{"id":6591,"date":"2026-02-17T00:19:53","date_gmt":"2026-02-17T07:19:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/?p=6591"},"modified":"2026-02-26T21:41:12","modified_gmt":"2026-02-27T04:41:12","slug":"mark-hofmann-and-the-mormon-murders","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/2026\/02\/17\/mark-hofmann-and-the-mormon-murders\/","title":{"rendered":"Mark Hofmann and the Mormon Murders"},"content":{"rendered":"

Unraveling the Dark Saga of a Master Forger Who
\nDeceived a Church and Murdered to Protect His Lies<\/i><\/p>\n

Introduction: A Church Deceived<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

On the morning of October 15, 1985, Salt Lake City awoke to what promised to be a crisp, beautiful autumn day. Temperatures were expected to reach a pleasant 62 degrees under cerulean skies. But death was on the horizon. Before the day ended, two people would be dead, a city would be gripped by terror, and the foundations of America’s fastest-growing religion would be shaken to their core. The instrument of this destruction was a baby-faced, soft-spoken document dealer named Mark William Hofmann\u2014a man whose name would become synonymous with deception, murder, and one of the most audacious fraud schemes in American history.<\/p>\n

What makes the Hofmann case particularly significant for those examining the claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not merely that a clever forger managed to deceive historians and document experts\u2014such deceptions, while remarkable, occur in the world of rare manuscripts. What distinguishes this case is that the men deceived were not ordinary scholars but rather men who claimed divine gifts of discernment, men sustained by millions of Latter-day Saints as prophets, seers, and revelators\u2014men who, according to their own theology, possessed divine ability to detect deception and discern truth from falsehood.<\/p>\n

The Salt Lake Tribune would later report on the unprecedented nature of the case, noting that the bombings represented the first deadly bombing attacks in Utah’s history. The investigation that followed would expose a web of forgery, fraud, and institutional cover-up that continues to raise troubling questions about the reliability of LDS Church leadership to this day.<\/p>\n

The Man Behind the Mask: Mark William Hofmann<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n
\"\"
Hofmann’s career in forgeries began early when as a youth he modified a penny to look like a rare 1959-D misprint penny with an estimated value of $25,000.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Mark William Hofmann was born on December 7, 1954\u2014Pearl Harbor Day\u2014in Salt Lake City, Utah. The second of three children and only son of William and Lucille Hofmann, young Mark appeared to be a model Latter-day Saint. He earned his Eagle Scout award, attended Utah State University, and served a mission for the LDS Church in England, where he developed what appeared to be a deep interest in Mormon history. He married Doralee Olds in 1979 in the Salt Lake Temple, and the couple would eventually have four children together.<\/p>\n

But beneath this veneer of Mormon respectability lurked a very different person. Hofmann had begun his career in deception early. As a teenager in the 1960s, he began collecting coins and quickly learned to alter them, making ordinary pennies appear to be rare 1959-D misprint coins with estimated values of $25,000. By age fourteen, he had invented forgery techniques he believed were undetectable. This was not the hobby of a curious youth but the beginning of a lifelong pattern of deception that would eventually claim innocent lives.<\/p>\n

What set Hofmann apart from ordinary forgers was the breadth and sophistication of his techniques. According to forensic document examiner George Throckmorton, who would eventually help expose Hofmann’s crimes:<\/p>\n

Because of the extensiveness of his forgeries, it’s the biggest forgery fraud case in history. The various documents he forged fooled most of the experts at that time because of new techniques that he used.<\/i>
\n\u2014 George Throckmorton, Forensic Document Examiner<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Hofmann’s methods were revolutionary in their sophistication, earning him recognition from document experts as arguably the most skilled forger in recorded history. Kenneth Rendell, one of the world’s foremost authentication experts who has examined documents for the Library of Congress and testified in numerous high-profile cases, called Hofmann “the most accomplished forger this country has ever seen.”<\/em> Charles Hamilton, another renowned documents dealer who initially authenticated some of Hofmann’s forgeries, later admitted that Hofmann’s technical abilities surpassed those of any forger he had encountered in his decades-long career. Even the forensic examiners who ultimately exposed him acknowledged that his work represented a quantum leap in forgery techniques that would influence document examination protocols for generations to come.<\/p>\n

