FAIR

Apologetics

The Joy of a Covenant Relationship with God

by Leave a Comment

In his April 2026 General Conference address, Elder Thierry K. Mutombo taught that every covenant God invites us to make is motivated by His perfect love. Rather than imposing unnecessary rules, Heavenly Father gives commandments and covenants because He desires something infinitely greater for His children: an eternity of joy in His presence. Through his own experiences of profound grief, Elder Mutombo testifies that covenant discipleship anchors us to Jesus Christ, whose power makes that eternal promise possible.

Some people see religion as a collection of restrictions that prevent people from living freely or finding happiness. Elder Mutombo offers a very different perspective. God’s commandments are not barriers to joy—they are the path that leads to it. [Read more…] about The Joy of a Covenant Relationship with God

Mythmaking and The Mark Hofmann Case

Start Here

Question
Did the LDS Church hide Mark Hofmann documents?
 
Short Answer
According to Steve Mayfield and document examiner George Throckmorton, many popular claims surrounding the Mark Hofmann case have become legends that are not supported by the historical record. The speakers argue that many alleged “cover-up” narratives arose from misunderstandings, incomplete information, or repeated retellings rather than documented evidence.
Key Takeaways
  • Many widely repeated stories about the Hofmann case originated from secondhand information.
  • Several claims about the Church purchasing documents to suppress them are challenged with documented ownership histories.
  • George Throckmorton explains that forensic document examination is complex and often cannot be reduced to simple tests like “cracked ink.”
  • The speakers encourage readers to evaluate sources carefully and distinguish documented evidence from speculation.

Summary

In this presentation, Steve Mayfield explores how many of the most common stories surrounding the Mark Hofmann case have evolved into accepted narratives despite lacking strong historical support. Using examples from books, articles, and online discussions, he examines claims that the Church created doctrine in response to the White Salamander Letter, secretly purchased controversial documents to suppress them, or influenced prosecutors to avoid a public trial. Drawing on his own research and conversations with key participants, Mayfield argues that these claims often grew through repeated retellings, incomplete information, or misunderstandings rather than documented evidence.

Mayfield emphasizes the importance of evaluating sources carefully, recognizing how misinformation can spread, and distinguishing firsthand evidence from speculation. He illustrates this principle with examples from his own research, acknowledging occasions when he himself repeated inaccurate information before discovering better documentation.

The presentation then transitions to forensic document examiner George Throckmorton, who offers firsthand perspectives from his sixteen months on the Hofmann investigation. Throckmorton discusses the complexity of authenticating forged historical documents, explaining that identifying a Hofmann forgery required extensive forensic analysis rather than simple visual clues. During a question-and-answer session, he addresses common questions about Hofmann’s techniques, the White Salamander Letter, the John D. Lee Scroll, and other controversial documents, while emphasizing the importance of careful scholarship, documented evidence, and professional forensic examination when evaluating historical claims.

TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Read)

Steve Mayfield examines several persistent myths surrounding the Mark Hofmann forgeries, including claims that the Church created doctrine around the Salamander Letter, forced a plea bargain, or secretly purchased documents to hide them. Using personal experiences and conversations with participants in the investigation, he argues that many of these stories grew through repetition rather than evidence.

George Throckmorton, one of the principal forensic document examiners on the Hofmann investigation, follows by discussing his role in the case, the challenges of authenticating forged documents, and answering audience questions about Hofmann’s techniques and later discoveries.

Note on Visuals:

The original slides from Steven Mayfield’s presentation are not available. 

Click to Download

The Legend Becomes Fact

It says up here, “Smile, have fun, play nice.“

Not in my profession.

I had a paper planned, a great big paper planned for today, and then I noticed an article in the Salt Lake Tribune last Saturday about the FAIR conference in which Scott mentioned that we don’t attack people personally. We don’t deal with personal attacks. So you’re safe, George. I can’t give that talk, so I had to do something different.

My topic—and I’m going to go through some of these things very quickly because I think the more interesting part of this presentation is hearing from the man himself, George Throckmorton.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

Over the years, George and I have had interesting conversations that we’ve talked about in reference to the Hoffman case and others. We like to quote statements out of movies, and our favorite one that relates to Hoffman, and what I think leads out in the mythmaking of the Hoffman case, is a statement made at the end of a movie called The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, starring John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart. In my opinion, the greatest western of all time.

For those who don’t remember this movie, I’ll run through it very quickly.

The movie starts with Jimmy Stewart and his wife returning to a little town in the West called Shinbone. He has been a U.S. senator and an ambassador, and he’s returning with his wife to this little town to bury an old friend named Tom Doniphon, played by John Wayne.

As they come into town, the local reporter sees him, grabs the editor, and they come over and say, “What is this great statesman, this senator, doing in our little town of Shinbone?”

They said, “We’re here to bury a friend.”

The editor pushed the issue. “We need to talk to you. Who is this Tom Doniphon?”

The Story of Tom Doniphon

So Jimmy Stewart agrees to talk with them and be interviewed, and he relays the story about how, as a young lawyer, he came to town, got involved in the local politics, and came into conflict with a local outlaw named Liberty Valance, played marvelously by Lee Marvin.

During the conflict and the fight over becoming a state from a territory, he is challenged to a duel by Liberty Valance. At the same time, he’s in competition with John Wayne over the girl.

After the election for delegates, he meets Liberty Valance on the street and shoots and kills him. He now becomes a hero and is known as the man who shot Liberty Valance.

They go to the territorial convention, and he decides to leave when he’s pressured or accused of being a murderer. As he’s about to leave, John Wayne pulls him aside and explains to him, “You did not shoot Liberty Valance because during that shooting I was in the alley and I shot and killed him, not you.”

They reenact that scene.

He then proceeds to go back, becomes the delegate, they get statehood, and he becomes governor, senator, and wins the girl.

Well, after he’s explained this whole story and the reporter is writing all the notes, the editor takes these notes, tears them up, and throws them in the fire.

He’s asked, “Well, Mr. Editor, why did you do that?”

He got up, turned, looked at Jimmy Stewart, and said, “This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

This fits in perfectly for Mark Hoffman.

Early Examples of Hoffman Myths

Let me share quickly some of the examples I believe exist. Some of these are kind of fun. Some of these we’ve all heard.

First one is our friend Ed Decker from Saints Alive in Jesus. This is on his webpage. He has a book called Bearing Testimony of Truth, compiled and edited by Derek S. Harden. It’s been on there for a few years, and this morning it still was.

This is a personal manuscript written by this gentleman, and there’s some editorial notes that Ed Decker wrote at the beginning:

“This manuscript was completed and submitted during the brief time that the Mormon Church had accepted as true a fraudulent work generally called the White Salamander Letter by the infamous forger of Mormon manuscripts, Mark Hoffman. We have notified the author that this needs to be cleaned up and removed from the book and will make the correction as soon as we receive the corrected copy.”

Okay. It still is.

Interesting that the LDS Church created new doctrine to explain that a white salamander was really an angel, and when the hoax was revealed, just as suddenly undid the doctrine—all without an apology or a blush.

Wow.

That’s kind of—you know—to eliminate something that never was really there. But I find that kind of humorous, that we had a doctrine as such.

I must have missed that meeting.

The Jerald and Sandra Tanner Narrative

Next one is an article out of the Salt Lake City Weekly from March of 2003. It’s a story about Jerald and Sandra Tanner and Utah Lighthouse Ministry.

Reviewing the Hoffman case, it says here:

“While many were taken by the notorious document forger and bomber Mark Hoffman, Jerald, with typical uncompromising accuracy, was not bamboozled. Collectors of historical documents from the LDS Church to the Library of Congress and Sotheby’s were buying Hoffman documents as fast as he could manufacture them. Hoffman sold forged letters of famous Americana, and his major focus was forging early Mormon historical documents that were extremely damaging to LDS doctrine and early Church leaders. All the while, only Jerald Tanner remained unimpressed and unconvinced of their authenticity. In 1984, he publicly announced his misgivings, calling Hoffman a forger.”

Now we’re talking about 1984. This is a year before the homicides.

I wondered about this. Now, it’s pretty clear that Jerald and Sandra had some serious doubts and problems with the Salamander Letter, but not all of them.

Not too long after this article came out, I visited with Sandra Tanner at their home in their bookstore, and I asked her, “Is this a misprint? Is this a misunderstanding by the Weekly?”

This is what Sandra told me:

“No. No. Jerald did have doubts about all the documents and really believed that Mark was a forger, but he had no solid proof.”

Okay, this is eighteen years after the fact.

Now this is being revealed in this article, but I have some serious problems with that in the fact that, in some of the writings of the Tanners following the homicides—and let me make a little side note here because they made reference to the bombings and the forgeries of Hoffman.

Call Him What He Is

One thing that has amazed me over the years is that we always refer to Hoffman as a bomber, or the bomber-forger. We seem to be afraid to say what he is.

