Thanks to Robert Smith for adding some intriguing observations.

I read all the Hoffman books. Salamander and VIctims are the best. The Mormon Murders has the advantage of being remotely controlled by the Tanners, and including such insights as you can't trust Mormons because their health code makes them look "younger than they really are."

I have two personal bits of Hofmann trivia. One is that must have run against him in cross country a few times in the fall of 1971, when I was on the Viewmont team and he was at Highland.

Another is when I managed to get invited to Sam Taylor's house after a Sunstone in the 90s, while one of his relatives was doing the "crisis of faith" dance, and was probing for faith demoting stories. He asked Taylor about the Hofmann case, at a time when the forgeries had been exposed. Rather than showing any kind of shame or cynicism or embaressment or defensiveness, Taylor beamed and declared "Best damn mystery story in the past hundred years!"

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

You went to Viewmont in the good years when it was a fairly new school. I went there in the late 70's, still good but we had the East Parking lot crowd. ;) Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment

Don't have much to add, but I did enjoy Robert's insights. All this happened when I was on my mission, and Steve Christensen's younger brother was my zone leader at the time, later AP. He has told me that some of his family have left the church over what happened. He said the thing that bothered them the most was how the church dealt with the aftermath, with some church leaders denying having known Hofmann or having made financial arrangements for him. My friend says he figures people make mistakes, especially when they are trying to protect their church. That's how I see it, too. How people behave in stressful situations is not a good measure of the truth of a religion.

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment

From what I remember, at least some of the letters or documents were leaked to the press which forced the church to reveal that they had them (or that they existed). But it's been years since I read about this, so others can correct me or clarify if this wasn't the case.

Given others were published without being leaked, I don't think it is appropriate to assume the Church would not have published them without the leaks.

"Then Hofmann leaked its existence to the press, after which the church was virtually forced to release the letter to scholars for study, despite previously denying it had it in its possession."

Like to see the timing and more info on this...

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Given others were published without being leaked, I don't think it is appropriate to assume the Church would not have published them without the leaks.

From doing more reading, some were leaked which did force the church to publish or discuss them (as stated in my other post above).  

 

I'm not sure how the Salamander letter was made public, does anyone know?

Link to comment

True. But how people behave in stressful situations can be a reflection of character.

 

(I say that as a general rule, not in relation to the Hoffman/church controversy because I don't know enough about it)

 

I would hate to be judged by my worst moments. My friend chalks it up to the leaders panicking and making mistakes accordingly. That's how I see it, too.

Link to comment

From doing more reading, some were leaked which did force the church to publish or discuss them (as stated in my other post above).  

 

I'm not sure how the Salamander letter was made public, does anyone know?

Apparently President Hinkley made it public. He claimed to go Directly to the press with it.

https://books.google.com/books?id=iNCxCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA316&dq=salamander+letter+made+public&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwA2oVChMIuY28xYbFyAIVDeBjCh03fAcH#v=onepage&q=salamander%20letter%20made%20public&f=false

Edited by Zakuska
Link to comment

I'm not sure if I following your reasoning here. Instead of inspiring the brethren to safeguard the documents so they could be used as evidence, wouldn't it have made more sense to inspire the brethren to expose the forgery when Hofmann first approached the church?

This would have: 1) provided a powerful testimony of the power of discernment; 2) avoided an embarrassing episode in church history; and 3) most importantly prevented the murder of two innocent individuals.

And who would have believed the Church's claims of forgery when many so-called experts, both within and without the Church were saying the documents were absolutely genuine? If the leaders had taken that tact, it's quite possible the devil and the enemies of the Church would have had a field day laughing the Church to scorn; and it's also quite possible the forgeries would to this day still be considered genuine.

And by the way, why didn't the Lord reveal to the prophet Joseph Smith that Martin Harris was going to lose the 116 pages, that John C. Bennett was a scoundrel, or that the early attempts to establish Ziom would come to naught? If the Lord was only in the business of making sure there are only perfect outcomes, we would never learn from our experiences and our free agency would be totally compromised

Link to comment

It states there that the Salamander letter had been leaked prior to when President Hinckley went public with it (and the Josiah Stowell letter too).  

