• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

FAIR

  • Find Answers
  • Blog
  • Media & Apps
  • Conference
  • Bookstore
  • Archive
  • About
  • Get Involved
  • Search

Apologetics

Brant A. Gardner

Brant A. Gardner

Book of Mormon Scholar • Mesoamericanist • FAIR Conference Speaker

Brant A. Gardner, Book of Mormon scholar and FAIR Conference speaker

Read Brant Gardner's testimony ↓

Brant A. Gardner received a master’s degree in anthropology from the State University of New York at Albany, specializing in Mesoamerican ethnohistory. His work has focused particularly on reading the Book of Mormon in its historical, cultural, and literary contexts, with special attention to ancient Mesoamerica.

Gardner is the author of Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon, Engraven Upon Plates, Printed Upon Paper: Textual and Narrative Structures of the Book of Mormon, and The Plates of Mormon: A Book of Mormon Study Edition Based on Textual and Narrative Structures in the English Translation, published by Kofford Books.

Gardner has also been a longtime contributor to Latter-day Saint scholarship and apologetics and has presented multiple times at the FAIR Conference. His research brings together anthropology, Mesoamerican ethnohistory, textual analysis, and close reading of the Book of Mormon to explore questions of translation, historicity, culture, and the structure of the text.

Bio last reviewed:

Contributions at FAIR

Testimony

Brant A. Gardner’s personal testimony

Books have typically defined both my intellectual and religious life. In my very early teens a relative gave me a book surveying world archaeology, and from that time some tie to antiquity formed in my soul and brain and eventually dictated my selection of graduate studies. That fondness for archaeology and ancient history began to intermingle with my understanding and testimony of the Book of Mormon when I found Thomas S. Ferguson’s One Fold, One Shepherd among my father’s books. From the time I first picked it up, my interests in the gospel and in archaeology had fused. My father never got the book back.

I took that excitement about the Book of Mormon and archaeology with me on my mission in Spain. When I returned, the excitement still burned brightly enough that I decided that I should take my new fluency in Spanish to the chronicles that surely supported everything in the Book of Mormon. I wanted to be able to say that I knew that they were true because I had read the sources and they said just that. I did: They didn’t. I didn’t lose any faith in the Book of Mormon, but I certainly lost faith in LDS writers who opined about New World history and the Book of Mormon (including One Fold, One Shepherd). By the early 1970s, I resigned myself to the role of gadfly, poking at the obvious problems with the armchair archaeologists and their misuse of information relative to the Book of Mormon. Then I met John Sorenson.

Dr. Sorenson allowed me to vent about the problems that were obvious in the way LDS writers had attempted to use archaeology and history in support of the Book of Mormon. His response was to give me a manuscript (about a decade before it was published as An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon). At that time, my mental picture of Nephites and Lamanites vacillated between movie depictions of ancient Jerusalem and the Romans-from-an-alternate-universe depictions of Arnold Friberg. Sorenson painted a picture that comfortably placed the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. I didn’t, and don’t, agree with all of Sorenson’s analyses, but he gave me a context in which for the first time I could see how the Book of Mormon could plausibly fit into a real place and time.

Nevertheless, the Book of Mormon took a distant back seat to the exciting world of Mesoamerican studies. However, while doing some fieldwork in Guatemala, all of the note cards I had amassed towards a dissertation were stolen. In the days of typewriters rather than computers, there were no backups. Lost was lost. Right at the point where all that remained was the final examination and the dissertation, that disheartening loss and our economic realities led my wife and me to decide that I should stop my program for a year and earn some money to get us on our feet. It has been a very, very, long year.