He’s a murderer.

The forgeries and the bombings are secondary to the fact that he killed two people.

So if I had my preference, we’d call him what he is—a murderer.

More Myths Surrounding the Hoffman Case

But anyway, I asked Sandra that, and she just said, “Well, he just didn’t have any proof.”

Following the homicides, in some of the writings they suggested that Mark wasn’t that good of a forger or writer, that he must have had help. They suggested there was another individual who was forging the documents, and Mark was the middleman. When this person either died or stopped doing the forgeries, Mark started doing them all himself. That’s when they became sloppy and so forth.

Even as of last October, at a conference sponsored by an organization George belongs to—the Southwest Association of Forensic Document Examiners—Sandra and Jerald were there, and she was even asking people if they had any ideas whether anybody was helping Mark.

So I’m getting two different stories here.

But the significance of this is the fact that you read a lot of the webpages and some of the chat rooms, and they always say Jerald was the only one who knew that Mark was a forger. Everybody else believed him.

That isn’t true at all. There were others who had doubts too, but I find that to be one of the myths that has started.

The Myth of the Hoffman Plea Bargain

Another one of the myths that is frequently read about is the idea that there was going to be no trial of Mark Hoffman because the Church did not want information passed out, and the fact that the leadership of the Church—whoever they are—forced a plea bargain.

The man that will be preceding me here, Mr. Throckmorton, has explained to me that on the day he was asked to leave employment from the Salt Lake County DA’s office investigating the case, he was there when District Attorney Yokum instructed Bob Stott, the lead prosecutor, that he would plea bargain the case.

I’ve also heard from the mouths of Jerry Doria, Dave Briggs, and a few other people involved with the case that the Church had nothing to do with the plea bargain.

This came strictly from Mr. Yokum.

Yet this is another story that you will read on webpages and chat rooms—that the Church forced the plea bargain because they didn’t want President Hinckley to testify, or have to, or any other General Authority.

The Solomon Spalding–Sidney Rigdon Document

Now another fun one that I found interesting is this document here.

Here we go. This is the infamous Solomon Spalding–Sidney Rigdon land deed document that Mark came across.

Actually, it’s a legitimate old land deed where a gentleman named Asa Spalding is selling some land to his wife’s cousin, Jesse York. Well, Mark somehow got ahold of it.

Where? We don’t know.

But he proceeded to make some changes. Here you see, down at the bottom, the name Solomon Spalding. Over here you see the name Sidney Rigdon.

Now this is an interesting document because for years, on that Spalding issue, the claim was they didn’t know each other, and here would be some proof that they knew each other.

But it turns out these were added names. As you see over here on the date, it says 1822.

Well, the actual date is 1792.

Mark added the date at the top—1822.

This was a document that he showed Elder Oaks, and to where Elder Oaks went and signed for the $185,000 loan to possibly purchase the McLellin Collection.

In fact, Mark claimed this was part of the McLellin Collection.

A few weeks after showing it to Elder Oaks, he decided he needed some quick cash, so he took it down to Cosmic Airplane and sold it for $400.

Even though the guy who bought it, Steve Barnett, said, “There’s a problem with the dates because Spalding died in 1816.”

And if you went to the original date, 1792, Sidney Rigdon hadn’t been born yet.

But Mark convinced him.

He said, “Well, that’s not the same Solomon Spalding, but will you buy it for the Rigdon autograph?”

He paid the $400 for it.

Claims That the Church Purchased the Document

Now, a few years ago a book came out—I don’t know if you can see it—but it’s called Mormon Conspiracy by Charles Wood.

I got it at the Utah Lighthouse Ministry. 1

This is what he writes:

“The First Presidency was so impressed with Hoffman’s discovery of the Anton Transcript that they called the press conference at which they announced the new discovery and commended Hoffman for his efforts. Hoffman followed the Anton Transcript with several non-faith-promoting forged documents, which were quickly bought up by the First Presidency and hidden from the membership and the public. One of these forged documents included one that linked Sidney Rigdon, second to Commander Joseph Smith, to Solomon Spalding.”

Okay.

Provenance of the Spalding-Rigdon Land Deed

2

This document here.

Now in 2002, when I was reading this book, I had to read it a number of times.

I had to wash my eyes out to make sure I was actually reading it because, at that particular time, as I read this in my apartment, this document that you see in front of you was sitting on my table in my apartment.

See, because I owned it.

The Church never owned it.

At the time:

  1. It went from Cosmic Airplane,
  2. Was used and examined by George as part of the investigation,
  3. Then returned to Cosmic Airplane, at which time the owner, Bruce Roberts, sold it to Ken Sanders in 2000.
  4. I bought it from Ken Sanders in August of 2000.
  5. Right now—in October of 2004—I donated it to BYU so it’s preserved down there.

But here is a myth that this man is saying: the Church bought it as one of the documents they bought to hide.

The Church never owned it.

Correcting the Record

I again asked Sandra Tanner.

In fact, it was funny because not too long after that, I was on an airplane to Pasadena to speak at a Sunstone Symposium, again with George, and happened to get on the same flight with Jerald and Sandra Tanner and sat next to them on the plane.

So I asked them about this, since I bought the book from them.

I mentioned, “Well, you know, there’s an error in the book.”

Sandra said, “Oh, really?”

I showed it to her and said, “You know, this is wrong.”

“Well, how’s that?”

“You know who owns that document?”

Sandra says, “Who?”

I said, “Me.”

There was that long pause as she and Jerald looked at me, and she quickly recovered and said, “Well, you know, there’s so much information and material out there that he could have been mistaken or gotten bad information.”

Now think about it.

That is a very true statement.

Over the last twenty-one years now, that has been exactly the problem we’ve had with this case.

We have this idea that the Church was buying these documents to hide them.

Yet a book here by Dean Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, published in 1984—not 1884, 1984—has six of the documents listed in here. 

The majority of the documents that Mark forged were not controversial. They were not testimony-shaking. They were simple little things.

There was no reason to hide them. No reason to suppress them.

Were the Documents Really Hidden?

Yet today you can read on some webpages, like our friends from Recovery from Mormonism, who have these great theories that the Church was buying these things to hide them, spending millions of dollars so that no one would ever see the light of day. 3

Now I’m thinking, okay, all these other documents were being bought by the Church and other collectors, very publicized in a lot of cases, but we do have two that could be questioned as having been hidden.

One being the Josiah Stowell letter, and the other one was the letter from Bullock to Brigham Young, referencing the Joseph Smith blessing.

There might—if you read Victims—be explanations on why these things were not immediately released.

But now we have people talking about the Church hiding these things.

I’m saying, well, if the Church is as evil and satanic as you make it, why would the Church buy documents at high prices just to hide them? That’s why man invented matches and paper shredders.

Yet they’re kept. Why is that?

I mean, if you’re going to give them credit… If we’re going to be sinister, let’s go all the way.

But we still have them. In fact, last year—or actually it’s been a few years—Kenny Sanders had a symposium in 2002 on it, and they had found another document in the Church archives that they realized had come from Hoffman.

These things are still out there.

So it’s, again, a myth that has just taken on a life of its own.

Evaluating Claims About the Hoffman Case

Let me give you some pointers on what to do when you hear various things and read them.

A lot of people here, if you’re like me, kind of browse the Internet and Recovery from Mormonism and all these places. The spiritual arm-twisting—that one claim this week they did on prominent rich Mormons buying these documents for them…

  1. First of all, consider the source. Consider the source of the person writing these things.
  2. Number two, realize that during this whole time, a lot of people were getting information about these documents and material, but the person they were getting it from was Mark. And Mark was very good at lying and telling stories. Just because you may have two persons who were closely involved with him and they tell different stories doesn’t mean these people are lying.

You’ve got to find out where they got their information. The same thing goes for other people who had information. Sometimes they got it from friends or acquaintances who got it from Mark.

The same thing happened during the police investigation. They were hearing stories from people who had talked to Mark, and they were passing them on, and they were confused sometimes because the stories weren’t clicking.

Or these people were told one thing, but other people, like the Church authorities, weren’t telling us the same story.

Be very careful about that.

Why Bad Information Spreads

Also, because of the nature of the case—the homicide—it made a lot of people nervous. And a lot of people didn’t know how to handle themselves or how to deal with it because you don’t usually, in your life, come across being involved in a homicide case. Sometimes people’s initial reactions weren’t what the police liked.

But, as George can tell you, after he was able to get in there, the Church became very cooperative. Although the story goes that the Church was not cooperative, and some people have claimed that even President Hinckley led a stalling of the case—that he was interfering with the investigation. George can probably give us some highlights on his feelings about that.

But be very careful about people who might take a story and embellish it.

An Example of a Story that was Embellished

I have a great one that relates here to FAIR—of people taking information and getting it misconstrued.

