What does the White Salamander letter establish?

Hofmann invented the Harris letter. Joseph’s history and other records give separate evidence about his work for Stowell. I would use those to discuss treasure seeking.

You separate a forged document from the historical evidence it borrowed from.

Since Hofmann invented the letter, the treasure-seeking story collapses too.

Joseph described being hired to search for a mine. That evidence stands independently of Hofmann.

Hinckley said the Church bought the Stowell letter and received the Harris letter as a gift. He said he chose to release both and expressed uncertainty about authenticity.

You identify what was acquired, how, and what Hinckley said publicly in 1985.

A Church spokesman denied having the Stowell letter, so that shows the Church hid the Harris letter too.

The denial concerned the Stowell letter and was corrected. The Harris letter had already appeared in the Church News.

Oaks offered a real defense of the wording if the purported letter were genuine. That helps us see how he interpreted it. Who wrote it is a question for independent evidence.

You distinguish an interpretation of the words from evidence about the document’s origin.

He called the letter purported, so he must have suspected Hofmann forged it.

His qualification leaves room for doubt. His remarks also show he took the document seriously enough to reconcile its wording with Joseph’s account.

A warning could have mattered. The leaders missed the fraud. D&C 46 describes discerning spiritual gifts. Where would we get the further promise that leaders will be warned about every crime or forged document?

You take the harm and the failure seriously. The claim about prophetic authority depends on the scope of the gift.

Experts were fooled too, so the question about prophetic discernment is already answered.

Experts’ mistakes explain part of the historical record. The objection asks about a spiritual gift, which has to be examined separately.