Charges Of Suppression Conclusion

Created: 03 August 2009

Last Updated: 03 August 2009

In a previous post I address Mormanity’s poor assessment that the Joseph Smith III blessing was evidence of forthright behavior on the part of Church leadership. Mormanity did not stop with that poor assessment, but built on it, with this even more bizarre assessment. “This has been an important pattern in the Church: we make important documents available, documents like those from Hoffman or the Book of Abraham fragments. We publish them and encourage discussion. We don't run from the truth.”

It is hard to know where to start with such a blatantly bogus statement. LDS faithful have long been discouraged from reading material critical of the Church in the slightest. An interesting tidbit of the Hofmann forgeries is the way in which the Church acquired the Salamander letter. Via back channels, a faithful member of the Church (Christensen) purchased the document with his own money and was then instructed to donate it to the Church. This caused a financial hardship for Christensen and he wrote Hinckley requesting permission to sell the document in order to recover his expenses. His request was denied. His only other option at easing his financial burden was to write a book about the document. He did not because of a statement at the October general conference that appeared to be aim directly at him. The faithful were instructed to neither write or sponsor a book would lead some into disbelief. So much for “encouraging discussion”.

A very interesting fallout of the Hofmann episode is the discovery that the McLellin papers were already in the Church archives and the Church did not even know it. In complying with subpoenas archivist where searching for documents in the church archives that were purchased from Hofmann. During the search the archivists stumble upon the McLellin papers.

Apparently, Joseph F. Smith did the same thing Hinckley did with the Stowell Forgery. He bought the McLellin papers in 1908, put them in the archives and did not tell anyone else about them. When he passed away, knowledge of the McLellin papers whereabouts passed away with him. Even more interesting is the fact that McLellin papers rediscovery was withheld from the Hofmann investigation team (more suppression). It is only because of Hofmann that we know about these attempted suppressions. What else has been suppressed that we do not know about?

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no83.htm#TURLEY%27S%20BOMBSHELL!!

The Smoking Gun Of Supression

Created: 03 August 2009

Last Updated: 03 August 2009

It appears this blog’s treatment of the Hofmann episode has gained the attention of Mormanity in the form of an update to this page. In it Mormanity suggests that some demonstration of “strenuous efforts to suppress” the Salamander Letter is what is required to successfully ground any assessment of suppression. He argues that the fact that Hinckley did not purchase the Salamander Letter proves just the opposite of supression.

The non-purchase of the Salamander Letter is what I call the fallacy of a viable option. For whatever reason (negotiations perhaps), Hofmann sent the flamboyant Lyn Jacobs to sell the Salamander Letter to Hinckley. The story goes that while Jacobs kept negotiating price, Hinckley kept inquiring how it is that Jacobs knew Hofmann. Hofmann the cynic took this to mean that Hinckley now felt that plausible deniability was impossible with Jacobs in the mix. That is, with Jacobs in the mix, a secret purchase ala Stowell Forgery was no longer possible. On the flip side, I imagine the faithful assume that Hinckley must have suddenly grown suspicious of documents and their authenticity.

The false suggestion that a conspiracy or “strenuous efforts” is what necessitates suppression is what I am calling the fallacy of necessity. However, “to withhold from disclosure” is the very definition of the word. The smoking gun is not Cahill’s denial, but the secret purchase itself. No one in Hinckley’s inner circle is known to have been aware of the purchase, until after Hofmann began leaking its existence. Cahill’s ignorance is merely an indicator at how secret the purchase was. A simple press release regarding the document purchase and the length of time it might take experts to examine it would have been sufficient. However, the option to secretly purchase just seemed so viable…..

Mormanity Does Not Believe What He Preaches

Created: 13 September 2009
Last Updated: 13 September 2009

Being half apologist, half reformist, Mormanity often kills two birds with one stone. For example, he actively disavows the LDS religion ever claimed anything similar to the doctrine of infallibility. This serves the dual purpose of defending the religion and moderating it at the same time. Very effective.