A few months ago, Scott and FAIR were kind enough to publish a letter that I wrote to Scott regarding some items on the Dead Sea Scroll—or rather, the Deadly Scroll—the lead plate that was found down in Page, Arizona, at Lee’s Ferry a few years ago.

I made a comment that I had thought was true about a document—I may even have it here someplace.

Here we go.

This was written by Mark Hoffman in prison, listing the forgeries that he had done. Now, I had always thought, and been told, that it was following a suicide attempt. When he was up at the hospital, that this is when they found it during a search of his cell. Well, rereading some of the books, I discovered that didn’t happen after his suicide attempt.

That happened a few months earlier. When he was being interviewed regarding some threats that he had made against George and some members of the Board of Pardons, they did a cell search and came up with this list.

So even I had bad information. I wrote a letter to the Deseret News on that, and I put it in the article. Now I’m going to have to change it.

It happens. I’ve seen this happen all the time. Bad information. No one intends to be deceiving, but:

  • you just hear something, and
  • your own mind regurgitates it, and
  • it comes out differently.

So we have to be careful of that.

Oh, by the way… You’ll notice down here at the bottom the name John D. Lee. Okay…

Just a thought.

Anonymous Sources and “Secret” Information

Also be careful when people talk about the Hoffman case where they have information but they give you no names or sources. This is one of the things that Mark liked to play, and people were willing to go along with it.

“Keep secrets.”

We still have it. I got this all the time from George.

“I can’t tell you.”

Then I’d threaten to break his legs…

…and he still wouldn’t tell me.

Introducing George Throckmorton

So anyway, I’m going to turn the time over now to George so we can hear what he has to say.

But before I turn it over to him, I want to make some personal comments about Mr. Throckmorton. And these are nice things. So you don’t have to worry, Scott.

Back in 1991, I came over from Colorado because my career was going down the tube and my love life wasn’t there anymore. Through my good friend Van Hale, I worked in his business for a while. Then in 1994, I hired on to work in the crime lab with the Salt Lake City Police Department and got back into my chosen career.

A year later they changed the supervision of the crime lab from an officer or sergeant to a civilian, and they brought in George Throckmorton.

The thrill that I have had for the last ten years of working under his direction—literally sitting at his feet, hearing stories and information about the Hoffman case—has been one that has not only enriched my professional career, but also my avocation of things Mormon.

He has been kind enough to invite me into his life and his research and included me on things, even though he sometimes would play games like with the John D. Lee scroll. But that’s another story.

George Throckmorton as a Valued Friend

I want to tell you how much I have appreciated the opportunity to get to know him as a friend.

I care about him dearly. He is a dear friend, and I love him dearly. I hope that he’s here with us a long time because there is so much to share with us.

I want to close with this. As George comes up, I have a question for him regarding a statement that I read here in Mormon Murders, one of the greatest books on the case, I’m sure.

This is during the time that George and his associate Bill Flynn were examining the documents down at the Church archives.

It says:

“On the day Flynn left for Arizona”—Bill Flynn is from Phoenix, Arizona—”a Church delegation led by Gordon Hinckley visited the conference room. They looked suspiciously at all the equipment while Throckmorton and Flynn explained the process. They asked some questions, but, to Flynn’s astonishment, never asked the most obvious question of all: Are the documents genuine?“

George, as you come up here, I’d be very interested to hear about this experience.

What is it like to be in the middle of this—to have the leader of the Church, although at the time he was a counselor, but the man leading the Church who became the prophet? What was that experience like?

Maybe you can share with us, and what do you think? Why didn’t he ask that question when he was there and you were there in his presence?

George Throckmorton Responds

If I can respond to Mr. Mayfield’s question…

As I advance in age, I have a tendency not to remember certain things, and to remember other things even more than they actually happened, I guess.

But as President Hinckley came in to visit us that day…

I don’t remember it at all. Because it just never happened.

In fact, the closest association—and some of you may have heard this story, I’ve told it once before—the closest association I ever had with President Hinckley was because of my friends.

I’ve been in law enforcement, as was mentioned, almost forty years. My son used to work at the Church Office Building. It was his job to get the cars ready for the General Authorities to take to their various assignments. This is the story that I heard about President Hinckley, which took place several years ago.

A Story About President Hinckley

He liked to hot rod. Is that the right expression?

As he came to pick up a new car—they always have a chauffeur to drive around the First Presidency and some of the Apostles that can’t drive too well—but as he came and saw the new car, and his chauffeur was ready for him, he looked at it and said,

“I’ve always wanted to drive a new car. Is it all right if I drive?”

Well… What’s the chauffeur going to say? “No” ?

But the chauffeur said,

“Well, you know, I’ve always wanted to sit in the back seat, too.”

So they started driving down to Provo. President Hinckley’s foot got a little bit heavy. They were going a little too fast. As he looked in the mirror after hearing kind of an unusual noise, he saw some red and blue lights flashing behind him.

He pulled over to the right, and the highway patrolman came up and looked in the car. He went back, got on the radio, and called his dispatcher.

“I need to speak with my supervisor.”

The supervisor got on and said,

“What’s wrong?”

He says,

“I just pulled over a very important person.”

The supervisor said,

“Well, who is it? Is it Mayor Rocky?”

He says,

“No, more important than him.”

“Well, is it the governor?”

“No, more important than him.”

“Is it the President of the United States?”

The policeman says,

“No, more important than him.”

He said,

“Well, who is it?”

The policeman says,

“I really don’t know, but President Hinckley is his chauffeur.”

That’s the only story I know of President Hinckley. That’s the closest I’ve ever come to him.

George’s Role in the Hoffman Investigation

But I can say this. My involvement in this case, again, lasted for sixteen months. I entered the case about six weeks after the bombings took place.

I was working for the Attorney General’s office at the time as an investigator of white-collar crime with a background in forensic examination of documents.

There are many, many stories.

The one thing I learned, relating to what Steve said, is that even the investigators have different theories on what happened. There were eleven of us for sixteen months. If you talk to one investigator, he will say one thing. You talk to another one, he will say something else.

The reason being is we did different interviews. We spoke to different people. About every morning we would meet together as a group and discuss what had happened. I heard a lot of stories from the other investigators.

Then we would get our assignments, and we would go out to conduct our investigation. There are a lot of things that I heard and that I experienced firsthand that contradict so many things that are in the various books that are out there.

A Brief Overview Instead of a Full Presentation

What I have done today—I understand we’ve only got about twenty minutes left, if I understand how much time I have. There’s supposed to be some cards being passed around. Are those questions?

Okay.

I’m not going to tell you a whole lot about my involvement other than I’m going to answer questions that may be here. If anybody else has any, raise your hand now and do it because in about ten minutes I’ll be answering them.

Most of you know a lot about this case. As I’ve given talks in the past, I talk about the elementary things that happened, and I’m not going to do that today.

I’ll be happy to answer any questions. But what I have is a brief overview of many things. I took over seven hundred slides of different documents. I’ve never shown them. I never will be able to show them.

We spent three days once in our professional organization in Palm Springs, California, several years ago going over them, and I was unable to show them all then. What I have done is put a montage of slides together which will give you a brief—but more or less thorough—overview of the case itself.

I’m going to need some help up here on how to turn this light off so we can start the others going. Then, when we’re through, I’ll try and answer these questions.

You’ll just have to read these. I’m not going to say a whole lot.

Audience Questions

There’s three questions up here… Oops. Four… Five questions. That gives me about a minute each.

“In your opinion, what do you think caused Mark to turn to the dark side?”

  • I have no idea.
  • I don’t know him.
  • I don’t know anything about him.

All I know is the documents.

How Can You Identify a Hoffman Forgery?

“How does anyone tell a Hoffman forgery?”

I don’t know.

Myself and Bill Flynn did research for six months before we finally figured out how he did his forgeries because they were so unique and used techniques that we had never seen before.

As I get documents now asking if there is…

For instance, one of the things I’m sure a lot of you have heard is about the cracked ink. Well, realize it’s not always cracking, and it only shows at a particular degree of magnification.

So if you see cracked ink, that doesn’t mean it’s forged. All that means is it’s cracked.

It’s difficult to tell, and that’s one of the reasons why he was successful. It takes so long to do an examination.

On the Salamander Letter, for instance, I spent 120 hours on that one page. Who can afford to pay my fee to get a document examined if I’m going to spend 120 hours on it? Of course, I don’t spend that long on all of them.

And the Anonymous Employee?

“Do you know who the anonymous Park Service employee who discovered the scroll was?”

Yes, I do.

What Book Covers This Story Best?

“In your opinion, which book most accurately reflects the events surrounding the case?”

Obviously the one I wrote that’s sitting in the back.

The Mormon Will

“Any possibility Mark forged the Mormon Will?”

Is that Howard Hughes’ will? This was before his time. It was found in 1976.

So I don’t think so.

