Mark Hofmann, a blessing in disguise?

[_sr1030]

Yes, Hofmann fooled Church leadership and they bought documents to ensure they were kept quiet. But it seems to me that LDS may use these forgeries to their advantage. Right now it is said there still may be some in circulation. No one knows how many. If the LDS own a document that does not shed their church in a good light, could they claim it was a forgery. Would they be obligated to prove this?

sr

[_Fence Sitter]

They figured out how Hofmann was making his forgeries, so no they could not try and cast doubt on such a document by claiming it might be just another Hofmann forgery.

And I don't think the Christensen and Sheets families will ever view Hofmann as a blessing in disguise.

[_sr1030]

They figured out how Hofmann was making his forgeries, so no they could not try and cast doubt on such a document by claiming it might be just another Hofmann forgery.

And I don't think the Christensen and Sheets families will ever view Hofmann as a blessing in disguise.

I guess the question is, if the LDS Church owns these documents, would they be obligated to prove the documents forgeries if they made that claim?

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3062356-155/ ... olution-in

sr

[_Fence Sitter]

I guess the question is, if the LDS Church owns these documents, would they be obligated to prove the documents forgeries if they made that claim?

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3062356-155/ ... olution-in

sr

What documents? What claim? It's just an assumption on your part that the church might have some Mark Hofmann documents that they have not already reported having. I would have to go back and check but I suspect that during the trail the church would have been asked to produce any documents it bought from Hofmann. If that happened, and there were any documents in their possession from Hofmann that the church failed to report and they knew they had them, we will never see them.

Your questions assumes that there are Hofmann documents in the church's possession, that they know are Hofmann documents and that they have been holding on to without telling anyone, that they all of a sudden will release that information and then claim they are forgeries.

Do you see how convoluted and unlikely such a scenario is?

As a side note, your article said that people with collections tied to Hofmann "would not be eager to announce any connection to Hofmann that could render documents worthless". I beg to differ I suspect that the notoriety of a Hofmann produced forgery would give such a document a lot of value. I expect that the forged Salamander letter he sold to the church would fetch a pretty penny.

[_I have a question]

Yes, Hofmann fooled Church leadership and they bought documents to ensure they were kept quiet. But it seems to me that LDS may use these forgeries to their advantage. Right now it is said there still may be some in circulation. No one knows how many. If the LDS own a document that does not shed their church in a good light, could they claim it was a forgery. Would they be obligated to prove this?

sr

What could possibly be circulating that would be more damaging to member faith than the official essays?

[_sr1030]

I guess the question is, if the LDS Church owns these documents, would they be obligated to prove the documents forgeries if they made that claim?

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3062356-155/ ... olution-in

What documents? What claim? It's just an assumption on your part that the church might have some Mark Hofmann documents that they have not already reported having. I would have to go back and check but I suspect that during the trail the church would have been asked to produce any documents it bought from Hofmann. If that happened, and there were any documents in their possession from Hofmann that the church failed to report and they knew they had them, we will never see them.

I believe the complaint only listed 11 documents. I could be wrong.

Your questions assumes that there are Hofmann documents in the church's possession, that they know are Hofmann documents and that they have been holding on to without telling anyone, that they all of a sudden will release that information and then claim they are forgeries.

The LDS Church has already done this. They years later claimed a D Quinn quote on a forged document by Hofmann. Why wait years? How do we know this is true? I would assume, based on historical evidence of the LDS Church lying, that they may well be in this case too.

Do you see how convoluted and unlikely such a scenario is?

No, I find it very likely. I mean Hinckley personally had purchased from Hofmann a very damaging document to keep it hidden. It was only because Hofmann leaked the information to the press that they produced it.

Actually I believe it was Jerald Tanner that first questioned Hofmann documents as forgeries.

sr

[_candygal]

Yes, Hofmann fooled Church leadership and they bought documents to ensure they were kept quiet. But it seems to me that LDS may use these forgeries to their advantage. Right now it is said there still may be some in circulation. No one knows how many. If the LDS own a document that does not shed their church in a good light, could they claim it was a forgery. Would they be obligated to prove this?

sr

What could possibly be circulating that would be more damaging to member faith than the official essays?

There you go...just when I left the church..I left it again..! Though I finally had something that was from the church that at least brought up a subject..I was still called a liar. After all was said and done, I was told that it had always been taught..I just couldn't find it. I was simply amazed at the essays; especially the blacks and priesthood. For a while, I thought all those years in the church I had been in the twilight zone. What makes me feel sad is I put down people while I was in the church because I thought is was "spashull"..

[_Fence Sitter]

sr,

A further suggestion on formatting if you don't mind. When responding to someone elses post do not place your current response inside a quote.

So instead of responding in this manner.

What documents? What claim? It's just an assumption on your part that the church might have some Mark Hofmann documents that they have not already reported having. I would have to go back and check but I suspect that during the trail the church would have been asked to produce any documents it bought from Hofmann. If that happened, and there were any documents in their possession from Hofmann that the church failed to report and they knew they had them, we will never see them.

I believe the complaint only listed 11 documents. I could be wrong.

Leave my original comment in quotes and your newest response outside of quotes like this.

What documents? What claim? It's just an assumption on your part that the church might have some Mark Hofmann documents that they have not already reported having. I would have to go back and check but I suspect that during the trail the church would have been asked to produce any documents it bought from Hofmann. If that happened, and there were any documents in their possession from Hofmann that the church failed to report and they knew they had them, we will never see them.

I believe the complaint only listed 11 documents. I could be wrong. (<--- this is your newest response).

By doing that it makes it easier for readers following along to see what your latest response is and distinguish it from previous comments you also might of made.

Thanks

[_sr1030]

By doing that it makes it easier for readers following along to see what your latest response is and distinguish it from previous comments you also might of made.

Thanks

Yes, I like that much better, but I thought you were asking for the other format. You got it.

sr