Talk:Mark Hofmann

Techniques, technical data

While serving my mission, I came across a copy of BYU magazine that discussed how Hofmann produced his documents and how they fooled so many experts. I found it fascinating. Anyone have access to material that discusses this aspect of his work? — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the book "The Poet and the Murderer". It focuses in great detail on how he created many of his forgeries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.55.187 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Also read The Mormon Murders by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith -- an exhaustive and very well written book about the forgeries and murders. The forensic documents examiners emerge as among the true heroes in the investigation. Z Wylld 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Those are good recommendations, Z Wylld, ironically I just added those books to the page. I would however add that while I like "The Mormon Murders", the book is somewhat sensationalized. I think that if you want to read a more accurate account of the case, Robert Lindsey's "A Gathering of Saints..." would be more appropriate. I would avoid any of the Mormon "point of view" publications(i.e., Salamander, Victims, etc...), which are heavily biased. Simon Worrall's "The Poet and the Murderer" is an excellent study of the forgeries and the Hofmann case as a whole. (JT Mac 08:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

More info

• Added info gleaned from the TV Series Mastermind on Court TV Andy5421 13:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How about adding references to the following?

Forensic Files "Postal Mortem"

Crimelibrary article about the Mormon forgery murders — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

trivia?

would it be unreasonable to add as trivia that he possibly inspired the law and order criminal intent episode titled 'the saint' (which ironically, I've just found out is being rescreened locally tonight) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.84.83.158 (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

• That episode was defiantly inspired by him, they even quoited statements made by my Dad, who had severed with him on his mission. -Lөvөl 18:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just gonna leave a comment about that episode and it was already done.Im gonna add it.The Clydelishes Clyde 20:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why was the section related to references made to Hofmann in popular culture removed? I became aware of (and looked into) his exploits due to such a section and, thus, I consider it relevant. Is it simply Wikipedia policy to remove such references or sections? - Ashedmaniac (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2009

The issue of trivia sections are dealt with at the guidelines TRIVIA. Basically, such sections are unencyclopedic and trivial, and as an article develops, any relevant "in pop culture" material should be incorporated into the main body of the article. This article has seen a lot of attention from various editors, so some of the pop culture material has been incorporated into the "legacy" section or elsewhere, while some of it has been removed as unimportant or unverified.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

McLellin collection

The claim that the McLellin collection was found in Texas seems to have been added by a computer at BYU on the 5th of August 2006. It is inaccurate. The LDS church bought it in 1908 and lost it in its archives. It was rediscovered during the Hofmann investigation as reveal in Turley’s book Victims. [1] The McLellin Collection may deserve to have its own page.--Fmatmi (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The false claim that the collection was found in Texas remains in the article. Page 213 of Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case, By Richard E. Turley (published in 1992?) explains the error in the 1988 book referenced in the article. The LDS church bought the Collection in 1908. The collection and its existence was lost in the Church's archives until the Hofmann investigation. --Fmatmi (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Texas Papers Not Quite 'McLellin Collecion,'" read the headline to the Deseret News article on the subject that afternoon. The article quoted a state government archivist who said of the collection, "It really should be called the Traughber collection, because the bulk of the material is (J. L.) Traughber's notes on McLellin." The article reported that the collection apparently did not contain McLellin's journals, as had been expected, nor any other material from the 1830's. --page 213 Victims

To the (partial) contrary, see the introduction to the Signature Books version here. It seems clear that whatever McLellin Papers were previously owned by the Church were deliberately hidden rather than "lost in the archives."--John Foxe (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Point 1: I agree with “whatever the McLellin Papers [Collection] were”. One could argue that whatever was discovered in Texas is part of the collection. However, it is not a large enough portion of what was discovered to represent THE collection. The actual journals themselves were found in Church archives. If the article stated that THE collection was discovered in Church archives, it would not be inaccurate. However, to state that THE Collection was found in Texas is inaccurate. The article could state that the bulk of the collection was found in Church archives with small parts found Texas. However, I have witnessed Wikipedia articles where editors bicker about words like ‘bulk’, ‘mostly’, ‘small’ as all being subjective points of view. The more objective and accurate statement for the article would be to state that, First the Traughber notes about McLellin were discovered in Texas and later the actual McLellin journals and writings were discovered in Church archives.--Fmatmi (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Point 2: I definitely agree that the correct assessment is “deliberately hidden” and not “lost in the archives”. However, be forewarn that the Mormon apologists on Wikipedia will react vigorously to any such wording. “its existence was lost in the archives” was my poor attempt at neutrality and gives the assumption of innocence in the absence of a smoking gun (which for an apologist is nothing short of a notarized confession). I have not found a neutral way of stating this ….. “went missing” doesn’t quite work. How about, “institutionally forgotten”? For example, “The McLellin Collection was institutionally forgotten in Church archives until the collection's existence was rediscovered in Church archives as a consequence of the Hofmann investigation”.--Fmatmi (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your analysis. But as it stands it's simply an opinion that needs citation to an authority saying that the description of Lindsey, the intro to the Signature Books edition, etc. is not completely accurate.--John Foxe (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Point 1: This is yet another proof that conversations on Wikipedia are futile. I clearly provided such a citation as a counter point to the Lindsey citation (see –page 213 of Victims cited above). The original link that I provided in December clarified even more, but it appears to currently be a dead link. --Fmatmi (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Point 2: The Signature Books intro does not give many specifics, so there isn’t much to refute. It makes no mention of the Journals. The library itself refers to the papers as the John L. Traugher Papers and states “Of interest are materials written by William E. McLellin”. Pages 248-250 of Victims describes in detail how the actual journals were rediscovered in the Church archives. I believe this summary linked here was provided by the Tanners--Fmatmi (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Point 3: Right back at you. Your analysis of “deliberately hidden” is “simply an opinion that needs citation to an authority”. No where does the Signature Books intro say this. Being an introduction it makes no mention of the details of what happen between the 1908 acquisition and the 1994 announcement.--Fmatmi (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Point 4: This is a discussion page so I really do not need to cite anything (though I have cited plenty).--Fmatmi (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

An excerpt of the newly published Signature Books book is found here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmatmi (talk • contribs) 05:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I was unclear. I only meant that if you were going to modify the article, you needed to provide citation to an authority--which you've done. I have no problem with your changes except in terms of literary style. But then the whole article needs a rewrite on those grounds.--John Foxe (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Tanners

While the Tanners did question the salamander letter's authenticity, I think it's a stretch to say they were critics of Hofmann himself. Their publications reproduced many of Hofmann's claims; for example, his claim to have purchased the McLellin collection. I've therefore narrowed the language dealing with the Tanners' skepticism and moved it into the section discussing the salamander letter.Mgy401 1912 (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I've reduced the verbiage for stylistic reasons.--John Foxe (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Suicide attempt?

While Hofmann claimed that the explosion that injured him was a suicide attempt, this claim should be taken with a grain of salt. He may have made the bomb for other purposes, and merely mishandled it. (See Lindsey on this point.) I have therefore inserted the word “alleged” in

Mark Hofmann accidentally destroyed the use of his forging hand during an alleged 1987 suicide attempt,

(and of course restored the moveable ‘n’ to “an”). —SlamDiego_←T 21:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The suicide attempt in question was after conviction, with sleeping pills not the bomb.--John Foxe (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. My apologies. —SlamDiego_←T 23:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The more I thought about it, the more reasonable your misunderstanding seemed; so I've added a quotation from Worrall to the footnote in an attempt to clarify the phrase.--John Foxe (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Error

Under the heading, Other Mormon Forgeries, it says that Gordon B. Hinckley was the leader of the church. He was not the president of the church at the time. Spencer W. Kimball was. Shoreu (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The phrase describing Hinckley is not "president" or "leader of the church" but "de facto head," which is true.--John Foxe (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if he was the was the de facto head at the time, then you're saying that the de facto head could have a leader in the same organization. Shoreu (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Right. Spencer W. Kimball was leader de jure. John Foxe (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Was Hinckley fooled?