He didn’t merely copy handwriting\u2014he immersed himself in the historical context of each document he forged with the dedication of a doctoral researcher. He stole period paper from library archives, carefully selecting sheets that dated to the exact era he needed. He created his own iron gall ink using nineteenth-century recipes, meticulously mixing ferrous sulfate, tannic acid from oak galls, and gum arabic in proportions that would withstand chemical analysis.<\/p>\n

He developed innovative techniques for artificially aging his creations, including exposure to ammonia fumes to oxidize the ink and baking methods to create convincing patinas. He studied the idiosyncrasies of his subjects’ handwriting until he could reproduce not just the letterforms but the pen pressure, hesitation marks, and subtle variations that characterized authentic writing. His historical research and literary abilities allowed him to draft documents that reflected expected patterns of style, tone, and content with such precision that they fooled historians, archivists, and document dealers who had spent careers studying original manuscripts.<\/p>\n

What made Hofmann particularly dangerous was his understanding that successful forgery required not just technical skill but psychological insight into what collectors and institutions wanted to discover\u2014and he exploited that desire with devastating effectiveness.<\/p>\n

One of his most ingenious aging techniques involved placing documents in a fish tank with a toy train transformer. When activated, the transformer would create ozone, and as his associate Shannon Flynn later recalled:<\/p>\n

That thing just aged 100 years in 10 minutes.<\/i>
\n\u2014 Shannon Flynn, document dealer and Hofmann associate<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Hofmann also aged his documents by ironing them, exposing them to household ammonia to speed oxidation, and even letting weevils munch on them to create authentic-looking wear patterns. He carefully recreated period postmarks and postal markings. The result was a body of work that deceived the finest document experts in the nation, including specialists at the FBI, the Library of Congress, and the American Antiquarian Society.<\/p>\n

The First Great Deception: The Anthon Transcript<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

In April 1980, a returned Mormon missionary marched through the doors of the archives at Utah State University carrying a worn Bible tucked under his arm. This young man was Mark Hofmann, and he was about to perpetrate the first of many frauds that would rock the LDS Church to its foundations.<\/p>\n

Hofmann claimed to have discovered an extraordinary document\u2014a sheet of yellowed, antique paper folded twice and stuck together with tarlike glue. When archivists carefully opened the document, they found what appeared to be Egyptian hieroglyphic characters. If authentic, this document would be one of the most significant discoveries in Mormon history: the so-called Anthon Transcript, containing characters that Joseph Smith allegedly copied from the golden plates from which he translated the Book of Mormon.<\/p>\n

According to the Los Angeles Times, the discovery sent shockwaves through the Mormon historical community:<\/p>\n

A. J. Simmonds remembers the young man coming to his office. It was a warm April in 1980, what is known in Mormon country as an open spring, when a returned Mormon missionary marched through the doors of the archives at Utah State University. The archives are a peaceful place, lit by a huge picture window with a view of the city of Logan below. Simmonds looked up at the young man; he noticed a worn Bible tucked under his arm. Mark Hofmann sat down in Simmonds’ cramped cubicle and produced the old Bible; then he produced something else… Bending his head down, he peeped at the writing on the page. The first character was an Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol. Simmonds went a little breathless. It looked like the Anthon Transcript.<\/i>
\n\u2014 Los Angeles Times, 1987<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"
The “Anthon Transcript” is a piece of paper on which Joseph Smith wrote several lines of characters. According to Smith, these characters were from the golden plates (the ancient record from which Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon) and represent the reformed Egyptian writing that was on the plates.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The discovery was immediately brought to the attention of the highest levels of LDS Church leadership. On April 22, 1980, a photograph captured a remarkable moment: Mark Hofmann standing alongside Spencer W. Kimball (the LDS Church President and Prophet), N. Eldon Tanner, Marion G. Romney, Boyd K. Packer, and Gordon B. Hinckley\u2014all of them examining the document with evident interest and satisfaction. The image shows church leaders gathered around the document with expressions of genuine excitement, unaware they were being deceived by a master forger standing in their midst. For Hofmann, the photograph represented both validation of his technical abilities and confirmation that even the highest religious authorities could be manipulated.<\/p>\n