The Neely Bills

“I’ve been told by someone at Church Archives that Mark Hoffman had been poking around Norwich, New York, prior to Wesley Walters’s discovery of the Neely bills for the 1826 trial. How far-fetched would a Hoffman connection to these documents be?”

I went back to New York in April to look at that document. I don’t know when the Church is going to release…

They’re hiding it again.

[laughter]

I don’t know when they’re going to release the results of it. I don’t know whether the people in Norwich have released it. The historian back there…

I don’t feel free to discuss that at this particular time. When they hire me, I do it confidentially. Secret. Yeah. Secret, as Steve said. I do it secretly.

But anyway, the question does not ask whether the document is genuine or not.

The question says, “Did Mark Hoffman…”

Was he back there? Well, he was back there, but not at the time this document was found.

Steve has some things he wants to elaborate on.

All I can say is thank you very much for allowing me to be here. If anybody has any special questions, I’d be happy to answer them if I can. Thank you very much.

[Applause]

Mayfield’s Final Comments

Quickly… He skipped this.

The John D. Lee Scroll

Do we know the name of the anonymous Park Service employee?

Well, he’s not anonymous. His name is Al Malquist. He’s been down there for forty-some years.

The best way I can describe Allan is that he’s the man with the keys. He’s the one that, when George and I went down there to tour Lee’s Ferry, got us in. He’s been a very helpful person, and as we’ve examined the scroll, he’s been a great supporter.

This past spring I went with a tour down with Weber State University to Lee’s Ferry, and he was more than glad, on his day off, to come and give a tour.

  • Very congenial.
  • Very friendly.
  • Very open.

Both George and I are very impressed with him.

The John D. Lee Scroll

“Are we fairly certain that the John D. Lee scroll was a Hoffman forgery?”

Everybody kind of assumes that.

The best answer I can give you is I have a $100 answer and a ten-cent answer.

The $100 answer is that there’s no hard-core proof or evidence that Mark had anything to do with it. But there is circumstantial evidence that may connect him to it or may show it might be part of his work.

I am not willing to excuse him, to use a legal term, as a suspect in manufacturing or producing the Deadly Scroll. That’s my $100 answer.

The ten-cent answer? I don’t know.

Search topics

Mark Hofmann; Hofmann forgeries; White Salamander Letter; Salamander Letter; George Throckmorton; Steve Mayfield; forensic document examination; forged Mormon documents; McLellin Collection; Solomon Spalding; Sidney Rigdon; Anton Transcript; Church history documents; document authentication; historical forgery; Mormon Murders; Dean Jessee; Gordon B. Hinckley; plea bargain; Hofmann investigation; Church archives; forensic document analysis; Salamander Letter authentication; John D. Lee Scroll; Deadly Scroll; Lee's Ferry; Bill Flynn; Mark Hofmann investigation; historical manuscripts

CES Letter; Mormon Church history; Mormon Church criticism; Mormon apologetics; LDS Church documents; LDS history controversies; Mormon document fraud; White Salamander controversy; Mormon historical documents; Church cover-up claims; LDS Church evidence; Mormon forgery claims; anti-Mormon claims; Mormon myths; LDS apologetics; Restoration history; Book of Mormon criticism

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the LDS Church invent doctrine because of the Salamander Letter?

The speaker argues that this claim is a myth and points to its repeated circulation despite lacking supporting evidence.

Did the Church force prosecutors to accept a plea bargain?

According to individuals directly involved with the investigation, including George Throckmorton, Steve Mayfield states that the decision to pursue a plea bargain originated with the district attorney rather than Church leaders.

Did the Church secretly buy Hofmann documents to hide them?

The presentation argues that many Hofmann documents were publicly known and published, and that several items frequently cited as "hidden" were never owned by the Church at all.

How difficult is it to identify a Mark Hofmann forgery?

George Throckmorton explains that authenticating Hofmann's work required extensive forensic examination. He notes that a single page of the Salamander Letter required approximately 120 hours of analysis.

Does cracked ink prove a document is forged?

No. Throckmorton explains that cracked ink alone is not evidence of forgery. It appears only under certain conditions and magnification and must be evaluated as part of a complete forensic examination.

Here Am I, Send Me

by Leave a Comment

In her April 2026 General Conference address, “Here Am I, Send Me,” Susan H. Porter teaches that discipleship begins with a simple but powerful choice: to offer ourselves to God and be willing to act.

From the premortal world, where Jesus Christ said, “Here am I, send me,” to our daily lives now, that same invitation continues.

Heavenly Father can provide miracles when you simply offer what you have. [Read more…] about Here Am I, Send Me

Love All; Love Each

by

 

In his April 2026 General Conference address, “Love All; Love Each,” Gérald Caussé teaches that the Savior’s love is both infinite in reach and deeply personal in application.

At times, it may feel easier to think of God’s love in broad terms—extended to all humanity. But the gospel invites a more searching question: Do I believe that Christ’s love is meant specifically for me—and for each individual I encounter? [Read more…] about Love All; Love Each

Lost Luggage, Redeemed Souls

by

In his April 2026 General Conference address, “Lost Luggage, Redeemed Souls,” Gary E. Stevenson uses the imagery of lost luggage to teach a powerful truth: while items may be misplaced or forgotten, souls are never lost to God.

Each person carries a divine identity and eternal worth, even if they feel distant, forgotten, or off course. [Read more…] about Lost Luggage, Redeemed Souls

Alive in Christ

by

In his April 2026 General Conference address, “Alive in Christ,” Dallin H. Oaks teaches that belief in the literal Resurrection of Jesus Christ changes not only what we believe about the future, but how we live, love, and relate to others today.

Yet in a world often marked by hostility and division, some may wonder: What does belief in Christ actually change about how we treat one another? [Read more…] about Alive in Christ

A Peculiar Treasure 

by

In his April 2026 General Conference address, “A Peculiar Treasure,” Alan R. Walker teaches that becoming the Lord’s covenant people is not something passive—it is a deliberate process shaped by obedience, sacrifice, and devotion to God.

But in a world that often values convenience and immediate results, disciples may wonder: Does faithful discipleship really require that much effort? [Read more…] about A Peculiar Treasure 

A Few Hundred Hints of Egyptian and Northwest Semitic in Uto-Aztecan

Start Here

Question
Is there linguistic evidence linking the Book of Mormon to ancient Hebrew or Egyptian languages?

Short Answer
Some researchers, including linguist Brian Stubbs, argue that there are meaningful linguistic parallels between the Uto-Aztecan language family and ancient Semitic languages like Hebrew and Egyptian. These include shared vocabulary, consistent sound patterns, and similar grammatical structures. However, these findings have not yet been formally accepted by the broader linguistic community.
Key Takeaways
  • Linguistic comparisons suggest hundreds of potential parallels between Uto-Aztecan languages and Hebrew/Egyptian.
  • Proposed similarities include sound correspondences (e.g., b → p, t → s) and shared word meanings.
  • Some grammatical features—like plural endings and verb forms—also show similarities.
  • These patterns are presented as preliminary research, not yet peer-reviewed or widely accepted.
  • The absence of academic consensus does not necessarily mean evidence does not exist, especially in a field that develops slowly over time.

Summary

Brian Stubbs presents a detailed linguistic argument proposing connections between the Uto-Aztecan language family and Semitic languages such as Hebrew and Egyptian. Drawing on decades of research, he highlights hundreds of potential correspondences, including shared roots, similar meanings, and consistent phonological patterns such as b → p, t → s, and shifts involving pharyngeal consonants.

Beyond vocabulary, Stubbs emphasizes structural parallels—plural suffixes, verb forms, and article prefixes—that suggest deeper relationships than simple borrowing. He argues that these patterns may align with the Book of Mormon narrative, particularly the interaction of Nephite and Mulekite populations and their languages.

Stubbs acknowledges that his work has not yet been formally published or accepted by the linguistic community. However, he reports strong informal reactions from both LDS and non-LDS scholars. He concludes that the absence of accepted linguistic evidence does not necessarily mean such evidence does not exist, especially given the slow and complex nature of historical linguistics.

TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Read)

Brian Stubbs argues that there are meaningful linguistic parallels between Uto-Aztecan languages and ancient Hebrew and Egyptian. These include consistent sound changes, similar word meanings, and shared grammatical structures like plural endings and verb forms.

While this research is still developing and has not yet been formally accepted by the broader linguistic community, Stubbs presents it as evidence that language relationships described in the Book of Mormon may be more plausible than often assumed.

Note on Visuals:

The original slides from Brian Stubbs’ presentation were not available. The visuals included here were created using AI to help illustrate the concepts discussed. Every effort has been made to accurately reflect the speaker’s intent; however, any errors or oversimplifications are our own.