That is why I was little surprised when I first read Mormanity’s treat of the Hofmann episode years ago. I half expected him to say that he did not kown whether the church leadership handle the whole affair on the up and up, but that it did not matter. After all the leadership is made up of fallible human beings just as Peter denied the Christ and Moses committed manslaughter. Mormanity’s resistance to take the episode at face value and insist that everything was done in good faith suggests that he may be uncomfortable with his own logical universe.

Mormanity preaches the reality that prophetic persons are as human as you and I. It is against our human nature to accept this, hence Mormanity emphasizes it. Why the diversion from his normal apologetic technique with regards to the Hofmann episode? My first hypothesis was that Mormanity was lacking in the details of the episode. After further communication and the latest update to his FQA, it is apparent that this is not the case.

Mormanity plays a game where he pretends the facts in this case are interpretable [add link]. This not so and the facts are very simple. Hinckley secretly purchased the Stowell Forgery and told no one (NO ONE) about it until Hofmann broke the secrecy. This is the very definition of suppression, case closed. I could go on with how Hinckley denied even knowing Hofmann and Christensen at a press conference, all of which Turley defends in his book Victims. One of the more interesting ones is when Turley admits that police investigations of phone records indicated that Hofmann had called Hinckley’s private line, but there is no prove that he actually talked to Hinckley.

In the end Mormanity admits that he lacked objectivity [add link], but justifies it by claiming no one is objective and implies that I sifted out Turley’s facts from my analysis. To his frustration I was able to prove this was not the case [add link]. Mormanity frequently preaches that all religious leaders (except for Christ) are falliable, but by insisting that LDS leaders acted in good faith during the Hofmann episode he demonstrates an inconsistency. He shows that he feels that it might be unacceptable for the LDS leadership to have acted in less than a good faith manner with regards to the Hofmann episode. Why if all relgious leaders are falliable? Does he no believe what he preaches?

Created: 26 December 2009
Last Updated: 07 January 2010

Mormanity has once again struggled to provide a satisfactorily rebuttal in this thread:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2009/12/rejecting-prophets-for-apparently.html#comments

It is a common theme amongst LDS faithful to suggest that Mormonism falls perfectly into Biblical patterns. When a critic suggests that Mormonism is absurd for one reason or another, a common Mormon retort is that then so is the Bible.

The link above demonstrates this exchange. In it Mormanity implies that is not possible to prove a prophet false. When it was pointed out that Biblical patterns suggest that it is possible to prove a prophet false and if Mormonism falls into Biblical patterns perfectly, Mormonism should have a method for proving prophets false. Neither Mormanity nor his cronies could explain effectively how Mormonism proves prophets false. This is particularly problematic because the fantastic Mormon claim is that the LDS church is the only divinely inspired church on the earth, but yet it has no method of proving that a another religion is not divinely inspired.

Furthermore, I recognized that the prophets in the Bible do indeed engage in odd behavior. For example, the biblical Abraham alone decides to tell a half truth. In Mormonism Abraham was commanded by God to tell the half truth. The LDS faithful retort that this modification pales in comparison to the God order genocide in the Book of Joshua. However, Mormonism takes God’s reasoning up a notch. While no justification is given in the Book of Joshua, in the Book of Nephi God clearly states an ends-justify-the-means reasoning to command Nephi to execute someone without a civil trial. While odd on the part of God, it is not a smoking gun of contradiction on God’s part.

However, the anecdote of the lost 116 pages is. In this anecdote God commits an error in reasoning. God commanded that the small plates (the Book of Nephi) be created for a “wise purpose”. The wise purpose was revealed to be to thwart Satan inspired conspirators. Apologists claim that this excessively intricate and complex method of thwarting conspirators was necessary for at least two reasons. 1. To thwart conspirators without violating man’s agency (free will). That is God avoids putting up supernatural roadblocks to prevent evil. 2. In order to teach or instruct the faithful in some sort of unknown mystical lesson.

The Apologist claim that we will never understand Gods thought processes and hence the anecdote proves nothing. However, though Gods thoughts are not ours, this does not change the fact that God’s reasoning is flawed in this anecdote. Retranslating the Book of Lehi does not help conspirators has claimed by the God in the anecdote. It makes the situation a he-said-she-said. By not retranslating the he-said-she-said in the prophecy became permanent. Not retranslating helped the conspirators more than retranslating would have. Furthermore, the Book of Nephi does nothing to prevent the conspirators! If there truly existed a group of expert forgers lying in wait with the lost 116 pages they could have just as easily made the lost pages contradict the Book of Nephi.

