Talk:Mark Hofmann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Techniques, technical data

While serving my mission, I came across a copy of BYU magazine that discussed how Hofmann produced his documents and how they fooled so many experts. I found it fascinating. Anyone have access to material that discusses this aspect of his work? — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the book "The Poet and the Murderer". It focuses in great detail on how he created many of his forgeries.

Also read The Mormon Murders by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith -- an exhaustive and very well written book about the forgeries and murders. The forensic documents examiners emerge as among the true heroes in the investigation. Z Wylld 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Those are good recommendations, Z Wylld, ironically I just added those books to the page. I would however add that while I like "The Mormon Murders", the book is somewhat sensationalized. I think that if you want to read a more accurate account of the case, Robert Lindsey's "A Gathering of Saints..." would be more appropriate. I would avoid any of the Mormon "point of view" publications(i.e., Salamander, Victims, etc...), which are heavily biased. Simon Worrall's "The Poet and the Murderer" is an excellent study of the forgeries and the Hofmann case as a whole. (JT Mac 08:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] More info

  • Added info gleaned from the TV Series Mastermind on Court TV Andy5421 13:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] trivia?

would it be unreasonable to add as trivia that he possibly inspired the law and order criminal intent episode titled 'the saint' (which ironically, I've just found out is being rescreened locally tonight) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.84.83.158 (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

  • That episode was defiantly inspired by him, they even quoited statements made by my Dad, who had severed with him on his mission. -Lөvөl 18:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was just gonna leave a comment about that episode and it was already done.Im gonna add it.The Clydelishes Clyde 20:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McLellin collection

The claim that the McLellin collection was found in Texas seems to have been added by a computer at BYU on the 5th of August 2006. It is inaccurate. The LDS church bought it in 1908 and lost it in its archives. It was rediscovered during the Hofmann investigation as reveal in Turley’s book Victims. [1] The McLellin Collection may deserve to have its own page.--Fmatmi (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The false claim that the collection was found in Texas remains in the article. Page 213 of Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hofmann Case, By Richard E. Turley (published in 1992?) explains the error in the 1988 book referenced in the article. The LDS church bought the Collection in 1908. The collection and its existence was lost in the Church's archives until the Hofmann investigation. --Fmatmi (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Texas Papers Not Quite 'McLellin Collecion,'" read the headline to the Deseret News article on the subject that afternoon. The article quoted a state government archivist who said of the collection, "It really should be called the Traughber collection, because the bulk of the material is (J. L.) Traughber's notes on McLellin." The article reported that the collection apparently did not contain McLellin's journals, as had been expected, nor any other material from the 1830's. --page 213 Victims

To the (partial) contrary, see the introduction to the Signature Books version here. It seems clear that whatever McLellin Papers were previously owned by the Church were deliberately hidden rather than "lost in the archives."--John Foxe (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Point 1: I agree with “whatever the McLellin Papers [Collection] were”. One could argue that whatever was discovered in Texas is part of the collection. However, it is not a large enough portion of what was discovered to represent THE collection. The actual journals themselves were found in Church archives. If the article stated that THE collection was discovered in Church archives, it would not be inaccurate. However, to state that THE Collection was found in Texas is inaccurate. The article could state that the bulk of the collection was found in Church archives with small parts found Texas. However, I have witnessed Wikipedia articles where editors bicker about words like ‘bulk’, ‘mostly’, ‘small’ as all being subjective points of view. The more objective and accurate statement for the article would be to state that, First the Traughber notes about McLellin were discovered in Texas and later the actual McLellin journals and writings were discovered in Church archives.--Fmatmi (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Point 2: I definitely agree that the correct assessment is “deliberately hidden” and not “lost in the archives”. However, be forewarn that the Mormon apologists on Wikipedia will react vigorously to any such wording. “its existence was lost in the archives” was my poor attempt at neutrality and gives the assumption of innocence in the absence of a smoking gun (which for an apologist is nothing short of a notarized confession). I have not found a neutral way of stating this ….. “went missing” doesn’t quite work. How about, “institutionally forgotten”? For example, “The McLellin Collection was institutionally forgotten in Church archives until the collection's existence was rediscovered in Church archives as a consequence of the Hofmann investigation”.--Fmatmi (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with your analysis. But as it stands it's simply an opinion that needs citation to an authority saying that the description of Lindsey, the intro to the Signature Books edition, etc. is not completely accurate.--John Foxe (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Point 1: This is yet another proof that conversations on Wikipedia are futile. I clearly provided such a citation as a counter point to the Lindsey citation (see –page 213 of Victims cited above). The original link that I provided in December clarified even more, but it appears to currently be a dead link. --Fmatmi (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Point 2: The Signature Books intro does not give many specifics, so there isn’t much to refute. It makes no mention of the Journals. The library itself refers to the papers as the John L. Traugher Papers and states “Of interest are materials written by William E. McLellin”. Pages 248-250 of Victims describes in detail how the actual journals were rediscovered in the Church archives. I believe this summary linked here was provided by the Tanners--Fmatmi (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Point 3: Right back at you. Your analysis of “deliberately hidden” is “simply an opinion that needs citation to an authority”. No where does the Signature Books intro say this. Being an introduction it makes no mention of the details of what happen between the 1908 acquisition and the 1994 announcement.--Fmatmi (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Point 4: This is a discussion page so I really do not need to cite anything (though I have cited plenty).--Fmatmi (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
An excerpt of the newly published Signature Books book is found here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmatmi (talk • contribs) 05:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I was unclear. I only meant that if you were going to modify the article, you needed to provide citation to an authority--which you've done. I have no problem with your changes except in terms of literary style. But then the whole article needs a rewrite on those grounds.--John Foxe (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Tanners

While the Tanners did question the salamander letter's authenticity, I think it's a stretch to say they were critics of Hofmann himself. Their publications reproduced many of Hofmann's claims; for example, his claim to have purchased the McLellin collection. I've therefore narrowed the language dealing with the Tanners' skepticism and moved it into the section discussing the salamander letter.Mgy401 1912 (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I've reduced the verbiage for stylistic reasons.--John Foxe (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)