Language of the Book of Mormon Record

You’re all aware that in First Nephi—I believe it’s the second verse of the whole Book of Mormon—Nephi says that:

…I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

And of course, they left Jerusalem where Hebrew was spoken. It’s been a matter of discussion and debate among LDS scholars whether they:

  1. spoke only Hebrew; or,
  2. Hebrew and knew something of Egyptian.

But that debate has never really been resolved. In fact, I’ve discussed it with a few of the LDS scholars at BYU and mentioned to them that the real way to solve that debate is to look at American Indian languages.

Approach to Linguistic Evidence

Now, let’s give you a little background.

We don’t have time to make you linguists, and we don’t have time to teach you Hebrew and Egyptian. But we’re going to try to give you an overview of some of the basics.

The Book of Mormon is an account of:

  • the people of Lehi mainly, but others—
  • the Jaredites and
  • the Mulekites.

And of course, they came out of Jerusalem, presumably speaking Hebrew or something of the Northwest Semitic dialect, and came to the Americas. Their population increased in the Americas.

American Indian Languages and Criticism

Looking at American Indian languages, there are approximately 2,000 American Indian languages. Or there were, I should say. (There are) about a thousand now. About half of them have become extinct in the last few centuries.

The critics of the Book of Mormon say that no one has shown evidence of any American Indian language being descended from Hebrew or Egyptian, thus discounting the Book of Mormon. Or, no one has shown it to the satisfaction of the linguistic community.

Now, a linguist is a language scientist. They are the final word on whether two languages are related or not.

What Is a Language Family?

I am a linguist. I’ve been researching in a particular language family for the past 30 years, and we’re going to focus on that language family.

In fact, let’s talk about language families before we go any further.

A language family starts out some ancient time. They call this a proto-language—the original language, the old language. And from this are descended other languages.

How Languages Evolve Over Time

And interestingly, each of these languages, given time, will also separate. People move and go different places, and the language changes with time.

In fact, all living languages are always changing. So is English. Every living language changes. And from those, these become separate branches and other languages develop.

You get the picture.

Language Families in the Americas

Anyway, in the Americas there are about 2,000 languages. And these languages are organized into about 157 different language families.

That means that there are 157 different groups of related languages, each group coming from its proto form. But these different groups are not necessarily related to each other.

Some proposals have proposed that, ‘hey, this group (or this group of groups) are related in a larger picture’. And some of those will inevitably be shown to be the case. But as of now, there are about 157 language families. That’s quite a few.

Comparing Time Depth: Lehi and Other Language Families

If we look at the time depth of Lehi—Lehi came to the Americas about 2,600 years ago. Only 2,600 years ago! If we look at other language families with a time depth of 2,600 years, for example:

  • The Latin or Italic language family has descended from Latin.
  • You have Spanish, French, Portuguese, and so forth descending from Latin over about the last 2,000 years.
  • Germanic—that’s the language family that English belongs to, and also German and Dutch and many of the Scandinavian languages and so forth—all descend from Proto-Germanic, we call it, over about the last 3,000 years.

Expected vs. Observed Linguistic Patterns

So when you look at the similarities of languages descended from Latin, they’re very similar. There’s no problem seeing the relationship. Same thing with Germanic.

We should see something like that in the Americas—and yet it is problematic to see that.

First of all, if Lehi was the only one in the Americas, then there should only be one language family instead of 157. So we know that many other groups have come to the Americas besides Lehi.

Multiple Migration Sources

In fact, of these 157 language families, two of them are convincingly demonstrated to be from across the Bering Strait. Probably others were as well. But the language evidence suggests that at least two of these came from across the Bering Strait. A third one has some evidence for it.

The many sources of these language families would include Bering Strait people who entered the Americas.

Book of Mormon Peoples and Linguistic Diversity

You have Lehites or Lamanites and a few Nephites. You have the Mulekites.

Now remember, the Mulekites and Nephites mixed in the Book of Mormon about 200 BC or so—that’s just a guess. And that group of Mulekites might only be one of many.

I mean, the group of Mulekites that the Nephites mixed with would only be one of each of the branches.

Complex Population Mixing

In other words, you’d have many other Mulekite descendants, probably, and this one group mixed with the Nephites.

You’d also have other groups of Lehites, and only this one group mixed with the Mulekites.

You also probably have leftover Jaredites.

Jaredite Influence Hypothesis

My guess is that the Jaredites might be as prominent in the Americas as any, mainly because of 157 different language families.

And of course, the Jaredites date from about the Tower of Babel, which is basically the history of the earth. Since Noah, anyway.

Language Mixing in the Americas

There are probably many other sources besides those. And what happens is, when language groups get in contact with each other, the languages mix.

Many languages are mixtures of various languages. For example, English is very much a mixture. It comes from Old English originally, so it’s called a Germanic language.

However, at various points in time, English has borrowed a lot from Latin. And the two or three centuries after 1066, when the Norman French speakers conquered the British Isles and ruled for a couple of centuries, much French was borrowed into English.

English as an Example of Language Blending

So much French and so much Latin, and other times, that in an unabridged English dictionary, the Germanic part of our vocabulary is actually quite small compared to the Latin dimension of our vocabulary.

But we still call it a Germanic language.

Now, this kind of thing has probably been happening in the Americas.

  • Bering Strait languages
  • old leftover Jaredite languages
  • Lamanite
  • Nephite
  • Mulekite languages
  • and a lot of other things that have arrived in the Americas besides those

have been mixing.

And so it’s a very sticky mess.

Introducing the Uto-Aztecan Language Family

Nevertheless, there’s one language family that we’d like to focus on, and that is the Uto-Aztecan language family.

The Uto-Aztecan language family is a group of about 30 American Indian languages that linguists recognize as being one language family descended from a single proto-language called Proto-Uto-Aztecan.

Geography and Structure of Uto-Aztecan

There are about eight branches of it. In other words, it was divided into about eight different groups. And then those groups had the other descended languages.

This language family exists in the southwest United States and in northwest Mexico.

The name “Uto-Aztecan” comes from:

  • the Utes on the north here in Utah, and
  • the branch related to the Utes—which includes
    • the Shoshoni of Wyoming and
    • other languages in Nevada and
    • eastern California—and
  • “Aztecan” because that’s the south end of the language family.

Examples of Uto-Aztecan Languages

The Hopi, for example, are a Uto-Aztecan language.

Pima and Papago (Tohono O’odham) in Arizona, the various Ute groups—there are about a dozen languages in southern California where the northern branch split and spread from.

There are about 15 languages in northwest Mexico: the Tarahumara (the great distance runners), and Cora and Huichol and Yaqui, and many of the Tepiman languages.

Scope and Significance of the Research

Anyway, we don’t have time to really go into a lot of detail about that. But the Uto-Aztecan language family is an American Indian language family that is one of the larger ones.

I mean, 30 languages is quite a few.

This is some research I’ve been working on for a number of years. It has not yet been published, but it will be. Give me another two or three years maybe.

Scholarly Feedback on the Research

However, I have shared it with a prominent Semiticist and a Uto-Aztecanist, and I’m a Uto-Aztecanist myself.

So I’ve shared it with my peers, and those whom I’ve shared it with privately are quite overwhelmed at the number of similarities and the closeness of them.

Morphemes and Plural Forms

For example—let’s see, let’s enlarge that a little bit. There we go. I know linguistics, but I’m technologically challenged.

Here we have the Hebrew on the left. Three different words or morphemes—which is a unit of a word—with meaning.

The plural suffix in Hebrew is -im. It’s put on the end of words, just like in English we have -s:

  • “dog” and “dogs” for plural.

In fact, this plural is in a number of words that you’re familiar with.

  • Elohim, for example, is a plural. (Corresponding to Arabic Allah.) Eloah would be the singular; Elohim, the plural.
  • Urim is a plural—ur, light; urim, lights.
  • Thummim—thum, perfection; thummim, perfections.

Anyway, the plural suffix in Uto-Aztecan is reconstructed to be -ima.

Reconstructed Forms and Pronunciation

Now, some Uto-Aztecanists will argue with that. Nevertheless, there is good evidence for that.

They would argue about the vowel in front.

By the way, I need to tell you that we’re going to pronounce the vowels like you do in Spanish or most languages of the world. If you know Spanish or any other language besides English, it’s probably close to that. English changed them all.

Agreement Among Linguists

Anyway, the plural suffix in Uto-Aztecan is -ima.

And I talked with Wick Miller, the foremost Uto-Aztecanist, before his passing, and explained all the evidence suggesting that.

He agreed that that’s a decent reconstruction for that plural suffix in Uto-Aztecan.

Grammatical Parallels: Prefixes and Verbs

There’s also a passive prefix in Hebrew ni- that’s put on the beginning of verbs to make a verb passive. You know, “I ate the apple.” “The apple was eaten.”

(By the way, that is also reciprocal and reflexive. That just means “we did it to each other”—like “I fought him,” or “he was fought,” or “we fought each other.” Those are reciprocal and passive meanings that do overlap a lot in all languages.)