 

If this is true, who leaked them?  Did Hofmann?

Link to comment

It states there that the Salamander letter had been leaked prior to when President Hinckley went public with it (and the Josiah Stowell letter too).  

 

If this is true, who leaked them?  Did Hofmann?

 

His MO, as I recall, was to forge something he thought the church would find embarrassing, sell it to them in the expectation that they wouldn't want it getting out, and then after he had the money, leak it to the press. I could be wrong, though. I read "Salamander" many years ago but haven't thought much of it since. It was reading that book that got me talking to my friend about his brother and his family. Still a lot of pain and grief in that family.

Edited by jkwilliams
Link to comment

Hofmann's motivations weren't limited to money and notoriety, as a verifiable anti-Mormon, he was also motivated by embarrassing the church. He would often release to the press the existence of the documents after assuring church leaders they would remain private.

Edited by omni
Link to comment

Hofmann's motivations weren't limited to money and notoriety, as a verifiable anti-Mormon, he was also motivated by embarrassing the church. He would often release to the press the existence of the documents after assuring church leaders they would remain private.

 

That's my understanding, as well.

Link to comment

His MO, as I recall, was to forge something he thought the church would find embarrassing, sell it to them in the expectation that they wouldn't want it getting out, and then after he had the money, leak it to the press. I could be wrong, though. I read "Salamander" many years ago but haven't thought much of it since. It was reading that book that got me talking to my friend about his brother and his family. Still a lot of pain and grief in that family.

I think that's what I vaguely remember too (that Hofmann himself would leak the information about the letters and documents), but it's been quite awhile since I've read the books on this topic.

 

As far as your friend (the younger brother of Steve Christensen), I can only imagine the pain that family went through and is still going through over his murder.

 

When you stated this earlier (regarding your friend), who is the "him" regarding the making of financial arrangements?  Steve Christensen or Hofmann (or both)?

He said the thing that bothered them the most was how the church dealt with the aftermath, with some church leaders denying having known Hofmann or having made financial arrangements for him.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment

I think that's what I vaguely remember too (that Hofmann himself would leak the information about the letters and documents), but it's been quite awhile since I've read the books on this topic.

 

As far as your friend (the younger brother of Steve Christensen), I can only imagine the pain that family went through and is still going through over his murder.

 

When you stated this earlier (regarding your friend), who is the "him" regarding the making of financial arrangements?  Steve Christensen or Hofmann (or both)?

 

I meant Hofmann. The denials were in police interviews. 

Link to comment

I meant Hofmann. The denials were in police interviews. 

Ok, that's what I thought you meant.  Did any church leaders ever ask Steve Christensen to purchase any of the documents from Hofmann (according to his brother)?

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment

Ok, that's what I thought you meant.  Did any church leaders ever ask Steve Christensen to purchase any of the documents from Hofmann (according to his brother)?

 

I never asked him that. Mostly we talked about the aftermath, which was the troubling part for his family members.

Link to comment

I would hate to be judged by my worst moments. My friend chalks it up to the leaders panicking and making mistakes accordingly. That's how I see it, too.

I agree if "judged" means condemned.

But even though my most stressful moments may not yield the most flattering picture of my character, and certainly not a complete picture of my character, those moments can reveal weaknesses and flaws that otherwise would remain unknown. Those weaknesses are a part of who I am and recognizing them is an important part of self awareness.

Link to comment

I agree if "judged" means condemned.

But even though my most stressful moments may not yield the most flattering picture of my character, and certainly not a complete picture of my character, those moments can reveal weaknesses and flaws that otherwise would remain unknown. Those weaknesses are a part of who I am and recognizing them is an important part of self awareness.

 

Oh, of course. What I mean is that I don't judge anyone based on their worst moments. We all have bad days and make bad decisions. We just hope we can learn from them. It was a good lesson to me years ago that church leaders could make mistakes, even pretty major ones.

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

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