After looking through your contributions, I realize that you're on some kind of quest against the Mormons. I fully expect you to re-undo my (completely valid and style-appropriate) edit. I don't really care what you have against them, but it's disheartening that you allow your bias to get the better of you. It's as silly as the Packers fans who make disingenuous edits to the Brett Favre article. Or the 9-11 "truthers" who are constantly nitpicking every article related to the Bush administration. I hope you are personally satisfied by your time, but you're doing the Wikipedia community a disservice. ∅BRIT 15:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion but disagree with it.--John Foxe (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course you do. But it remains a fact that your history of changes reflect your personal beliefs, not impartial reality. Removing "Christian" is a perfect illustration, a point you already "conceded," but there are many other examples. You spend an inordinate amount of time editing articles regarding a religion to which you are fundamentally opposed. You're like a Red Sox fan spending all his time editing Yankees articles. You are not motivated by a benign sense of encyclopedic development, but a rather transparent desire to shape these articles to your personal world view. It's distasteful. ∅BRIT 18:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but I disagree with it. Look, for instance, at the many edits I made to Frank Sandford. That article has nothing to do with Mormonism, and it's as NPOV as it is possible to get—which is the aim of all my editing.--John Foxe (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Would that that were true. We all have hobbies, I guess. ∅BRIT 19:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia because—in contradistinction to blogging—I feel I'm making a real contribution to understanding. Hope you feel the same way.--John Foxe (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but you are missing a major point. On Wikipedia (or any unbiased source), "understanding" means factual, verifiable reality. The Hofmann article is another perfect illustration of your odd bias. You are so hung up on making the "First Presidency" and "Gordon B. Hinckley" look "fooled" that you have completely missed the point of your own sources. Of course those sources show conversations between these people, but neither of your citations shows verifiable proof that they were "fooled." If you have evidence of this, please use it. I'd actually like to see some quotations from these people saying that they believed the forgeries. That would be great and highly appropriate. I'm not removing your edits because I dislike your editing style or even your beliefs. I don't care. I'm editing the page because it needs to conform to some basic fundamental principles. ∅BRIT 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

All Wikipedia demands is an authority. Worrall says that Hinckley was fooled, and Worrall's judgment stands unless evidence from another authority contradicts it.--John Foxe (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Worrall is not an authority of any kind. He's an author. One with a fairly blatant bias himself, I might add: "…there is nothing so dangerous to other people's health & safety as religion."[2] Regardless, Worrall cites no evidence, lists no quotes, and presents no facts to support his judgment that Hinckley was "fooled." ∅BRIT 21:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In the world of Wikipedia, Worrall's blatant bias or lack of evidence makes no difference. He's an authority and authority of a sort that neither of us is. Worrall wrote a book about the case, and Worrall says that Hinckley was fooled; therefore, without evidence to the contrary, Worrall's opinion stands. This is simply the way Wikipedia works.

Here's my proposition: you can ask for a third opinion about the nature of evidence, and I'll agree not to re-add the disputed sentences until we get an answer; or I'll ask for a third opinion, and you'll agree not to delete them until we get an answer. Fair enough? At this point I'll also take a good-faith time out until you decide which you'd prefer.--John Foxe (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've now entered the dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Please don't revert until someone weighs in. Thanks.--John Foxe (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hello! I am glad to see that there are two editors excited about improving the encyclopedia. I have read your comments, and will offer an opinion in a little while. In the meantime, it would be helpful if you could both briefly state your position and concerns, and the independent, secondary sources that you believe to support your position. Also, I would advise against anything that may seem to be irrelevant to the subject under consideration or could be construed as personal mischaracterizations - let's focus specifically on this article! Thanks again, —Matheuler 02:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether the text can legitimately say that Hofmann's forgeries fooled Mormon leaders, notably the future head of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley. I give three citations for this statement, one of which, Worrall, states directly that Hofmann "had fooled the most powerful men in the Mormon Church....They were seers, endowed with the power of discernment, who, according to the Book of Mormon could 'translate all records that are of ancient date.' Yet when Gordon B. Hinckley and the president of the Church, Spencer W. Kimball, had looked at the Anthon Transcript, they had been no more able to translate Hofmann's forged hieroglyphics than if they had been in Swahili." (104) My contention is that in the absence of conflicting authority Worrall itself is a good enough citation to make this point.--John Foxe (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are Worrall's credentials? You argue above that he's an "authority", but I don't see anything (an advanced degree, a university press publishing his book) that would make his word any more irrefutable than what appears in a news article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Upon re-reading Worrall's sentence, I realized something fairly significant. If Mormon leaders can "translate all records that are of ancient date," then of course "they had been no more able to translate Hofmann's forged hieroglyphics than if they had been in Swahili," since the forgeries were not "of ancient date." Now, if Mormon leaders had claimed to be able to translate it, this would have been hard evidence that they were "fooled," since it was meaningless drivel. As it stands, though, it could be argued that Worrell provides circumstantial confirmation that they were not, in fact, "fooled" since they were unable to translate his forgeries.

This is rather silly, obviously, because Worrell is trying to paint a very different picture. My point is only that Worrell's personal conclusion is not evidence of anything. Even his interpretation is open to interpretation and is, therefore, not "irrefutable." Which is why Wikipedia requires verifiable sources. ∅BRIT 20:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Worrall (born 1951) is (an accomplished) British journalist. My contention is not that his statement is "irrefutable" but that there has been no refutation.--John Foxe (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

NotBrit has challenged your material, and you're arguing that the burden of evidence is on him to find a refutation of Worrall's statement. That's putting the cart before the horse a bit, don't you think?--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Worrall wrote that Hofmann "fooled the most powerful men in the Mormon Church." ∅BRIT dismissed Worrall's view/opinion/prejudice simply because he didn't like it. That's not the way Wikipedia works. You can't reject a cited authority without some reference to another.--John Foxe (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't reject it because I "didn't like it." I neither like, nor dislike his statements. What can be said, without question, is that Worrall's statement does not cite any references whatsoever. There is no evidence that Mormon leaders were "fooled." If there are quotes by "the most powerful men in the Mormon Church" who said they believed the forgeries or documented writings of the same, that would be encyclopedic and valuable. Worrall (and, by extension, John Foxe) does not offer anything of the kind. Worrall states an opinion. Heck, his opinion may even be true. But without a verifiable source, they remain opinion.

The burden is not on me (or any Wikipedia editor) to disprove another's opinion. The burden is, has always been, and will remain on facts based on verifiable data. ∅BRIT 16:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's my contention that Worrall (backed by two additional sources in the footnote, it should be noted) is an authority for Wikipedia purposes whether or not he provides references and even if he is dead wrong. Worrall has written a book about the Hofmann case published by Penguin. ∅BRIT has not. If he objects to the belief that Hofmann's forgeries fooled Mormon leaders, then he should cite another published source that claims this. Otherwise, it's simply his unsourced opinion. And it's absurd to argue that those defrauded must admit to being defrauded before the statement can be considered worthy of the article.--John Foxe (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"...whether or not he provides references and even if he is dead wrong." I think you just ended the argument all by yourself.

If his references provide evidence of his claim, they should be used as sources. Otherwise, it's inappropriate to include conjecture as if it were fact. Again, I do not object "to the belief that Hofmann's forgeries fooled Mormon leaders." I don't care one way or the other what you believe about Mormon leaders. I object to using any author's personal conclusion as factual evidence of a verifiable event. ∅BRIT 19:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It's only your personal opinion that Worrall's statement is conjecture. Naifah and Lindsey agree with him; you've provided no evidence that anyone agrees with you. That's three published authors versus an unsourced private opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Reply

This is indeed a complex question in some ways. In summary, I agree with Mr. Foxe that a mention of the independent secondary source regarding the subject should be mentioned. Since Foxe has provided a published source to back up his claim, it now does fall upon another user to provide another source that would dispute the the initial claim. I shall have to ponder a compromise solution, perhaps along the lines of "Some sources, including Mr. So-and-so, believe that Mr. Such-and-such was fooled by these forgeries." In any event, I must state that I understand both sides of this question, but only Mr. Foxe has provided published secondary sources to verify his claims, so I must agree with him, in at least a limited sense. —Matheuler 00:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Due diligence: Since Worrall (or the other Sources John Foxe listed) do not provide any evidence that Mormon leaders were "fooled," how can I provide evidence that they weren't? There is absolutely no public record one way or the other. No Mormon leader ever stated publicly that they believed these forgeries were real. How do I prove that something didn't occur when there's no proof that it did occur? ∅BRIT 14:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good question. I apologize if things seem unclear. I will do my best to explain my position. Basically neither you or John Foxe should provide evidence. That would be arguing from primary sources, which is not the Wikipedia way. We don't want John Foxe or you to say, "such events happened on this date, so this must be the case". We don't draw conclusions. We take conlusions already drawn from published secondary sources. So what you need is to provide a published source that states "Mr. So-and-so was not fooled". Since Worrall and company appear to say that certain people were decieved, it seems very likely that if the claim is in dispute, other sources (books, trade journals, newspapers, ect.) would present information to the contrary. So in conclusion, we don't want to figure out whether or not some event happened based on the evidence. We want to find out what the general opinion among experts in the field is on whether it happened. That is encyclopedic. Hope this helps, —Matheuler 15:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was easier than I thought. After a simple Google search, I found this quote from Gordon Hinckley, the person in question:

"No one, of course, can be certain that Martin Harris wrote the document. However, at this point we accept the judgment of the examiner that there is no indication that it is a forgery. This does not preclude the possibility that it may have been forged at a time when the Church had many enemies."[3]

