By Jerald Tanner
As I left the Salt Lake City Post Office on October 15, 1985, I noticed that the east side of Main Street was blocked off by the police. Later I was to learn that a murder had been committed at the Judge Building—less than a block from where I obtained my mail. Steven F. Christensen, a Mormon bishop, had picked up a box in front of his office which turned out to be a “booby-trapped shrapnel bomb.” Mr. Christensen died instantly. It soon became apparent that the victim was the same man who bought the notorious “White Salamander Letter”—a letter which proved to be embarrassing to the Mormon Church. Later that morning another package exploded killing Kathleen Sheets. This package was addressed to her husband, J. Gary Sheets who was also a bishop in the Mormon Church. Mr. Sheets “had helped fund research that authenticated the [Salamander] letter” (Salt Lake Tribune, October 16, 1985).
Since Sandra and I had been the first ones to print extracts from the Salamander letter, we became somewhat concerned about our safety. The next day a bomb exploded in a car less than two miles from our house. Mark Hofmann, who sold the Salamander letter to Mr. Christensen, was critically injured in this blast.
By this time we began to seriously consider the possibility that there was a systematic conspiracy to wipe out those who were bringing out information which was embarrassing to the Mormon church. Because of our connection with the Salamander letter we were deluged with phone calls from the news media and others who were concerned about our safety or just wanted to find out what was going on in Salt Lake City. The next day (October 17) the Deseret News reported a surprising development: “. . . police say Hofmann is considered not just a third victim but also a prime suspect in the Tuesday killings, and others may be involved as well.” Although police have continued to point to Hofmann as the “prime suspect,” no murder charges have been filed. If the situation should change before I finish this article, I will make a note of it. The Salt Lake Tribune for November 20, reported the following:
Mark Hofmann, who investigators continue to call their “prime suspect” in the bombing murders of two people last month, has passed a lie detector test indicating he is telling the truth when he says he did not plant the bombs, his defense attorney said Tuesday.
Lie detector tests, of course, are usually not used as evidence in court, and so far Mr. Hofmann’s attorney has not allowed police to question him. A federal grand jury did indict Mr. Hofmann “on one count of possession of an unregistered Action Arms Ltd. Uzi machine gun” (Salt Lake Tribune, November 7, 1985), but Hofmann pleaded “not guilty.” This charge is not related to the bombings.
Meeting Mr. Hofmann
I first became acquainted with Mark Hofmann in 1980. Just after he discovered the Anthon transcript (a sheet of paper which is supposed to contain the actual characters Joseph Smith copied from the gold plates of the Book of Mormon), Mr. Hofmann came to our store and discussed the discovery. Although he had served as a Mormon missionary in England, it soon became evident that he did not fully trust the Mormon church leaders. He said, in fact, that he was suspicious that the church might be bugging his phone. He did not claim, however, to have any real evidence about the matter.
In the years that followed Mr. Hofmann would occasionally visit our bookstore and tell of the remarkable discoveries that he was making. In the latter part of 1983 (probably December) I first heard that Mark Hofmann had a letter which was supposed to have been written by Book of Mormon witness Martin Harris. It was dated October 23, 1830, and was addressed to W. W. Phelps. When I learned of the contents of the letter, I realized that it could deal a devastating blow to the Mormon Church. Sandra and I had previously written a book entitled, Mormonism, Magic and Masonry. In this book we presented strong evidence that Joseph Smith was involved in money-digging and magic. Martin Harris’ letter seemed to provide new and exciting evidence which supported our thesis. This letter is known as the Salamander letter because Martin Harris wrote that Joseph Smith claimed when he went to get the gold plates for the Book of Mormon, a “white salamander” in the bottom of the hole “transfigured himself” into a “spirit” and “struck me 3 times.”
Fortunately, I was able to obtain some important extracts from the letter and was preparing to print them in the March 1984 issue of the Messenger. I was very excited that we at Utah Lighthouse Ministry would be the first to break this important story to the world. While in the midst of compiling evidence to support the authenticity of the Salamander letter, I made a discovery that shook me to the very core. I found that the account of the transformation of the white salamander into the spirit was remarkably similar to a statement E. D. Howe published in Mormonism Unvailed. This book, written four years after the date which appears in the Harris letter, told of a toad “which immediately transformed itself into a spirit” and struck Joseph Smith. Even more disconcerting, however, was the fact that other remarkable parallels to the Salamander letter were found just two or three pages from the account of the transformation of the toad into a spirit (see Mormonism Unvailed, pages 273, 275 and 276).
Some years before I had encountered similar evidence of plagiarism in Joseph Smith’s History of the Church. The Mormon church leaders had always proclaimed that this History was actually written by Joseph Smith himself. My research, however, led me to the conclusion that the largest portion of it had been compiled after his death. I found that later Mormon historians had taken portions of newspapers and diaries written by other people and changed them to the first person so that readers would believe that they were authored by Joseph Smith himself. In agreement with my conclusions, Mormon scholars later admitted that over 60% of the History was compiled after Smith’s death (see Mormonism—Shadow at Reality? pages 127-135).
In any case, parallels I had discovered between the Salamander letter and Mormonism Unvailed reminded me very much of the work I had done on Joseph Smith’s History. Although what I discovered about the Salamander letter was not conclusive proof that it was a forgery, it was certainly suspicious. It seemed, in fact, to throw a monkey wrench into all my plans concerning the publication of the letter. Since I knew that it was very unlikely that anyone else would realize the significance of these parallels, there was some temptation to keep the matter to myself. I knew, however, that God knew what I had seen, and I began to feel that He had shown me these unpleasant facts to warn me against endorsing the letter. Furthermore, I knew that I would never be satisfied if my case against Mormonism was based on any material which had been forged. It was clear, therefore, that there was only one course of action which I could follow—i.e., print the whole truth in the Messenger. In the March 1984 issue, therefore, we raised the question by printing the title, “Is It Authentic?” Under the title we wrote:
At the outset we should state that we have some reservations concerning the authenticity of the letter, and at the present time we are not prepared to say that it was actually penned by Martin Harris. The serious implications of this whole matter, however, cry out for discussion. If the letter is authentic, it is one of the greatest evidences against the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. If, on the other hand, it is a forgery, it needs to be exposed as such so that millions of people will not be mislead. We will give the reasons for our skepticism as we proceed with this article.
On page 4, we wrote: “While we would really like to believe that the letter attributed to Harris is authentic, we do not feel that we can endorse it until further evidence comes forth.”
As soon as I noticed that there were problems with the Salamander letter, I began to realize the serious implications this would have for the study of Mormon history. Prior to Mark Hofmann’s appearance on the scene in 1980, the documents we had used in building our case against Mormonism seemed to have a good pedigree. For instance, the Joseph Smith Papyri were rediscovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1967. Although officials at the museum did not acquire the papyri until 1947, they had been aware of them since 1918. The papyri could, in fact, be traced back to the Smith family. The documents which proved that Joseph Smith was tried as a “Glass looker” in 1826 could be traced back to the jail in Norwich, N.Y. Two men, in fact, signed affidavits that they were discovered in the basement of the jail. Joseph Smith’s “Strange Account” of the First Vision, as well as his diaries, could be traced directly to the Church Historical Department where they had been preserved.
When Mark Hofmann came on the scene everything seemed to change. Hofmann was vague about where his finds were coming from, and no one seemed to think of questioning his veracity. The Deseret News for October 27, 1985, said that Hofmann’s “reputation regarding documents was impeccable, and his friends in the historical circle defended it.” It was only after I began to have doubts about the Salamander letter, however, that I began to realize that Hofmann was not providing pedigrees for his discoveries. While Mormon scholars felt that the Bible in which Hofmann found the Anthon transcript (it was supposed to have been pasted between two pages) came from the Smith family, Hofmann refused to disclose where he had bought the book. Since book collectors sometimes have a policy of checking out every page of a rare book, I would like to have talked to the collector to see if he remembered anything glued between the pages.
With regard to the Joseph Smith III Blessing, Hofmann only said that it came from a descendant of Thomas Bullock. When we pressed Hofmann to reveal which descendant (there must be hundreds), he refused to be of any help. Lucy Mack Smith’s 1829 letter, Joseph Smith’s 1825 letter and Martin Harris’ 1873 letter all seem to have no pedigree.
In the case of the Salamander letter, I did learn that Hofmann claimed that it came from a man by the name of Lyn Jacobs. I also learned that Hofmann and Jacobs were working together in the document business. Since the documents were all coming from these two men, it was necessary to focus in upon their backgrounds.
Although the money involved in the sale of Mormon documents would provide a sufficient motive for forgery, I began to wonder if there might be some sort of plan or even conspiracy to control the direction of Mormon history by this method. In any case, while doing research with regard to the Salamander letter, I noticed something about Hofmann’s first discovery that bothered me. This was Charles Anthon’s letter describing the sheet of paper which contained the characters copied from the Book of Mormon. Anthon stated that the “letters . . . were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, . . .” This description exactly matched the document which Mark Hofmann found in 1980—i.e., the Anthon transcript. Before Hofmann’s discovery, the church had another old sheet of paper containing Book of Mormon characters. It was believed that this was the sheet Harris had taken to Professor Anthon. Instead of having the characters running in vertical columns, this paper has them going horizontally. Furthermore, it does not have a circular object.
When Hofmann made his remarkable discovery, Anthon’s letter was appealed to as evidence that the real “Anthon transcript” had been found. At the time, this seemed to be a good argument for the documents authenticity, but when I later examined E. D. Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed in the light of its possible relationship to the Salamander letter, I discovered that Anthon’s letter is printed on page 272 of that book. This could be quite significant because the important parallels to the Salamander letter begin on the very next page (page 273). I could not help but wonder if Howe’s book had provided the creative impulse for both the Anthon transcript and the Salamander letter. I later did a study of the Anthon transcript which suggested that there may be spelling problems in the material written on the back of the document which is supposed to be in the handwriting of Joseph Smith (see Mr. Boren and the White Salamander, pages 9-10). Moreover, I demonstrated that there were important parallels in both wording and spelling to “Joseph Smith’s 1832 Account of His Early Life.” The parallels in wording could easily be explained by saying that both documents came from the same author. The parallels in spelling, however, do present a problem because part of the material in the 1832 account is in the hand of Joseph Smith’s scribe.
On August 22, 1984, I printed the first part of the pamphlet, The Money-Digging Letters. On page 9, I wrote: “. . . a number of important documents have come to light during the 1980’s. The questions raised by the Salamander letter have forced us to take a closer look at some of these documents.” In the same publication I wrote the following concerning the Salamander letter: “The more we examine this letter attributed to Harris, the more questions we have about its authenticity” (page 6). I went on to show important parallels between other documents and the Salamander letter. I noted that the parallels to the Joseph Knight account (first published in 1976) seem to be extremely important. On page 7, I told of an interview with Martin Harris which was published In 1859:
The interview in Tiffany’s Monthly also raises a very serious question about the lack of religious material in the Salamander letter. In the interview, Harris quoted at least five portions of the Bible. He used the words revelation, Moses, Scripture and Christ at least once. He used the word prayed twice, and mentioned the devil four times. The word angel or angels appears five times. God is mentioned seven times, and the word Lord appears ten times. In the Salamander letter all of these words are absent. In fact, there is nothing we can find concerning religion. Spirits are mentioned many times in the letter, but they are never linked to God in any way. Instead they are linked to money-digging. They are the guardians of the treasures.
This total lack of religious material seems to be out of character for Martin Harris. A person might try to maintain that Harris was more interested in religion in 1859, but the evidence shows that he was always that way. (The Money-Digging Letters, page 7)
On the following page, I charged that Mr. Hofmann had originally tried to sell the Salamander letter “to the Mormon Church for a large amount of money.” Hofmann later told me that it was actually Lyn Jacobs who took the letter to the church. Hofmann seemed willing, however, to admit that he was involved in the decision to sell the letter to the church. However this may be, I went on to state:
In the past Mr. Hofmann acted under the theory that the Church will buy up embarrassing documents to suppress them. This is very clear from his own account of how he handled the discovery of the Joseph Smith III Blessing. In a paper given at the Mormon History Association, Mark Hofmann stated that he did not want “to come across like I was trying to blackmail the Church,” but he acknowledged that if the Church had wanted him to, he would have promised to never tell anyone about its discovery: . . . Hofmann later commented: “It surprised me a bit that the Church didn’t buy it up quick and stash it away somewhere, . . .” (Sunstone Review, September 1982, page 19) . . .
However this may be, it is reported that the Mormon Church felt that Hofmann’s price was too high on the Salamander letter and refused his offer. The document was later sold to Steven Christensen.
We feel that one of the most important tests of the letter’s authenticity is its history since it was written. If Mr. Hofmann will tell historians where he obtained the letter, then it may be possible to trace it back to its original source. (The Money-Digging Letters, page 8)
The day following the publication of The Money-Digging Letters (August 23, 1984), Mark Hofmann came to our home and had a long talk with Sandra. He seemed very distressed and hurt that we, of all people, would question his discoveries. He had expected that opposition might come from those in the church, but he was amazed that Utah Lighthouse Ministry had taken a position which was critical to him. Mr. Hofmann tried to explain that he could not reveal the source of the Salamander letter because he had sold it to Christensen. With regard to the Joseph Smith III Blessing, Hofmann indicated that he had given the Mormon Church an affidavit which stated where he had obtained it. He could not reveal the source to the public, however, because the member of the Bullock family from whom he had purchased the document also had important papers concerning Brigham Young’s finances that would be embarrassing to the Church.