While concentrating on trying to find a way to support and raise a family, interests in Mesoamerica lingered in my reading. Eventually, it was the Internet that provided the impetus to reintegrate my academic interests and love for the Book of Mormon. While participating on a fascinating email list, the owner/moderator of the list asked if I would be willing to write a weekly column. I remembered James Faulconer‘s book entitled Scripture Study: Tools and Suggestions (FARMS, 1999). Faulconer suggested that one might go through the scriptures slowly and to ask lots of questions of them. Having read several scholarly commentaries on books of the Bible, I keenly felt the lack of a similarly scholarly and comprehensive commentary for the Book of Mormon. I agreed to do the article as an ongoing commentary on the Book of Mormon that would go slowly so as to be able to ask lots of questions of the text.

It has been a fascinating project and in some ways a blind leap of faith. Considering my background in Mesoamerican religious ethnohistory and Sorenson’s foundational work, I determined to read the text against a Mesoamerican historical and cultural background. When I started, I didn’t know if it would work, but I began as though it would. I soon found that whenever I attempted to look ahead I was going to be wrong. I had to plug along a verse at a time.

It was not so much a process of fitting the Book of Mormon into a Mesoamerican setting as it was the text opening my eyes to the world in which it was written. The authors had to tell me their story; I couldn’t impose one on them. Why did the people in the Book of Mormon have the specific problems they had? Why did Nephite apostasy always take a very similar form? Why was victory defined so differently from my understanding of European history? Why did some faith-promoting stories in the text make so little sense if you looked at the story carefully?

The authors seemed to patiently explain how their particular culture at their particular time provided the background that seemed to naturally answer such questions. Of course, I mean that metaphorically. The text, seen through the plodding and gradual travel through time and space, was not only a different kind of fit than I had imagined, it was a better one.

The Book of Mormon is very different from what I read as a teenager or even as a young father. The text is the same, but now I read about some of my best friends. They were real people with real lives, real problems, and, perhaps best of all, real solutions. Even after the commentary was published, the Book of Mormon keeps reminding me that there is even more to its story. I had thought I would have finished, but it seems that there is still more to understand. The Book of Mormon has become richer, more nuanced, more understandable—yet no more true.

The Book that Mormon created was written by a very human man. It was translated by a very human man. Nevertheless, both Mormon and Joseph were touched by the divine, and it is the divine that shines in and through the text. It makes so much more sense to my mind as I understand it against history. The divine in it continues to make sense to my heart.

It always did. It always will.

February 2011

All Who Have Endured Valiantly

August 30, 2026 by FAIR Staff Leave a Comment

In his April 2026 General Conference address, “All Who Have Endured Valiantly,” David A. Bednar teaches that enduring to the end is much more than simply surviving life’s challenges. Through the Savior’s grace, it is the lifelong process of becoming a new creature in Christ. [Read more…] about All Who Have Endured Valiantly

Filed Under: Apologetics, Consider Conference, General Conference, Jesus Christ

Tangible Restoration: The Witnesses and What They Experienced

Opening Remarks

It’s a privilege to be here again. I’m really impressed with what Scott and the other leaders of FAIR have been able to do—for example, to get the previous speaker here. I’m astonished at their influence with the parole board.

Brian told a joke that reminded me of another joke, and probably you’ve heard this one, about the dyslexic, insomniac atheist who stays awake all night wondering if there’s a dog.

I’d like to welcome Claudia Bushman to the ranks of the apologists.

Do Apologists Ever Make Mistakes?

Brian raised the question of whether or not apologists ever make mistakes. I would have disagreed with him until about a week ago, when I made my first. I mistakenly used the obsolete term brontosaurus instead of apatosaurus and was promptly jumped on for it. But I can take it.

Now, I lead off with some jokes because this is going to be an incredibly boring presentation. There are no jokes in it, no insults. But the question you have to ask yourself as you listen is: Is there an acrostic?

So listen very, very carefully.

Reading the Paper

I’d like to thank Mike Ash for helping me out with the PowerPoint. I wasn’t planning to have any, but he decided that I needed it, which is probably true. And so I’m able to look technically—or technologically—literate with his help just today.

I’m going to read this paper, which I normally don’t do, and I apologize for that. I was intimidated by the performance earlier today, so I set about at first to memorize it. And then I thought that I would try to go one better by reciting it to you backwards. But I think I’ll just do it in the orthodox fashion.