In Uto-Aztecan there is a prefix na-, which also makes verbs reciprocal and passive.

Verb Correspondences

There’s also a verb—it’s yāšab in later Hebrew, but originally it was yāšab with a b, and it means “to sit down.” It also means “to dwell or reside at a place.”

Well, in Uto-Aztecan there’s a verb yasipa, which also means “to sit down” and “to reside at a certain place.”

Historical Linguistic Reconstruction

Now, those are somewhat close.

However, when we consider the fact that the Hebrew plural suffix -im came from an older form. Ima is the original form. Linguists and Semiticists can figure out, looking at related languages, that the older original form was -ima.

Then we see that the plural suffix of the Near East—in Northwest Semitic—is identical to the Uto-Aztecan plural suffix.

Shared Linguistic Origins

Also, the Hebrew ni- came from an earlier na-—Semiticists know that and agree on that—identical to the Uto-Aztecan passive, reciprocal, and reflexive prefix.

Also, the Hebrew word yāšab changed its vowel at a certain time in the history of Hebrew, and it was originally yāšiba.

And the vowel pattern of the Uto-Aztecan verb is identical: yasipa, just a change from b to p.

Sound Change Patterns

Very interesting similarities. Now, these are only three similarities.

There are about a thousand such similarities between the Uto-Aztecan language family and Hebrew and Egyptian.

Now, trying to decide how many similarities—we have lots of them here. Let’s get into it a little bit further.

Systematic Sound Correspondences

There are three basic sound changes.

Now I need to explain here that linguists have found that sounds change in consistent patterns. So that this language changes this sound this way, and another language changes it another way—quite consistently within itself.

So that later this sound corresponds to another sound in the other related language.

Examples of Sound Changes

For example, Hebrew b in dagesh positions (which means at the beginning of a word or in certain positions) changed to kw in Uto-Aztecan.

The emphatic or pharyngeal ṣ changed to s.

That “c” with a little hook under it we’re going to use to represent the ts sound. In fact, that’s how it’s pronounced now in modern Israel.

The r changed to y or i, another very common change in world languages.

Lexical Comparisons

Keeping those three sound changes in mind, look at these similarities between Hebrew words and Uto-Aztecan words.

For example, the Hebrew verb ‘to boil’ or ‘ripen’ is bašal. The corresponding word is kwasa.

It’s missing the final l, but the b corresponds to kw, and the š corresponds to s.

Semantic and Phonological Matches

The Hebrew word for ‘flesh’ or ‘meat’ is bāśar (and other meanings). In Uto-Aztecan it’s kwasi.

Again, you see the b change to kw, the š corresponds to s, and the r goes to an i or y sound. (In fact, in some of the languages, the Y actually shows up.)

The verb for babba in Arabic but ṣabba in Hebrew—means ‘to latch onto something, to grab’ —like a lizard.

Multi-Meaning Correspondence Example

Notice the double b. That would cause a kw in Uto-Aztecan.

And interestingly, this corresponds perfectly. In Uto-Aztecan, takwa means ‘to close or lock’, like it does in Arabic and Hebrew and other semitic languages. It also means ‘to catch or grasp’, like it does in Arabic.

Striking Lexical Parallel

And one of the nouns coming from that verb is a word for lizard.

Sabb—or in Arabic, ḍabb—means lizard.

And in Uto-Aztecan, takwa also means lizard.

So here you have an identical form that has all three meanings:

  • to close or lock
  • to grab
  • lizard

They match phonologically—all the sounds match. They also have those same three meanings in Uto Aztecan.

Additional Verb and Pattern Examples

In fact, here are a couple of more examples. Shāb is a past tense. Shābad is the imperfect form of the conjugation. Don’t worry if you don’t understand all the words I’m using—we don’t have time to explain it—but you can get the picture here.

Anyway, šab saqqu—you see the s lining up, the double b to the qua, and the r to the y. Same thing with ṭaq.

Here are a few others. Mayim is the Hebrew word for water. Mim, mi, mima is the word for ocean in a number of Uto-Aztecan languages. The word for shoulder is similar.

I’m just going to go real fast here.

The word for shoulder—shekem or shikmo—shikmo if it’s got a suffix. Sikum—actually with an m sometimes. The capital N just means any kind of nasal. It changes according to the letter following it.

Singab—word for squirrel. If this word existed in Hebrew, it would match Arabic in a form of shigb. We don’t have that word for squirrel in ancient Hebrew because there is no need to talk about squirrels in the Old Testament.

But the sound correspondence is among Semitic languages themselves.

Semitic Language Family Context

By the way, Semitic—I might need to explain that term—is the language family to which Hebrew, Arabic, Babylonian, Ethiopic and Semitic languages belong. Arabic is closely related to Hebrew. Oh, and Aramaic—that will be important in our discussion.

Sound Change Patterns

Anyway, šigb would be the word in Hebrew; kʷul with a silent consonant at the end is the word in Uto-Aztecan.

G changed to C—that devoicing of G and D to C and T—and B to P in other positions is also established with several examples.

Another verb—Aramaic—and by the way, yes, these are examples of r changing to y or i.

Phonetic Relationships (i and y)

By the way, those are basically the same letter. You don’t think of i and y being the same letter.

But say the vowel i between two a’s, for example aya, and if you make the vowel long, it’s ē. But if you make it short, i, then the i becomes a y.

They’re both pronounced in exactly the same place in the mouth. So whether you see an i or a y, they’re basically the same.

More Comparative Examples

Anyway, shaq, the word for comb the hair—which I don’t have too much of anymore—and in Uto-Aztecan, suk. You see the y corresponding to the y, and everything else matches fairly well.

Kara—to go in circles or to do dances. In Southern Paiute, kia—to have a round dance.

Semantic and Motion Verbs

mar, to go or flow or pass by in Semitic languages generally; in Uto-Aztecan, mia.

barr in Arabic, meaning field or land as opposed to water; kwa in Uto-Aztecan.

And there’s actually one language that has the ru, so they have three examples in a row of an r between vowels going to y in Uto-Aztecan.

Transition to Broader Examples

There are several others, but we don’t have time for everything. Let’s skip those.

Oh, here are some interesting ones. Let’s take a look at these. I’m watching my clock here.

So what we’re going to do is give a lot of examples—just look at them—and there are many very interesting ones. Then we’ll talk about what it all means.

“Adam” and Color Associations

One of the words for man in Hebrew is ʾādām. In Uto-Aztecan we have ʔitam.

Another word from that same root, ʾāḏōm, means red—and in fact the verb ʾāḏam means ‘to be red’.

In Arabic you’ve got ʾaduma, ʾadimal, and so forth. And in Uto-Aztecan, ʔitam is the word for brown. Red and brown are often associated.

Pharyngeal Sounds and Vowels

Now, the pharyngeal Hebrew ḥ is reflected by o or u. The pharyngeal ḥ is different than our English h—it’s pronounced very gutturally in the pharynx.

For example, instead of “aha” with a regular h, it’s a very guttural sound.

And that gutturalness makes its tonality very similar to round vowels. In fact, it’s always associated with round vowels like o and u.

Pharyngeal Correspondences

So here we have—usually u is what it corresponds to in Uto-Aztecan. For example, ḥēṣ is the Hebrew word for arrow; in Uto-Aztecan it’s uṣ.

You’ve got that pharyngeal ḥ causing the vowel.

ḥāmar means to smear something—again you see the pharyngeal ḥ going to u, and the r going to y. ḥarak, same thing.

More Pharyngeal Examples

ḥālal, the verb to play the flute; in Uto-Aztecan, kulul. It’s missing the initial ḥ, but it’s got the round vowels and the two l’s. It’s very similar.

Aḥa—to cough—and ohoho, and so forth.

To cry—with that guttural ḥ—you’ve got the š corresponding to s, the r to y, and the w or u, which is also like a round vowel, corresponding to ḥ.

Relationship Between w, u, i, and y

In fact, w’s and u’s are like i and y. If you say awa, you make a u sound between two a’s, and say it faster and faster, then it becomes w.

So w’s and o’s and u’s are very similar.

The Pharyngeal ʿAyin

The pharyngeal ʿayin is also a pharyngeal. But it’s voiced pharyngeal instead of voiceless. It’s a sound unique to Semitic languages, not in European languages.

In fact, in Saudi Arabia, you have two ʿayin’s. Saʿu-di—Aʿra-bia. There’s an ʿayin between Saudi and Arabia. There are consonants between those.

Anyway, the pharyngeal also goes to w or o or u. That pharyngeal behaves very much like the other pharyngeal.

Examples Involving ʿAyin

And here are some examples. For example, the verb ṣāʿaq is the word to cry—or “to cry out”—in Hebrew; in Uto-Aztecan, soach. You’ve got that “ooa” that shows the presence of a pharyngeal.