Sandra felt that Mark Hofmann was almost to the point of tears as he pled his case as to why we should trust him. He did not make any threats, however, nor did he show any sign of violence. At any rate, Hofmann’s explanations certainly did not satisfy me.
On August 25, 1984, John Dart wrote the following in the Los Angeles Times:
. . . unusual caution about the [Salamander] letter’s genuiness has been expressed by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, longtime evangelical critics of the Mormon Church. . . . The Tanners suggestion of forgery has surprised some Mormons, who note that the parallels in wording also could be taken as evidence for authenticity.
The Deseret News for September 1, 1984, reported:
. . . outspoken Mormon Church critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner suspect the document is a forgery, they told the Deseret News.
Jerald Tanner . . . says similarities between it and other documents make its veracity doubtful. . . .
Another disturbing aspect, Tanner said, was the letter seemed out of character for Harris. “In the entire text of the letter, there is no mention of religion . . . If it’s a forgery, then it’s important because there’s a document forger out there.”
By the time we printed the January 1985 issue of the Messenger, we had received word that the evidence derived from physical testing seemed to indicate that the Salamander letter was genuine. At that time I wrote the following:
Since I have spent years proving that early Mormonism is linked to magic and money-digging, this news should have brought me a great deal of satisfaction. Instead, however, I find myself facing a real dilemma. While the tests and the opinions of noted Mormon scholars, seem to indicate that I should relax and enjoy the victory, I still have serious reservations about the document’s authenticity. In fact, I find it very hard to believe that the Martin Harris I have learned about from numerous historical sources could have written the letter. (Salt Lake City Messenger, January 1985, page 4)
I pointed out in that issue of the Messenger [January 1985] that I had recently examined a number of historical sources relating to Martin Harris, and that
These references, from early newspapers up until the time of his death, point to the unmistakable conclusion that Harris could hardly open his mouth without talking about religion. That he could write a letter of over 600 words without mentioning the subject seems highly unlikely. This is especially true since the Salamander letter deals with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and gives ample opportunities to bring up the subject. While it is true that Martin Harris believed in money-digging and the superstitions connected with it, it seems very hard to believe that he would write a prospective convert like Phelps and leave out all the divine elements of the Book of Mormon.
On page 9 of the same issue, I showed that an Episcopalian minister by the name of John A. Clark claimed in 1842 that Martin Harris told him the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in 1827 and that Clark did not remember Harris saying anything about the white salamander that was transformed into a spirit. Instead, Clark related that Harris told him about a dream Joseph Smith had about an “angel of God” who visited him “while he lay upon his bed.” It seemed inconsistent to me that Harris would tell this story before the Book of Mormon came forth and then refer to an “old spirit” when he wrote the Salamander letter. In this same issue I expressed the hope that scholars would not “side-step” the issue of the pedigree of the Salamander letter and stated that “Too many of the documents which have recently come forth appear to be like Melchisedec, ‘Without father, without mother, without descent, . . .’ (Hebrews 7:3).”
(Click here for a full view of the Salamander letter.)
Below the reader will find a complete transcript of the Salamander letter. In colored type we have added quotations from seven publications which resemble portions of the letter. (Colors, and their respective numbers, added for referencing.) The books and articles quoted are as follows:
1. Mormonism Unvailed, by E. D. Howe, 1834
2. Brigham Young University Studies, Autumn 1976
3. New Witness For Christ In America, by Francis W. Kirkham, 1951
4. Tiffany’s Monthly, interview with Martin Harris, 1859
5. A.B.C. History of Palmyra and the Beginning of “Mormonism,” by Willard Bean, 1938
6. Mormonism, Magic and Masonry, by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, 1983
7. Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by B. H. Roberts, 1930
Palmyra Oct 23d 1830
Dear Sir
Your letter of yesterday is received & I hasten to answer as fully as I can—Joseph Smith Jr first come to my notice in the year 1824 in the summer of that year I contracted with his father to build a fence on my property (During the summer of 1824 there was a small leak that soon grew larger. During the fall of 1824 Joseph Smith, sr., and his son, Hyrum, were walling a basement and digging and curbing a well for Martin Harris. — 5: 35) in the corse of that work I aproach Joseph & ask how it is in a half day you put up what requires your father & 2 brothers a full day working together he says I have not been with out assistance (Nor was this the only assistance . . . he [David Whitmer] found to his surprise that he had accomplished more in a few hours than was usual to do in two or three days. — 7: Vol. 1, p. 126) but can not say more only you better find out the next day I take the older Smith by the arm (I took him by the arm — 4: 169) & he says Joseph can see anything he wishes by looking at a stone Joseph often sees spirits (This light of the stone, . . . enabled him [Joseph] to see any thing he wished. Accordingly he discovered ghosts, infernal spirits — 1: 259) here with great kettles of coin money (kettles filled with gold and silver — 1: 237) it was Spirits who brought up rock (Joseph, Sen. told me . . . the large stones . . . we call them rocks . . . are, in fact, most of them chests of money raised by the heat of the sun — 1: 233) because Joseph made no attempt on their money I latter dream I converse with spirits which let me count their money when I awake I have in my hand a dollar coin which I take for a sign Joseph describes what I seen in every particular says he the spirits are greived so I through back the dollar In the fall of the year 1827 I hear Joseph found a gold bible I take Joseph aside & he says it is true (They told me that the report that Joseph, Jun. had found golden plates, was true — 1: 253) I found it 4 years ago with my stone (He found them by looking in the stone — 4: 169) but only just got it because of the enchantment (the enchantment — 1: 267) the old spirit come to me 3 times in the same dream & says dig up the gold (after a third visit from the same spirit in a dream he proceeded to the spot — 3: Vol. 1, p. 151) but when I take it up the next morning the spirit transfigured himself from a white salamander in the bottom of the hole (after the plates were taken from their hiding place by Jo, he . . . looked into the hole, where he saw a toad, which immediately transformed itself into a spirit — 1: 275-76) (Sir Walter Scott says that the old astrologers “affirmed that they could bind to their service, and imprison in a ring, a mirror, or a stone, some fairy, sylph, or salamander, and compel it to appear when called, and render answers to such questions as the viewer should propose.” — 6: 23) & struck me 3 times (and struck him . . . the spirit struck him again, and knocked him three or four rods — 1: 242) & held the treasure & would not let me have it because I lay it down to cover over the hole (thot he would cover the place over — 2: 31) when the spirit says do not lay it down (he had been commanded not to lay the plates down — 2: 31, footnote 5) Joseph says when can I have it (Joseph says, “when can I have it?” — 2: 31) the spirit says one year from to day if you obey me (you have not obeyed your orders . . . come one year from this day — 1: 242) look to the stone after a few days he looks the spirit says bring your brother Alvin (bring with you your oldest brother — 1: 242) Joseph says he is dead (he said that he was dead — 1: 243) shall I bring what remains (“Whereas reports have been industriously put in circulation, that my son, Alvin, had been removed from the place of interment” — 5: 34) but the spirit is gone Joseph goes to get the gold bible but the spirit says you did not bring your brother you can not have it (he went to the place and the personage appeard and told him he could not have it now — 2: 31) look to the stone Joseph looks but can not see who to bring (Lawrence . . . asked him to look in his stone, he looked and said there was nothing; — 1: 243) the spirit says I tricked you again (This rogue of a spirit . . . intended it would seem to play our prophet a similar trick — 3: Vol. 1, p. 290) look to the stone (he told him to look again — 1: 243) Joseph looks & sees his wife (he looked in his glass and found it was Emma — 2: 31) on the 22d day of Sept 1827 they get the gold bible—I give Joseph $50 to move him down to Pa (He obtained fifty Dollars in money mid hired a man to move him and his wife to pensylvany — 2: 34) Joseph says when you visit me I will give you a sign he gives me some hiroglyphics I take them to Utica Albany & New York in the last place Dr Mitchel gives me a introduction to Professor Anthon says he they are short hand Egyption the same what was used in ancent times (taken by Mr. Harris to Utica, Albany and New York; at New York, they were shown to Dr. Mitchell and he referred to professor Anthon who . . . declared them to be ancient shorthand Egyptian — 1: 273) bring me the old book & I will translate says I it is made of precious gold & is sealed from view says he I can not read a sealed book—Joseph found some giant silver specticles with the plates (Joseph Smith, through a pair of silver spectacles, found with the plates — 1: 273) he puts them in a old hat & in the darkness reads the words & in this way it is all translated (he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkened his Eyes then he would take a sentence and it would apper . . . Thus was the hol [whole] translated — 2: 35) & written down—about the middle of June 1829 Joseph takes me together with Oliver Cowdery & David Whitmer to have a view of the plates our names are appended to the book of Mormon which I had printed with my own money— (The whole expense of publishing an edition of 5,000 copies, was borne by Martin — 1: 13) space and time both prevent me from writing more at presant if there is any thing further you wish to inquire I shall attend to it
Yours Respectfully
Martin Harris
W W Phelps Esq
On April 28, 1985, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that the noted document examiner Kenneth Randall proclaimed that the Salamander letter was authentic. Even the Church Section of the Mormon owned Deseret News (April 28) published an article entitled: “1830 Harris letter authenticated.” At the Mormon History Association, Church scholars Dean Jessee and Ronald Walker told of their research which confirmed the authenticity of the letter. The most noted Mormon scholars seemed to completely accept the letter’s authenticity.
In the June 1985 issue of the Messenger, I wrote the following:
. . . At the outset I will state that I originally approached the Salamander letter with a strong bias towards its authenticity. . . . No one could have possibly have had a greater desire to prove the Salamander letter authentic, and I doubt that many people have invested the time and effort that I have in sifting the evidence. This letter has been constantly on my mind for well over a year. My desire has been to come up with a definite answer concerning its reliability. At the present time, however, I still find myself with some serious doubts. . . .
When I originally took a stand against the Salamander letter, some people thought that I was just trying to force the Mormon researchers to come out with their research. They felt that as soon as the letter was published I would jump on the band wagon. The truth of the matter, however, is that my statements were made out of a strong conviction, and the release of the letter has done nothing to calm the apprehension I have about the letter’s authenticity. At the present time I feel almost alone. Even the Mormon historians accept the letter, and I am under a great deal of pressure to get into step with the scholars. . . .
Before making any final decision with regard to the letter’s authenticity, I would like to do further research with regard to a number of items. For instance, I would like to find out if there is any evidence that someone owned the letter before Lyn Jacobs. . . .
In conclusion I should say that although I have serious doubts about the Salamander letter, I still stand behind the thesis we presented in Mormonism, Magic and Masonry. I feel that there is very good evidence linking Joseph Smith to magic.
In the same issue (page 13), we stated that if “the letter is a forgery, one is almost forced to the conclusion that it would have to be a recent forgery.” We also stated that “it is unlikely that anyone but a Mormon could have had the knowledge necessary to commit such a forgery.” The following comments appeared on pages 9 and 10:
One problem with allowing the suppression of important information concerning the source of discoveries is that it could encourage forgers to enter the Mormon document business. Since there is already a great deal of money involved in these transactions . . . there would be a temptation to create such documents and palm them off on unsuspecting collectors by merely saying: “I obtained these from a collector in _____.” If we allow this type of thing to go on, it will certainly encourage the forgery of Mormon documents. Since these documents have an important affect on the religious beliefs of many people, it is crucial that their pedigree be revealed to historians. . . . This whole business of secret dealings with the Church is very disturbing. While dealers have a right to operate in this way, from a historian’s point of view it is deplorable. We can not see any real reason for all the secrecy that surrounds these transactions.
A Confrontation
In the Messenger for August 1985, pages 7-8, I indicated that “Lyn Jacobs has stubbornly refused to tell where he obtained” the Salamander letter. On August 24, 1985, Sandra and I had the very rare opportunity to speak with both Mark Hofmann and Lyn Jacobs. After Marvin Hill had given his presentation at the Sunstone Theological Symposium, we found Hofmann and Jacobs at the back of the room. Both men treated us politely and answered some of our questions. I asked Hofmann and Jacobs if it were true that the letter was obtained for only about $20 from a postmark collector. They indicated that this was true. Since Marvin Hill had indicated that Jacobs may have purchased the letter from a collector by the name of Elwin Doubleday, I asked Mr. Jacobs if this were true. He replied that it was not true. He said he had purchased it from another collector and that collector could not remember where he got the document from. I asked him for the name of the collector from whom he obtained it. His reply was that he could not tell me because the collector had told him not to reveal his name. This, of course, did not ring true. Why would a collector who saw no value in the letter except that it had an early postmark worth $20 ask that his name not be revealed? Common sense told me that a collector would be happy to have other people know that he had such letters for sale. At any rate, Mr. Hofmann then stated that he had been the one who directed Jacobs to the collector. Hofmann, however, did not reveal the name of the collector.