Here we have a direct quote from Hinckley, who not only expresses doubt about the authenticity of the document, but states specifically that it may be a "forgery" even if the examiner is correct in his findings. Worrall's disingenuous conclusion that Hofmann managed to "fool" these people is not only refutable, but directly at odds with public record. Put simply, Hinckley was not "fooled" and Hofmann's later crimes would vindicate Hinckley's doubts. ∅BRIT 16:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem stating that Hinckley, the Mormon Church, or Mormon apologists, say that he and the church were not deceived by Hofmann's forgeries. But the Church bought the documents, and the exposure of the forgeries was a significant embarrassment. Hinckley himself makes it clear that the only forgery he could contemplate was one created in the nineteenth century "at a time when the Church had many enemies." ∅BRIT's previous complaints about my sources are disingenuous. All he's offered is the testimony of Mormon apologists. Let him introduce some scholarship or at least some non-Mormon journalism. Surely if he's correct, some non-Mormon should agree with him. I'd be satisfied by one example, just one example of a non-Mormon scholar or journalist who says that Hinckley and the Church were not fooled by the forged documents.--John Foxe (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Can we please put to rest the silly idea that I am on some kind of personal quest here? This isn't about me or you. I'm not looking for sources that "agree with" me, that's silly, I'm looking for sources with valid and verifiable information. The original wording of the article made this statement of fact:

These fooled not only members of the First Presidency — notably Gordon B. Hinckley...

Regardless of Worrall's personal conclusions, Hinckley's own words contradict this statement. If you'd like to say that some people don't believe him, that's fine and probably appropriate to the article, but it remains a matter of opinion, not fact. I'm also not sure why Worrall is an "authority for Wikipedia purposes whether or not he provides references and even if he is dead wrong," but my references are invalid because of their religion. Frankly, I don't know why you dislike their religion so much (and I don't care), but Wikipedia is an inappropriate place to voice your bias.

Matheuler, do whatever you like. John Foxe's bickering is boring me. It's pretty clear that he is more concerned with making these people look "fooled" than with enhancing the accuracy of the article. ∅BRIT 22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I have no problem adding to the (already long) footnote the information that Hinckley and the LDS Church deny that they were deceived by Hofmann's forgeries. But Hinckley and the Church have a conflict of interest here, which is pointed up by the lack of any non-Mormon sources that can be adduced in support of the notion. Plus, of course, we have Hinckley's own testimony (which I've added to the footnote) that the Church was deceived by Hofmann.--John Foxe (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to jump in this conversation, years late, to point out for the sake of posterity that Hinckley saying "there is no indication that it is a forgery" means he is not expressing doubt about its authenticity. Quite the opposite, he's saying explicitly that he accepts the examiner's statement that there is no reason to doubt it! The rest of his statements are cautious non-assertions, saying that it's still possible it's a forgery and that its authenticity cannot be certain, but that is certainly not the same thing as saying he has doubts. It's just a way of leaving room for error, and avoiding making any concrete judgement just to be safe. The2crowrox (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Some objections

Interesting to find you here, John Foxe. Please remind us all what your POV on the LDS Church was before you began contributing here, you never did identify it on the other page I saw you at. And please, simply stating you are not LDS does not identify POV.

My real concern here is that this article is about a cold-blooded murderer, but the authors of the page have designed a scope and sequence which is more celebratory of his life and deception than should be ascribed to a convicted murderer. Notice the article leads up to and ends with Hoffman's "Legacy." It's disturbing to think that some individuals hate Mormons so much they would exalt a murderer just so long as it satisfied their end of embarrassing Mormons. It's tantamount to calling Hitler a modern day Robin Hood because in some instances he stole from wealthy Jews and gave to poor unemployed non-Jewish citizens. Offensive, tasteless, sick. While hate may be a strong emotion, it is still a weakness.

Another sick element to this article is the pointed finger at the leadership of the Church. As one of the footnotes suggests the apostles "...were seers, endowed with the power of discernment, who, according to the Book of Mormon could 'translate all records that are of ancient date.' The attempted point here is that these men are frauds or failures because Hoffman "tricked" them. This is like blaming the victim of a mugging because they were out late. Tactless and immature. The point that is ignored is that;

1. The men involved held the authority as seers and revelators, but it has always been practice and doctrine that only the the President of the Church exercises these authorities for the entire Church.

2. Though an individual holds Priesthood authority they likely do not receive revelation 24/7. Revelation often comes only after serious reflection and prayer (D&C 138). I am sure that even the Prophet of the Church has purchased moldy bread. Remember that the apostles of Christ (Peter, James, John,...) needed ongoing instruction from Jesus Christ as they would miss important spiritual matters from time to time. And since they were flawed I guess that means we have to throw out the Bible? Not me.

There seems to be a natural selection of the "facts" here to include only those which exploit LDS leaders or point out their errors. Perhaps more of a focus on the creep Hofmann is, the "legacy" (I would use the term 'fallout' and not 'legacy') of the impact and challenges overcome by the family members of Hofmann's murder victims, or even his behavior in prison. But it seems the editors here are far more interested in dredging the harbor than going upstream for the real story.

I'll say it again, hate may be a strong emotion, but it is still a weakness. Or in the words of Longfellow, "For hate is strong/And mocks the song/Of Peace on Earth/Good will to men." Canadiandy1 (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Amen, Canadiandy. Amen. Hofmann is a murderer and that is what the focus of the article should be. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 11:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hofmann is Wikipedia notable not because he was a murderer (for others, worse, check your daily newspaper) but because he was a forger of "documents related to the history of the Latter Day Saint movement."--John Foxe (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If Hofmann is more "Wikipedia Notable" for forgery than murder, that merely reveals an inherent problem with Wikipedia. Last I checked common law provides greater punishment for murder than forgery. And I don't think that is out of step with common social norms and understanding.

199.60.41.9 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

There are hot emotions here, but I'll pipe in anyway. To me, Mark Hofmann is a skilled forger (especially of Mormon Americana) who killed two innocent people in the course of his frauds. I can't rank whether he's more notable for murder or forgery. Both crimes were exposed simultaneously; before the murders he was unknown, despite his prolific forgeries, because they were also unknown. Murder is most serious, but his master forgeries impacted more people over a longer period. It's not at all clear to me that his notability is more affected by either murder or forgery.

I understand that "Legacy" could unintentionally sound like an honored heritage. I suggest "Influence", "Impact", or "Outcome". Of course, the current wording does not "exalt a murderer" to embarrass Mormons and is in no way "tantamount to calling Hitler a modern day Robin Hood".

Do some people really dispute whether Hofmann deceived LDS leaders? LDS historians and other experts certainly believed the documents. However, the word "fooled" could be touchy because it may imply the victims were a bit witless. Fools are fooled. In an effort to avoid casting in a belittling light, I suggest "they were deceived" or "Various observers, including Worrall, said they were fooled", as was considered by Matheuler.

While I can disagree with John Foxe, I admire his usual civility in arguments. Emotions flare in disputes where we take our religious positions personally. Before we make accusations, can we examine our own biases? Can impartiality exist in religious topics where we are either believers or unbelievers? Is a non-Mormon more or less biased than a Mormon, just by virtue of which side of the argument they're on? I'll step off the soapbox now. ——Rich jj (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those suggestions. I've changed "fooled" to "deceived" and "Legacy" to "Influence." There are a couple of "fools" left, but they're inside quotation marks and in the footnotes.--John Foxe (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Skilled forger who killed ... people?" Forgery is a skill? Hmmm, and is bank robbery a craft, and breaking and entering an art, and is murder a science? "Killed?" Cancer kills people. Hofmann 'Murdered' people. If your thrill at Hofmann's forgery success is blinding your judgment, perhaps you shouldn't be contributing.199.60.41.9 (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Canadiandy, you make a good point. I should have said Hofmann "murdered" rather than "killed", since his disturbing crimes were clearly malicious. I can also concede that "skilled" may not be the best word, since it can carry an approving connotation, which I do not intend. My more sensitive rephrasing would be "Hofmann is a crafty forger who murdered two innocent people..."