There’s just a lot of stuff here, and I want to make sure I don’t leave it out. I feel very strongly about the topic I’m going to be talking about, so please bear with me. I’ll try to make it lively.

My wife said, “Keep me awake,” which may suggest an impossible standard, but I will try.

The Tangible Claims of the Book of Mormon

Joseph Smith’s claims regarding the Book of Mormon seem, at least on the surface, to be very detailed and utterly tangible. They are not mystical claims, but, at least in principle, can be tested in the real world of everyday, physical objects.

And critics have not been reluctant to meet the claim head on. “As for the golden plates,” wrote the evangelical Protestant polemicist G.H. Fraser, “we will say simply that there were not any.”

But the historical evidence suggests—no, it shouts—the contrary.

David Whitmer’s Account of Seeing the Plates

A representative statement is that given by David Whitmer during an 1878 interview with Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith:

It was in June, 1829, the latter part of the month . . . Martin Harris was not with us at this time; he obtained a view of [the plates] afterwards (the same day). Joseph, Oliver, and myself were together when I saw them. We not only saw the plates of the Book of Mormon, but also the brass plates [a set of records mentioned early in the Book of Mormon as having been carried by Lehi from Jerusalem to the New World], the plates of the book of Ether, the plates containing the record of the wickedness and secret combinations of the people of the world down to the time of their being engraved, and many other plates.

The fact is, it was just as though Joseph, Oliver and I were sitting just here on a log, when we were overshadowed by a light. It was not like the light of the sun nor like that of a fire, but more glorious and beautiful. It extended away round us, I cannot tell how far, but in the midst of this light about as far off as he sits (pointing to John C. Whitmer, sitting a few feet from him), there appeared, as it were, a table with many records or plates upon it, besides the plates of the Book of Mormon, also the sword of Laban, the directors [i.e. the ball with spindles which Lehi had, and the interpreters].

Joseph Smith’s Reaction to the Three Witnesses

Lucy Mack Smith, who had seen the chosen witnesses leave for their encounter with the angel and the plates, recalled, many years later, the scene that ensued at their return:

When they returned to the house, it was between three and four o’clock P. M. Mrs. Whitmer, Mr. Smith, and myself, were sitting in a bedroom at the time. On coming in, Joseph threw himself down beside me, and exclaimed, “Father, mother, you do not know how happy I am: the Lord has now caused the plates to be shown to three more besides myself. They have seen an angel, who has testified to them, and they will have to bear witness to the truth of what I have said, for now they know for themselves, that I do not go about to deceive the people, and I feel as if I was relieved of a burden which was almost too heavy for me to bear, and it rejoices my soul, that I am not any longer to be entirely alone in the world.”

Upon this, Martin Harris came in: he seemed almost overcome with joy, and testified boldly to what he had both seen and heard. And so did David and Oliver, adding, that no tongue could express the joy of their hearts, and the greatness of the things which they had both seen and heard.

Ultimately, each of the Three Witnesses—Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer—signed his name to a statement that has appeared in every edition of the Book of Mormon from the beginning.

The Testimony of the Three Witnesses

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken.

And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man.

And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes.

Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens.

And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses

According to David Whitmer, the quite distinct experience of the Eight Witnesses to the Book of Mormon occurred one or two days after the experience of the Three. Soon thereafter, all of the Eight signed their names to a statement that has accompanied the testimony of the Three in every printed version of the Book of Mormon.

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come; That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.

And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken.

And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

The Contrasting Experiences of the Witnesses

It is worth examining the contrasting character of the experiences reported by the Three Witnesses and the Eight, since, I believe, their very difference reinforces them.

First of all, the experience of the Three, as they report it, was suffused with the glory and power of God. In a brilliant light, an angel came down and showed them the plates. They heard the voice of God testifying that the translation had been accomplished “by the gift and power of God.”