The LDS Church purchased the Anthon Transcript from Hofmann for $20,000, publicizing the discovery through a press conference on August 23, 1982. Church historians Dean Jessee and others declared the document authentic based on examination of the handwriting, the period postmark, and the correct postage. The announcement generated significant media attention and scholarly interest, with church publications highlighting the find as an important corroboration of early Mormon history. The document seemed to confirm a key element of Mormon history\u2014physical evidence supporting Joseph Smith’s claims about the golden plates and Professor Anthon’s examination of the characters copied from them.<\/p>\n

But it was all a lie. The document was, as author Jon Krakauer later wrote, ‘a brilliant forgery’<\/em> that Hofmann had ‘meticulously fabricated in his suburban Utah home.’ The Anthon Transcript was the first of what would eventually be identified as over 446 Hofmann forgeries in the LDS Church’s collections alone\u2014representing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fraudulent purchases\u2014and the beginning of a scheme that would ultimately escalate from deception to murder.<\/p>\n

A Pattern of Deception Emerges: Hofmann and the LDS Leadership<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

Following his initial success with the Anthon Transcript, Mark Hofmann quickly became one of the most prolific ‘discoverers’<\/em> of Mormon historical documents in history. Between 1980 and 1985, he produced a steady stream of documents that alternately confirmed and challenged Mormon historical claims, playing both sides of the market with calculating precision.<\/p>\n

Hofmann made a critical discovery early in his career as a forger: the LDS Church would pay even more for documents that impugned the credibility of Joseph Smith and the Church, to keep them from public view. He had discovered an illegal path to great wealth\u2014and a means of manipulating the Church leadership.<\/p>\n

Gordon B. Hinckley, then Second Counselor in the First Presidency (and later President of the LDS Church from 1995 to 2008), became Hofmann’s primary contact within the Church hierarchy. Hinckley met with Hofmann repeatedly over the years, negotiating purchases of documents and coordinating the Church’s response to potentially embarrassing discoveries. According to Richard Turley’s official Church history of the affair, Hinckley largely handled policy in these matters and directed the public relations responses of the church.’<\/p>\n

The arrangement was remarkable. Hofmann would ‘discover’<\/em> documents, often leaking word of their existence to the press to generate publicity and drive up prices. The Church would then scramble to acquire the documents, frequently using intermediaries to maintain deniability. Wealthy Church members would purchase documents with funds provided by the Church, then ‘donate’<\/em> them to Church archives, where they would be locked away from public scrutiny.<\/p>\n

In 1983, Hofmann bypassed the LDS Church’s historical department entirely and sold directly to Hinckley an 1825 Joseph Smith holograph that purported to confirm Smith had been treasure hunting and practicing magic five years after his claimed First Vision. Hofmann had the signature authenticated by Charles Hamilton, the contemporary ‘dean of American autograph dealers,’<\/em> sold the letter to the church for $15,000, and gave his word that no one else had a copy. Hofmann then promptly leaked its existence to the press, after which the church was virtually forced to release the letter to scholars for study\u2014despite having previously denied possessing it.<\/p>\n

This pattern\u2014discovery, suppression, exposure, embarrassed acknowledgment\u2014repeated itself multiple times. As one commentator noted, Hofmann had discovered ‘a lever to exercise enormous power over his church,’<\/em> a power to ‘menace and manipulate its leaders with nothing more sinister than a sheet of paper.’<\/em><\/p>\n