I sincerely apologize if my words could be construed as admiration for Hofmann; I certainly don't "thrill at Hofmann's forgery success". I have earnestly tried to contribute in good faith and civility and I'm sure none of us meant any harm. ——Rich jj (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"'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....In hindsight, document experts said Mr. Hofmann succeeded not only because of his technical skills but also because of the personality he projected as an unassuming scholar of history. 'He was able to get away with it because nobody thought he was capable of it,' Mr. Rendell said of Mr. Hofmann. 'He was shy; he was extremely tentative about the documents he brought you, saying he wasn't sure whether they were genuine or not. He just didn't seem like a guy who could pull off a hoax like this.'...Concluding his assessment of Mr. Hofmann, Mr. Hamilton said: 'In a way, two murders are pedestrian crimes. But to fool me, to fool Ken Rendell, to fool the whole world, requires not only forgery but a packaging of himself. He packaged himself as a bespectacled, sweet, unobtrusive, hard-working, highly intelligent scholar dedicated to the uncovering of history.'" New York Times, February 11, 1987.--John Foxe (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Skilled," "succeeded,"personality,"unassuming scholar,"sweet," "hard-working,"highly intelligent,"dedicated..." Wow, John. Thanks for including those accolades. Maybe we should forget the fact he's a cold-blooded murderer and see if we can't start up a fan website. Your point in presenting this information? Are we trying to 'Robin Hood' this guy? Your agenda here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My agenda is to demonstrate that Wikipedia articles ought to be based on authoritative sources. Whatever you may think of the New York Times or Charles Hamilton (my guess is, not very highly), they are authoritative in a way in which your opinion or my opinion is not.--John Foxe (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Foxe, I don't question whether Hamilton is an authority or not. You can find authorities who will argue all kinds of things. What I find intriguing is your selection of sources (nearly always ones that are cynical of the LDS faith, and almost never ones which are respectful of that same faith). But then when LDS people find alternative sources you quickly cry LDS POV. I don't question your sources, but I do question which sources you keep finding. Please explain what it is specifically that drives you to attack the LDS faith in this manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If there are authoritative sources—not simply LDS apologetics—that treat the Mark Hofmann affair differently from the sources cited in this article, you should be able to cite them. You say you "can find authorities who will argue all kinds of things." Well, then, find such authorities and let's discuss them.--John Foxe (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've gone that route. Problem is, even if I had nothing better to do than spend weeks researching a dark character such as Hofmann (like reading Stephen King while listening to Leonard Cohen for 3 weeks in a row)once I found sources they would be attacked as LDS POV and not "Prominent" so they would be quickly dismissed. My major question remains unanswered, what is it specifically that drives you to attack the LDS faith in this manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You have an incorrect notion of what Wikipedia talk pages are for. The talk page guidelines note that the talk pages "are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects)";... [they] are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article." Obviously then, discussion here should concern secondary sources relating to Mark Hofmann. If you're unwilling to investigate secondary sources about Mark Hofmann, then you literally have nothing to discuss here. Certainly, this page is not an appropriate forum in which to discuss my relationship to the LDS Church. If you'd like to discuss personal issues privately, please feel free to send me an e-mail. Your friend, John Foxe (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I just know I'm going to regret posting this reply. I continue to support the use of neutral words in Wikipedia articles, but some of this has reached the point of absurdity.

Canadiandy1, I know you have an ongoing battle with John Foxe, but please try to WP:assume good faith with all of us. You have objected to anyone describing Hofmann in words that might have positive connotations. When Rendell called Hofmann "sweet" and "dedicated", he was explaining that it was all a huge lie. When Hamilton said Hofmann was a "skilled forger", nobody read it as admirable but you. If I am called an "incredible cheat", I have not been complemented as "incredible."

You yourself described Hofmann as having "forgery success", which nobody disputes, then you attacked Foxe for the quote that Hofmann had "succeeded" in forgery. I assume you weren't giving "accolades" to Hofmann, as you accuse Foxe of doing. You have perceived admiration for Hofmann that is not here. You have quoted single words, construed and misrepresented to show we love Hofmann for being so bad to the LDS Church, concluding the intent is akin to glorifying Hitler and implying we "shouldn't be contributing". Those are uncivil and unkind words. To paraphrase your user page, you should be quick to apologize and careful to do nobody harm.

Maybe your complaints against Foxe have merit, but like you, I am a member of the LDS Church and have not tried to attack my own faith. I have tried to be fair and sensitive in my language, but still I worry that you'll find a way to misconstrue my words as love for Hofmann. Allow me to help. While discussing Hofmann I have used the following words: "good", "faith", "positive", "sweet", "dedicated", "skilled", "admirable", "incredible", "success", "accolades to Hofmann", "admiration for Hofmann", "we love Hofmann" "fair", "sensitive". Conclusion: I am a closeted Hofmann supporter and the president of his fan club. ——Rich jj (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. Fine, Rich jj.

First, I do not have an ongoing battle with John Foxe, his contributions maybe, but not him personally. The fact that he is the foremost contributor (senior editor?) responsible for two articles which I see as hostile to the LDS faith explains my frequent dialogue and questioning of his positions and contributions, but that does not translate to a lack of assumed good faith or good will.

Second, it looks like you're already out there protecting LDS sensitivity so I can leave it all to you now. I must assume in good faith that you have more experience with this topic and Foxe's POV and that you will better represent common LDS perspective. Since your polite reproval I am now left with little option other than taking on your POV or accepting the "balance" of the article. I figure rather than try and take on both you and John Foxe, I'll defer to you both. If you want to own this one, have at 'er. But please, for future reference, just because you are not very offended by the tenor of the article does not mean other LDS aren't. I just anticipate that the majority of LDS members I am familiar with would be heavily offended by someone painting Gordon B. Hinckley as the dupe of a fraudulent murderer. Especially if that murderer was given recognition (you call it negative, I see positive) at his expense.

Third, you take issue with me attributing the glorification of Hitler to the glorification of Hofmann. The only way anyone would be offended by such a statement is if they were part of the glorification process which people seem to be distancing themselves from anyway making the point moot. I will apologize if anyone read my words to mean anyone contributing loves Hitler. That is not at all what I meant. But I will not retract my feelings that both Hitler and Hofmann are dark, evil, manipulative men. And so anyone glorifying either is making a serious error in moral judgment.

But since you are so quick to pounce, I will step aside and let you have it. You defend it, you can own it.

I have better things to do. Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

On reading your reply, I instantly regretted writing my post. I took on a hostile tone and should have given myself time to get a level head. I am certainly not perfect and ask your forgiveness. I don't have a problem with you defending the church or disputing any details in this article, but I was mostly upset with your tone. Perhaps you didn't intend to be as aggressive as I took it. I have done some reading on Hofmann, but you don't have to leave this article to me since you are correct that I have my own biases that should be checked by those with other views. One difference of views between us is that I do not see anything offensive about a Prophet of God being subject to human foibles and being deceived by an expert deceiver. I do not believe it to be doctrine that a prophet is perfect. Only God is perfect.

Regarding your point on Hitler, you are correct. It is just as bad to glorify Hitler as to glorify Hofmann and I'm glad we agree nobody here was doing that. Despite Foxe's motives toward the church, he wasn't glorifying this murderer, and neither was I.

Again, I do not want to lose your contribution, but I must insist on civility. Sadly, I may have violated that request by my previous, regrettable post. I should have communicated my concerns in respect instead of pompous arrogance. Please accept my apologies. ——Rich jj (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your courtesy, jj Rich. I apologize for jumping into this article full guns blaring. What I need to remember is that on the Joseph Smith article I have been around and established a somewhat respectable presence (I know I have ruffled feathers but I believe I did it with integrity, and the civility one would expect from someone highly offended by a skeptical article). I think you will find me blunt, but fair. What I won't do is try to suppress my beliefs for the sake of civility. I will try not to be offensive in offending erroneous, disrespectful, or undignified information. You will find I stick up for Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Jews, Amish, Moslems, Lutherans, and Seventh-Day Adventists and most others) with the same level of zeal. The reality is that I post primarily on LDS based topics because it is more interesting to me. But I would expect to find Lutherans sticking up for their faith on the article about Luther.

Now, if I could reiterate my main beef here. It is not that I ignore the fact Gordon Hinckley or any other LDS leaders are not fallible, it is that the scope of the article reads to me in places like "Gotcha" journalism. Heck, President Hinckley probably picked his nose, broke wind, buried his neighbour's cat in the local elementary school flowerbed when he was 17, and swore at one of his kids just like the rest of us (okay maybe the cat part was just me and I apologize to animal rights people, the cat was already dead, and it was winter and I had younger sisters who would have been devestated, is this mic on). But to fixate on Hinckley's 'mistake' (I don't call it a mistake as I have always understood we as citizens are only guilty of a crime or mistake if we act with guilty conscience) with the implication he should have known because he was a prophet? Someone, somewhere chose that text specifically over all the other information available. And on its face it is unfair, and appears targeted to defame. Not very in keeping with assumed good will.

So please, if you would like to do some good, take on the disrespect shown in this article. I apologize if I frequently use Holocaust parallels. I am deeply moved by the horrible injustices inflicted on Jewish people under the Nazi regime. And so one way I try to show respect for the is by ascribing information to a common litmus test that asks the simple question, "If you replace the subject topic with the phrase 'Jewish,' would it be acceptable? For example, if I read an article making the statement, "American President Bob Bobson, a Lutheran, was elected to office in 2012." I would ask myself how it would appear if the article read, "American President Bob Bobson, a Jew, was elected to office in 2012." All of a sudden I see the statement from a more fair, neutral perspective. Suddenly I see that it could easily appear condescending to Lutherans.