Their written testimony is characterized by a marked religious or spiritual tone. It might be termed a supernatural or miraculous testimony.

The Ordinary Testimony of the Eight Witnesses

By contrast, the experience of the Eight involves no glory, nothing miraculous. It is as mundane as anything can be. No angel shows the plates to them; Joseph Smith does.

There is no miraculous light. Unlike the Three, who seem simply to have observed the plates in the hands of the angel, the Eight handled the plates and turned their pages. They “hefted” them.

The language of their official account is cool and even formal or legalistic to the point of emotional distance (“the said Smith”). God figures in their testimony only as witness to their concluding oath. His voice does not testify to the correctness of the translation.

The Eight Witnesses are manifestly in full possession of their senses and mental faculties. Theirs might be labeled an ordinary or natural testimony.

Why the Differences?

Why the differences? In order, I think, for the task of skeptics to be rendered more difficult.

One might be tempted to dismiss the testimony of the Three, with its spectacular divine accompaniments, as hallucinatory (however untenable that dismissal would be) or mere superstition. By contrast, there is absolutely nothing in the testimony of the Eight that points to superstition or hallucination. It is the most matter-of-fact kind of experience—nine men in the woods in the early afternoon—except for the object at the center of it.

On the other hand, if one were to approach the Witnesses first by way of the Eight and one were inclined to skepticism, one might be tempted to write their experience off as deception by Joseph Smith or by some other conspirator or group of conspirators. There must really have been plates—fabricated to deceive.

But this doesn’t account for the testimony of the Three, which goes beyond fabrication and involves a number of additional objects.

In other words, a single explanation seems unable to account for the two very different kinds of experience. This means that skeptics who wish to explain the two testimonies away must resort to some unlikely combination of sincere hallucination, already unlikely in and of itself, and deliberate, insincere fabrication. Or, as we shall see, they must attempt to collapse the difference between the two.

James Jesse Strang and His Witnesses

Let us examine a case that critics often cite as a parallel to Joseph Smith and his Witnesses:

Forgery is the virtually certain explanation for the two sets of inscribed metal plates that James Jesse Strang said he had found in Wisconsin and Michigan (between 1845 and 1849) and translated. Strang, who claimed to have a letter of appointment from Joseph Smith, announced himself as Joseph Smith’s successor and was clearly seeking to imitate the Prophet.

That his plates really existed is beyond serious dispute. The first set, the three “Voree” or “Rajah Manchou” plates, were dug up by four “witnesses” whom Strang had brought to the appropriate site. Inscribed on both sides with illustrations and “writing,” the Rajah Manchou plates were roughly 1.5 by 2.75 inches in size—small enough to fit in the palm of a hand or to carry in a pocket.

Among the many who saw them was Stephen Post, who reported that they were brass and, indeed, that they resembled the French brass used in familiar kitchen kettles.

“With all the faith & confidence that I could exercise,” he wrote, “all that I could realize was that Strang made the plates himself, or at least that it was possible that he made them.”

One not altogether reliable source reports that most of the four witnesses to the Rajah Manchou plates ultimately repudiated their testimonies.

The “Plates of Laban”

The eighteen “Plates of Laban,” likewise of brass and each about 7 3/8 by 9 inches, were first mentioned in 1849 and, in 1851, were seen by seven witnesses.

Their testimony appeared at the front of The Book of the Law of the Lord, which Strang said he translated from the “Plates of Laban.” (Work on the translation seems to have begun at least as early as April 1849. An 84-page version appeared in 1851; by 1856, it had reached 350 pages.)

The statement of Strang’s witnesses speaks of seeing the plates, but mentions nothing of any miraculous character. Nor did Strang supply any second set of corroborating testimony comparable to that of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon.

One of the witnesses to the “Plates of Laban,” Samuel P. Bacon, eventually denied the inspiration of Strang’s movement and denounced it as mere “human invention.” Another, Samuel Graham, later claimed that he had assisted Strang in the fabrication of the “Plates of Laban.”