I then asked Mr. Hofmann some very pointed questions that related to the Salamander letter. The answers he gave did not satisfy me, and I felt that Mr. Hofmann knew that I did not believe what he was saying. At one point he looked at me with a sad expression on his face. He seemed to be deeply troubled. It was almost as if he was trying to say, “Please believe what I am telling you.” Unfortunately, I could not believe his answers. They did not square with the facts that I already knew. Although this confrontation was very unpleasant for all of us, I must say that neither Hofmann or Jacobs showed any sign of vindictiveness.
It is reported that at a get-together which occurred late one night after a meeting of the Sunstone Symposium, Hofmann and Jacobs talked freely about the sale of both the 1825 letter and the Salamander letter. The letter attributed to Joseph Smith was sold to President Hinckley for a large sum of money. At that time Hinckley was supposed to have said that it would never see the light of day again. Later the Salamander letter was offered to Hinckley for $100,000 which was to be paid for in one hundred dollar bills. Hinckley rejected the offer. He said that word had leaked out about the 1825 letter and that the General Authorities had decided against continuing to buy up the documents. The Salamander letter was later sold to Steven Christensen for $45,000.
Although I do not know if this report is accurate in all its details, the part about payment in cash reminded me of a conversation I had with Mr. Hofmann on December 15, 1983. At that time Hofmann told me that when he was attempting to place a telephone call late one night, he heard a strange voice on the line which said something like, “Why is he calling out so late?” He said that he feared that agents of the IRS might be tapping his phone because of a problem he was having with them. They were apparently disturbed that he was involved in secret deals which could not be traced with any records. Hofmann said he told them that this was the way that some people he dealt with operated and that the IRS would have to take his word as to the amount of money that exchanged hands in these transactions. Mr. Hofmann did not acknowledge any crime on his part nor did he tell me whether these untraceable deals involved the Mormon church.
Police Investigation
When I began my investigation into the documents and activities of Mark Hofmann, I realized I was taking a very unpopular course. Mormon scholars felt that I was unjustly persecuting Mr. Hofmann. The only one who gave me much help was A. J. Simmonds, manuscripts librarian at Utah State University. Ironically, Mr. Simmonds, like Sandra and myself, is also a non-Mormon.
Although I had no reason to fear that Mr. Hofmann was dangerous, I knew that any time a person tries to uncover fraud there is some danger of retaliation. If the police are correct in their theory that Mr. Hofmann is guilty of murder, Sandra and I may have been in real danger. Although I do not want to pass judgment until I have heard all the facts, if Hofmann is the type of man who would engage in bombings, then the thing that probably saved us from his wrath was that hardly anyone believed my findings. While I have uncovered some important circumstantial evidence indicating fraud, I could not find the hard evidence necessary to convince historians. In the pamphlet Mr. Boren and the White Salamander, I told of my frustration:
In my investigation I have been seriously handicapped by secrecy. . . . If I had investigative power like the FBI or could subpoena documents, . . . I could force Lyn Jacobs or Mark Hofmann to reveal where the Salamander letter was obtained, . . .
By the summer of 1985 I felt I had almost exhausted all my human resources. Although I had prayed about the matter from the beginning, I began to fervently seek God’s help. Then a remarkable thing happened. A young man felt the burden of prayer and began to pray with me. He became extremely interested in my problem with the documents and prayed earnestly that God would just open up the way so that the truth about the matter would be revealed
In my wildest imagination I would never have thought that an investigation would be set into motion by the explosion of three bombs. Although I do not believe that God planned the bombings (they undoubtedly came from the wicked heart of man), the result seemed to me to be a real answer to prayer. While I had previously complained because I did not have “investigative power like the FBI,” now the federal bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Salt Lake City Police Department and the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office are all working together on a major investigation. Mr. Hofmann’s car and home were thoroughly searched and many documents were confiscated by the police. The resulting investigation into Hofmann’s activities has revealed fraudulent activities on his part.
Lost 116 Pages
Immediately after the police searched Mark Hofmann’s home the question of forgery began to arise. The Salt Lake Tribune for October 18, 1985, reported:
In fact, Sheriff Hayward and other police officials speculate that Mr. Hofmann may have been involved in a historical document forging scam in which he sold hundreds of thousands of dollars in forged papers to collectors and high LDS Church officials. . . .
Mr. Hofmann’s possession of the white-salamander letter, the purported McClellin journals and numerous other documents . . . does raise some interesting questions, the sheriff said—the first being, “Why him?”
“Where does he get them? All of the sudden there’s this one guy who keeps coming up with these things, worth all that money. . . .
“I know for a fact that 50 of us couldn’t find these papers in 50 years if we were looking for them,” the sheriff said. “But he keeps coming up with them.”. . .
Also Thursday, detectives continued to seek and execute various search warrants in hopes of gathering more evidence. Police returned to his house with another search warrant after retrieving some evidence Wednesday night. Among that material, which included blank parchment-like paper, personal documents and clothing, were items which Sheriff Hayward said “that there is speculation that these things could be used in forging documents.”
The Deseret News, October 18, 1985, reported that “When police found evidence of forging in Hofmann’s possession, the case took another turn.” On October 20, the Salt Lake Tribune revealed the following:
Forgery, according to Chief Willoughby, continues to be a prime consideration as a motive. . . .
Speculation that the controversial 1830 Mormon “white salamander” letter . . . is a forgery has prompted the church to send that letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s laboratory for authentication. Some of the voluminous documents found in both Mr. Hofmann’s home and his burned out car . . . also will be taken to the FBI lab for tests.
After I began having trouble accepting the text of the Salamander letter, I got the uncomfortable feeling that it and other discoveries Mark Hofmann was connected with might be preparing historians to receive a forgery of the “book of Lehi.” This manuscript of 116 pages was supposed to have been lost by Martin Harris. This was to be the opening portion of the Book of Mormon. After its loss, Joseph Smith translated the book of Nephi to take its place. There has always been a great deal of speculation as to what was contained in this manuscript. As far as I am aware, no one knew anything about the contents of the missing pages until Hofmann and Jacobs discovered a letter which was supposedly written by Joseph Smith’s mother, Lucy Smith, on January 23, 1829. As early as 1982, Mr. Hofmann publicly mentioned that he had “spent thousands of dollars in the pursuit” of the “lost 116 manuscript pages” (Sunstone Review, September 1982, page 18).
Joseph Smith claimed that Martin Harris was working as his scribe when he dictated the 116 pages which were lost. The handwriting, therefore, on these pages would have to match that of Martin Harris. (It is reasonable to believe, of course, that other scribes could have written some of the pages.) Up until Mark Hofmann arrived on the scene, there was hardly anything that one could compare Harris’ handwriting against. There were a few signatures attributed to him, but no letters actually written in his own hand. Moreover, there was not even a dictated letter which bore Martin Harris’ signature.
On October 5, 1982, however, the Mormon church issued a press release which told of the discovery of a letter Harris was supposed to have dictated to his son. The church claimed that it was actually signed by Martin Harris himself. From what I can learn, the letter came through the hands of Mark Hofmann. Its pedigree, however, was never revealed. Although the signature on the 1873 letter looks remarkably like one Harris penned in 1829, I could not help but think that it was too good for a man who was eighty-nine years old and going blind. I checked the 1873 signature against a signature written in 1871 on Harris’ application for a U.S. Military pension and found it to be much better. Below is a comparison of the signatures of 1829, 1871 and 1873.
In the Messenger for Jan. 1985, page 10, I indicated that the “1871 signature does raise some questions about the signature on the 1873 letter, . . .” I thought that this was very suspicious. In any case, the 1873 letter was very favorable to the church. This letter seemed to prepare historians for the Salamander letter which followed right on its heels. The Salamander letter not only bore the signature of Martin Harris, but the entire text as well was supposed to be in the hand of Joseph Smith’s early scribe. With the authentication of Harris’ handwriting in the Salamander letter, the stage was well prepared for the ultimate discovery—i.e., the book of Lehi. It is conceivable that this manuscript might be worth millions of dollars.
Although we cannot confirm it, it has been reported that at least some pages purporting to be from the book of Lehi were found by police in Hofmann’s possession. It has also been claimed that there were sheets of paper found which appeared to have been used to practice the handwriting of Martin Harris and Emma Smith. (The reader can imagine how embarrassing it would be if a 20th century sheet of paper contained handwriting that matched that found on the Salamander letter.) If attempts to imitate Emma Smith’s handwriting have indeed been found, it would fit very well with the idea of a plan to forge the 116 pages. It is believed that Emma Smith was Joseph Smith’s scribe for some of the first pages of this manuscript. It would be very convincing to have the manuscript begin in Emma Smith’s handwriting and then switch to that of Martin Harris. With respect to Emma Smith’s handwriting, it is interesting to note that the police found a photograph of her handwriting in Hofmann’s possession and it was traced to a museum owned by Mrs. Wilford C. Wood. This photograph would prove helpful to anyone trying to imitate Emma Smith’s handwriting.
It appears that the police feel that there may be something to the theory that Hofmann was planning a forgery of the book of Lehi. The Deseret News for October 23, 1985, reported:
One of the scenarios Willoughby admitted police are seriously investigating is the possibility that the Martin Harris letter, . . . may be forged and that it may be part of an elaborate scheme to set up a much larger forgery or scam. . . .
Police are investigating the possibility that the letter was forged by someone who later intended to forge pages from the 116 pages of missing Book of Mormon manuscript, known as the Book of Lehi—something police say would be worth millions of dollars. Many of those 116 pages are in Harris’ handwriting. . . .
“If (Hofmann) should just happen to come up with pages from the missing manuscript, they would be tested for authenticity against the Salamander letter,” said one police source. If the letter was forged, the manuscript “would be easier to authenticate. It would be worth millions.”
Police say physical evidence has been recovered that may corroborate that theory.
“You bet your bottom dollar,” said Willoughby when asked if police were seriously considering such a scenario.
As I will later show, Hugh Pinnock, of the First Quorum of Seventy in the Mormon church, admitted that he helped Mark Hofmann obtain a loan for $185,000 from First Interstate Bank so he could obtain the McLellin collection. Both Hofmann and Pinnock were interested in the lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon. Pinnock, in fact, had a lead with regard to the 116 pages which Hofmann was supposed to have been following up on. Mr. Pinnock claimed that “during the years of 1973 to 1976” he served as “mission president in Pennsylvania” While he was there, “two of our missionaries claimed to have traced out a lady that said she had them, or that her brother had them” (Salt Lake Tribune, October 27, 1985). The mission president who succeeded Pinnock “did some looking around for those 116 pages” but never found them. Hofmann was supposed to have picked up the trail after he found the Anthon transcript. In any case, it is possible that Hofmann could have discussed these missing pages with Pinnock. While I do not know that the book of Lehi had anything to do with the murders, this manuscript would be worth a tremendous amount of money. This, combined with the secrecy that would surround its transfer to the Mormon church, could very easily lead to disagreements and perhaps even to violence.
McLellin Deception
In the last issue of the Messenger we told that Mark Hofmann claimed he had obtained some documents known as the McLellin collection. He had mentioned these documents to Sandra on August 23, 1984. Four months later we received an anonymous letter (postmarked December 20, 1984). The letter contained this information:
I am writing you anonymously to tip you off to a cover up by the Mormon church and the document discover[er] Mark Hoffmann.
A few days ago Mark showed me the original actual Egyptian Papyrus of the round facsimile of the P. of G. P. It is in many pieces and is pasted onto a piece of heavy paper. There are pencil and ink drawings filling in the missing parts. There is another square piece of papyrus pasted on the same piece of paper. Mark told me not to tell anyone about this. He told me it would never be seen again after the church go[t] it. He is keeping a large color photograph.
This letter has been turned over to the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office. We do not know whether it was a genuine letter from someone concerned about the suppression of the document or whether it was written by Hofmann or one of his friends for the purpose of giving publicity to the McLellin collection and driving the price up.
In an article published by the Salt Lake Tribune on July 6, 1985, Dawn Tracy reported:
Mark Hofmann . . . said he located a collection— including Facsimile No. 2—that at one time belonged to William McLellin, an early Mormon apostle.
While we found evidence from letters written between 1872 and 1901 that Apostle McLellin did have a collection of documents, in the Messenger for August 1985, we wrote:
So far we have not found anything concerning McLellin having the original of Fac. No. 2. Although it has been alleged that McLellin may have stolen it from Joseph Smith in 1838, there is evidence that Smith still had it [in] 1842.
Although I cannot say for certain that Mark Hofmann never had any of Apostle McLellin’s papers, his claims now appear to be doubtful. Furthermore, there is strong evidence that he fabricated at least a portion of the so-called McLellin collection. As strange as it may seem, Kenneth Rendell, the man who authenticated the Salamander letter, appears to be the strongest witness against Hofmann with regard to this attempt to deceive.
Just before the bombings occurred, I had become very suspicious that Hofmann did not really have the McLellin collection. I felt that the documents which he claimed to have might be forgeries. I knew, however, that it would be very difficult to forge the fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri which Hofmann claimed were part of the McLellin collection. I decided to discuss the matter with the Mormon Egyptologist Edward H. Ashment. I told Mr. Ashment that we would have to be very careful about accepting the original of Fac. No. 2. I theorized that it might be possible for a person to obtain a real Egyptian hypocephalus that looked somewhat like the one Joseph Smith used for Fac. No. 2 in the Book of Abraham. The areas which did not agree with the drawing could be broken off or damaged. In this way, I reasoned, another piece of papyrus could be palmed off for the one owned by Smith. Mr. Ashment agreed that it might be possible to buy a hypocephalus, although it would be rather expensive.
