Another likely Hofmann forgery discovered

[Calm]

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/november-2017-questions-of-authentic-documents

"The fact that the document had no known provenance prior to 1981 led us to believe that the letter might be a Mark Hofmann forgery. During the 1970s and early 1980s, Hofmann was a prominent dealer in Mormon and other historical documents. After he murdered two individuals with homemade explosives, it was unveiled that Hofmann had forged hundreds of documents relating to LDS history and sold them to unsuspecting individuals. The Atchison letter, we feared, might be one of those forgeries.

That suspicion deepened when our researchers discovered another photocopy of the same document in the papers of an LDS history scholar held in the special collections library at the University of Utah. That scholar noted that the photocopy was given to him by Hofmann. This information, combined with the contradictory material in the letter itself, its unclear provenance, and the lack of a handwriting match, led our historians to conclude that the letter was likely a forgery. It was not published in Documents, Volume 6.

Although the vast majority of the documents we work with are clearly authentic, some, like the Atchison letter, have warning signs that warrant further investigation. Examining provenance, handwriting, and other features of a document helps us in the authentication process. When we present the documents of Joseph Smith, we not only present the transcripts and historical introductions but also show how and why we believe the documents are what they purport to be, insuring that researchers and scholars can use the documents we publish with confidence."

 

Edited November 23, 2017 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

After his arrest, as part of his plea agreement, Mark William Hofmann agreed to a long series of interviews by the Utah County Prosecutors.  Here are some revealing quotations from those interviews -- Office of Salt Lake County Attorney, Mark Hofmann Interviews: Interviews Conducted at Utah State Prison Between February 11 and May 27, 1987: Transcripts, Supplements, and Exhibits, 

 113 (27 February 1987): ". . . the documents I created could have been a part of Mormon history. . . . the questions I asked myself in deciding on a forgery, one of the questions was, what could have been?  I had a concept of Church history and I followed that concept."

112, "There was some excitement involved, a feeling of duping them, I guess";

130, "I wouldn't talk to a lot of people about what I thought about the History of the Church, just because . . , I guess, my version of the history is not sympathetic with the teachings of the Church";

133, " . . . partially it had to do with my rewriting of Mormon history";

426-427, "It is true that I wrote the documents according to how I felt the actual events took place.  In other words, I believe that Joseph Smith was involved with folk magic, . . ." (22 April 1987);

455, ". . . amusement for the whole idea.  As far as the embarrassment to the Church, it is true that it was embarrassing but I was also interested to see how the Church would react to the situation" (30 April 1987);

474, ". . . again somewhat of an experiment to see the Church's reaction as far as, that always interested me"

Hofmann himself usually insists that his primary motive was always financial.  Judge Paul Grant, who presided at the Hofmann preliminary hearing, modifies this somewhat -- he apparently believes "that Hofmann's primary motivation was to make a great deal of money while discrediting the Prophet Joseph Smith, . . ."  Why did he want to discredit Joseph Smith and presumably the Church?
    Allen Roberts and others have suggested that Hofmann's "secret animosity toward the Church" was based on some sort of family secret:  This may relate to the claim that Hofmann's mother came from a Mormon fundamentalist (polygamous) background, and that his grandmother was placed in polygynous limbo by the Church, due to her marriage in 1906 -- Mark deeply resenting the secrecy and duplicitous shame imposed by his Church; it may also be related to his early rebellion against both family and Church authority – including "some things that happened, either on his mission (to Bristol, England, from 1974-76) or right after that that he resented."  His bitterness and resentment were clearly expressed via his classic sociopathy, even as he hypocritically wore temple garments, served a mission, was married in an LDS temple, and held a Church position.

[Meerkat]

What better way to discredit the Church than present a convincing parallel history?

Back when Mark Hofmann was churning out these forged documents, the so called "Christian apologist" Walter Martin, relied on Hofmann's documents in his fund raising letters.  Martin had a nationally syndicated radio program called The Bible Answer Man at the time.  He got a lot of coverage.  Hofmann produced hundreds of convincing forged documents and sold the Church several over a few years that fueled the anti movement at the time.

My brothers and I had joined the Church several years prior.  One day my favorite aunt and uncle dropped by my folks home.  They left them a folder of anti-Mormon literature.  Prominent in the folder was Hofmann's Salamander Letter hoax and Martin's fund raising letter.  It said, paraphrased "Now we will see the foundation of the Mormon religion crumble and it's leaders revealed as liars, frauds and murderers."