The well-read Strang had been an editor and lawyer before his brief affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and his subsequent career as a schismatic leader.¹

Strang’s Plates Compared with the Book of Mormon Witnesses

Thus, Strang’s plates were much less numerous than those associated with Joseph Smith, his witnesses saw nothing supernatural, his translation required the better part of a decade rather than a little more than two months, and, unlike the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, Strang’s witnesses did not remain faithful to their testimonies.

Milo Quaife, in his early, standard biography of Strang, reflected that “It is quite conceivable that Strang’s angelic visitations may have had only a subjective existence in the brain of the man who reported them. But the metallic plates possessed a very material objective reality.”

If we are unwilling to accept The Book of the Law of the Lord as authentically divine, he says, “we can hardly escape the conclusion . . . that Strang knowingly fabricated and ‘planted’ them for the purpose of duping his credulous followers” and, accordingly, that “Strang’s prophetic career was a false and impudent imposture.”²

Roger Van Noord, Strang’s most recent biographer, concludes that, “Based on the evidence, it is probable that Strang—or someone under his direction—manufactured the letter of appointment and the brass plates to support his claim to be a prophet and to sell land at Voree. If this scenario is correct, Strang’s advocacy of himself as a prophet was more than suspect, but no psychological delusion.”

The Sincerity of the Book of Mormon Witnesses

It seems that virtually every reputable writer on the subject now grants the sincerity and honesty of all or most of the Book of Mormon Witnesses.

A few critics argue that the printed testimonies don’t really represent what the Witnesses said. “I want Non-LDS to know,” wrote one recent poster on an internet message board,

that regardless of the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon and the eight witnesses of the Book of Mormon—not a single witness ever touched the plates with their own hands and never saw the plates with their own eyes. When Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdrey supposedly had visions of the Book of Mormon for their testimony – only Joseph Smith wrote their testimony down in the Book of Mormon.

But the testimonies have been published with the Book of Mormon ever since that first edition in 1830, which, since it was prepared under the careful supervision of Oliver Cowdery (one of the Three) and Hyrum Smith (one of the Eight), seems to imply their endorsement of those statements.

Consistent with this, a correspondent for the Salem [Massachusetts] Advertiser and Argus reported in 1843 having heard Hyrum “declare, in this city in public, that what is recorded about the plates, &c. &c. is God’s solemn truth.”⁴

The Witnesses Reaffirm Their Published Testimonies

Moreover, there are far too many recorded testimonies from the other Witnesses for this to be a plausible escape.

For example, E. C. Brand visited John Whitmer, one of the Eight, in 1875, and recorded that Whitmer “declared that his testimony, as found in the ‘Testimony of Eight Witnesses,’ in the Book of Mormon, is strictly true.”⁵

In 1876, Whitmer told Mark Forscutt, “I have never heard that any one of the three, or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony that they have borne to the Book as published in the first edition of the Book of Mormon.”⁶

And, later that same year, referring to the published testimony, he told Heman C. Smith, “That testimony was, is, and will be true, henceforth and forever.”⁷

And, finally, in 1877, the year prior to his death, he wrote “concerning my testimony as recorded in the Book of Mormon” that “It is the Same as it was from the beginning, and it is true.”⁸

Were the Witnesses’ Experiences Non-Literal?

Today’s attack on the Witnesses focuses, instead, on the alleged non-literalness of their experience. Dan Vogel is the principal source for this newly popular way of dismissing their testimony.

For example, in his 2002 essay on “The Validity of the Witnesses’ Testimonies,” he attempts to discredit the witnesses by portraying them as alienated from empirical reality and as having merely imagined the plates of the Book of Mormon, or seen them in a subjective hallucination.