Forgive me if I take offense at this article. You may cry I am being too Politically Correct, but I think that tolerance of others is the new expectation. Please, ask yourself if this article would be as protected if it focused the same level of skepticism on a group of Jewish people or their leaders. I am not arguing Mormons have the same experience as Jewish Holocaust survivors and tehir families. I am arguing ALL groups of people, and their faiths, should be treated with the highest level of dignity and respect. NO group of people should be defined by their enemies and detractors. That includes Mormons.

So if Wikipedia is more concerned with Wikicode and Wikipolicy than it is with human dignity and tolerance, I will be a voice here to call out against it. I'll do it for Lutherans, and Catholics, and members of the Bahai faith, and I take offense at having my POV questioned when I do it as it relates to my own faith.

Apology humbly, sincerely, and respectfully accepted.

Peace

199.60.41.15 (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

John Foxe, you tidied up the talk page? I don't like it. It makes this look like the discussion is about me. If you had noticed the discussion had been dead for a few days and was likely on its way out anyway. I'd prefer a revert.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Hope this title suits you better. All the best, John Foxe (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The title wasn't the issue, but whatever.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Have any editors here made a fair study of the FAIR LDS evidences at their site?

After reading through the FAIR LDS site at

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mark_Hofmann/Church_reaction_to_forgeries

I was fascinated by the problems with the evidences in the article here.

It provides evidences that Hinckley was very skeptical at first, that the claims of the Church hiding a document are unsubstantiated and originate solely from Hofmann (clearly an unreliable witness), and it also reveals a clear media bias from journalists trying to make money off a sensational (as in titillating) story.

So who has given FAIR LDS a fair shake? Editors here are willing to give an accused murderer the benefit of the doubt, why not the Mormons? Their evidences are well referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Another excellent article (by Dallin H. Oakes himself) laying out the unreliability of much of the media reporting and their own acknowledgment of it is found at. http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=309b71ec9b17b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav

For serious and fair-minded researchers these are must read articles.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

What evidence in this article originates solely from Hofmann?--John Foxe (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"According to Hofmann, Hinckley filed the letter away in a safe in the First Presidency's offices." Canadiandy1 (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Fine. I've eliminated that sentence. See how accommodating I can be. Anything else?--John Foxe (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As to your offer of anything else, yeah. Since so much of the reporting was incorrect (based on the manipulations of Hofmann) perhaps you could read the articles I identified and include a section on the false information lingering over this history.

Thanks in advance, 199.60.41.15 (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I've read the articles but find them unpersuasive. Manipulation of Hofmann is a phantasmagoria of the apologists. The Church was embarrassed by its dealings with this evil genius, especially since he successfully posed for so long as a faithful Mormon while attempting to injure the religion he espoused. No supernatural skills were needed to discover his tendencies. When hundreds of thousands of dollars and the reputation of the Church was on the line, the leadership should have interviewed the director of his mission in England and his former fiancée. Instead they swallowed whole Hofmann's concoctions because they sounded true enough.--John Foxe (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

John,

The point here is not to persuade you to take sides on the issue. It is to present facts and research. You mean you don't agree with any of the evidence? There's an awful lot of research value there. To simply dismiss it as "a phantasmagoria of the apologists" seems unfair.

And I don't see the truth in your statement that the Church was "embarrassed by its dealings." In the article it makes it quite clear that the Church was actually quite prudent in its dealings, and was quite wary as evidenced in Hofmann's increasingly reduced offers. In fact I suspect if Hofmann hadn't been found out that New Mormon Historians would now be attacking the Church for systemically dismissing evidence which might paint them in an unflattering light.

I will agree with you that the Church was defamed, but not embarrassed (by Hofmann's actions and inaccurate media reporting). And I will also agree that with 20/20 hindsight they would likely have acted differently. But it is ethically unfair to judge an individual or group who was acting in good faith and without a guilty conscience.

I don't understand your closed position to some very well referenced facts and information. Remember, whether you like Oakes or not, he was at one time a likely candidate for the US Supreme Court. That seems to validate Oakes as a capable and reliable researcher in any matter and so I suggest he should not be so quickly dismissed. 99.199.139.154 (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