Martin was blaming the LDS leaders for the murder of the people Hofmann was later convicted of killing.   My response was that those leaders had served as unpaid Scout leaders, teachers and ecclesiastical leaders.  They were good men who served out of love for God and their fellow beings.  The Church doesn't need lies to prop it up.  It's history is literally an open book.  Why would those leaders throw their Salvation away?  If Martin had any evidence, he should take it to the D.A. rather than write fund raising letters.  

Fortunately, our testimonies were solid.  We didn't like the the confusion the documents caused.  But we believed our faith would be justified eventually, and a there would be a reasonable explanation for the letters.  Shortly thereafter, the truth came out.

The New York Times, February 11, 1987 (from Wikipedia,) said:

 "'Mark Hofmann was unquestionably the most skilled forger this country has ever seen,' said Charles Hamilton, a New York document dealer who is widely regarded as the nation's pre-eminent detector of forged documents. He was the first to determine that the widely publicized Hitler Diaries of several years ago were fakes. Mr. Hamilton said Mr. Hofmann 'perpetrated by far the largest monetary frauds through forgery that this country has ever had,' adding, 'He fooled me - he fooled everybody.'" 

The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “Our missionaries are going forth to different nations, and … the Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done” (History of the Church, 4:540).

Let the Hofmann's of the world come.  I believe this is the trajectory the Lord has set for His Church.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Meerkat

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting, but hardly surprising. 

The Hofmann forgeries were so pervasive it was foregone that they  would crop up here and there from time to time for years to come. I’m grateful the controls and expertise are in place to spot them when they do emerge. 

Edited November 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Meerkat said:

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

The New York Times, February 11, 1987 (from Wikipedia,) said:

 "'Mark Hofmann was unquestionably the most skilled forger this country has ever seen,' said Charles Hamilton, a New York document dealer who is widely regarded as the nation's pre-eminent detector of forged documents. He was the first to determine that the widely publicized Hitler Diaries of several years ago were fakes. Mr. Hamilton said Mr. Hofmann 'perpetrated by far the largest monetary frauds through forgery that this country has ever had,' adding, 'He fooled me - he fooled everybody.'" 

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

Hamilton was duped by Hofmann, and so attempted to make him more of an expert forger than he really was.  Compared to the great forger and imposter Frank Abagnale Jr, for example, Hofmann was a small-time punk.  Of course, Abagnale never committed murder — he wasn’t that stupid.  Indeed, there are many forgers who have been far more clever and much more prolific than Hofmann.  Parade examples are the great art forgers Mark A. Landis, Elmyr de Hory and Eric Hebborn – the latter proudly boasting that “he had sold more than 1,000 fake old master and modern drawings, including works attributed to Pablo Picasso and Breughel.”  Hebborn even wrote a manual on art forgery, which was published posthumously.  Hofmann was also certainly less prolific than other art forgers, such as Anthony Gene Tetro of Claremont, California, who produced over a hundred fake 20th century artworks.  According to the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, Tetro is “the nation’s largest forger of paintings.”  Compared to any of these guys, Hofmann was a piker.

However, Hofmann does exhibit all the traits common to successful forgers — or at least those who are successful for a time.  Edward L. Kimball has summarized Hofmann’s cunning technical skill at forgery:

Quote

    He used old paper, cutting the end sheets from antique books in libraries.  He formulated inks of the sorts used in previous centuries.  He even added carbon black obtained from burning seventeenth-century paper to foil carbon-14 dating tests and shifted from quill pens to steel nibs in appropriate circumstances.  He learned how to age the forged documents with chemicals, heat, and exposure to ozone.  He claimed even to have used red fungus, bread mold, and insects to do damage that suggested age and neglect.  Kimball, “The Artist and the Forger: Han van Meegeren and Mark Hofmann,” BYU Studies, 27/4 (Fall 1987):6-7.

He was contemptuous of the experts who were fooled by his work.  Like most forgers, he filled the need for otherwise unavailable documents.  He created the earliest documents, the latest, the best, and whatever else seemed to be desirable to potential buyers, and he "always had a story" to cover himself.  He created documents (and rumors) to verify each other.  He used the aid and research of others (were they unwitting?) in preparing his forgeries.  He used the sort of content which he "thought potentially genuine" and "discoverable. . . .  In other words, to make it fit the history as accurately as possible so that I wouldn't be found out or whatever."  He knew that dealer secrecy would protect him on the tracing of provenance.  He seemed to agree with Ernst Bloch, who said: "A forgery can be distinguished from an original because it looks more genuine." 