The ‘Literal’ Nature of the Lives of the Witnesses

I’ve commented elsewhere on how bizarre it is to me that the witnesses, a group of early nineteenth-century farmers who spent their lives:

  • rising at sunrise,
  • pulling up stumps,
  • clearing rocks,
  • plowing fields,
  • sowing seeds,
  • carefully nurturing crops,
  • raising livestock,
  • milking cows,
  • digging wells,
  • building cabins,
  • raising barns,
  • harvesting their own food,
  • bartering (in an often cashless economy) for what they could not produce themselves,
  • wearing clothes made from plant fibers and skins,
  • anxiously watching the seasons, and
  • walking or riding animals out under the weather until they retired to their beds shortly after sunset in “a world lit only by fire,”

The Disconnect of Modern People to ‘Reality’

are being portrayed as estranged from everyday empirical reality by people whose lives, like mine, consist to a large extent of:

  • staring at computer and television screens in artificially air-conditioned and artificially lit homes and offices,
  • clothed in synthetic fibers,
  • commuting between the two in enclosed and air-conditioned mechanical vehicles
  • while they listen to the radio,
  • chat on their cell phones, and
  • fiddle with their iPods—all of whose inner workings are largely mysterious to them—
  • who buy their prepackaged food (with little or no regard for the time or the season)
  • by means of plastic cards and electronic financial transfers
  • from artificially illuminated and air-conditioned supermarkets
  • enmeshed in international distribution networks of which they know virtually nothing,

the rhythms of whose daily lives are largely unaffected by the rising and setting of the sun.

Lester Grabbe and the “Spiritual Eyes” Argument

Yet Dan Vogel’s view of the Witnesses has recently been given wider currency in an article published by the non-Mormon biblical scholar Lester Grabbe, who commendably seeks to show that Joseph Smith’s story can illuminate ancient Hebrew prophecy.

Unfortunately, Professor Grabbe’s discussion is totally dependent upon Vogel and wholly uninformed by any exposure to the work of the leading authority on the Witnesses, Richard Lloyd Anderson.

Grabbe readily grants the sincerity of Martin Harris and David Whitmer, but also declares that “it seems that no one saw the plates uncovered except Smith himself.”⁹

“Both Martin Harris and David Whitmer of the Three Witnesses,” he writes,

while continuing to affirm their belief in the Book of Mormon, also stated that they had seen the plates “in spirit” or with “spiritual eyes” or in vision. As far as they were concerned, this was no less real than seeing them with ordinary eyes, but to non-Mormons this distinction is likely to be important.¹⁰

Did Martin Harris See the Plates With His Bodily Eyes?

Professor Grabbe cites the Rev. John A. Clark’s recollection of an unnamed attorney’s alleged recollection of an alleged statement from Martin Harris:

A gentleman in Palmyra, bred to the law, a professor of religion, and of undoubted veracity told me that on one occasion, he appealed to Harris and asked him directly,–“Did you see those plates?” Harris replied, he did.

“Did you see the plates, and the engraving on them with your bodily eyes?” Harris replied, “Yes, I saw them with my eyes,–they were shown unto me by the power of God and not of man.”

“But did you see them with your natural,–your bodily eyes, just as you see this pencil-case in my hand? Now say no or yes to this.”

Harris replied,–“Why I did not see them as I do that pencilcase, yet I saw them with the eye of faith; I saw them just as distinctly as I see any thing around me,–though at the time they were covered over with a cloth.

The Eight Witnesses and a “Spiritual” Experience

And yet, Professor Grabbe acknowledges,

The situation with the Eight Witnesses is more complex, and some continue to assert that these members of the Whitmer family and others saw and handled the plates in a purely physical context. Some of the testimony certainly gives this impression, but we have a few later interviews with most of the Eight Witnesses. There is some evidence that their experience was also “spiritual” or “visionary” or whatever one might wish to call it.¹²

How did the Witnesses come to “see” the plates?