While I do not know whether Mr. Hofmann ever actually obtained a hypocephalus, evidence now shows that he did, in fact, obtain some pieces of genuine Egyptian papyrus which he tried to palm off as part of the Joseph Smith Papyri in the McLellin collection. According to the Deseret News, October 28, 1985, Kenneth Rendell “said he also sent two pieces of Egyptian papyri to Hofmann on a $10,500 consignment. . . . He said he found it strange that Hofmann wanted something from the first or second-century A. D. containing hieratic script rather than hieroglyphics, which are much more desirable to collectors. He said Hofmann stressed how secret this transaction had to be.” The Salt Lake Tribune for October 28, 1985, printed this revealing information:
Detectives removed pieces of papyrus from Mr. Hofmann’s home and burned-out automobile. Officers, acting on a search warrant, also took a piece of papyrus from a safe deposit box used by Mr. Christensen. . . .
Detectives believe that Mr. Hofmann, 31, fragmented either one of both of the 30-inch by 9-inch papyrus scrolls lent to him on consignment by Mr. Rendell in mid-September, and then showed the pieces to various investors, telling them that they belonged to the missing McLellin papers. Some investigators feel that Mr. Christensen, hired as an “authenticator” of these documents by an anonymous buyer, may have told Mr. Hofmann he intended to go to Mr. Rendell for authentication of the Egyptian script, thus threatening to expose the scam.
The papyrus was apparently broken in such a way that it would make it very difficult for an Egyptologist to read the text. This, of course, would help disguise where it came from. In any case, the Deseret News for October 31, 1985, reveals that Mark Hofmann took the fragmented papyrus to the very man with whom I had discussed the possibility of a papyrus switch:
Ashment said he was first contacted by Hofmann in July about the papyri fragments in the McLellin papers. Ashment later photographed one fragment during a meeting in the Church History Library. But Ashment said the fragment did not match previous descriptions of the four papyri purported to be in the McLellin papers. . . . Rendell said the fact that the papyrus was fragmented suggested some sort of illicit dealings. He said there could be no legitimate reason for fragmenting the papyrus because the individual pieces would be worth dramatically less than the whole, which he valued at about $6,000.
“The document in pieces is worth 10 percent of what it is as a complete unit,” Rendell said. “The piece that now remains is worth well under $1,000.”
It is certainly ironic that the very man who authenticated the Salamander letter would turn out to be the one who speaks of fraudulent dealings with regard to the McLellin collection. Mr. Rendell’s statement that breaking up the papyrus greatly diminishes its value is certainly true in any regular transaction. In Mr. Hofmann’s case, however, this would not necessarily be true. That fact that he represented it as a part of the Joseph Smith Papyri greatly enhanced its value. Wade Lillywhite claimed that Mark Hofmann contacted him before the killings and “offered to sell for $100,000 a papyrus document purported to be an ancient papyrus facsimile from the McLellin papers” (Salt Lake Tribune, October 22, 1985). From this it would appear that Mr. Hofmann was greatly inflating the price of common Egyptian papyri by claiming it was part of the McLellin collection. Brent Metcalfe, who was doing some work for Mark Hofmann, acknowledged that Hofmann even deceived him by telling him” that the papyrus once belonged to Apostle McLellin.
Church Involvement
Up until the time of the bombings, Hofmann’s friends were leaking out all kinds of information concerning what was in the McLellin collection and how damaging it would be to the Mormon church if it fell into the hands of the public. The church leaders apparently became very concerned that the material be suppressed. The Chicago Tribune for October 25, 1985, printed this interesting information:
SALT LAKE CITY—After questioning a leading authority on rare documents, police here are piecing together a theory that the wave of bombings that hit this city last week was part of a daring scheme to conceal an attempted blackmail of the Mormon church itself.
The scenario revolves around a plan to threaten the church leadership with a collection of artifacts deliberately concocted to appear particularly damaging to the credibility of Mormonism’s founder, Joseph Smith.
After the bombings occurred, a man by the name of Alvin Rust said that Mark Hofmann told him that he was selling the papers to Gordon B. Hinckley, of the First Presidency of the Mormon church:
Alvin Rust, who gave Mr. Hofmann $150,000 to purchase the documents last April, said Mr. Hofmann told him that President Hinckley had agreed to buy the documents for $300,000. . . .
It is apparent from Mr. Rust’s comments and the police investigation that, at some point, negotiations were under way between Mr. Hofmann and the church— either through a general authority or an intermediary buyer—that the LDS Church was attempting to buy the collection, a number of affidavits, letters and ancient Egyptian papyrus that may contain potential embarrassing materials for the church. (Salt Lake Tribune, October 23, 1985)
The Mormon church held a news conference on October 23 in which Gordon B. Hinckley admitted that Mark Hofmann had approached him about the McLellin collection but said that Hofmann “wanted to donate the collection to the church. There was no discussion of our purchasing it” (Salt Lake Tribune, October 27, 1985). However this may be, Mr. Hofmann not only obtained $150,000 from Mr. Rust, but he also approached the church claiming that he needed $185,000 to buy the collection. Apostle Dallin H. Oaks revealed the following:
In late June, Mark Hofmann and Steve Christensen told Elder Pinnock that Hofmann had an option to buy the McLellin collection from a man in Texas for about $185,000. . . .
Elder Pinnock asked me if I thought the church would loan Mark Hofmann $185,000 for this purpose. I said, emphatically not. President Hinckley was in Europe at the time of this conversation. No one else could or would approve such a transaction . . . to have the church involved in the acquisition of a collection at this time would simply fuel the then current speculation reported by the press that the church already had something called the McLellin collection or was trying to acquire it in order to suppress it. . . . We discussed whether the church would be interested in receiving the collection as a gift. It was my judgment that the church probably would at some future time, but in that event it had to be a genuine gift from a real donor. . . . Elder Pinnock inquired whether it would be appropriate to put him in touch with banking officials. I said I saw no harm in that provided it was clearly understood by all parties that the church was not a party or a guarantor and that Hugh Pinnock was not a party or a guarantor to such a loan. . . . The bank made the loan to Hofmann. Hofmann said he had acquired the McLellin collection in Texas and shipped it to Salt Lake City where it was stored in a safety deposit box. The loan came due and it was not paid by Hofmann. . . . Mark Hofmann at that point said or implied, he would have to sell the collection entirely or a piece at a time. This information reached me sometime in September; . . . Elder Pinnock mentioned at that time that he knew of at least two individuals who might be interested in purchasing the collection. Was there any harm in calling its availability to their attention? . . .
I was later informed that a buyer was interested but he wanted to remain anonymous. . . .
Sometime about the time of October Conference, the potential buyer phoned me. . . . He also asked whether the church would be interested in receiving it as a gift at some future time if he purchased it and later saw fit to give it. I said I supposed so, . . . (Salt Lake Tribune, October 27, 1985)
During the press conference, Apostle Oaks was asked the name of the potential buyer. He replied, “He wished to remain anonymous and the police are aware of his identity and I think it would not be ethical for me to make it aware except to say that he is a person who is a member of the church” (Ibid.). In a memorandum which Oaks distributed to the press, he said that on the day the two murders were committed he met with Hofmann and told him that he was glad that he was selling the collection to someone who was friendly to the church. On October 25, the Deseret News reported:
Salt Lake attorney David E. West, . . . was acting for an anonymous client who West said was contacted by Elder Hugh W. Pinnock of the First Quorum of the Seventy . . . several weeks ago and asked to buy the McLellin papers.
“My client didn’t have any commitment to donate the collection to the church, although that was his intention in a year or two. But he had a tax consideration. His purpose in purchasing the collection was the tax benefit he expected to get.”
The LDS Church was interested in acquiring the McLellin papers . . . but wanted someone to donate them. West said Elder Pinnock approached the client, a Salt Lake man, and asked if he was interested in buying the papers.
It seems obvious that the church wanted someone to buy the collection and keep it secret for some time. During this period the church leaders could deny that they had it. When the pressure subsided, the anonymous buyer could donate it to the church. Apostle Oaks indicated that the church would probably be interested in receiving the collection “at some future time.” After they received the collection, church leaders could still deny that they had bought it. If any McLellin collection ever really existed, it probably would have disappeared into the “black hole” of the First Presidency’s vault forever. At the church press conference, Apostle Oaks said that he told Hofmann the McLellin transaction had “been handled on a confidential basis, . . .” (Salt Lake Tribune, October 27, 1985). According to People magazine, November 4, 1985:
Steve Christensen . . . knew he was wading deeply into intrigue. “I feel like I’m living through an episode of Miami Vice,” he joked to a friend about a deal he was cutting. Four days later Christensen, 31, was dead . . .
The Salt Lake Tribune for October 25, indicated that Christensen wanted the closing of the sale to the anonymous buyer to be handled in a very unusual way with keys to safety deposit boxes being mailed later:
And, Mr. West noted, he did not believe from any conversation with Mr. Christensen that he had yet seen the documents.. . .
Mr. Christensen explained he had paid for safe deposit boxes and that when the deal was closed, the documents would be placed in the boxes and then he would mail the keys to the anonymous buyer after payment was made.
“I told him that was not acceptable. How was I to know [the documents] were ever put in the boxes?” he said.
About seven hours after Steven Christensen was murdered, Mark Hofmann met with Apostle Dallin Oaks. They discussed the possibility of completing the transaction with the anonymous buyer:
Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Council of the Twelve, said in a memorandum about his meeting with Mr. Hofmann the day of the homicides that he had a conversation “from a potential buyer” referred to him by Elder Hugh W. Pinnock, . . .
Elder Oaks also suggested to Mr. Hofmann that he “ought to get in touch with the buyer’s attorney, who undoubtedly would be wondering what would be happening in view of the news reports about Christensen’s death,” and reminded Mr. Hofmann that another person would have to be found to verify the authenticity of the documents—a task that was to be Mr. Christensen’s, according to Mr. West and the church reports. (Salt Lake Tribune, October 25, 1985)
In the Mormon church’s press conference, President Gordon B. Hinckley said that the church has a “mandate” to obtain important historical documents. Apostle Oaks, however, indicated that the church was “intent on not getting” the McLellin collection:
FRED MOSS: “Fred Moss with KBYU News. I just have a question. Why is the church so intent on getting the papers? Is it to secure them in the right hands so that they are not taken advantage of and make the church look bad? And where does the money come to purchase these letters?”
ELDER OAKS: “Can I answer the first part . . .”
PRESIDENT HINCKLEY: “Yes, go ahead.”
ELDER OAKS: “Again, why, you say, is the church so intent on getting the papers? I thought it was clear from my statement that the church was very intent on not getting the papers, so that there would be no misunderstanding about this. Could you rephrase that question?” (Salt Lake Tribune, Oct. 27, 1985)
From all I can learn about the McLellin transaction, it appears obvious that while church leaders may have been “intent on not getting” the McLellin collection in a way that would become known to the public, they were working behind the scenes to see that the papers were acquired secretly. On November 15, 1985, KUTV News did a story concerning the discovery of Steven Christensen’s diary. Christensen was quoted as saying the following about the McLellin collection: “Elder Pinnock has saved the Church time, money and effort in countering an avalanche of negative publicity should the collection have fallen into the wrong hands.”
Just two months before the bombings we had printed some important information about the purported McLellin collection and condemned Mr. Hofmann’s attitude with regard to the church suppressing documents. We said that this behavior was “deplorable, to say the least” (Salt Lake City Messenger, August 1985, page 10). In the Los Angeles Times for November 8, 1985, we read:
According to Flynn, who often worked with Hofmann on deals, church officials and Hofmann had heard that anti-Mormon groups were “hot on the trail” of the McLellin Collection. Flynn said Hofmann told him the papers were being held by a Texas bank as loan collateral.
“I was told by Mark that President Hinckley was anxious to get this stuff,” Flynn said in an interview. “Evidently, they had caught wind the ‘antis’ were after it, and they were anxious to get it here to Salt Lake as soon as possible.”
About the middle of November it was reported to me that KSL, a television station owned by the Mormon church, had run a brief story at noon concerning Hugh Pinnock offering Mark Hofmann an armored car, an airplane and cash to obtain documents. I discussed this matter with an employee of KSL, who told me that the information came from the diary of Steven Christensen. Mr. Christensen claimed that when Mr. Pinnock said he would provide an armored car and an airplane, Mark Hofmann declined the offer saying that this would not be necessary. Pinnock said that since the transaction was to be made on a day when the banks were to be closed, the individual receiving the cashier’s check would not be able to call and verify that the check was legitimate. He wondered, therefore, if Hofmann would prefer to take cash from a fund that was available. Hofmann, however, thought that this would not be necessary. The fact that Hugh Pinnock felt that an armored car might be necessary to carry out the transaction shows that a large amount of money must have been involved. I would certainly like to know more about this fund.