Hofmann himself said:

Quote

. . . it's not so much what is genuine and what isn't as what people believe is genuine.
                            *        *        *
 That's what authentication is, is not being able to find out that it's not authentic.  

Office of Salt Lake County Attorney, Mark Hofmann Interviews: Interviews Conducted at Utah State Prison Between February 11 and May 27, 1987: Transcripts, Supplements, and Exhibits, 425 (22 April 1987), and 495 (15 May 1987). 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Interesting, but hardly surprising. 

The Hofmann forgeries were so pervasive it was foregone that they  would crop up here and there from time to time for years to come. I’m grateful the controls and expertise are in place to spot them when they do emerge. 

Yes, but his plea agreement specified that he would come clean on all of that, and he never completed the series of interviews, nor did he list all his forgeries.  Hofmann is laughing at all of us there at Utah State Prison.  For him, the con is still on.

[Tacenda]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but his plea agreement specified that he would come clean on all of that, and he never completed the series of interviews, nor did he list all his forgeries.  Hofmann is laughing at all of us there at Utah State Prison.  For him, the con is still on.

I wish there wasn't a gag order for a movie about him. I'd love to see what is behind his actions. Here is a DN article as recent as 2015. Maybe I'm wrong about a plea deal where no movies would be made of his life. Anyone know about this? 

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/635153542/Tales-of-Hofmann-Forgeries-deceit-continue-to-intrigue-20-years-later.html

Edited November 24, 2017 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I wish there wasn't a gag order for a movie about him. I'd love to see what is behind his actions. Here is a DN article as recent as 2015. Maybe I'm wrong about a plea deal where no movies would be made of his life. Anyone know about this? 

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/635153542/Tales-of-Hofmann-Forgeries-deceit-continue-to-intrigue-20-years-later.html

I’ve never heard anything about a gag order on a movie about him. That sounds weird. Who would the gag order be against? And why a gag order on a movie but not on the seven books that have been written on him?

If you want “to see what is behind his actions,” why not read one or more of the seven books?  A movie is apt to be less accurate than books as filmmakers typically take artistic license  

My recollection is the contrary, that there was to have been a movie but it never got made. 

Courts can’t enjoin people from making movies. That would be a violation of First Amendment freedoms. What’s your source on that?

Edited November 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

You know what baffles me??  It is that for whatever said "reasonable" reasons Hofmann would have to use home made bombs...that he was so stupid!!  Surely, in the back of his mind he knew he would get caught and wanted to get caught.  This is the part of him that I most do not understand...was it being a sort of celebrity...or did his guilt do him in enough to warrant and want to be caught in all of this. 

Also..where was this great power of discernment of a Prophet and all those who dealt with Hofmann?  Ugh...It is still so hard to understand. 

[CA Steve]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Hamilton was duped by Hofmann, and so attempted to make him more of an expert forger than he really was.  Compared to the great forger and imposter Frank Abagnale Jr, for example, Hofmann was a small-time punk.  Of course, Abagnale never committed murder — he wasn’t that stupid.  Indeed, there are many forgers who have been far more clever and much more prolific than Hofmann.  Parade examples are the great art forgers Mark A. Landis, Elmyr de Hory and Eric Hebborn – the latter proudly boasting that “he had sold more than 1,000 fake old master and modern drawings, including works attributed to Pablo Picasso and Breughel.”  Hebborn even wrote a manual on art forgery, which was published posthumously.  Hofmann was also certainly less prolific than other art forgers, such as Anthony Gene Tetro of Claremont, California, who produced over a hundred fake 20th century artworks.  According to the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, Tetro is “the nation’s largest forger of paintings.”  Compared to any of these guys, Hofmann was a piker.

However, Hofmann does exhibit all the traits common to successful forgers — or at least those who are successful for a time.  Edward L. Kimball has summarized Hofmann’s cunning technical skill at forgery:

He was contemptuous of the experts who were fooled by his work.  Like most forgers, he filled the need for otherwise unavailable documents.  He created the earliest documents, the latest, the best, and whatever else seemed to be desirable to potential buyers, and he "always had a story" to cover himself.  He created documents (and rumors) to verify each other.  He used the aid and research of others (were they unwitting?) in preparing his forgeries.  He used the sort of content which he "thought potentially genuine" and "discoverable. . . .  In other words, to make it fit the history as accurately as possible so that I wouldn't be found out or whatever."  He knew that dealer secrecy would protect him on the tracing of provenance.  He seemed to agree with Ernst Bloch, who said: "A forgery can be distinguished from an original because it looks more genuine." 