The Salamander Letter: A Church in Crisis<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n
\"\"
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints initially regarded this letter as an authentic historical artifact. Believing it offered potential evidence linking the origins of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith’s involvement in folk magic practices, the church took proactive measures to shape the narrative surrounding the letter. Through various talks and published articles, efforts were made within the congregations to interpret the letter in a manner favorable to the church’s claims of truthfulness.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Of all Mark Hofmann’s forgeries, none created more controversy than the so-called Salamander Letter<\/strong><\/a>, which appeared in 1984. Supposedly written by Martin Harris\u2014one of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon\u2014to W. W. Phelps in 1830, the letter presented a radically different version of how Joseph Smith obtained the golden plates.<\/p>\n

According to official LDS history, the Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith and directed him to the golden plates buried in the Hill Cumorah. But the Salamander Letter told a very different story. It described Smith encountering a ‘white salamander’<\/em> that transformed into a spirit, guarding the plates and demanding that Smith bring his deceased brother Alvin to retrieve them. The letter placed Smith squarely within the world of nineteenth-century folk magic, treasure digging, and occult practices\u2014a far cry from the divinely appointed prophet portrayed in Church teachings.<\/p>\n

The document sent shockwaves through the LDS community. Church leaders and apologists initially scrambled to explain how this salamander account could be reconciled with the official narrative. Some suggested the salamander was simply Martin Harris’s way of describing an angel, since salamanders were associated with fire in folk tradition and angels were beings of light. Others proposed that Harris, steeped in folk magic terminology, had misunderstood or reinterpreted Joseph’s spiritual experience through his own magical worldview.<\/p>\n

What made the letter particularly damaging was its apparent authenticity. Hofmann had masterfully created a document that fit perfectly with known historical facts about the Harris-Phelps correspondence and the early Mormon environment. The letter was examined by handwriting experts, document specialists, and LDS historians\u2014all of whom declared it genuine. The Church itself acquired the letter through a complex transaction, effectively authenticating it by their willingness to take possession of such a problematic document.<\/p>\n

The broader implication was clear: if the Salamander Letter was authentic, it suggested that Joseph Smith’s treasure-seeking, folk magic background was far more central to the origin of Mormonism than the Church had ever acknowledged. It raised uncomfortable questions about whether the Book of Mormon emerged from divine revelation or from the nineteenth-century occult milieu that historians had long documented but the Church had consistently downplayed. The letter became a symbol of the tension between faithful LDS history and critical historical scholarship\u2014until Hofmann’s arrest for murder in 1985 revealed that the entire document was an elaborate and brilliant forgery.<\/p>\n

Steven Christensen, a wealthy LDS businessman and document collector, purchased the Salamander Letter from Hofmann for $40,000 and later donated it to the LDS Church. Gordon B. Hinckley was well aware of the letter’s potential to harm the Church. He wrote in his journal, ‘Our enemies will try to make much of this letter.’<\/p>\n

Despite the obvious threat to Church’s credibility, the Salamander Letter was declared ‘almost certainly authentic’<\/em> by the Deseret News in April 1985. Hinckley himself accepted the judgment of document examiners, stating:<\/p>\n

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 of forgery. This does not preclude the possibility that it may have been forged at a time when the Church had many enemies.<\/i>
\n\u2014 Gordon B. Hinckley, then Second Counselor in the First Presidency<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Church leaders were so confident in the letter’s authenticity that they began developing theological responses to accommodate its disturbing implications. Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, in an address to Mormon educators, argued that the word ‘salamander’ might have different meanings in the 1820s:<\/p>\n

One wonders why so many writers neglected to reveal to their readers that there is another meaning of salamander, which may even have been the primary meaning in this context in the 1820s… A being that is able to live in fire is a good approximation of the description Joseph Smith gave of the Angel Moroni.<\/i>
\n\u2014 Dallin H. Oaks, August 1985<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This tortured theological reasoning\u2014attempting to reconcile a salamander with the Angel Moroni\u2014demonstrated how completely the Church leadership had been deceived. They were not merely fooled about a document’s authenticity; they were actively constructing theological defenses of a complete fabrication.<\/p>\n