Šaʿa—ʿāhab, to delight in or love. In Uto-Aztecan, shoa.

Oh, this is a great one. In Arabic, there is a verb to grow old—specifically used for women. It’s not used for men or any other kind of creature. It means for a woman to grow old. Its consonants are ʿ, ġ, and z—ġ-z-y. ġaẓiya.

In Tarahumara, one of our Uto-Aztecan languages—identical. And it specifically means to grow old (only women): wakaza. For some reason, there’s not such a verb for men. There’s a little bit of chauvinism in ancient languages.

Anyway, you see the ‘ayin, corresponding to the W. ġaẓiya and wakaza, word for older woman.

Shelar—hair. Šaʿar in Arabic; in Uto-Aztecan, wiša.

You see the š corresponding, the pharyngeal ‘ayin to w, and the r to e.

More Word Comparisons

Word for boy: naʿar; in Uto-Aztecan niya.

Again, the pharyngeal ayin with the w/y, and the r going to e.

Enough of that one. Let’s look at a few more here.

Final Comparative Examples

The word for forest: yaʿar. yui

To swallow: bālaʿ; in Uto-Aztecan kʷu. Again, b corresponding to kw, l to l, and ʿ to u.

The word for ‘leech’ in Hebrew and Arabic—ʿalūq. In Uto-Aztecan, wak.

Glottal Stop Behavior

The Semitic ʾaleph (glottal stop) also acts like a pharyngeal. The glottal stop is like an “uh uh” catch in the throat—ʔ.

It often went to w. In fact, it does in Arabic; glottal stops sometimes go to w.

Final Linguistic Alignments

The word for lion in Hebrew—ʾaryēh; in Uto-Aztecan, warya.

The word for “believe”: yaʾamin, ʾāman—“he believes” in Hebrew. Yahwamin means “to believe” in Uto-Aztecan. Ya amino, amino—“he believes him” or “believes it”—is another Hebrew word from that verb.

Gabrielino: -o—I know it’s missing the m, but it’s actually got the -o meaning “him” or “it” as an object.

Probability Observation

The probability of those seven segments aligning perfectly like that—I figured out manually once—it’s one in several thousand anyway, the probability of it aligning by chance.

There are a lot of other interesting words—we don’t have time to go over all of them. Let’s run to the Egyptian.

Oh yes, and what’s interesting is in Uto-Aztecan, we not only find about 600–700 similarities between Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan, we also find about 300 similarities between Egyptian and Uto-Aztecan. Egyptian & Uto-Aztecan parallels

Similarities Between Egyptian and Uto-Aztecan

This first one was not found by me. It was found by Cyrus Gordon, an internationally renowned Semiticist, who happened to notice that the Aztec word—Classical Nahuatl—for crocodile, cipactli, which comes from Uto-Aztecan supak, was very similar to the Egyptian word for crocodile, Sobek.

Oh yes—and the old perfective in Egyptian has verbs ending in -e if it was past tense or passive/stative kinds of things. Interestingly, in Uto-Aztecan there’s a mechanism that has verbs ending in -a being active or transitive, and verbs ending in -e being passive, intransitive, and stative—exactly like it is in Egyptian.

The passive -w or -ew in Egyptian—exact same thing in Uto-Aztecan. In fact, there are four ways in Egyptian to make a verb stative or passive, and one in Arabic—and Uto-Aztecan has all five of them quite prominently.

This goes into pronouns—we don’t have time for pronouns. Let’s take a look at some Egyptian words.

Egyptian Consonants and Uto-Aztecan

By the way, in Egyptian we only have the consonants. We know a little bit about the vowels from Coptic, even though they’re debatable sometimes. We have a few vowels figured out by transliterations into other languages, but a lot of it is still quite unknown.

So the Egyptian consonants for a verb meaning “to pierce” are t-k-s. In Uto-Aztecan, tikselo is the verb meaning to pierce or poke.

k-m is the verb meaning black, brown—any dark color. In Coptic, kēme; in Uto-Aztecan, koma, meaning dark gray, brown, black.

n-m-y is the word for traveling or crossing something. In Uto-Aztecan, nami means traveling, walking around, crossing an area or a river.

Wnš—or wunish, whatever the vowels were—in Coptic, onch; in Uto-Aztecan, once, onceo, and onceu, the word for “fox.”

100 out of 1000 Examples

Let’s just pick out a few of each page. Like I say, there are about a thousand of these—we’re going to show you about a hundred or 150. If you want all of them, they’re in a book in the back. By the title of this, if you want the whole story and you’re interested in this kind of thing, you’ve got all the details in 110 pages back there. We’re just getting the tip of the iceberg here.

For example, šim in Egyptian, the word for “go” or “walk”; sema in Uto-Aztecan.

Another: sbk (Egyptian), calf of the leg or lower leg; in Uto-Aztecan sepika—same three consonants. Calf of the leg, lower leg.

Oh, by the way, Coptic is a later form of Egyptian that did put vowels into it. It existed about the time of Christ.

s-b-t in Coptic; sapi in Uto-Aztecan, meaning fence or enclosure.

k-b in Egyptian, meaning cool, calm, quiet; kopa in Uto-Aztecan, quiet and calm.

Similarities Between Egyptian and Uto-Aztecan

This first one was not found by me. It was found by Cyrus Gordon, an internationally renowned Semiticist, who happened to notice that the Aztec word—Classical Nahuatl—for crocodile, cipactli, which comes from Uto-Aztecan supak, was very similar to the Egyptian word for crocodile, Sobek.

Oh yes—and the old perfective in Egyptian has verbs ending in -e if it was past tense or passive/stative kinds of things. Interestingly, in Uto-Aztecan there’s a mechanism that has verbs ending in -a being active or transitive, and verbs ending in -e being passive, intransitive, and stative—exactly like it is in Egyptian.

The passive -w or -ew in Egyptian—exact same thing in Uto-Aztecan. In fact, there are four ways in Egyptian to make a verb stative or passive, and one in Arabic—and Uto-Aztecan has all five of them quite prominently.

This goes into pronouns—we don’t have time for pronouns. Let’s take a look at some Egyptian words.

Similarities Between these two languages

By the way, in Egyptian we only have the consonants. We know a little bit about the vowels from Coptic, even though they’re debatable sometimes. We have a few vowels figured out by transliterations into other languages, but a lot of it is still quite unknown.

So the Egyptian consonants for a verb meaning “to pierce” are t-k-s. In Uto-Aztecan, tikselo is the verb meaning to pierce or poke.

k-m is the verb meaning black, brown—any dark color. In Coptic, kēme; in Uto-Aztecan, koma, meaning dark gray, brown, black.

n-m-y is the word for traveling or crossing something. In Uto-Aztecan, nami means traveling, walking around, crossing an area or a river.

Wnš—or wunish, whatever the vowels were—in Coptic, onch; in Uto-Aztecan, once, onceo, and onceu, the word for “fox.”

Egyptian Article Prefixes as Proofs

Now, Egyptian has article prefixes. For a feminine noun, wꜣ means “a bee.” tꜣ means “the,” so you’d put that on the front, meaning “the bee.” And nꜣ is the plural “the” in Egyptian, meaning “the bees.” So you have wꜣ, tꜣ, and nꜣ as prefixes to the word.

And here we have in Uto-Aztecan: the Tarahumara language has three different variants for this word “bumblebee”: napara, tapara, and wapara.

The -para part is simply a vowel change. Since the last vowel is a, it tends to change the vowels in front of it to a. That happens often in English and other languages. So para becomes para. Intervocalic t becomes r often.

So para is the word for bee, and it has those same three prefixes for a feminine noun. In Egyptian, bit is a feminine noun. Boy, you can’t get a much better match than that. direct word comparisons between Egyptian and Uto-Aztecan

Egyptian–Uto-Aztecan Word Parallels

A few more: Egyptian bꜣk (hawk); in Uto-Aztecan, pak.

Now we have to show you these. The word for lion in Egyptian—mꜣꜥy (consonants m-ʔ-y). Remember, the glottal stop goes to w, and i is the same as y. In Coptic, it’s moui. In Uto-Aztecan, mawya—all three consonants showing perfectly.

tjt—a shroud or garment—in Egyptian; in Uto-Aztecan, tutui—all three consonants matching.

tꜣ is the Egyptian word for earth; in Uto-Aztecan, ti, meaning dirt, dust, sand.

Sot—the word for son.

Glottal Stop Correspondence and Shifts

The word for old man, or “to be old,” in Egyptian—that’s an i, glottal stop, w—iwꜣ; in Uto-Aztecan, yowa—again, the glottal stop showing with rounding and the w.

This is wonderful: sbꜣ. In Coptic, it’s sba. But Coptic has already lost the glottal stop of Egyptian—it only has the s originally from the Egyptian. Whereas Uto-Aztecan has all three consonants still showing. But the glottal stop jumped from the third consonant to the second. So seepo is the word for star in Uto-Aztecan.