In any case, if the church leaders had not continued to engage in secret dealings with Hofmann, they would not have found themselves in the embarrassing situation they are in today. The McLellin fraud cost Hugh Pinnock a great deal of money. He claimed that although he was not “legally obligated to the bank,” he felt morally responsible to pay back the balance of the $185,000 loan that Hofmann owed to First Interstate Bank. On October 26, the Deseret News announced that he had repaid the loan out of his own money. This, of course, avoided the sticky situation of the bank taking Hofmann to court and the embarrassing testimony that might follow. It is also obvious that neither Pinnock nor the church would want Hofmann to become an enemy. Alvin Rust, the coin dealer who also lent Hofmann $150,000 to buy the McLellin collection, filed a lawsuit in which he claimed “he was defrauded of $132,000 in the deal for the McLellin papers” (Salt Lake Tribune, November 15, 1985). Hofmann had repaid Mr. Rust $17,900, leaving a balance of $132,100.
Rush to Oaks’ Office
That the Mormon church was involved in a highly secret operation (or operations) with Mark Hofmann became obvious at the church’s press conference. Apostle Oaks claimed that after the bombings began, three different men came to the Mormon Church Administration Building enquiring about what they should tell police:
. . . just before 3 p.m., Mark Hofmann came to the Church Administration Building and asked for Elder Pinnock, who was out at that time. . . . Hofmann came to my office and said he thought the police would question him. What should he say when they questioned him? And I said, “You should simply tell them the truth. You don’t have any reason to believe that this bombing has anything to do with you, do you? And simply tell them the truth.” And then, when he seemed to be questioning whether we should tell them about the McLellin collection, I said, “Look. That’s been handled on a confidential basis, but there’s a murder investigation under way. You should tell the police everything you know and answer every question—and I intend to do the same.”. . .
On Thursday, the following day, Shannon Flynn came to the Church Administration Building . . . I met with Flynn . . . In brief, Flynn wanted to know what he should say if he was questioned, and I told him to tell the truth, just as I had told Hofmann.”
On Friday, Alvin Rust came to the Church Office Building . . . He said, “I know some things. I’ve already talked to the police, but I know some more things.” And I said, “Whatever you haven’t told the police, tell them. Give them everything.”. . . (Salt Lake Tribune, October 27, 1985)
Alvin Rust was rather upset about Apostle Oaks’ comment concerning him:
“I didn’t run to the church asking what to say to the police,” said Mr. Rust. “I wanted to know about the McLellin papers. I love the church but Elder Oaks’ statement sounded funny.” (Ibid., October 24, 1985)
In any case, the fact that people would have to seek out an Apostle to know what to tell the police certainly reveals that there were secret activities going on. On November 18, the Salt Lake Tribune revealed that it was learned that church security officers had been a step ahead of the detectives in interviewing some of the people:
Early on, when it was learned that LDS Church officials had dealt with one of the victims, the prime suspect and key witness in the killings, the investigators’ lives suddenly became much more difficult. It was learned that some of the people detectives wanted to talk to had been interviewed first by church security officers, and nobody really knew how to approach church general authorities with questions about murder.
The Salt Lake Tribune for October 21, 1985, reported that “Friends of Mr. Hofmann have said he did regular business with President Gordon B. Hinckley, a member of the church’s First Presidency.” At the press conference, President Hinckley admitted that the church had acquired “40-some documents” that came through Mark Hofmann:
I first met Mark W. Hofmann in April of 1980 when he was brought to my office by officers of our Historical Department. . . . he had found what has come to be known as the “Anthon Manuscript” in Joseph Smith’s handwriting. . . .
On March 17, 1981, our Historical Department people again came with him to my office with the transcript of the blessing given by Joseph Smith to his son. . . .
Since that time, Mr. Hofmann has sold various documents to the church, . . . The church has acquired by purchase, donation, or trade 40-some documents, some of relatively little importance, and some of significance. (Salt Lake Tribune, October 27, 1985)
The Los Angeles Times, November 8, 1985, claimed that “most” of these documents have not been made public. At the press conference, Gordon B. Hinckley said that he bought Joseph Smith’s letter to Josiah Stowell from Mr. Hofmann. In the last issue of the Messenger we told how this letter, purported to have been written by Joseph Smith in 1825, was suppressed for two years by the church. The Tribune for October 20, 1985, reported that even the Mormon Archivist was not told about Hinckley making this purchase:
Don Schmidt, retired LDS Church archivist, said members of the First Presidency didn’t tell him or church historians about the 1825 letter. Nor did they ask him or anyone in his department to authenticate the letter.
It has been alleged that Gordon B. Hinckley bought the 1825 letter in his own name so that the church itself could deny ownership of it. Hinckley was asked about this matter at the press conference:
RICK SHENKMAN: Second thing is, there has been speculation that President Hinckley, that you personally were buying documents from Mark Hofmann, either out of your own funds or using the church funds. Did you in your negotiations with Hofmann ever personally acquire documents from him and were any of the payments ever made in cash?
PRESIDENT HINCKLEY: The payments were made by check and they are fully authenticated, receipted for, on two occasions. Two items. Nothing like the figures you have been hearing today. Relatively small. What’s that?
REPORTER: Excuse me, can you tell us what items were paid for from Hofmann?
PRESENT HINCKLEY: One was the Joseph Smith, Sr. letter to Josiah Stowell and the other, I do not remember.
REPORTER: Can you tell us the price of the letter?
PRESIDENT HINCKLEY: Well, I don’t know that I’m going to tell you the price, but I’m going to tell you that it was nothing like the kind of figures that you’ve talked of this morning. Nothing like that. (Salt Lake Tribune, October 27, 1985)
If it should turn out that some of Hofmann’s documents are forgeries, the Mormon church will suffer great embarrassment. Church leaders not only gave Hofmann money, but they also traded some of the church’s own “historical materials” for his documents (see statement of Gordon B. Hinckley in the issue of the Tribune cited above).
“Deep Throat”
In the Messenger for June 1985, we stated that “The ‘Salamandergate’ cover-up even has its own ‘Deep Throat’—that mysterious and unidentified person who had access to Nixon’s secrets and leaked them to the press.” This individual claims that he somehow got access to the first history of the Mormon church written by Book of Mormon witness Oliver Cowdery and that this history tells that it was Joseph Smith’s brother Alvin who first discovered the gold plates of the Book of Mormon through the use of a seer stone. Alvin, however, was driven away by a taunting salamander. Subsequently, the salamander appeared twice to Joseph Smith.
Although the person who gave this report does not say that the salamander was white or that it was transformed into a spirit, it has been used as evidence to support the Salamander letter. The argument, of course, is that the forger could not have known that the Mormon church had an extremely important document mentioning salamanders. Unfortunately, however, from what I can learn it seems very likely that Mark Hofmann and Lyn Jacobs would have had this information prior to the time that the Salamander letter appeared, and it is even possible that one of these two men could have been the mysterious “Deep Throat” who was interviewed by the Los Angeles Times. While some Mormons have tried to deny the existence of the Oliver Cowdery History, Joseph Fielding Smith, who became the 10th president of the church, claimed that the church had it. The Oregonian for May 21, 1985, reported:
Church spokesman Jerry Cahill said that Cowdery’s history had been in the church’s possession since around 1900 and probably is locked away in the private vault of the governing First Presidency. . . .
“. . . Obviously, it’s in the possession of the church, but what shelf it is on I don’t know,” he said.
I have found that as early as 1981 Hofmann and Jacobs were trying to obtain information concerning the contents of the First Presidency’s vault. During the same year, Hofmann claimed that there was a leak of material out of the vault. By 1983 he privately boasted that he had even seen the “seer stone” which is stored in the vault. During the same year Hofmann discussed the Oliver Cowdery History with a friend. In the last issue of the Messenger, we wrote:
There is evidence that Mark Hofmann has had special access to the First Presidency’s vault. (As we pointed out earlier, only the most trusted individuals can see documents from that vault.) On September 28, 1982, the 7th East Press reported that since the discovery of the Anthon transcript, Hofmann has “enjoyed privileged access to otherwise restricted Church archive material, including the First Presidency’s vault. One reason for this privileged access, Hofmann thinks, is the fact that ‘I am not a historian. I’m not going to write an expose of Mormonism.’”
Through his discoveries and knowledge of documents, Mr. Hofmann has worked himself into the innermost circle of Mormon historians.
To my knowledge, only Brent Metcalfe and Los Angeles Times reporter John Dart know the identity of “Deep Throat.” Mr. Metcalfe says that he is one of his friends. While we know that Hofmann is a close friend of Metcalfe, this is not conclusive because Metcalfe has other friends who could have gained access to the vault. John Dart has agreed not to reveal the identity of the man. Therefore, he would neither confirm nor deny that it was Hofmann or Jacobs. If further investigation should establish that Hofmann, Jacobs or even a close friend of these two men is “Deep Throat,” then we would have to take a serious look at the possibility that there was a very treacherous scheme to defraud the Mormon leaders by using their own documents. Deep Throat could have obtained access to the Cowdery History and found that it mentioned salamanders. This, of course, would have provided the important element needed to produce the Salamander letter. Since some of the top Mormon leaders and scholars may have been aware that the Cowdery History mentioned salamanders, they would have taken this as evidence that the Salamander letter was authentic. A forger who had access to materials from the First Presidency’s vault and the Church Archives would have been in an excellent position to produce blackmail-like documents which the Mormon leaders would be willing to buy up in an effort to save the church from embarrassment.
It could, of course, be argued that the Oliver Cowdery History does not mention salamanders, but if this is the case, why has the church failed to produce it so that the false story about it could be squelched? In any case, there certainly must be something very embarrassing in this history that keeps the church leaders from bringing it to light.
A Cover-Up
On November 19, 1985, Brent Metcalfe, who worked as a historical researcher for Mark Hofmann appeared on a television show broadcast by KUED. Mr. Metcalfe claimed he had new and important evidence which helped verify the Salamander Letter. This was an inscription found in an 1830 printing of the Book of Common Prayer. Although the inscription is neither signed nor dated, Mr. Metcalfe claims that Dean Jessee’s preliminary analysis of it demonstrates that it is in the same handwriting that appears in the Salamander Letter. There is a signature at the front of the book, but it is not that of Martin Harris. The signature is that of Nathan Harris. It has been claimed that Nathan was Martin Harris’ brother, but I have not found that he had a brother by that name. Martin Harris’ father was named Nathan and Martin’s brother Emer also had a son by that name. The book has a date of “1833” written at the front and the words “Kirtland, Ohio.” Both Martin Harris’ father and his nephew were living during the year 1833. In any case, the inscription attributed to Martin Harris reads as follows: “If this book should wander and you this book should find please to kindly remember that what you hold is mine.”
It has been claimed that Mormon-owned Deseret Book has had the book since 1971, and that Mark Hofmann could not possibly have had access to it until after the Salamander Letter was discovered. Unfortunately, employees at Deseret Book have been instructed to keep quiet about this book, and therefore I was unable to learn how they knew that Hofmann had no access to it. In any case, Sandra and I had access to a good xerox copy of the inscription for a few minutes and agreed that it is remarkably similar to the handwriting found in the Salamander letter. I am looking forward to obtaining a good clear copy of the inscription so that I can make a more careful comparison.
In the meantime, there are a number of questions that need to be answered. To begin with, if the inscription was really written by Martin Harris, why didn’t he sign his name to it? It would be important, also, to know if Martin ever had the book in his possession. The inscription by the unknown hand says, “this book . . . is mine.” It is claimed that the book actually came down through Emer Harris’ descendants. Deseret Book is supposed to have the pedigree of the book, but employees refused to provide any information on the subject.
However this may be, if the handwriting in the book is verified to be the same as that found in the Salamander Letter, investigators will have to take a very close look at the book itself to see if there are any signs of foul play. It is known that Mark Hofmann obtained this book from Deseret Book before the bombings. On KUED, Brent Metcalfe said that “Mark had, in fact, purchased the book from Deseret Book who had it as early as 1971 . . .” He also said that “Mark Hofmann was, in fact, involved in the sale of it . . .” One person told us that Hofmann bought the book from Deseret Book in September 1985 and resold it to the Church Historical Department in October 1985.
The reader will remember that September was the very month that Hofmann bought the papyrus from Mr. Rendell and broke it up for the purpose of deception. Brent Metcalfe says that employees of Deseret Book recall that the poem “was in the book” before they sold it to Hofmann, but they “didn’t pay particular significance to it” because they didn’t know “who the handwriting” belonged to. It is clear, then, that nobody knew that the handwriting was of any real significance until after it was obtained by Mark Hofmann. I feel that this whole transaction is very suspicious. If I were a detective, I would want to take a close look at the book to see if a page has been removed or substituted at the back of the book. If there were a number of blank pages at the back of the book, one could remove the page with the poem on it and rewrite it on the next page in a handwriting like that found in the Salamander Letter. If there were no blank pages following the poem, it would be possible to obtain another old copy of the Book of Common Prayer and substitute a page. Moreover, it would be possible to substitute the entire book and add in the Nathan Harris material at the front of the book. A good forger would make the substitute copy look just like the original. The poem, of course, would have the same words, but the writing would be changed to look like that in the Salamander Letter. It is doubtful that anyone who had seen the original book would remember what the original handwriting looked like. The forger, of course, would not be able to add the signature of Martin Harris after the poem because it would give the whole scheme away. It would, however, at least give the impression that handwriting that looked like that in the Salamander letter had been found in a book which had a pedigree which could be traced to Harris’ family. I do not, of course, know that this is what happened, but I feel that in view of what Mark Hofmann did to the papyrus, we must take a hard look at everything that passed through his hands.