The Critics Who Got It Right: Jerald and Sandra Tanner<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

In one of the great ironies of the Hofmann case, the people who first identified his forgeries were not the ‘prophets, seers, and revelators’ of the LDS Church, nor the professional document examiners, nor the academic historians. They were Jerald and Sandra Tanner\u2014longtime critics of Mormonism who operated the Utah Lighthouse Ministry in Salt Lake City.<\/p>\n

As early as January 1984, Jerald Tanner began expressing doubts about the Salamander Letter’s authenticity. In the March 1984 issue of the Salt Lake City Messenger, the Tanners ran an article titled ‘Is it Authentic?’<\/em> questioning the document’s provenance. By August 1984, Jerald Tanner was convinced that ‘the evidence against the Salamander letter cast a real shadow of doubt on all the important discoveries Mark Hofmann had made since 1980.’<\/p>\n

Mormon Research Ministry: Mormon critic Jerald Tanner<\/a><\/strong> doubted the Salamander’s authenticity early on.<\/p>\n

When Mark Hofmann came on the scene, Jerald was one of the very few who viewed him with skepticism. In November of 1983, Jerald heard that one of those documents was a letter written in 1830 by Book of Mormon witness Martin Harris. The letter said that Joseph Smith received a visitation from a spirit that \u201ctransfigured himself from a white salamander.\u201d Hence it came to be known as the White Salamander letter.<\/p>\n

Jerald had received some extracts from the Harris letter and was \u201cpreparing to print them in the March 1984 issue\u201d of their newsletter the Salt Lake City Messenger. However, prior to going to press, Jerald came across evidence that caused him to conclude that the letter could be a forgery. The original story was scrapped. Instead the March 1984 issue ran an article titled \u201cIs it Authentic?<\/strong><\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n

By August of that same year Jerald was convinced \u201cthat the evidence against the Salamander letter cast a real shadow of doubt on all the important discoveries Mark Hofmann had made since 1980.\u201d In August of 1984, Jerald published The Money-Digging Letters, and the findings were picked up by the Los Angeles Times a couple of days later. The Deseret News also reported that the Tanners were suspicious of the letter. However, in April 1985, the Deseret News published an article that claimed that the 1830 Harris letter had been authenticated by a document examiner. Two Mormon scholars also confirmed the document\u2019s authenticity.<\/p>\n

You have to appreciate the irony. On one hand, there are the document experts, Mormon Church historians, and even the LDS Church itself, supporting the authenticity of a document that portrays the founder of Mormonism as a believer in folk magic. On the other hand, here is Jerald Tanner insisting that something is wrong with their conclusion.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The implications were extraordinary. Critics of the LDS Church who would have benefited enormously from the Salamander Letter being authentic were the ones calling it a forgery, while the Church’s own leaders\u2014who claimed divine gifts of discernment\u2014defended it as genuine.<\/p>\n

Hofmann was reportedly shaken by the Tanners’ skepticism. According to multiple accounts, a ‘visibly shaken Hofmann paid the Tanners a personal visit’<\/em> to confront them about their doubts. ‘Why you of all people?’<\/em> he reportedly asked, seemingly bewildered that those who had the most to gain from his forgeries being real were the ones questioning them.<\/p>\n

The Gift of Discernment: A Doctrine Put to the Test<\/b><\/span><\/h2>\n

For those outside the LDS faith, the failure of Church leaders to detect Hofmann’s deceptions might seem unremarkable\u2014after all, Hofmann fooled experts throughout the document world. But for Latter-day Saints, the failure carried far deeper implications, striking at the heart of fundamental truth claims about prophetic leadership.<\/p>\n

