The short answer
Yes. Mark Hofmann fooled Church leaders and outside document examiners. The Church received the forged Harris–Phelps letter as a gift and printed it in April 1985. Oaks suggested a way to interpret it before investigators established the forgery. The failed judgment is real. Whether it disproves prophetic authority depends on what that authority promises.
- What was fake? Hofmann fabricated the supposed 1830 account of a white salamander. Joseph’s employment looking for a mine has separate historical evidence. Compare the records
- Did the Church buy or hide it? Christensen purchased the Harris letter and donated it. The Church bought a separate forgery addressed to Josiah Stowell, wrongly denied having it, then corrected the denial and published it. Compare the two letters
- What did Oaks say? He proposed that the word could describe a spirit associated with fire. He was interpreting the wording of a purported letter. Read his 1985 remarks
- Who caught it? The Tanners raised early doubts. Investigators later found forensic evidence and Hofmann confessed. Read how the fraud was exposed
- What about McLellin and discernment? Hofmann’s supposed collection and the genuine papers purchased in 1908 had different histories. The discernment objection asks what kind of warning Church leaders could expect. McLellin papers · What discernment promises
Yes. Mark Hofmann deceived Church officials, scholars, and document examiners. Church leaders accepted several of his forgeries, and Dallin H. Oaks offered a way to understand the Salamander Letter before investigators exposed it. The CES Letter asks why leaders with spiritual gifts were fooled and alleges that Church officials bought documents to suppress them. The answer depends on which document, transaction, and statement you mean. CES Letter, “Mark Hofmann” · Oaks’s 1987 account
What the forgery claimed
Hofmann fabricated a letter dated October 23, 1830, as if Martin Harris had written to W. W. Phelps. In it, a white salamander transforms into a spirit in Joseph Smith’s account of recovering the plates. That story comes from a twentieth-century forgery. In Joseph’s own 1832 history, he describes an angel who told him about the buried record. Joseph’s early employment searching for a mine has evidence independent of Hofmann, including an 1825 agreement published in 1880. Church list of known forgeries, items 9–10 · Joseph’s 1832 history, p. 5 · 1825 Stowell agreement, 1880 printing
What the Church acquired and published
Collector Steven F. Christensen purchased the Harris–Phelps letter, commissioned professional examinations, and donated it to the Church. The Church News printed the text on April 28, 1985. One headline called the letter authenticated. Gordon B. Hinckley accepted the examiner’s assessment at the time and expressly allowed that the attribution to Harris could be wrong. The two statements document real confidence and a stated qualification. The April printing is direct evidence that the Church made this particular text public before the forgery was exposed. 1985 Church News reporting reproduced by the Tanners · Hinckley’s statement reprinted in 1987
The supposed 1825 Joseph Smith letter to Josiah Stowell was a separate Hofmann forgery. Hinckley bought it for the Church in 1983. In April 1985 a Church spokesman wrongly denied that the Church had it. He corrected the denial after Hinckley informed him, and the First Presidency released the text on May 9. The delay and incorrect denial warrant scrutiny. Their existence leaves open what the people involved knew at each point and why publication took so long. Document chronology · Tanners’ account and reproduced statements
In 1985, Hinckley publicly distinguished the purchase from the gift and said he decided to release both texts. He expressed uncertainty about both letters’ authenticity. The Church later reported spending $57,100 in cash for seven documents it acquired directly from Hofmann, with other items acquired by gift or trade. That figure records the reported cash purchases. The market value of traded items is a separate question. Hinckley, “Keep the Faith,” 1985 · Church statement, 1987
The Joseph Smith III blessing
In April 1981 general conference, Hinckley treated another forged transcript as a father’s blessing from Joseph Smith to his son. He described its handwriting as apparently Thomas Bullock’s and argued that a father’s blessing would leave the Twelve’s claim to succession intact. He also said the Church had exchanged the document with the Reorganized Church. The conference transcript now carries an editorial note identifying the document as a forgery. Hinckley’s 1981 conference talk and editorial note
What Oaks said in 1985
At an August 16 Church Educational System symposium, Oaks said that “salamander” could refer to a spirit associated with fire. He argued that such usage could fit Joseph’s description of a radiant angel and treated the letter as a purported report of what Harris had heard. This was a real attempt to explain the wording on the assumption that the letter might be genuine. A plausible meaning for a word supplies no evidence about the age of the ink or the identity of the writer. Oaks acknowledged in 1987 that Hofmann had fooled Church officials and quoted his earlier cautions about treating a document as authentic. Oaks, “Reading Church History,” Church History Library · Relevant excerpt reproduced in the CES Letter · Oaks’s 1987 address
How investigators exposed the forgery
Jerald and Sandra Tanner raised doubts publicly in 1984, before investigators established the fraud. They questioned where the document came from and noticed similarities to older published accounts. Later, forensic examiners George Throckmorton and William Flynn compared documents and testified to patterns that included unusual ink cracking. Hofmann used period materials and artificially aged ink. After the October 1985 bombings killed Christensen and Kathleen W. Sheets, the investigation exposed the forgery scheme. In January 1987 Hofmann pleaded guilty to two murders and two fraud-related counts involving the Harris letter and his purported McLellin collection. Tanners’ early objections · Examiners’ testimony as reproduced by the Tanners · Plea and Church statement
Which McLellin papers did the Church have?
Hofmann claimed he could obtain a collection of former apostle William E. McLellin’s papers and used that story to raise money. A different set of McLellin’s genuine papers had been purchased by the Church in 1908. Archive staff rediscovered them in 1986. The Church News reported their provenance in 1992, and the journals were published in full in 1994. The gap between rediscovery and public disclosure can be assessed separately from whether Hofmann possessed the collection he offered. Editors’ provenance study · Church News, October 1992
What prophetic discernment promises
The strongest objection is that a warning could have prevented real harm. Oaks says he met with Hofmann for ten minutes on October 15, 1985, the day the first two bombs went off. The absence of a warning is a real difficulty for someone who expects a prophet or apostle to detect every dangerous deception. Doctrine and Covenants 46:11–12, 27 describes spiritual gifts and gives Church leaders a responsibility to discern gifts claimed in the Church. The text gives no standing assurance that every visitor’s crimes or every document’s provenance will be revealed. Latter-day Saints can believe God gives timely warnings while expecting leaders to use independent evidence, correct factual errors, and learn from failures. Oaks’s account of the meeting · Doctrine and Covenants 46
What to say
“Hofmann fooled Church leaders, and the Tanners spotted reasons for doubt before he was exposed. I would give them credit for that. I would also separate the Church’s actual errors from the larger claim that an apostle must detect every fraud. Where does that promise come from? And if we’re discussing suppression, let’s identify the specific document and trace who held it, what was said, and when it was released.”