There is something else that I feel I must relate which casts a very bad light on the new discovery. That is that both Mark Hofmann and Brent Metcalfe previously claimed that there was a Book of Mormon inscribed with the longest known sample of Martin Harris’ handwriting and also bearing his signature underneath it. Why, I ask, would they use an unsigned poem if an inscription bearing Harris’ signature had been located?
This inscription was originally mentioned by Mark Hofmann himself months before the Salamander Letter was supposed to have been discovered. The inscription was reported to have been found in an early edition of the Book of Mormon printed in England. Mr. Hofmann mentioned this matter to a scholar on May 8, 1983. This fact was recorded on a piece of paper that very day, and this piece of paper is still in existence. The remarkable thing about the conversation is that Mark Hofmann mentioned the contents of the inscription as containing a statement that Martin Harris had printed the Book of Mormon with his own money. This is a very important parallel to the Salamander Letter which has Harris writing about “the book of Mormon which I had printed with my own money—”
On December 10, 1983, which was after the discovery of the Salamander Letter, Mark Hofmann spoke to the same man about the inscription and the important parallel to the text of the Salamander Letter. In addition to this information being recorded in a contemporary note, I distinctly remember that it was relayed to me. From that time I looked forward to seeing the purported Martin Harris inscription.
In November 1984, after Brent Metcalfe had worked for Steven Christensen as a historical researcher who was attempting to validate the Salamander letter, he came to my house and tried to convince me that my criticism of the Salamander Letter was of no value because he had in his possession a photocopy of Martin Harris’ inscription in the early edition of the Book of Mormon printed in England. Mr. Metcalfe claimed that he had personally compared this with the Salamander Letter and found the handwriting to be identical. In the light of this evidence, he felt that I was foolish to continue criticizing the letter.
When the Mormon History Association met in May 1985, I was expecting Dean Jessee to produce this inscription as his main piece of evidence. Instead, however, he showed slides of samples of Martin Harris’ signature. Although he had one document containing four words and a signature supposed to have been written by Martin Harris, he did not use the longest inscription purported to be in Martin Harris’ handwriting. I was disturbed that this inscription was missing and asked Brent Metcalfe about it. His reply was something to the effect that Jessee had not received it in time to include it in his study. I assumed, therefore, that it was going to be used later. After some time had passed, I asked Mr. Metcalfe again why Dean Jessee was still not referring to this inscription. He replied that Jessee felt that it was unwise to use a photocopy. He wanted to see the original book to be certain that it was not a forgery. Metcalfe said he had the information telling of the book’s location at his home somewhere and was trying to locate it.
On August 24, 1985, I directly asked Mark Hofmann concerning the inscription. He replied that he had never heard of it. I could not imagine that Hofmann would forget the very best evidence for the authenticity of the Salamander Letter. In any case, the scholar Mr. Hofmann had spoken to on at least two occasions concerning the inscription was present during the conversation. Hofmann evidently remembered that he had told him the story, and his memory started to improve. He said that a man by the name of Jerry Kelly might be able to help me locate the book. Hofmann then asked me how I had learned about the inscription. I told him that Brent Metcalfe had told me he had a photocopy. For just a moment, Hofmann seemed to be angry. He regained his composure, however, and said that Mr. Metcalfe always shared with him but had not told him about the photocopy. I replied that Metcalfe was very reluctant to share anything with me, and yet he had told me about it. Later Metcalfe told me that Hofmann talked to him about his mentioning the photocopy to me. He did not reveal what Hofmann had said.
After the bombings (November 13, 1985), Brent Metcalfe came to our home again and tried to convince me of the authenticity of the Salamander Letter. I reminded him of the conversation we had had before about the Martin Harris inscription in the Book of Mormon. To my surprise (Sandra was also present during the conversation), Mr. Metcalfe completely denied that he had ever told me that he had a photocopy of it or had ever seen the inscription. He said that he was still looking for the notes which told where the original book was located. I was absolutely astounded at his answer. My first conversation with him concerning this subject is indelibly written on my mind. Mr. Metcalfe did, in fact, tell me that he had a photocopy and that he had personally compared it with the Salamander Letter and found that the handwriting was identical. He even spoke to me concerning the identical formation of one of the letters found in both documents. Furthermore, I asked him at that time if I could obtain a copy of his photocopy. His reply was that that would not be possible. His response on November 13, 1985, was also contrary to what he told me in our third conversation on the subject. This was that Dean Jessee had said the photocopy could not be used for comparison. They would need to obtain the original book. I really do not know what the truth is about this matter. I feel, however, that there are three possible explanations as to why the purported inscription has not been brought to light.
One, that it is a forgery that may not pass the critical examination of experts. Perhaps the proper ink was not used or the signature was not just right. It could even be possible that the inscription did not really appear in a book. All one would have to do is obtain a photocopy of the front portion of an early English printing of the Book of Mormon and then add an inscription on the photocopy. If the photocopy were then recopied, it (the second copy) would give the impression that the inscription was in the original book. If this were the case, no original book could be produced. This might explain why Mark Hofmann was upset that Brent Metcalfe had told me about the photocopy and why he had a talk with Metcalfe about the matter. Hofmann would have known that I would be pressuring him and the researchers to produce the original book so that the inscription could be verified. If no such book existed, it would put Hofmann in an embarrassing position. On the other hand, if the inscription does exist in a book and is a forgery which could be detected, it might destroy the Salamander Letter. The reason for this is that it was supposed to be in existence months prior to the discovery of the Salamander Letter, and there is no way that the forger of the inscription could have known what Harris’ handwriting would have looked like. (The reader will remember that Mr. Metcalfe said the handwriting was identical.) It is interesting to note that Mark Hofmann claimed that when he was on his “mission to Bristol, England, I bought several early copies of the Book of Mormon in old bookstores” (Sunstone Review, September 1982, page 16).
Two, it is possible, of course, that the inscription is really in a book and that it is a genuine Harris inscription. It could, in fact, have been used as a pattern to forge the Salamander Letter. If this were the case, the reason for suppressing the inscription would be that the larger the sample of real Martin Harris handwriting available to handwriting experts, the more likely they would be to detect the forgery. Writing in Utah Holiday, December 1985, page 84, Paul Larsen gave this interesting information:
The most crucial test is handwriting. Given the foregoing, it was the only test that could have actually authenticated the salamander letter—or, in other words, verified that it is what it is purported to be—a letter from Martin Harris. . . . With the salamander letter that presents a problem, since virtually nothing verified as written in Martin Harris’s hand is known to exist. . . .
Maureen Casy Owens, a handwriting expert with the Chicago police, and former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, was asked by Utah Holiday if a page of writing could be authenticated from a comparison signature alone. “No,” she responded without hesitation. “It would require a minimum of two pages of the subject’s handwriting.”
The consensus of handwriting experts contacted by Utah Holiday is in unequivocal agreement on the question. In fact, there is, according to those experts, no way to authenticate the text of the document, given the lack of Martin Harris’s handwriting.
“I did not authenticate that the document came from Martin Harris’s hand,” Kenneth Randall now says. “That would have been impossible with what little I had. I didn’t even authenticate the signature, even though there were several Harris signatures, because I didn’t know for a fact that they were Harris signatures. All my report said was that the handwriting was consistent with the handwriting of the time and that there were no signs of forgery.”
Even though Brent Metcalfe is very intelligent and knows a great deal about Mormon documents, he is not a handwriting expert. Mark Hofmann, therefore, could have shown him a photocopy of such an inscription without fear of detection. Turning the inscription over to a handwriting expert, however, would be an entirely different matter.
Three, it is possible that no such inscription ever existed in a Book of Mormon and that Mr. Hofmann never had a photocopy. This explanation would not only cast serious doubt upon the honesty of both Metcalfe and Hofmann, but it would also present a serious problem to those who believe in the authenticity of the Salamander Letter. If the inscription does not really exist, then it is evident that Mark Hofmann was daydreaming about a Martin Harris inscription months before the Salamander letter was even discovered.
Strange as it may seem, this imaginary inscription contained the same information about Harris publishing the Book of Mormon with his own money that was discovered later in the Salamander Letter. The serious implications of this matter cannot be ignored. If the inscription does not really exist, then one has to seriously consider the possibility that Mr. Hofmann himself could have created the text of the Salamander letter. It is believed by some that Hofmann’s handwriting is too poor to allow him to make a forgery that would pass examination. This may be true, but he had association with at least one man who is reported to be skilled in calligraphy. Furthermore, Hofmann had thousands of dollars to work with and could have hired a real expert to do the job.
Whatever the case may be, it is apparent that what should be the best evidence for the Salamander Letter (if it does, in fact, exist) is being covered up. Instead of bringing forth the signed inscription which also contains an important parallel to the Salamander Letter, Brent Metcalfe and Mark Hofmann have put forth a purported inscription which has neither a signature nor a date. Brent Metcalfe was the only full-time historical researcher who worked for Steven Christensen in authenticating the Salamander Letter. He later worked for Mark Hofmann. Mr. Metcalfe claims that somewhere in his material he has the information concerning the location of the Book of Mormon which has Harris’ signed inscription in it. To me it seems incredible that a historical researcher would not spend the time to locate the most important evidence. I feel that both Brent Metcalfe and Mark Hofmann owe us an explanation.
With the questions that are being raised by the investigation of Mark Hofmann, one would think that if the Salamander Letter is really genuine, Lyn Jacobs would now reveal to the public where it came from. Brent Metcalfe, however, says that the more pressure that is put on Jacobs, the more adamant he is in his refusal to reveal the source.
One man I talked to said that the FBI would be able to date the Salamander Letter by the Carbon 14 method and find out exactly when it was written. An FBI agent, however, stated that this was impossible. The plus or minus factor is too large to provide any meaningful results when a letter only dates from the 19th century. In his article in Utah Holiday, Paul Larsen has presented some very revealing information concerning the authentication of the Salamander Letter:
How specifically, then, can testing of paper and ink be used to date a document?
“Not very,” says Salt Lake forensic document examiner George Throckmorton, of Independent Forensic Laboratories. . . . “All we can determine with ink and paper is if they are consistent with what was used at the time the document was purportedly written. . . .” (Utah Holiday has learned that the paper in the salamander letter was a cotton rag, very common to that day.)
“Cotton rag paper was introduced to Europe from the Orient in about 1100 A.D.,” Throckmorton says. “And it’s still available today. So that’s basically your age range with the paper. It could have been made one year ago or eight hundred years ago. There’s no way to say for sure. If a modern chemical somehow got into it and was detected we would know it was recent.”
Bill Crueger, formerly of the Institute of Paper Chemistry, Appleton, Wisconsin, and considered among the most knowledgeable experts in the country on paper, agrees, “Whatever one man can make another man can, too.” The evaluation of paper, Crueger told Utah Holiday, is “not black and white. . . . There’s a number of people around who make that sort of paper [cotton rag]—it’s quite an art. It’s not illegal to make it. It’s what you do with it afterwards that counts.”
Ink is “the same thing” claims Throckmorton. “Your iron gallotanic inks [the kind used in the salamander letter] have been around since the seventh century. And they’re still around today. Even if they weren’t, they’re easy to make.”. . .
“All that the ink and paper tests tell you in a case like the salamander letter is whether that document’s ink and paper were consistent with the inks and papers of 1830,” says Throckmorton. “But, you see, the same ink and paper are also consistent with 1985, since both are still available and in use.”. . .
But can’t ink and paper be tested for signs of aging? Both take on certain characteristics as they are exposed to the elements over the years. Paper may yellow or brown and become brittle. Iron gallotanic ink oxidizes and sometimes takes on a brown-reddish tint.
“You can [artificially] age them both,” says Bill Flynn, a forensic document examiner with the Arizona Crime Laboratory. “You can oxidize something by putting it into a pressurized oxygen atmosphere. That would age both the paper and the ink.” Heat can also be used. . . .
Soon an additional verdict may be rendered by the FBI, which has employed . . . one of the most experienced forensic document examiners in the country to look at the letter. He may, of course, be stymied by the same difficulties that plagued Rendell and his team of examiners. (Utah Holiday, December 1985, pages 85-86)
New Discovery
As we were preparing to publish this issue of the Messenger, the Salt Lake Tribune (November 28, 1985) reported: “The Tribune has located what may be the McLellin collection, . . .” The discovery of this collection was made possible because of research done by Wesley P. Walters some years ago. Mr. Walters obtained a copy of a letter written by J. L. Traughber on August 21, 1901, from the New York Public Library. Mr. Traughber lived in Mobile, Tyler County, Texas. Michael Marquardt made a typed copy of a portion of this letter, and we printed it on page 10 of the August 1985 issue of the Salt Lake City Messenger:
“I have some little manuscript books written by Dr. W. E. McLellin. I also have his journal for parts of the years 18312-3-4-5-6. I have over thirty letters compactly written by Dr. McLellin containing much on the subject of Mormonism.”