• I appreciate your noticing how this article differs in certain respects from my own personal views. Personally, I think the Church behaved in an incredibly stupid, most knuckleheaded, fashion in dealing with Hofmann without investigating his loyalty to the Church. If the Church was not embarrassed by the Hofmann affair (and no non-Mormons that I've read agree with that assessment), then it should have been. I can't think of a parallel case in which a supposed believer with malicious intent has succeeded in selling to the leaders of a religion, false documents that cast an unfavorable light on its founder without even checking the bona fides of the seller. To me that behavior indicates that the leadership believed lies about Joseph Smith because they already knew so many uncomplimentary things about him. But I can't say such things in the article because I have no authoritative source for them. It's just my opinion.
• Jan Shipps (certainly no Mormon basher) has written that the public relations "blow was fierce enough to spur damage control, first in the form of a rare press conference in which Gordon B. Hinckley, Dallin Oaks, and Hugh Pinnock...made statements and answered the questions of dozens of reporters." (Sojourner in the Promised Land,107)
• Suppose I decide not to fasten my seat belt because I only have a few, lightly traveled blocks, before I reach home, and then I get hit head on sixty seconds later. (It my case, it was a near thing). I would have acted in good faith and without a guilty conscience, but next day's newspaper would have said, "not wearing his seat belt."
• If you'd like to see changes made to this article, you'll need to get down in the trenches with the rest of us and suggest specific changes based on authoritative sources, not on exculpatory pleadings of folks with a serious conflict of interest like Dallin Oaks, intellectually gifted though he may be.--John Foxe (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry all. I have not been posting here for a bit, and will not be again, because I've been "Newcomer-Bitten" just a few too many times. I have now been called a 'troll' (I feel unfairly) by Tedder and seeing he is a senior admin to the two articles I am most interested in, I know when I'm not wanted so I'll step aside till he's gone or some better contributors like NoBrit can bring some balance to these articles. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Canadiandy1 (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Discussion not focused on improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
John, You wrote the Church was "knuckleheaded" for dealing with Hofmann, "without investigating his loyalty to the Church." The fact they did actually reflects a higher ethic and not foolishness. Contrary to what your opinion is, the Church does not use its membership records in some Orwellian way. Like their auditing practices, they hold a much higher standard than is found in most business organizations. In the eyes of most, this is a good thing. Are you suggesting because a man was selling them historical documents they should have dug into his personal life to find out if he was a security risk, or worse to find out if was faithful enough? They acted in a highly dignified manner and you are trying to judge them according to hindsight and outside of the context. Again, if your POV or opinion are so biased against the Church, you should consider removing yourself from editing on this one. As to your seatbelt analogy. Yes, you would be guilty of not wearing a seatbelt. But if you had crashed into a tree because of an ice patch a fair judge would not hold you responsible for the damage to the tree. And still, I don't see what the Church did immorally or unethically. 99.199.139.154 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy Should the Church have investigated Hofmann's personal life to find out if he was a faithful Mormon? Absolutely. The LDS Church investigates and disciplines members all the time, as do other churches. It was both foolish and shortsighted for those in authority not to have checked up on this fellow who had been continuously dragging up embarrassing information about the Church. Why didn't they check? Because, in my opinion, they believed that the embarrassing information was true. The Hofmann affair was no ice patch. Jerald and Sandra Tanner, noted critics of the LDS church, had nailed the Salamander letter as a forgery long before the Church did. And yet the Tanners had nothing to lose and everything to gain if the letter were genuine. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that the Tanners had supernatural assistance, so there must be some other explanation why they were more perceptive than the First Presidency.--John Foxe (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC) John Foxe, the only time the Church follows Church Discipline (and their investigation procedures) measures is when there is clear evidence (or a reliable report) of serious transgression. While other Churches, according to you, may investigate their members regularly, member investigations are actually quite a rare procedure. That the Tanners are extremely skeptical and were right on this one does not mean they were more "inspired." Seems like the Church extended to Hofmann (though not necessarily his commodity), initially, the same assumed Good Will Wikipedia prides itself on. Reminds me of the judicial assumption of innocence until proven guilty. The logic of your argument seems a little twisted to throw discredit on the LDS Church administration. But, I'll drop this argument now as I shut out the lights for good. Canadiandy1 (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy The thrust of my argument was that it was in the best interest of the Church to have investigated Hofmann but that it didn't, and for whatever reason, the Tanners were more perceptive than the First Presidency despite their interest running in the opposite direction. (During this period Hofmann visited the Utah Lighthouse Ministry, and Sandra Tanner said she had never seen him so upset. "Why you, of all people?" Hofmann complained.) In this case, the Church injured itself through its own credulousness, in the words of 2 Timothy 3. 13, "deceiving and being deceived."--John Foxe (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Did I ever call your Church leaders or religion deceptive? I'll finish by telling you that I have been keenly interested in the men who lead this Church. I have observed that they are almost without exception men who; 1. Were charitable, honest, and respected individuals within their own communities. 2. Serve with no remuneration (most gave up high incomes to serve at their own expense). 3. Possess great intellect and moral virtue. How shameful to assault their character in such an indefensible way, and to use the Holy Bible as a tool in such an un-Christian assault? You don't have to be a Christian to come to the conclusion that you have a whole lot of soul searching to do, and hopefully some day you'll come to grips with your deep-seated, and obsessive hatred of Mormons. Seriously, counseling might help. I can recognize that my respect for these men (including the Prophet Joseph Smith) may affect my neutrality on this topic. That is why I remove myself from editing. But edit or not, at least my bias wasn't grounded in hatred or contempt. You offered me an olive branch once, though this looks like you've changed your mind. The olive branch I offer is the offering of forgiveness. I anticipate at a future day you will come to terms with your anti-Mormon obsession and feel a great regret over the misery you brought to so many. And when you do, you will have my unqualified forgiveness. I offer it in advance, as this is the last time I will be around this block. I'm tired of the bash-apologize-bash cycle. Regretfully,Canadiandy1 (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy I don't hate you or other Mormons and never have. I generally like Mormons and appreciate their moral conservatism. Several Mormon bishops, who I regard as fine individuals, can call me by first name. What I said above was that the First Presidency behaved foolishly in regard to the Hofmann affair—which is what, after all, this talk page is about. You produced no evidence to the contrary. Let me renew the invitation to write me personally via e-mail from my talk page if you ever need a listening ear. As someone who's never been an LDS member but who has a decent understanding of Mormon belief, you'll find me sympathetic and non-judgmental.--John Foxe (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC) No, John, what you said was, ",,,the Church injured itself through its own credulousness, in the words of 2 Timothy 3. 13, "deceiving and being deceived." Here's an idea. Next time you are talking to your Mormon bishop acquaintances (I notice you didn't use the word 'friends') tell them Joseph Smith was an adulterous liar, and that Gordon B. Hinckley was a liar and that Thomas Monson is a false prophet. Tell them that you are devoted to destroying their religion. Then ask them over for Easter dinner. Let me know how they respond. Mormons are generally quite a forgiving and tolerant people, but I'm curious. Not about whether they'll take you up on your offer, but what you'll do with all the leftovers. Please don't take their courtesy as a justification for the mean-spirited things you have posted and the work you have undertaken to undermine their religion. I am sorry I have to be so blunt, but you don't seem to get what you are doing. I don't understand how you could have so many Mormon friends, and then dedicate your life to trashing their religion. You know, I had the Jehovah's Witnesses at my door three days ago. I accepted their tract, thanked them for their faith and for the moral lives they lead, and found a couple points of doctrine I knew we could agree on (i.e. celebrating the life of Christ every day of the year). Finding common ground, respecting other faiths, commending good works, and speaking no ill of others (in public or private) just seemed to be the right thing to do. I am not trying to make myself sound any better than other people, because I truly think most people do the same. You may call it sympathizing with Mormon deceivers, I think others just call it common courtesy. Try it. Canadiandy1 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy I assure you that my Mormon acquaintances—and it's true that I have no close Mormon friends—understand my position on the LDS Church. I'm polite, and they're polite. Only a fool would make a practice of deliberately insulting people. As Winston Churchill is supposed to have said, "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.” (I note, however, that you deleted my olive branch and the accompanying statement from your talk page.) To return to the Hofmann affair, it's true that the LDS Church "injured itself through its own credulousness, in the words of 2 Timothy 3. 13, 'deceiving and being deceived.'" That statement is sober fact, and if truth be known, there are probably any number of folks in the Church Administration Building who would agree with the sentiment. Can't prove that of course or it would be cited in the article.--John Foxe (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC) The Olive Branch was only removed as I closed down my page. I also removed several comments from individuals friendly to my beliefs. To return to your cynicism, you claim it is fact that the Church acted deceitfully. Then you admit you have no proof to the fact. So if it is unprovable, offensive, and merely opinion, why say it? In your Churchill quote note the phrase, "When you HAVE to kill a man..." . No one is holding a gun to your head to make you attack the Mormon faith. I believe in the United States you have, "The right to remain silent." Canadiandy1 (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy It's a fact that the Church "injured itself through its own credulousness, in the words of 2 Timothy 3. 13, 'deceiving and being deceived.'" There's adequate citation for that position in the article. On the other hand, it's only my opinion that there are folks in the Church Administration Building who agree with that sentiment. (If you "closed down your page," why are you still here?)--John Foxe (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Can't get rid of me fast enough, eh? I'm only here finishing up loose threads (pun intended). If you'd backed up a verse you'd have read, "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." It would be expected that these men who are living lives of fidelity, integrity, and compassion towards people of all faiths and cultures, would experience persecution. The shame is that it comes not from non-believers, but from fellow Christians. My Dad (a non-Mormon) tells me of the bumper-sticker he read which stated simply, 'Jesus, save us from the Christians.' I just wish this article could be saved from your clearly biased POV. Canadiandy1 (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy I'm old enough to remember Richard Nixon saying, "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore" but then giving the press another twenty years to kick him around. I'd be happy for you to remain at Wikipedia. But I think you'd be more content at a nice blog where you can simply voice opinions rather than have to investigate views opposed to your own. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can write, but you have to add knowledge to zeal if you hope to make a significant contribution. You certainly won't win any points for biblical exegesis. There's a "but" between those verses, contrasting those who "live godly in Christ Jesus" with "evil men" who are "deceiving and being deceived." At least you looked up the passage.--John Foxe (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC) I also like verse 3 which warns of, "false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good." It seems to me that most other faiths have been quite respectful to the LDS Church, as they, from a Christian perspective, see the good we do in the world. The millions and millions in famine relief, our care for the poor and needy, our strong stand for moral issues which affect all people. As you go about "despis[ing] those that are good" I suspect you are not representative of most within the Christian community. As most Christians would say, your actions are mighty un-neighborly. 207.216.63.45 (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy Rather than talking about the contributors, philosophizing about the article, and doing weird missionary work, can we get back to the article? Focus on the article here; focus on the contributors on their talk pages and the other avenues provided to you. Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. tedder (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC) You win again Tedder. Canadiandy1 (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Questions about neutrality

As a newbie, coming directly from the 5 Pillars discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone), I would suggest that the Influence section of the Mark Hofmann could be more impartial. Specifically, the quotations presented seem to be present to take highlight the sensational language used therein. I understand that is often the purpose of using quotations, but it seems a more impartial method would be to summarize / paraphrase these descriptions of Hofmann's influence.

I'll try to remember to check back tomorrow for a response, but this is a dodge from things I ought to be doing, and even as I type, the guilt is building. :)

Best, Sah65 (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could provide examples of what you don't like and why you don't like them. (But then, it would probably be better to do the things you should be doing instead :)--John Foxe (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

G'day. I'm not sure if this is an instance of paranoia or obsessiveness, but I'm back, in spite of your sound advice. :)

Sorry for not specifying an example. The closing quotation (that I tried unsuccessfully to put into a block quote format) is a nice (ironic) place to start:

"Robert Lindsey has also suggested that Hofmann "stimulated a burst of historical inquiry regarding Joseph Smith's youthful enthusiasm for magic [that] did not wither after his conviction" despite "even harsher barriers to scholars' access to [LDS Church] archives… The Mark Hofmann affair had emboldened many scholars to penetrate deeper and deeper into recesses of the Mormon past that its most conservative leaders wanted left unexplored, and it was unlikely that those in the Church Administration Building would ever be able to contain fully the fires of intellectual curiosity that Hofmann had helped fan."[47]"

The phrases that I think don't fit with the goal of impartial language are:

• "even harsher barriers to scholars' access"
• "emboldened...scholars to penetrate deeper and deeper"
• "the Mormon past that its most conservative leaders wanted left unexplored"
• Church Admin unable "to contain fully the fires of intellectual curiosity"

These phrases portray the LDS admin as melodramatically opposed to a cadre of 'knowledge freedom fighters' in a situation likened to a firefighting crisis for the Church. Presented in Wikipedia---a site that is well-known for the admirable goal of making information as widely available as possible---Lindsey's melodramatic postures for the 2 groups become even more polarized.