Thomas Ford, the former governor of Illinois, “who,” Grabbe assures us, actually “knew many Mormons,” explains it all by means of an account of the experience of the Eight Witnesses. “Unfortunately,” as Grabbe concedes, “he does not give his sources and he has some of the names slightly wrong.”¹³

He [Joseph Smith] set them to continual prayer, and other spiritual exercises, to acquire this lively faith by means of which the hidden things of God could be spiritually discerned; and, at last, when he could delay them no longer, he assembled them in a room [Lucy Mack Smith says it was a grove near their house], and produced a box, which he said contained the precious treasure.

The lid was opened; the witnesses peeped into it, but making no discovery, for the box was empty, they said, “Brother Joseph, we do not see the plates.”

The prophet answered them, “O ye of little faith! how long will God bear with this wicked and perverse generation? down on your knees, brethren, every one of you, and pray God for the forgiveness of your sins, and for a holy and living faith which cometh down from heaven.”

The disciples dropped to their knees, and began to pray in the fervency of their spirit, supplicating God for more than two hours with fanatical earnestness, at the end of which time, looking again into the box, they were now persuaded that they saw the plates.

I leave it to philosophers to determine whether the fumes of an enthusiastic and fanatical imagination are thus capable of blinding the mind and deceiving the senses by so absurd a delusion.¹⁴

An Ex-Mormon Message Board Explanation

An even more entertaining version of this theory appeared on an ex-Mormon message board just a few days ago:

I used to tease my kids……………….. I would take my coat or a towel or a blanket and gather it up in the crook of my arm. Then I would stick my face down into it and make a whimpering sound like a puppy. Then I would make a petting motion. My little kids would see what was going on and GUESS what? they wanted to see the puppy!

Of course I refused to let them see the puppy because there was not one. Then I would walk into another room and the kids would follow demanding to see the puppy. I would run into another room, the kids would follow, but by then the puppy was gone! I would claim to have hidden the puppy.

The kids would go crazy trying to find the puppy. it was great fun, but as my kids got a little older they finally caught on. The trick no longer worked. When I tried it on their younger cousins my kids would scoff and give away the secret right off……. to any youngster who would listen!

Why was it a puppy? Because

  • A. I said so
  • B. Because I could make the sound of a puppy,
  • C. Kids like puppies.
  • D. A puppy would fit under the cover.

I never claimed to have a rabid grizzly bear or adult crocodle under the wrap for the inverse of all the reasons stated above.

…………How convenient that THE Gold plates were “Gold” instead of wood or zinc or stone. How convenient that they were a certain size and that they dissappeared and that only Joe could read them! How convenient for the blood sucking scum that currently runs the Mormon corporation today that so many TBM adults are dumb as preschoolers about certian things . . .

John Whitmer and the Physical Plates

Professor Grabbe cites a passage from Vogel that cites an account of an encounter between Theodore Turley and John Whitmer:

Whitmer asked, “do you hint at me?” [Turley replied], “if the caps fits you, wear it.” all I know, you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith.”

[Whitmer replied] “I now say I handled those plates. there was fine engravings on both sides. I handled them.” and he described how they were hung, “and they were shown to me by a supernatural power.” he acknowledged all.¹⁵

Then he cites Vogel’s introduction to that account, which declares that “it seem [sic] to imply that while Whitmer’s handling of the plaes [sic] (perhaps in a box or through a covering) was physical, his seeing the plates was visionary.”¹⁶

But I am at a loss to understand how Whitmer’s alleged statement that the plates were “shown to [him] by a supernatural power” (which, incidentally, is difficult to reconcile with the numerous other accounts from John Whitmer), even if taken at face value, can be translated so easily into the idea that “his seeing of the plates was visionary.”

Stephen Burnett’s Account

Grabbe also cites the notorious testimony of the disaffected nineteenth-century Mormon Stephen Burnett, which makes an even bigger leap:

I have reflected long and deliberately upon the history of this church & weighed the evidence for & against it—loth to give it up—but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in a public [sic] that he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination, neither Oliver [Cowdery] nor David [Whitmer] & also that the eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundations was sapped & the entire superstructure fell a heap of ruins.