We felt that it was possible that the collection could have been preserved in the “area of Texas” where Mr. Traughber had lived. Dawn Tracy, a reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune followed up the lead furnished by Mr. Traughber’s letter and found at least a portion of the McLellin collection in the possession of his son, H. O. Traughber. While the collection does not appear to have the 1831-36 diaries, it does have the “little manuscript books written by Dr. W. E. McLellin.” I have compared the handwriting of the documents shown in photographs published in the Tribune with copies of letters written by McLellin. Although I am no expert, it does appear to me that the documents bear the handwriting of McLellin. Furthermore, the contents of the material appears to be exactly what one would expect from the hand of McLellin. For example, in his list of 55 reasons he could not be a Utah Mormon, McLellin wrote; “35. Polygamy. Mrs Joseph Smith, the widow of the Prophet, told me in 1847 that she knew her husband, the Prophet practiced both adultery and polygamy.” This agrees with a letter McLellin wrote to Joseph Smith’s son. The letter is dated July, 1872, and is preserved in the RLDS Archives. This letter agrees in stating that McLellin talked with Joseph Smith’s widow concerning adultery in 1847:
Now Joseph I will relate to you some history, and refer you to your own dear Mother for the truth. You will probably remember that I visited your Mother and family in 1847, and held a lengthy conversation with her, . . . I told her some stories I had heard. And she told me whether I was properly informed. Dr. F. G. Williams . . . told me that at your birth your father committed an act with a Miss Hill—a hired girl. Emma saw him, and spoke to him. He desisted, but Mrs. Smith refused to be satisfied. He called in Dr. Williams, O. Cowdery, and S. Rigdon to reconcile Emma. But she told them just as the circumstances took place. He found he was caught. He confessed humbly, and begged forgiveness. Emma and all forgave him. She told me this story was true!! Again I told her I heard that one night she missed Joseph and Fanny Alger. she went to the barn and saw him and Fanny in the barn together alone. She looked through a crack and saw the transaction!!! She told me this story too was verily true. (Letter from William E. McLellin to Joseph Smith III, dated July 1872, typed copy)
Unlike most of the documents discovered by Mark Hofmann, the documents Mr. Traughber has in his possession have a good pedigree stretching back to McLellin himself. There seems to be no reason, therefore, to doubt that the documents are genuine. While most of the material in H. O. Traughber’s possession is in the handwriting of his father, it still throws important light on the subject because it quotes from the original papers of Apostle McLellin. For instance, Traughber quoted McLellin as questioning the restoration of the priesthood by angels:
I joined the church in 1831. For years I never heard of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver. I heard not of James, Peter and John doing so. These things were gotten up in after years in order to sustain them in their false priesthoods. (Salt Lake Tribune, December 4, 1985)
The reader will notice the similarity between this quotation and a statement that appears in the letter McLellin wrote to Joseph Smith’s son in 1872.
But as to the story of John, the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver on the day they were baptized: I never heard of it in the church for years, altho I carefully noticed things that were said. And today I do not believe the story.
J. L. Traughber’s papers are extremely important in showing how unlikely it is that Mark Hofmann could have found the large collection of McLellin material he spoke of in the hands of one person in Texas. In one of the documents, Mr. Traughber indicated that the McLellin collection was scattered and some of it was even burned by his wife:
After the death of Dr. McLellan, his widow broke up housekeeping and left Independence, Mo., where they had been living from 1869 to 1883. As she had no particular use for them, she burnt a great many of the Doctor’s papers, and gave away others to persons who asked for them.
I believe that Mr. Hofmann undoubtedly made up the idea of a large and important McLellin collection after reading some of McLellin’s letters located in the RLDS Church Archives. On August 23, 1984, Hofmann told Sandra that he was aware of papers concerning McLellin which were possessed by that church. In McLellin’s letters he speaks of some items he had in his possession. In the July 1872 letter, for instance, McLellin stated:
Now all L.D.Sism claims that Joseph Smith translated the Book [of Mormon] with Urim and Thummim, when he did not even have or retain the Nephite or Jaredite interpreters but translated the entire Book of M. by means of a small stone. I have certificates to that effect from E. A. Cowdery (Oliver’s widow), Martin Harris, and Emma [Smith] Bidamon. And I have the testimony of John and David Whitmer.
From information obtained from Mark Hofmann, Brent Metcalfe helped an LDS Institute teacher compile a list of the material found in the McLellin collection. This list mentions the identical items contained in the McLellin letter: “d. Affidavits he collected about translation of Book of Mormon process: Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Emma Smith.”
The evidence provided by the papers in Mr. Traughber’s possession seems to show that although Mr. Hofmann knew from McLellin’s 1872 letter that he had these statements about the translation of the Book of Mormon, he never actually obtained them. Brent Metcalfe said on KUED that it was his understanding that some of the affidavits dated back to 1831 and that the one by Emma Smith cast doubt on Joseph Smith’s story of his first vision.
Another report given by a local television station claimed that Steven Christensen wrote in his diary that the Emma Smith affidavit was very damaging to the Mormon church. The Traughber papers seem to demonstrate that Hofmann did not know what the Emma Smith statement contained and that he was probably trying to raise the price of the collection by claiming that there was embarrassing information found in it. If Mr. Hofmann really had a document with Emma Smith’s name on it which was exceptionally damaging to the church, I would be inclined to believe that it was a forgery created within the last few years. In any case, Dawn Tracy reported that J. L. Traughber was shown the Emma Smith affidavit by William E. McLellin and copied it “for a book.” The entry originally written by Emma Smith reads:
The first that my husband translated was translated by the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost. After that, he used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather of a dark color. March 29, 1870. (Salt Lake Tribune, December 3, 1985)
When I read Emma Smith’s statement in the Tribune, I felt that it had a familiar ring. In discussing the matter with Michael Marquardt, he correctly identified it as being a quotation out of a letter Emma Smith wrote to Mrs. Emma Pilgrim. We had printed this statement many years ago from an article by James E. Lancaster in the Saints’ Herald, an RLDS publication. It is found in Mormonism—Shadow of Reality? page 42:
Now the first that my husband translated, was translated by the use of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris LOST, after that he USED A SMALL STONE, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color. . . .
The reader will see that the statement is essentially the same as Traughber’s copy made from McLellin’s collection. Michael Marquardt gives the date of the letter as March 27, 1870. Richard Van Wagoner and Steve Walker give the same date in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1982, page 67, n. 78. Dawn Tracy’s article lists the date as “March 29, 1970,” but it is very likely that someone has just misread a seven for a nine. William E. McLellin seems to have copied the item from Emma Smith’s letter to Mrs. Pilgrim. Traughber, in turn, copied it into his manuscript and Dawn Tracy recopied it for publication in the Tribune. In the letter to Mrs. Pilgrim, Joseph Smith’s widow even asked about Mr. McLellin. This would indicate that Mrs. Pilgrim was in touch with McLellin. In his letter of July 1872, McLellin referred to the statements he had collected concerning the translation of the Book of Mormon as “certificates.” It may be that when he copied the material from the letter, he had Mrs. Pilgrim certify that it was a correct copy. This might explain why Emma Smith’s statement was later referred to as an affidavit.
While it is true that the statement that Joseph Smith used “a small stone” to translate the Book of Mormon is damaging to the Mormon position since it links Joseph Smith to magic, the fact that it had already been published in Mormonism—Shadow of Reality? and other publications would make it of very little value. That Steven Christensen was so worried about the “affidavit” seems to show that Mr. Hofmann had misrepresented its contents.
The statement of Oliver Cowdery’s widow, which Hofmann claimed he had found, was quoted by McLellin himself in a letter written in February 1870. It has already been published by Van Wagoner and Walker in their article in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1982, page 51:
I cheerfully certify that I was familiar with the manner of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon. He translated the most of it at my Father’s house. And I often sat by and saw and heard them translate and write for hours together. Joseph never had a curtain drawn between him and his scribe while he was translating. He would place the director in his hat, and then place his face in his hat, so as to exclude the light.
H. O. Traughber insists that Mark Hofmann never contacted him. Nevertheless, he was summoned to appear before a grand jury investigating the bombings. Whether he can travel to Salt Lake City is in question because his wife has suffered a stroke.
Mr. Hofmann’s attempt to make the contents of the McLellin collection seem very sensational must have been motivated by a desire to extort more money from those who wished to keep it hidden from public view. His claim that some of the Joseph Smith Papyri were in the McLellin collection undoubtedly stems from a rumor that some of the papyri had been found in Texas. We had reported this in the Salt Lake City Messenger in May 1971. We quoted from a letter which related that Dr. Hugh Nibley had told someone that “there was more papyri found and that it was discovered in Texas. . . . Mention was made by Nibley that Facsimile No. 2 was among the papyri.” At first Hofmann only claimed that he had the original of Fac. No. 2 in the Book of Abraham and some fragments of papyri. I have recently learned, however, that just before the bombings he also asserted that he even had the original of Fac. No. 3. Earlier in this newsletter I related that the Tribune reported Hofmann offered to sell Wade Lillywhite “an ancient papyrus facsimile from the McLellin papers.” Mr. Hofmann wanted “$100,000” for this document. I assumed, of course, that this was Fac. No. 2, but when I called Mr. Lillywhite, he informed me that it was really Fac. No. 3 that Hofmann offered him!
The reader will remember that Mr. Hofmann broke up the papyrus which Kenneth Rendell gave him on consignment. Randall claimed that because the piece was damaged, it would be “worth well under $1,000.” Hofmann had told Brent Metcalfe that this fragment was part of the McLellin collection. The Deseret News, November 30, 1985, reported that “Ashment said, that Metcalfe had offered that papyrus fragment to a West Coast investor for about $30,000.” The same article says:
Many in the historical community attribute to Metcalfe their belief that Hofmann had the McLellin collection and was about to sell it. A number of people told the Deseret News that Metcalfe had told them since January that he had seen photographs of the collection or that he knew that the contents were controversial. Metcalfe told the Deseret News after the bombings that he had believed Hofmann had the collection and that it was valuable. However, he said, all his information came from Hofmann and he had never seen the collection or photographs of it himself. [Deseret News, November 30, 1985]
On November 28, 1985, the Deseret News printed this information:
Police, however, are convinced Hofmann was involved in double dealings: selling documents he never had to different buyers under the pretext each was buying a valuable colelction [sic].
“He took one buyer with him to New York to buy the documents and even showed him shipping receipts,” the police official said. “He then told another buyer the documents were in Texas. He can’t have it both ways.”
Alvin Rust, a Salt Lake coin dealer whose son accompanied Hofmann to New York to buy the papers, said Thursday he has believed all along that Hofmann has not been honest in his business dealings. . . .
“Why was he claiming to have pieces of papyri from the McLellin papers when he in fact bought it from someone else?” the police official asked.
Conspiracy Theories
Since the bombings, many theories have been put forth to explain what happened. Some people feel that the murders are related to the financial problems Steven Christensen and J. Gary Sheets had with their investment firm CFS Financial Corporation. Another theory is that a Mormon (or Mormons) committed the bombings to retaliate against those who were bringing embarrassing church documents to light. Some even feel that the church itself is involved in the murders. This idea seems to be very popular with those who are opposed to the church. While I must agree that the church was deeply involved in the financial transactions which may have led to the murders, it is rather hard to believe that the leadership of the church would be so foolish as to handle the situation in such a manner. The use of bombs, of course, brought immediate attention to everything church leaders wanted to conceal. It has brought a flood of reporters to Salt Lake City and a great deal of unfavorable publicity to the church. Anything, of course, is possible in such a bizarre case, and if we do find any evidence pointing to the church, we will certainly pursue it.
Still another theory is that the murders were committed by anti-Mormons or liberal Mormons who wanted to stop the sale of the McLellin documents and bring the whole clandestine operation to light. Under this scenario, the first bomb would have prevented the transfer of the documents because Mr. Christensen was supposed to authenticate and appraise them. Former Church Archivist Donald Schmidt was called in the second day to perform Christensen’s task, but the bomb in Hofmann’s car again prevented the transfer of the documents. This scenario would seem to require either intensive surveillance or a traitor among the friends of those involved in the transaction. No one was more concerned about security than Mark Hofmann, and it is highly unlikely that anyone could have learned when he was going to transfer the documents without inside information or electronic surveillance.
The scenario suggested by police is that Hofmann and possibly an accomplice (or accomplices) planted the bombs that killed Mr. Christensen and Mrs. Sheets. They feel that the next day Hofmann was in the process of transporting a third bomb (either to plant it or to get rid of it) when the explosion occurred. At first it was reported that the bomb exploded under the car seat, but this report proved to be false. The injuries Mr. Hofmann suffered obviously did not come from a bomb exploding beneath him.
Furthermore, police claim to have a witness who saw the remains of the wrapping paper which surrounded the box in which the bomb was placed before the car burned up. It seems very unlikely that Mr. Hofmann would enter his car with a strange package setting on the seat after what had happened to the two bombing victims the day before. This is especially true in Hofmann’s case because he claimed his life had been threatened.
Now it may be possible that a package could have been placed on the seat in some way so that it could not easily be seen by Mr. Hofmann. The police, however, claim that they have testimony that Hofmann was carrying a package, and they feel that he was placing it on the seat when it exploded. At this time I do not know how good the evidence is that Hofmann brought the package into the car, but if this can be established, it would almost certainly show that he was guilty of the bombings. It could, of course, be possible that he received the package from someone else, but if that were the case, he would know who the murderer was and could have helped the police solve the crime.