Hofmann himself said:

 

I might add that, in all likelihood, the greatest forgers and con-men are the ones we don't know about. The Hoffman comment below is interesting as it relates to antebellum 19th century currency.

 

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

. Quoting Mark Hoffman " it's not so much what is genuine and what isn't as what people believe is genuine"

Counterfeiting was pervasive though out the early 19th century as were real bank notes that had no value. For the most part, the worth of a bank note did not depend so much on whether or not it was a counterfeit or real, it depended on whether or not people believed it was real. So a successful counterfeiter was held in higher esteem than an incompetent banker in many cases.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wish there wasn't a gag order for a movie about him. I'd love to see what is behind his actions. Here is a DN article as recent as 2015. Maybe I'm wrong about a plea deal where no movies would be made of his life. Anyone know about this? 

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/635153542/Tales-of-Hofmann-Forgeries-deceit-continue-to-intrigue-20-years-later.html

Anyone who wants to can make a filmography of his life.  Of course it would have to be carefully made so as not to violate libel laws.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Anyone who wants to can make a filmography of his life.  Of course it would have to be carefully made so as not to violate libel laws.

Filmmakers typically get around that with a disclaimer in the credits. 

Anyone who views a movie portrayal as the unvarnished truth about a person’s life is as gullible as Hofmann’s victims. 

[theplains]

18 hours ago, Meerkat said:

"'Mark Hofmann was unquestionably the most skilled forger this country has ever seen,' said Charles Hamilton, a New York document dealer who is widely regarded as the nation's pre-eminent detector of forged documents. 

It is possible today for the LDS Church President to be fooled by a skilled forger?  Would the Urim and Thummim
help in matters like this?

Thanks,
Jim

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve never heard anything about a gag order on a movie about him. That sounds weird. Who would the gag order be against? And why a gag order on a movie but not on the seven books that have been written on him?

If you want “to see what is behind his actions,” why not read one or more of the seven books?  A movie is apt to be less accurate than books as filmmakers typically take artistic license  

My recollection is the contrary, that there was to have been a movie but it never got made. 

Courts can’t enjoin people from making movies. That would be a violation of First Amendment freedoms. What’s your source on that?

I guess I misunderstood. It may have been that Hofmann's prosecuter's plea bargain made it so church leaders didn't have to testify into court. But I swear there was something else to this story. 

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

It is possible today for the LDS Church President to be fooled by a skilled forger?  Would the Urim and Thummim
help in matters like this?

Thanks,
Jim

do they even have the UM? The POC isn't in the business of buying and selling documents

[strappinglad]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

do they even have the UM? The POC isn't in the business of buying and selling documents

IIRC they did/were back then. If someone offered 116 pages of manuscript re the BoM , Ears would perk up . And just recently the Church paid some serious coin to the Community of Christ ? for the printer's copy I think. But, once burnt twice shy when it comes to documents nowadays.

[Anijen]

As far as a gag order, yes that would violate the First Amendment. This action is called a prior restraint. Prior restraints are court orders denying anyone [like the press] from writing (a film maker from making a movie) in the future. They are one of the most strict conditions that places limits on the press that the courts can order. You only see a prior restraint order if there is a chance of immediate harm, for example a reporter is traveling with an army unit out on patrol. Here, the Supreme Court has ruled that the specific reporter cannot write about certain things in her/his report that would even remotely place this army unit in harms way (e.g. giving away location). There is no law that can prevent a film maker from making a Hoffman movie, regardless of any plea agreement. As far as libel goes; lawyers rarely use the terms libel (false written statement) or slander (false spoken statement) these days, because they fall under the much more common legal term defamation. Note: most defamation suits can be avoided by simply making it an opinion piece or by not using illegally obtained private information and maliciously publishing it.

The plea agreement might be between Hoffman and lawyers from disclosing certain things which may fall under attorney/client privilege or a non-disclosure agreement was made with some of the primary actors in the case. Having said that, no courts will stop someone from making a movie about Mark Hoffman.

Hoffman did hurt the church, he is a modern day anti-christ such as we read in the Book of Mormon (just my opinion).

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, strappinglad said:

IIRC they did/were back then. If someone offered 116 pages of manuscript re the BoM , Ears would perk up . And just recently the Church paid some serious coin to the Community of Christ ? for the printer's copy I think. But, once burnt twice shy when it comes to documents nowadays.