This was not the first time LDS prophetic discernment had been tested by fraudulent documents. In 1835, Joseph Smith purchased Egyptian papyri and mummies in Kirtland, Ohio, believing the scrolls contained ancient writings of Abraham and Joseph. Smith proceeded to “translate”<\/em> these papyri, producing the Book of Abraham\u2014now canonized LDS scripture. When Egyptologists finally examined surviving fragments in the 1960s, they identified the papyri as common Egyptian funerary texts dating to the first century BC, bearing no connection whatsoever to Abraham or any biblical figure. The founding prophet himself had been unable to discern the true nature of the documents before him.<\/p>\n

The Hofmann affair thus reopened a wound that had never fully healed, raising the same troubling question across 150 years: If prophets possess divine discernment, why do fraudulent documents consistently escape their detection?<\/p>\n

The LDS Church teaches that its leaders possess spiritual gifts that ordinary members do not. Among the most important of these is the gift of discernment\u2014the ability to perceive truth from falsehood, to detect deception, and to receive divine guidance in protecting the Church from fraud. Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie articulated this doctrine clearly:<\/p>\n

The gift of the discerning of spirits is poured out upon presiding officials in God’s kingdom; they have it given to them to discern all gifts and all spirits, lest any come among the saints and practice deception.<\/i>
\n\u2014 Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This claim was put to a severe test by the Hofmann affair. Consider the facts: For five years, from 1980 to 1985, Mark Hofmann met repeatedly with the highest leaders of the LDS Church. He sat across the table from President Spencer W. Kimball, from Gordon B. Hinckley, from Dallin H. Oaks, from Hugh Pinnock, and from other General Authorities. These men\u2014sustained by millions as prophets, seers, and revelators\u2014purchased document after document from Hofmann, defended their authenticity publicly, and developed theological explanations to accommodate their contents.<\/p>\n

Not once did any of them discern that they were dealing with a forger. Not once did any of them receive a spiritual warning. Not once did the heavens open to reveal the truth.<\/p>\n

As critic Jeremy Runnells observed:<\/p>\n

Let’s take a step back here and look at the big picture. Due to the failure of these ‘prophets, seers, and revelators’ to detect and protect the Church they held stewardship over from Mark Hofmann’s several years of scamming the Church, two innocent people were murdered in 1985. These two individuals, Steven Christensen and Kathy Sheets, would likely still be alive today if the Brethren were actually ‘prophets, seers, and revelators’ who had the gift of discernment to protect and defend the very institution they were supposedly commissioned by God Himself to protect and defend.<\/i>
\n\u2014 Jeremy Runnells, CES Letter<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Perhaps most damning was what happened on the afternoon of October 15, 1985\u2014the very day Hofmann had murdered two people with pipe bombs. Just hours after killing Steven Christensen and Kathy Sheets, Mark Hofmann walked into the Church Office Building and met with Apostle Dallin H. Oaks.<\/p>\n

Shannon Flynn, who was interviewed extensively in the Netflix documentary, reflected on the significance of this meeting:<\/p>\n

He’s just killed two people. And what does he do? He goes down to the church office building and meets with Dallin Oaks. I can’t even imagine the rush, given Hofmann’s frame of reference, that this would have given him. To be standing there in front of one of God’s appointed apostles, after murdering two people, and this person doesn’t hear any words from God, doesn’t intuit a thing. For Hofmann that must have been an absolute rush. He had pulled off the ultimate spoof against God.<\/i>
\n\u2014 Shannon Flynn, as quoted in The Poet and the Murderer<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Oaks later acknowledged the meeting, explaining that Hofmann had come to his office just before 3 p.m. to discuss what he should tell police who might question him. Oaks advised Hofmann to ‘simply tell them the truth.’<\/em> The apostle had no idea he was counseling a freshly minted double murderer.<\/p>\n

Rebuttal to FAIR’s Defense of Prophetic Discernment in the Hofmann Affair<\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