I think a paraphrase of Lindsey's ideas would be more impartial and appropriate: "Robert Lindsey has also suggested that Hofmann's work encouraged other researchers to further explore aspects of LDS history. Not all these research efforts were successful as the LDS Church reacted to Hofmann's deception by implementing more strict controls on access to its archives. Nevertheless, scholars continue to seek historical information from the Church, in part because of Hofmann's forgeries.[47]"

What do you think? --Sah65 (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the nature of neutral point of view. Although there's no way that you or I could edit Wikipedia using Lindsay's words and be considered NPOV, Lindsay is a reliable source and is clearly identified as the author of the quotation in question. Your substitute catches the general meaning but misses Lindsay's edge and panache. For instance, there's no indication in your paraphrase that there were parts of "the Mormon past that its most conservative leaders wanted left unexplored" nor of Church administrators who are unable "to contain fully the fires of intellectual curiosity."

One solution to your complaint would be to go in search of a quotation from someone more sympathetic to the Church's position in an attempt to balance what's there. The article might then end with a paragraph that reads, "Lindsay says this but General Authority So-and-so says that."--John Foxe (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV topic is actually what I was taking as the starting point for my suggestions. Specifically, the section titled "Impartial Tone" seems to be directly relevant: "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." The aspects that are panache in a journalist's true-life-crime documentary, are, in the Wikipedia context, an inappropriate tone of voice. True, Lindsey may not be "disputing" directly with anyone in the excerpt, but I think the central element of this NPOV guideline is the "heated" quality. And I think Lindsay's choice of colorful diction is a good place to implement a summary.

I agree with you that adding content would be an even better way to improve the topic, so I'll look into that. But I don't think that approach reduces the value of revising for impartial tone. Sah65 (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Lindsey as a participant in a heated dispute. He's simply a journalist who writes true crime books. (He won the Crime Writers Association "Gold Dagger" award for this one.) In Wikipedia terms, he's an authority, and his quotation has been clearly attributed here. If, however, a Wikipedia editor were to revise Lindsey's quotation in an attempt to make it more "impartial," that would violate Wikipedia rules about POV, since none of us here are authorities (at least not under our screen names).--John Foxe (talk) 21:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you about our general in-expert-ness. :) However, this seems to put the 2 Wikipedia guidelines into contention. Specifically, if the POV-policy is correct and we're not qualified editors, then the Wiki-policy about summarizing heated disputes as impartial summaries is wrong. Contrariwise, if the NPOV-policy is correct, then the Wiki-policy about POV is wrong. How do we decide which one takes priority? (And, as an abstract quibble, if we're not qualified editors, then what right do we have to select 'this' excerpt from Lindsey's material rather than 'that' excerpt? That's an editorial decision on an even larger scale, right?)

Quibbling aside though, I did some Google-age. A quick search or 2 brought back some results. In addition to the impartial tone revisions, which of these 2 additions do you think would work best? I'm thinking the 2nd is more directly relevant.

1st:

In contrast to Lindsey's melodramatic presentation, John Tvedtnes, a scholar from BYU, notes that claims about the LDS Church "suppressing" documents may be overstated, whether prior to or after Hofmann's forgeries were exposed:

"But placing an historical document in a safe place hardly implies suppression. Burning the document would be a safer way of getting rid of negative evidence. Placing it in a vault only preserves it for future use. We have the example of the Joseph Smith papyri, which lay for decades in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, only to be brought to the Church's attention by a professor doing research there. Yet no one has accused the Metropolitan of "suppressing" these documents! They were their guardian, just as the Church is the guardian of many documents."

Tvedtnes, John A. "Answering Mormon Scholars: A Response to Criticism of the Book Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon, vol. 1." FARMS Review: Volume - 6, Issue - 2, Pages: 204-49. Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1994. <http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=6&num=2&id=162>

2nd:

Lindsey's melodramatic presentation in his 1988 book stands in contrast to a presentation concerning Hofmann given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks a year earlier. In this lecture, reprinted in the Ensign, Oaks discusses various allegations of "suppression" and explains the LDS Church's policies about restricting access. Oaks characterizes these policies as being similar to most "large archive" facilities, and he later mentions the Huntington Library in Pasadena, CA as a parallel.

Dallin H. Oaks, “Recent Events Involving Church History and Forged Documents,” Ensign, Oct 1987, 63.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=309b71ec9b17b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Wrap-up:

I haven't read Richard E. Turley's _Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case_, but I see it's currently cited in the Hofmann article. From the book's table of contents, it looks like one of the chapters may include some material about the "suppression" issues. Was it you that cited the Turley book? Do you recall any material in that book characterizing the Church's reactions after the forgeries / murders?

Sah65 (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no "heated dispute" here, just your normal, run-of-the-mill difference of opinion. And we don't have to chose one quotation over another. Decide on a quotation or two that you like, and so long as they're properly cited to say "Dallin H. Oaks, Apostle of the LDS Church" or "LDS apologist John Tvedtnes," we can work together to add something from them to the article. Of course, since the Church has a conflict of interest here, that should probably be mentioned as well.

Sorry, I've never read the Turley book.--John Foxe (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you're using "heated dispute" in reference to our conversation here. Sorry if I'm misreading that, but I can't imagine there being a run-of-the-mill difference of opinion in Lindsey's book, so it seems the reference is to our conversation. And I agree with that---there isn't a heated dispute between you and I. However I don't feel like you're reading my responses very carefully, but I'll chalk that up to our common situation of having other things to work on.

The larger question of what to do about the NPOV vs. POV is still unclear to me. Since you've got a good number of Barn Stars racked up (at least 3 times as many as me :) ), I'd hoped you could suggest a way to improve that aspect of Wikipedia, as well as the Hofmann page. Can anyone go in to the 5 Pillars pages and clarify the information there? Or do we have to send a message to someone with more authority?

It sounds like we're getting close to a consensus on the balancing quotation. I think that working the quotation from Elder Oaks into the Hofmann page would be good. When you say we can work together to add something in, do you mean that there are revisions you'd like to make to the draft text I included above?

Also, you noted the value of citing the quotation in a way that identifies the bias it is coming from. I agree. Along the same lines, I would like to add a parallel comment to the Lindsey's statement. His genre was clearly one more fixed on sales than on NPOV scholarship, an interest that would obviously motivate his choice of diction.

Sah65 (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was unclear about my meaning of "heated dispute." I certainly wasn't referring to our conversation, which has been better than civil—pleasant even—by Wikipedia standards.

If Lindsey were engaged in a "heated dispute," I would have expected references to opposing viewpoints, but there are none.

By Wikipedia standards of Verifiability, Lindsey is a reliable source because his book was peer-reviewed and published by the respected mainstream publisher Simon and Schuster. In contrast, Dallin Oaks' opinions are published by the LDS Church and are therefore "promotional," useful only in outlining the position of the LDS Church. Any mention of Oaks' would have to emphasize this difference in reliability. (I know that sounds harsh, but those are the rules we play by at Wikipedia.)

I wouldn't pay any attention to barn stars as a measure of competence here ;)--John Foxe (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hallo. The things I've been dodging caught up with me over the weekend. :)

I'm glad to hear that I haven't been coming across too much like a bull in a china shop. And I understand your point about the lack of disputation in the context of Lindsey's book, as well about highlighting Elder Oaks' promotional role re: Church matters. I'm not quite sold on the argument, but my concerns are more focused on the clarity of Wiki policy pages than the details of the Hofmann page. So I'll try to track down the correct approach for that. (Aren't newbies these days just so arrogant?)

As there wasn't a specific mention in your last comment about collaborating on further revisions to the sample text, I guess I'll just post a revised version of that text as a change to the page? Probably some time tomorrow.

Thanks for being so easy to work with, and for pointing out some of the key points for Wiki-work. You've probably already sensed that I've got an ulterior motive for this exercise. I teach college composition classes, usually focused on argument, and from some of the Talk pages I've read, it seemed like Wikipedia is an ideal place for students to engage in a real-time, low-stakes argument. I'm not sure how exactly I'd set up the assignment, but from this experience, it definitely seems viable. (Not all the people the students might encounter will be as courteous as you've been, I suppose, but it seems a fairly safe forum.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sah65 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

When guiding students in the creation and improvement of Wikipedia pages, I advise steering them towards non-controversial topics, like small towns and obscure people. That way they rarely run into the querulous. Some articles created or vastly improved in this way have barely been touched for years, yet when you check traffic statistics, you often find them getting hundreds of hits per month. If you have questions, feel free to e-mail me via "E-mail this user" on the left column of my user page.

As for changes to this article, feel free to make them. I don't have any qualms about unmaking them if there's good reason.--John Foxe (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How much money did he owe?, and to whom did he owe it???