The Church History Department, not the First Presidency, was the player in that transaction, although I’ve no doubt the First Presidency signed off in it. 

Furthermore, the Church had long been working in close cooperation with Community of Christ in the conservation and eventual publication as a photo reproduction of the printer’ manuscript. 

Edited November 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

On 11/24/2017 at 8:54 AM, Jeanne said:

You know what baffles me??  It is that for whatever said "reasonable" reasons Hofmann would have to use home made bombs...that he was so stupid!!  Surely, in the back of his mind he knew he would get caught and wanted to get caught.  This is the part of him that I most do not understand...was it being a sort of celebrity...or did his guilt do him in enough to warrant and want to be caught in all of this. 

Also..where was this great power of discernment of a Prophet and all those who dealt with Hofmann?  Ugh...It is still so hard to understand. 

Hubris goes a long way to explain his actions.

Christ had his Judas.

[theplains]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church History Department, not the First Presidency, was the player in that transaction, although I’ve no doubt the First Presidency signed off in it. 

Furthermore, the Church had long been working in close cooperation with Community of Christ in the conservation and eventual publication as a photo reproduction of the printer’ manuscript. 

Does this mean there is strong belief the 116 page manuscript is 'revelation?'

Thanks,
Jim

[Five Solas]

On 11/24/2017 at 12:42 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Filmmakers typically get around that with a disclaimer in the credits. 

Anyone who views a movie portrayal as the unvarnished truth about a person’s life is as gullible as Hofmann’s victims. 

If memory serves, those victims included "the brethren."  I realize many of them are no longer with us, but I'm not sure their successors would appreciate your charge of gullibility (which means easily tricked), Scott.  Did you intend to leave your readers with such an inference?  Seems a brave thing if you did, given your position. 

--Erik 

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

If memory serves, those victims included "the brethren."  I realize many of them are no longer with us, but I'm not sure their successors would appreciate your charge of gullibility (which means easily tricked), Scott.  Did you intend to leave your readers with such an inference?  Seems a brave thing if you did, given your position. 

--Erik 

Yes, some of the brethren (sarcasm quotes not needed in anything aspiring to be a good faith discussion) dealt with Hofmann, and did so on a basis of trust. As a result, they were burned. Hofmann's mendacity did a lot of damage to the trust that makes dealing in historical artifacts possible.

There are those who share Hofmann's spite against the Church, as well as his overall lack of principle, and who therefore like to try to portray the brethren as somehow conniving with him in his crimes, or else as having shown a lack of inspiration in their dealings with him. Neither of those conclusions are available in any honest discussion of the matter.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, some of the brethren (sarcasm quotes not needed in anything aspiring to be a good faith discussion) dealt with Hofmann, and did so on a basis of trust. As a result, they were burned. Hofmann's mendacity did a lot of damage to the trust that makes dealing in historical artifacts possible.

There are those who share Hofmann's spite against the Church, as well as his overall lack of principle, and who therefore like to try to portray the brethren as somehow conniving with him in his crimes, or else as having shown a lack of inspiration in their dealings with him. Neither of those conclusions are available in any honest discussion of the matter.

When someone appears to show as great or greater contempt for the victim of a fraud than for the perpetrator, that says a great deal about compassion, character, sense of justice, etc. 

Edited November 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Five Solas]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When someone appears to show as great or greater contempt for the victim of a fraud than for the perpetrator, that says a great deal about compassion, character, sense of justice, etc. 

To be clear - I always include quotes around "the brethren" to demonstrate it's LDS wording for senior leadership, not wording I've imposed.  Otherwise non-LDS folks unaccustomed to the LDS lexicon could think I'm borrowing the term from a John Grisham novel, for example, and applying it to LDS leadership--which perhaps would give cause for your umbrage. 

--Erik

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

To be clear - I always include quotes around "the brethren" to demonstrate it's LDS wording for senior leadership, not wording I've imposed.  Otherwise non-LDS folks unaccustomed to the LDS lexicon could think I'm borrowing the term from a John Grisham novel, for example, and applying it to LDS leadership--which perhaps would give cause for your umbrage. 

--Erik

You could always use some other phrase (“senior leadership” is just fine; why not use that one instead?). Kiwi is right: The quote marks come across as sneering or snarling — which may well be your intent. 

Edited November 26, 2017 by Scott Lloyd