And by the way, this is a consistent pattern—the glottal stop jumping ahead for certain words or kinds of vocalizations.

Transition to Hebrew Sound Correspondences

We’re not going to have time to show you all this. I’ve got to show you one other page, and then we’ll come to some conclusions.

Anyway, after I found all of these Egyptian words, the sound correspondences of Egyptian were a little bit different than what I had found for Hebrew.

The t goes to s, and the b to p, and so forth. Then I started noticing lots of words in Uto-Aztecan as well where the Hebrew b corresponded to p.

Hebrew “b → p” Correspondence Examples

Here’s a good list of them. The p-dialect of Hebrew, for example—the word in Hebrew for lightning is baraq; in Uto-Aztecan, peraq. The word for house, bēt; in Uto-Aztecan, pet.

The word also as a verb—“to spend the night”—in Uto-Aztecan means house, and pet as a verb also means to spend the night. Betach, petirach—that’s that pharyngeal ḥ behavior, and so forth.

Another example: bōʾ means “coming,” or also “the way,” in Hebrew; po, identical in Uto-Aztecan for road or path.

This is a good one: bāṣaʿ, to look or see; bassar, to open the eyes. In Arabic, baṣar for eye—the Hebrew voweling would be bosi, which matches Uto-Aztecan pusi. This is a bit strange, but it matches. We don’t have that word in Hebrew per se.

The word for daughter, bat; in Uto-Aztecan, pate.

Discovery of a “p-Dialect” in Uto-Aztecan

And so forth. Several hundred other words showed me that there is also a p-dialect of Hebrew in Uto-Aztecan. And it wasn’t until I found all three of these that it dawned on me—I’m a little slow and dense at times—that here we have one dialect of Hebrew, or Hebrew/Aramaic (it actually has a lot of Aramaic leaning).

Northwest Semitic Connections: Hebrew and Aramaic

This p-dialect of Northwest Semitic—shall we call it—Aramaic and Hebrew are both part of the Northwest Semitic branch of Semitic. Anyway, we have a p-dialect of Hebrew, and we have it matching Egyptian, and then we have a kw-dialect of Hebrew.

Possible Book of Mormon Connection: Zarahemla

And then it comes to mind, of course, the union of the Mulekites with the Nephites—Nephites who are dealing with both Egyptian and Hebrew uniting with the Mulekites. And it would appear, at first glance—in fact, there’s a whole bunch of other evidence that I don’t have time to show you—but this actually is a descendant of the language of Zarahemla, because you have all of them.

Reactions from Linguistic Experts

Now, of course, I’ve run this privately past a few Uto-Aztecan PhDs in linguistics that I work with—they’re non-LDS—and shown these similarities, and their jaws drop. They are really quite overwhelmed with the number and quality of the similarities. But it has not been published, so give me a little more time. I need to figure a few more things out and put some other things together first.

But from both LDS specialists, Semitic specialists and non-LDS Semitic specialists, and non-Uto-Aztecanists, it seems to be a very strong case.

And you know, this is only one of the 150 language families in the Americas. There are a lot of interesting things in other language families. So it’s all yet to be worked out, and it will all come out in the wash.

Responding to Critics

So when the critics say there is no language evidence for the Book of Mormon that has been accepted by the linguistic community, they are correct. There’s nothing yet that has been accepted by the linguistic community—but that doesn’t mean it’s not there.

The progress of Native American language study generally is slow. It takes about three to five lifetimes to really get a language family figured out.

Q&A

Anyway—hey, let’s take a few questions.

First question:

This asks about other language families besides Uto-Aztecan. There are people who have claimed, for example, Swadesh claimed something for the Zapotecan languages. There’s a handful of similarities with Hebrew—not enough that anybody’s really paid attention to them.

Another person has put together some similarities with Quechua in the south, and about half of those are really good and could be worked up according to linguistic methodology, but that has not been done yet. Half of them are spurious and do not work so well.

Others have claimed things for Plains Indians, Iriquoi and so forth. I’ve looked at those languages myself. In fact, the reason I focused on Uto-Aztecan is because I looked at a few dozen language families before focusing on this one. There are some interesting things in other language families, but none of them have been put together, written up, and presented convincingly to the linguistic community—not even close. And so that has not been done yet.

Second Question:

(You’re assuming I can read small print!) This talks about the Uto-Aztecans not arriving in Mesoamerica until after 900 AD. Yes, Aztecan came quite late to where it is now. They claimed to have come from the northwest of there, which is interestingly where all the other Uto-Aztecan languages are.

Not only that, but I think that with time I might figure out where they come from exactly by language comparisons and areas.

But that doesn’t mean they didn’t come from the south, go north, and then return southward—perhaps survivors of the destruction of the Nephites—while others were northward. The homeland of the Uto-Aztecans is somewhere in northwest Mexico or the southwest U.S.

Third Question

This talks about the Olmec. Yes, the Olmec are the archaeological entity in the Gulf of Mexico that might be Jaredite-related, and that the Michoacán language family is associated with the Olmec tradition. That’s probably true—I don’t doubt it at all.

And this is basically asking about Jaredite languages. Yes, I am very interested in that matter. I think a lot of American Indian languages are more Jaredite-descended than Lehite—but that’s about three more lifetimes of research.

If anybody wants to become a linguist and dive into that, they’re welcome. My life’s two-thirds over, and I’m going to focus on as many language families as I can with the Lehi problem.

Question: We see in your examples words written—do these languages have written forms?

Answer: Some of them do. Some are simply spoken languages that linguists record. Others have modern written forms—they borrowed the Roman alphabet, just like we English speakers did.

The Romans borrowed the Greek alphabet to write Latin. The Greeks borrowed the Phoenician alphabet, and the Hebrews and Phoenicians got many of their symbols from Egyptian. So English is “reformed Egyptian,” too.

Here’s a very good question, and I meant to touch upon it:

Question: There are a lot of word similarities—are there any grammatical similarities?

Answer: Yes, I have found a few, but not many. That’s my focus for the next few years—to learn Egyptian better and find some grammatical similarities.

With more research, I think we can identify time and place of Egyptian influence and so forth. That will be interesting and mostly still needs to be done.

Question: Have you made comparisons with Mesoamerican and Hebrew languages?

Answer: Yes, I’ve looked at Mesoamerican languages. There are a couple of language families I want to look into—Oto-Manguean is interesting, and Hokan is interesting—but I haven’t had time yet.

Question: Aztec being a dead language—how do we know how it sounded?

Answer: Well, Aztec is not a dead language. There are still about a million speakers of Aztecs in Mexico—different dialects descended from Classical Nahuatl. But yeah, to be sure, one of the larger languages, still about a million speakers.

The largest Native language in the United States is Navajo, about 200,000 speakers; second largest is Cherokee, about 50,000. Others are less than 10,000, some less than 100, some already extinct.

But in Latin America, you have a million speakers of Aztec, six million speakers of Quechua—lots of languages flourishing there.

They don’t insist on public education in the same way—where they must learn Spanish—so they retain their native languages more than in the U.S., where English dominates.

So I’m an English teacher and a linguist—I’m working against myself. But they pay English teachers more, so that’s what I do for a living, and I try to help Native languages stay alive by not forcing English too aggressively.

Question: Is 600–700 similar words significant?

Yes, because some language relationships are founded on 50 similarities or less.

When you get 300 for each group, that is significant. But linguists would not accept a tripartite relationship—each relationship would have to stand on its own merit.

By the time everything is sifted, there will probably be enough for each hypothesis to stand on its own merit. But—give us time.

Search topics Uto-Aztecan language family; Hebrew language connections; Egyptian language parallels; Semitic linguistics; Book of Mormon language; Nephite language; Mulekite language; Zarahemla language; sound correspondences linguistics; historical linguistics methodology; Native American languages origins; linguistic evidence Book of Mormon; Proto-Uto-Aztecan; phonology sound shifts; morphology language comparison; pharyngeal consonants; glottal stop linguistics; Hebrew Egyptian mix language; language families Americas; linguistic reconstruction methods CES Letter language claims; Mormon language evidence criticism; Book of Mormon historicity debate; Mormon Church criticism language evidence; Are Mormons Christian linguistic claims; LDS apologetics language evidence; criticism of Book of Mormon languages; Native American origins debate Mormon; Mormon archaeology and linguistics; LDS truth claims evidence

Tithing—Putting God First 

by

In his April 2026 General Conference address, “Tithing—Putting God First,” Jorge T. Becerra teaches that discipleship requires choosing God first, even when doing so feels uncertain or requires personal sacrifice.

Yet for many, that raises a real question: Why would God ask for something like tithing, especially when resources already feel limited?

I witness that a spiritual power and direction, heretofore unknown, will come into our lives as we keep the law of obedience and sacrifice.

[Read more…] about Tithing—Putting God First