Critics of the LDS Church often point to the Mark Hofmann affair as evidence that modern prophets and apostles lack the spiritual discernment claimed for their New Testament counterparts. If LDS leaders genuinely possess the same divine gifts as Peter, James, and John\u2014including the ability to “declare the mind and will of God”<\/em> and serve as “special witnesses”<\/em> with “special spiritual endowment”<\/em>\u2014how could they be so thoroughly deceived by a forger for over five years? The apologetics organization FairLatterdaySaints has attempted to address this criticism, but their response reveals more about the theological problem than it resolves. Consider Sarah Allen’s defense published on the FAIR website in response to Jeremy Runnells’ CES Letter:<\/p>\n

FairLatterdaySaints.org: CES Letter Prophet Questions<\/strong> <\/a><\/p>\n

Personally, what I find troubling about this is that Jeremy wants to hold the Brethren to higher standards than the Lord does. Seeing as the Savior is the one who sacrificed His life for their sins, and it\u2019s His Church they\u2019re called to lead and His Priesthood they\u2019re called to bear, I don\u2019t think any of the rest of us have the right to usurp His role in setting the terms we need to follow here on Earth. If He won\u2019t demand His servants have perfect discernment in all things regarding all people, I don\u2019t think Jeremy has the right to demand to it, either.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Central Issue FAIR Avoids<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Sarah Allen’s lengthy response to Jeremy Runnells accomplishes something remarkable: it generates thousands of words while systematically avoiding the actual theological question at stake. Her essay is filled with true-crime enthusiasm, semantic debates about “serial killer”<\/em> versus “spree killer,”<\/em> and detailed timelines\u2014all of which serve as elaborate misdirection from the core problem.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The question is not whether Mark Hofmann was a skilled forger. The question is not whether the Church paid $57,100 or $200,000. The question is not whether documents were “suppressed”<\/em> or merely “still being authenticated.”<\/em><\/p>\n

The question is this: Does the LDS Church possess divinely appointed prophets, seers, and revelators with the gift of discernment\u2014and if so, why did this gift consistently fail when it mattered most?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Allen’s Key Argument\u2014and Its Fatal Flaw<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Allen’s central defense rests on Doctrine and Covenants 10:37:<\/p>\n

\n

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

Allen then writes: “Personally, what I find troubling about this is that Jeremy wants to hold the Brethren to higher standards than the Lord does.”<\/em><\/p>\n

This argument contains a critical theological error. D&C 10:37 was given in a specific context\u2014instructions to Joseph Smith regarding how to handle the lost 116 pages. It was not a blanket disclaimer announcing that prophets would routinely fail to discern evil. More importantly, Allen’s interpretation creates a devastating theological problem: if prophets cannot reliably discern truth from error, good from evil, or genuine from fraudulent\u2014what distinguishes them from ordinary people?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The LDS Church does not teach that its leaders possess occasional<\/em> or unreliable<\/em> spiritual gifts. Consider the actual claims:<\/p>\n

From the LDS Church’s official description of apostolic calling: Apostles are “special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world”<\/em> (D&C 107:23), called to receive revelation for the entire Church. The gift of discernment is explicitly listed among the spiritual gifts available to those holding the priesthood (D&C 46:27).<\/p>\n

Bruce R. McConkie wrote in Mormon Doctrine<\/em>: “The gift of discernment… includes the power to perceive the true character of people and the source and meaning of spiritual manifestations.”<\/em><\/p>\n

If these gifts function only sometimes<\/em>, and prophets cannot be expected to detect “a few deceivers”<\/em> (as Elder Oaks admitted), then the gifts are functionally meaningless. Anyone can occasionally guess correctly. The claim of prophetic authority requires something more.<\/p>\n

The Book of Abraham Precedent<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Allen’s defense becomes even more untenable when we consider that the Hofmann affair was not an isolated incident. In 1835, Joseph Smith purchased Egyptian papyri in Kirtland, Ohio, claiming they contained the writings of Abraham written “by his own hand.”<\/em> Smith proceeded to “translate”<\/em> these documents, producing the Book of Abraham\u2014now canonized scripture.<\/p>\n