However this may be, police claim that the bombs used were pipe bombs placed in shoe-box sized containers with brown wrapping paper around them. The names of the victims were written on the packages with a felt marking pen. The Deseret News, December 1, 1985, reported: “Police have maintained that Hofmann was injured by a bomb of his own making, and they claim their evidence is substantial. Following the Oct. 16 blast, investigators searched Hofmann’s car and recovered a number of items, including pieces of pipe, brown butcher paper, a felt marking pen and surgical gloves.” Whether the pipe, wrapping paper and marking pen involved in the bombings are identical with the items found in Hofmann’s car remains to be seen. In all fairness, however, I should say that there is always a possibility that someone else placed the items into the car to frame Mr. Hofmann.
One thing that is particularly troubling, however, is that police found a copy of a book telling how to make bombs in the possession of Hofmann’s associate Shannon Flynn. The Deseret News for October 23, 1985, reveals that Hofmann was with Flynn when the book was purchased and that this occurred just days before the bombings:
About eight months ago, Flynn accompanied Hofmann to purchase a machine gun, which both converted to a fully automatic weapon. Several days before the bombings, the pair purchased “Anarchists’ Cookbook,” a book on how to make bombs, from the Cosmic Aeroplane.
It is true, of course, that everyone who buys the Anarchists’ Cookbook does not actually make bombs. Brent Metcalfe, in fact, reports that he saw a copy of this book in the possession of Mormon church security when he worked there. The church has received many bomb threats and may have used the book to inform its personnel concerning the different types of bombs they might encounter. At any rate, it does seem strange that this book would be purchased just days before the bombings. On December 1, 1985, the Deseret News printed this information:
Hofmann’s attorney, Bradley Rich, said last week that it was his understanding that Hofmann and Shannon Patrick Flynn, 27, a friend and associate, had discussed building a bomb.
Hofmann and Flynn face federal charges of possessing a machine gun, but no charges have been filed in the bombings.
Flynn’s attorney, James Barber, also said his client obtained two blasting caps earlier this year, but the lawyer declined to say what Flynn did with them. Attorneys for both men said the blasting caps have nothing to do with the bombings.
To my knowledge, police have not yet established exactly what Hofmann’s motive would have been for killing both Steven Christensen and J. Gary Sheets’ wife. Police seem to feel, however, that Christensen may have come to the conclusion that Hofmann was trying to perpetrate a fraudulent deal with regard to the McLellin collection and that Hofmann killed him to prevent exposure. It is possible also that there could have been some tension between Christensen and Hofmann over the $185,000 loan from First Interstate Bank that Hofmann had not paid back. It is claimed, in fact, that “Shortly before the murders Christensen waited in his car several nights in front of Hofmann’s home trying to catch up with him” (People magazine, November 4, 1985, page 123). The Deseret News for December 8, 1985, reported that “Under pressure from Pinnock, Christensen had gone with Hofmann to collect a $20,000 check which was turned over to the bank.” According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Nov. 28, 1985, Shannon Flynn claimed that “at one point, Mark Hofmann and bombing victim Steven Christensen came to him [his?] home at 12:30 am. to pick up that $20,000 check.”
Furthermore, Christensen asked David E. West, the attorney representing the anonymous person who was supposed to buy the McLellin collection, to “add his name to the $185,000 check for Hofmann, . . .” (Deseret News, December 8, 1985). Christensen apparently wanted to be absolutely certain that Hofmann would use the check to pay his debt rather than use it for his own purposes. While Steven Christensen was undoubtedly justified in his actions, Mr. Hofmann probably felt that he was overbearing and may have resented his parental-like intrusion into his affairs. Under these circumstances it is easy to believe that there could have been friction between the two men. At this point, however, I have no evidence to show that this would have provided a sufficient motive for such a brutal murder.
While one could possibly theorize that Mark Hofmann would kill Steven Christensen so that he would be able to cash the $185,000 check without having to get his signature, we cannot prove that Hofmann knew that Christensen had asked for his name to be added to the check. Moreover, it is improbable that Hofmann could have obtained the check anyway unless he had some actual documents or forgeries that Donald Schmidt could have examined.
When it comes to the murder of Kathleen Sheets, I do not know of any reason why Mr. Hofmann would kill her. The package, however, was addressed to her husband, J. Gary Sheets and some have speculated that Hofmann was attempting to throw the investigation away from himself and towards the trouble Christensen and Sheets had with their investors at CFS Financial Corporation. In all fairness, however, it could be argued that a bomb was planted in Hofmann’s car to draw attention away from CFS.
There is another matter that should be considered with regard to J. Gary Sheets. This is the problem concerning a book about the Salamander Letter which never materialized. Before Mark Hofmann sold the Salamander Letter to Christensen, he was very concerned about its contents and how it should be presented to the world. After Christensen bought it, he apparently decided that he wanted it back. The Deseret News for December 8, 1985, claimed that:
Joe Robertson, Christensen’s close friend, Sheets’ son-in-law and a CFS employee, told the Deseret News that . . . Christensen told him he was approached by Hofmann, who asked to re-purchase the Harris letter at nearly twice the $40,000 Christensen had paid. “Steve wrestled with selling it back to Mark or giving it to the church.” Christensen told another friend that he donated the letter last April after learning that the church would like to have it.
While Steven Christensen had the Salamander Letter, he and his business partner, J. Gary Sheets, planned to publish a book about it. This undoubtedly made Mr. Hofmann very happy. One of Hofmann’s best friends, Brent Metcalfe, was appointed to do research for this important book. Unfortunately, however, Mr. Sheets became worried about the affect the book might have on the testimony of, Mormons who would read it. According to Linda Sillitoe, “J. Gary Sheets . . . scrapped the Harris letter project when the letter’s contents became known and controversy ensued. . . . The research was discontinued, Metcalfe was removed from the payroll and was asked to return the computer and printer Christensen bought to write the book” (Deseret News, December 8, 1985). The fact that Sheets stopped the project must have been rather disturbing to Mr. Hofmann. In addition, one of his closest friends, Brent Metcalfe, found himself entirely removed from a project which had meant a great deal to him. Hofmann, of course, later hired Metcalfe as a research historian. While most people were not aware that Mr. Sheets stopped the project, Mark Hofmann undoubtedly learned all about it from Brent Metcalfe. Hofmann was probably upset at both Christensen and Sheets for scrapping the Salamander book, but whether this could have played a part in the violence that followed is only a matter of speculation.
While charges still have not been filed against Mark Hofmann, police continue to maintain that he is the prime suspect. Mike Carter wrote:
Despite a polygraph test indicating Mark W. Hofmann told the truth when he said he had no involvement in the bombings that killed two people last month, officials involved in the investigation Wednesday said “all of our evidence points in that direction.”. . .
“We never close our eyes to the possibility that there may be other persons involved or responsible for the killing,” said Salt Lake County Sheriff Pete Hayward. “The reason we have focused our investigation on Mr. Hofmann was because that was where the developments of the case have led us.”
Salt Lake Police Chief Bud Willoughby agrees. (Salt Lake Tribune, November 21, 1985)
While it seems very hard for me to believe that a quiet and mannerly man like Mark Hofmann could be involved in such violent crimes, I have often heard of people who lived very peaceful lives suddenly going berserk over small matters and killing innocent people. Sometimes people keep things within them until they suddenly explode. One thing we do know about Mr. Hofmann is that he was under a great deal of pressure at the time of the murders. Alvin Rust, who loaned Hofmann $150,000 to buy the McLellin papers, claimed that at one point Hofmann came to his shop at the point of tears and told him he was about to lose everything. Hofmann was not only double dealing with regard to the McLellin papers but was apparently doing the same on a Charles Dickens manuscript:
One group, working through Salt Lake City investment counselor Thomas Wilding, gave Mr. Hofmann $300,000 to purchase a rare handwritten manuscript of “The Haunted Man.” At least two other individuals gave $110,000 and $175,000 respectively for a piece of the manuscript, apparently without knowledge of the other investment deal. . . . Mr. Wilding, who said he feels his investors are victims of a fraud, said there is liable to be litigation over the Dickens book as investors attempt to regain their losses. (Salt Lake Tribune, November 8, 1985)
According to the Tribune, November 1, 1985, the notes for $300,000 “came due Oct. 14”—the day before the homicides.
Mr. Wilding said that Mr. Hofmann was to be penalized a total of $4,000 per day, plus interest, after that due date. . . . Mr. Hofmann also owed $185,000 to First Interstate Bank. . . . He also owed an additional $150,000 to Salt Lake City coin dealer Alvin Rust, . . .
Mark Hofmann was not only having a difficult time financially, but his dishonesty with regard to the McLellin collection was about to catch up with him. His entire reputation as a Mormon document dealer was at stake. Mr. Hofmann had already shown signs of irrational behavior when he broke up the Rendell papyrus for the purpose of deception. Under the mounting pressure, he could have decided to take more desperate action in an attempt to save himself from ruin.
One thing that really bothers me about the whole situation is that Mark Hofmann has refused to talk to police or to submit to a lie detector test administered by the police. His lawyers claim that he is not talking because the police have already made up their mind that he is the prime suspect. While it is certainly true that the police should have been more cautious in their statements to the press, Hofmann’s refusal to talk about the murders does not help the situation. If he is really innocent, then his silence is only tending to help the real murderer (or murderers) to remain at large and to increase the possibility that someone else will be killed. Even if he has no information about the real killer(s), an honest presentation of the facts could possibly help police redirect their investigation. Then they could focus their attention on more profitable areas. If, on the other hand, Hofmann is really guilty, then the less he says the harder it will be to convict him. His statements would only tend to incriminate him.
Although the evidence showing that Hofmann was guilty of fraudulent business dealings seems to be irrefutable, this does not necessarily mean that he is a murderer. It could be possible that he is being framed. While his silence tends to make me suspicious, I will try to keep an open mind. The Bible says that “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him” (Proverbs 18:13). If anyone has any relevant information with regard to this subject, I would appreciate hearing about it. This issue of the Messenger contains only a very sketchy account of the Mark Hofmann story. I am, however, working on a book on the subject.
While we are sending a free copy to everyone on our mailing list, it costs us about ten times as much postage to send an individual copy which does not go bulk rate. This, plus the size of this newsletter, has forced us to put a charge on additional copies. There is still no subscription charge on the Messenger, and we will continue to send out free mailings as the Lord provides. We do, however, welcome donations by those who wish to help in the ministry. All donations to UTAH LIGHTHOUSE MINISTRY are tax deductible.
We are spending a great deal of time trying to get to the bottom of the Salamandergate scandal. Coming issues of this newsletter will probably have more on the bombings and the Mormon church’s attempt to suppress embarrassing documents.
Still More Developments
After the bomb exploded in Mark Hofmann’s car, investigators learned that Hofmann had a copy of the “Oath of a Freeman.” This is supposed to be the “oldest document ever printed on an American press.” He was trying to sell it to the Library of Congress for 1.5 million dollars. It is claimed that Hofmann bought this document for only $23 from Argosy Bookstore in New York. When I learned about this matter, I felt that this small sheet of paper, with printing only on one side, would have to be one of the greatest finds of the century or else a clever forgery. I reasoned that if a person were forging such an item, it would be easy to print more than one copy. The first copy could be sold for a very large amount of money and the other copies would go for smaller amounts at a later time. At any rate, after police began investigating Hofmann, it was reported to me that they had found three copies. Although police did not mention the broadside by name, they said they were concerned about forgery because they had found a duplication of documents. On December 21, 1993, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that Hofmann did, in fact, have more than one copy:
Shannon Patrick Flynn, however, said Friday that Mr. Hofmann claimed he found two copies of the oath, . . .
The Tribune Friday contacted Dickson D. “Duke” Cowley . . . who said he and another Arizona man were approached in September by Mr. Hofmann and Mr. Flynn, who represented that they were in possession of a second copy of the oath and wanted Mr. Cowley and co-investor Wilford Cardon to buy a 30 percent interest in that document for $175,000.
The Deseret News for December 22, 1993, reported:
Sources in the Salt Lake County attorney’s office and the Salt Lake City Police Department confirmed that, in addition to Hofmann being their prime suspect in bombings that killed two people last October, they are considering fraud and/or forgery charges against him. Richard P. Howard, RLDS Church historian, flew Tuesday to Salt Lake City . . . bringing with him three documents for study. One was the Joseph Smith III blessing, . . .
Allen Roberts, a local architect and historian, said Howard told him Tuesday that all documents relating to Hofmann were being examined. Howard said police told him “they had found a person who could sit down and write out a Joseph Smith III blessing in Thomas Bullock’s handwriting,” according to Roberts.
When I questioned why Hofmann would not tell where he obtained the blessing document, he claimed that he had made an affidavit for the church which revealed its source. On December 22, I was informed that the affidavit gave the name as Allen Bullock of Coalville, Utah, and that no such person could be found.
Originally appeared in:
Jerald Tanner, “LDS Documents and Murder,” Salt Lake City Messenger, no. 59, January 1986, 1-25.