I would be curious to know just how much money he owed to people/how much debt he was in (seeing as this was apparently a/the major reason why he started murdering). Also, who did he owe the money to??? Banks??? Mormons??? Thanks in advance to anybody that knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.142.17 (talk) 22:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Robert Lindsay, in 1985 Hofmann owed more than $415,000 (roughly $750,000 today) just to an investment group headed by Thomas Wilding. He owed more money to the First Interstate Bank, coin dealer Alvin Rust, and the family from whom he was buying a $550,000 house. A lot of his creditors were Mormons, but then of course, he was living in Salt Lake City as well as dealing in Mormon documents.--John Foxe (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sah65's paragraph

Let me deconstruct this edit:

"Prior to Lindsey's melodramatic description in his 1988 book"

It's POV for you to say "melodramatic description." A cited authority could use those words but not one of us.--John Foxe (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks had discussed the matter of Church records in a presentation at BYU in 1987. In this lecture (reprinted in the Ensign), Oaks discussed various allegations of "suppression" and explained the LDS Church's policies about restricting access."

Too many unessential words to be included in an article about Mark Hofmann. That's why the footnote was invented.--John Foxe (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Oaks characterized these policies as being similar to most "large archive" facilities, specifically mentioning the Huntington Library in Pasadena, CA as a parallel."

The only important idea here is that Oaks disputes the notion that the Church is restricting access to its archives. But because Oaks' opinion is not authoritative—that is, it is both "promotional" and non-peer-reviewed—it's only worthy of inclusion in a footnote as an apologetic offering of the LDS Church.--John Foxe (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sah65(?) changes based on Turley

I'm assuming that Sah65 also made nine anonymous changes on August 22. I've reverted them and then added back some material from Turley. Reasons for making changes should be described in edit summaries—of which anonymous gave none; it's polite to discuss major changes on the discussion page first; and it's considered bad form to use both a user name and an IP address to edit the same article.

I should also note at this point that although Richard Turley has written a peer-reviewed book about the Hofmann case published by the University of Illinois, he is a lawyer and the Assistant LDS Church Historian. So if his take on the subject differs markedly from other sources, we will have to mention that he writes from an LDS POV.--John Foxe (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

New evidence Forgery on Mountain Meadows Massacre attributed to Hofmann

According to a Deseret News article just posted today;

SALT LAKE CITY — For the past 27 years, historians have identified William Edwards as a participant in the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre. But forensic document examiners now say the 1924 affidavit that implicated Edwards is a forgery linked to convicted bomber Mark Hofmann.

The affidavit was part of a collection of documents acquired in 1983 by the Utah Division of State History. It purported to be a notarized affidavit of Edwards — a confession of sorts. Edwards allegedly stated in the affidavit that in Sept. 1857 he "accompanied about 30 men and older boys to Mountain Meadows where, we were told, an Indian massacre of an emigrant train had been consummated, and our services needed to bury the dead."

Philip F. Notarianni, state history director, said the affidavit was acquired either from Hofmann directly or from Lyn Jacobs who often represented Hofmann. It was sold or traded to the society with letters from historian Charles Kelly, a legal document signed by the outlaw Matt Warner, a document signed by Brigham Young and papers of the first non-Mormon mayor of Salt Lake City, Montgomery Scott.

Well,

It looks like a number of anti-Mormon writers are going to have to revise their books one more time.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

I included a mention of this in a new paragraph about continuing Hofmann forgery discoveries. I agree that this may require revision to some histories, but probably not very much. As far as I have read, the forged affidavit doesn't make any controversial claims about the massacre or mention conspiracies or Brigham Young. Also, this has been used pro-Mormon historians, including Massacre at Mountain Meadows, published in 2008 (see SLTrib article). ——Rich jj (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Newly discovered forgeries

I've removed a paragraph about newly discovered forgeries because most of the information is already included in the text, including mention of the fake Emily Dickinson poem. Nevertheless, I'd be more than happy to discuss what new information included here is worth incorporating in the text. On the Mountain Meadows affidavit, I think it'd be better to wait a bit longer to make sure there's a scholarly consensus and then put the decision in the notes rather than the text. Just because the discovery is new doesn't necessarily make it important.

Although Hofmann's statements and records have helped identify many of his forgeries, some may remain undetected in the historical record. Some forged documents were in use by scholars until being discovered, including an Emily Dickinson poem in 1997 and a Mountain Meadows Massacre affidavit in 2010. Further unauthenticated documents have been speculated to be potential Hofmann forgeries.

--John Foxe (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the MMM finding is new and subject to further reaction from the scholarly community. Topping noted it's provenance was likely related to Hofmann and Turley/Reeves reportedly had it tested by Throckmorton. However, we have not yet heard directly from any of these recent authenticators; the reports of forensic tests are from a second-hand letter.

The other content I inserted was supporting the concept that Hofmann's forgeries continue to emerge and may corrupt the historical record. After I posted, I noticed this related comment was already in the article: "an unknown number of his forgeries may still be in circulation," but it wasn't referenced. Using my references, as you have, my intended point is still available. The only missing idea is that some Hofmann forgeries remained in use by scholars for years until identified. ——Rich jj (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the fact that Hofmann's forgeries were accepted by scholars until identified as forgeries is a self-evident proposition. Nevertheless, I thought it safer to add back that phrase as well.--John Foxe (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Your point is reasonable, but I appreciate the new phrasing. ——Rich jj (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

References

Tape recording of attempt to sell an LDS document

I was checking up on an unrelated news article when I spotted this. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/52289687-75/hofmann-church-lds-recording.html.csp

Apparently Mark Hofmann recorded his own 1981 phone call that attempted to scam an LDS church though this article does not say what happened as a result of that forged document nor the scam attempt.

Also - are pictures one of which is a Utah State Prison fingerprint card for Mark Hofmann that shows the missing middle finger of his right hand. I know there was speculation which hand had been damaged in the explosion. In the spot where that fingerprint should go is a note "Missing 2 joints" and also the note "Middle right finger missing." Oddly, while there is a fair amount of identifying information on the card they do not include his date of birth. The fingerprint card is signed "Mark W. H--Marc Kupper|talk" - is that a forgery? :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 20:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I've added that information and a link to footnote 18 of the article.--John Foxe (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright on forgeries

Given that we have an image of one of Hoffmann's forgeries in this article, and that this image was recently moved to Wikimedia Commons, is there any concern about the copyright status of the document depicted? The author of that material (Hofmann) is still living, and so presumably he could hold the copyright over the material. I don't know if forgeries (after they are exposed as such) are covered by copyright law; do we have an issue we need to be concerned about here? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good question. I did a quick search of the document Copyright Law of the United States and didn't pull any results for forgery or forgeries. Forged pulled one unrelated result. I have no idea. Would the document perhaps fall under a fair use policy?~Adjwilley (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

He sold them to the mormon church, so he couldn't claim copyright over it. If anything, WP:MCQ is probably the correct place to discuss it. tedder (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that he may have sold them to the LDS church, the problem is there is no evidence that the LDS Church or Mark Hoffman have released the image to the Public Domain. The uploader clearly is not the copyright holder, therefore the image is not tagged properly (ie PD-self). I have marked the image in commons as "No evidence of permission" and the image here as "Possible Un-free". I will change the tag to the appropriate Fair-use tag, once the uploader gets a chance to comment, so I don't see the image getting deleted.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A thank you to User:Trödel for fiuguring out the correct licensing. While it wouldn't work on all "forgeries" it dose in this case. Since it was first "published" in 1980 and the work was created without notice and without registration within 5 years of publication, the {{PD-US-1989}} dose apply in this case.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Marriage

Can the infobox entry be amended so it is clear the dates 1979-1987 refer to the marriage to Doralee Olds "Dorie" Hofmann.

See if you like what I've done to the infobox reference.--John Foxe (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the talk page should be archived? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Clearer now. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mark Hofmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100206195544/http://meridianmagazine.com/critics/081106sal.html to http://www.meridianmagazine.com/critics/081106sal.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205124630/http://library.dixie.edu/info/Collections/truth/truth.htm to http://library.dixie.edu/info/Collections/truth/truth.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140310033033/http://signaturebooks.com/2010/07/the-william-e-mclellin-papers/ to http://signaturebooks.com/2010/07/the-william-e-mclellin-papers/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140403044421/http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/mormon_forgeries/index.html to http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/mormon_forgeries/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930054604/http://media.bonnint.net/slc/2489/248933/24893332.pdf to http://media.bonnint.net/slc/2489/248933/24893332.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Pre-forgery background

The article says nothing about Hofmann's occupation prior to producing master forgeries. How did he support his family, how did he develop his forgery skills, and how did he learn how to make effective bombs? — BarrelProof (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The article notes that Hofmann became a rare book dealer almost immediately after getting married; and at least according to Hofmann, he had been forging and blowing things up since high school. John Foxe (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The article says he "dropped out of school and went into business as a dealer in rare books," but seems to say this happened after he created and sold a convincing forgery of the "Anthon Transcript". Before then it says only that he "enjoyed investigating bookshops and buying early Mormon material", but none of that seems to really explain how he learned how to make convincing forgeries. I would have guessed that becoming skilled in forgery would take a much more extensive amount of learning and training in the art. — BarrelProof (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mark hofmann car bombing.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)