To date neither Mormanity nor his cronies could explain this flawed reasoning on God's part. In this anecdote God could have avoided the error by keeping quiet. By mentioning nothing of a wise purpose and conspirators God would have successfully avoided stating flawed reasoning. Perhaps this is why in the Bible God gives no explanation for the commanded genocide in the Book of Joshua.

UPDATE: That-was-never-official-doctrine apology is very much in vogue. When applied to the-lost-116-pages-anecdote it relieves God from claiming there is a cause and effect relationship between the Small Plates and the conspirator’s plan. As such, how Satan’s plan would have worked is unclear and the plan’s defeat is equally mystical. It becomes purely a matter of faith that something terrible would have happened if the Book of Lehi was retranslated and God is free from committing an error in reason.

What God Allows Satan To Do And Not Do

Satan had a plan against Job and knowing it would not work God allowed it. Satan had a plan against Joseph Smith and knowing it would work God disallowed it. It is interesting that in Job's case Satan had to ask permission from God first.

Satan’s plans usually play into God’s hands, not against them. For example, tempting Eve in the Garden of Eden (in Mormonism right?) and organizing the execution of Jesus (so that he could be resurrected I presume – or was the execution even necessary (another topic)). There must be plans of Satan in the Bible that God disallowed .....

Rejecting Mormonism Means Rejecting Christianity?

I have not been one to call Mormons unchristian, however Mormonism is clearly a radical reinterpretation of Christian (ie. Baptism is not an invention of John the Baptist, the Eucharist was not an invention of Jesus). In this Mormanity entry (click here) we see a frequent Mormon response. According to this reasoning, if a person can reject Mormonism for X, then that person must also reject Christianity for X. Given this type of response it is no wonder so many devout Christians consider Mormons not to be Christians. That is, the response is essentially positing that Mormonism is a gauntlet to traditional Christianity.

Of course to hold Mormons to the same standard, to reject the Strangites for X would also require one to reject modern Mormonism for X. LDS faithful of course reject the Strangites. "Oh, snap!"

Are Modern Prophets Necessary?

In this Mormanity Entry (click here) we see a common theme that Mormon Apologist feel the need to defend. If God was the same yesterday, today, and forever then we should have prophets and scriptures like in the Bible. Of course the whole conversation is semantical and depends ones view of what a prophet is or is not. While indeed there were voices such as Noah before Moses, I am not convinced there were prophets pre-Moses. Moses formed a strictly constitutional government that permitted heretical things such as divorce. Part of this government were advisers that help the population engage more heresy such as choosing a king.

At the time of Jesus the concept of separation of Church and State was struggling to take hold. So Jesus formed a state with in a state that also had hierarchical systems of advisers. However, in the modern western world the concept of separation of church and state is well established and hence individuals are free to receive their advise directly from God. Not that God or man has changed, but man's society has. With this understanding Mormons would do well to, "search with an open mind, and not fall into what I consider to be the deceptive trap of thinking that you need nothing more than what you have. Keep seeking!"

Was Jesus Victimized?

I was reviewing the Mark Hofmann Wikipedia entry recently. The editors have made some good improvements to it. I noticed this footnote, where Hinckley declares Jesus a victim. I have never thought of Christianity as portraying Jesus as a victim in the swindled, defauded, or cheated sense of the word that Hinckley used it. After some Googling, I found that most other Christians do not think it was possible to swindle, defraud, or cheat Jesus. Most other Christians seem to think that Jesus was in control of his situation to the extent that Jesus was able set the day of his martyrdom to one of his choosing. If Hinckley used the word victimized in the sense of religious sacrifice, I could understand. But he used it in the sense of taken advantage of.

This would be another assertion of the assessment that Mormonism is one of those cultures that struggles recognize its flaws when it looks in the mirror. Hinckley was in capable of taking personal responsibility, in his mind all things that happen to him were the result of external forces beyond his control.