When Egyptologists finally examined surviving papyrus fragments in the 1960s (after the Metropolitan Museum returned them to the Church), they identified the documents as common funerary texts from the Book of Breathings, dating to approximately the first century BC. The papyri had no connection whatsoever to Abraham or any biblical figure.<\/p>\n

This means the founding prophet of the LDS Church\u2014the man through whom all priesthood authority and revelatory gifts allegedly flow\u2014was himself unable to discern the true nature of documents placed before him. He did not merely fail to detect a forger; he claimed divine translation ability while producing a text that demonstrably has no relationship to the source material.<\/p>\n

If Joseph Smith could not discern the nature of the Egyptian papyri, and modern prophets could not discern the nature of Hofmann’s forgeries, we are not looking at occasional human error. We are looking at a pattern that spans 150 years and calls into question the fundamental claim of prophetic discernment itself.<\/p>\n

Elder Oaks’ Defense Undermines the LDS Position<\/span><\/strong><\/h3>\n

Allen quotes Elder Oaks’ 1987 explanation approvingly:<\/p>\n

\n

In order to perform their personal ministries, Church leaders cannot be suspicious and questioning of each of the hundreds of people they meet each year. Ministers of the gospel function best in an atmosphere of trust and love.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This explanation is pastorally reasonable\u2014but it is theologically devastating. Oaks is essentially saying that Church leaders function like any other religious ministers: trusting, occasionally deceived, operating on human judgment rather than divine insight.<\/p>\n

But this is precisely what the LDS Church claims its leaders are not<\/em>.<\/strong> <\/span>The entire structure of LDS authority rests on the premise that these men possess something other religious leaders lack: direct revelation, priesthood keys, and spiritual gifts, including discernment. If they must rely on trust like everyone else\u2014if they are just as susceptible to deception as any Methodist bishop or Presbyterian elder\u2014what is the basis for claiming unique divine authority?<\/p>\n

Oaks inadvertently revealed the truth: LDS leaders operate on human judgment, not prophetic discernment.<\/strong><\/span> They are deceived at the same rate as anyone else. The gift of discernment, as functionally described by Oaks, does not exist in any meaningful sense.<\/p>\n

The New Testament Contrast<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Allen writes that she cannot address all the relevant issues in her space, but she never addresses the most obvious comparison: the apostles of the New Testament whom LDS leaders claim to succeed.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Consider the biblical record:<\/p>\n

Peter and Ananias (Acts 5:1-11):<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>When Ananias and Sapphira lied about their land sale, Peter immediately perceived the deception: “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?”<\/em> Peter did not require FBI analysis or handwriting experts. He knew.<\/p>\n

Paul and Elymas (Acts 13:6-12):<\/strong> <\/em><\/span>When confronted by a false prophet who opposed the gospel, Paul looked directly at him and declared, “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery.”<\/em> Paul perceived the man’s character through the Spirit.<\/p>\n

Paul and the Slave Girl (Acts 16:16-18):<\/strong><\/em><\/span> When a girl with a spirit of divination followed Paul, he discerned the spirit’s true nature and cast it out\u2014even though her words were technically accurate.<\/p>\n

These apostles demonstrated active, reliable spiritual perception. They did not need “an atmosphere of trust.”<\/em> They discerned deception because they possessed genuine spiritual gifts.<\/p>\n

The contrast with modern LDS leadership could not be starker. Hofmann met repeatedly with apostles over five years. He walked into Elder Oaks’ office hours after murdering two people. He shook hands with President Hinckley. He sold forgery after forgery to the Church. Not one of these men\u2014holders of the same apostolic office as Peter and Paul\u2014perceived anything amiss.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Allen’s Semantic Victories, Theological Losses<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Much of Allen’s essay focuses on winning minor factual disputes while losing the theological argument:<\/p>\n