Professor Grabbe’s Conclusion

Professor Grabbe swallows Dan Vogel’s line without no reservation whatever. “In the end,” he says, “it appears that the only one who saw the plates directly was Joseph Smith himself. Even this situation could be doubted.”¹⁸

My wife fears that I have nothing original to say today, and she’s probably right. Richard Lloyd Anderson, the foremost authority on this subject and the author of, among other things, the classic Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, has addressed this topic in an important recent article in the FARMS Journal of Book of Mormon Studies entitled, straightforwardly enough, “Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses.”

But, frankly, originality doesn’t much matter to me on this matter. I wish, at the least, to register a vigorous protest against what seems to me to have become unquestioned but baseless orthodoxy, in certain quarters, about the Witnesses.

Were the Witnesses Gullible?

They are often portrayed, now, by critics, as gullible fools, unable to distinguish reality from fantasy, easily duped. And Martin Harris is their parade example. But this falsifies and misrepresents the facts.

True to his reputation as a careful, prudent man, Martin Harris initially approached the claims of Joseph Smith with hope but also with cautious skepticism. It was Harris who took a transcript of characters from the plates to New York City, for the evaluation of Professor Charles Anthon of Columbia University, and others.

And, while he was serving as Joseph’s first scribe for the translation, he once surreptitiously substituted a similar-looking stone for the seerstone that the Prophet was using, in order to see if it made any difference. (It did.)

At one point, he lifted the box in which the plates were allegedly concealed, to see what he could determine. “I knew from the heft,” he recalled, “that they were lead or gold, and I knew that Joseph had not credit enough to buy so much lead.”

Martin Harris Investigates Joseph Smith’s Claims

He cross-examined “Joseph, his wife, brothers, sisters, his father and mother. I talked with them separately, that I might get the truth of the matter.”

One day, he arrived when Joseph was away from home.

“I was glad he was absent,” Harris reminisced, “for that gave me an opportunity of talking with his wife and the family about the plates. I talked with them separately, to see if their stories agreed, and I found they did agree.”

Did Martin Harris think his experience as a Witness was real?

The twenty-five-year old Edward Moroni Thurman ran into Martin Harris at a blacksmith shop, and asked him whether the Book of Mormon was true. Harris responded by asking whether the young man could see an apple tree nearby. His vision of the angel, the plates, and the other objects, he told Thurman, had been as real and factual as the sight of the apple tree.

“Just as Plain as You See That Chopping Block”

When a group of teenagers posed the same question to him, he pointed to a chopping block and asked if they could see it.

“Well, just as plain as you see that chopping block, I saw the plates; and sooner than I would deny it I would lay my head upon that chopping block and let you chop it off.”

To William Pilkington, he said,

Just as sure as You see the Sunshining. Just as sure am I that I stood in The presence of an Angel of God, with Joseph Smith and saw him hold the Gold Plates in his Hands. I also saw the Urim and Thummin [sic], The Breastplate and the Sword of Laban I saw the Angel descend from Heaven. The Heavens were then opened and I heard the voice of God declare, that every thing the Angel had told us was True, and that the Book of Mormon was Translated correct. I was commanded by God’s Voice to testify to the whole world what I had seen and heard.

“Just as Much So as I See You”

Joseph Homer Snow recalled the time that Martin Harris came to have dinner with his family:

Mother asked him these questions: “Did you actually see an angel and hear him speak?”

He said, “Just as much so as I see you and hear you speak.”

“Will you describe how he stood?” Mother asked.

He said, “He stood at least twenty inches off the ground, and he had records in his hand—The Book of Mormon. He turned the leaves and declared that it was the work of the Lord and that it was true. He commanded us to bear that testimony to the world.”

Stephen Burnett plainly misrepresented Martin Harris’s testimony about his own experience: Harris would never have gone along with Burnett’s “only in vision,” let alone with the notion that his experience was merely “imaginary.”

So why should we trust Burnett’s account of Harris’s alleged account of the experience of the other Witnesses? After all, Harris’s supposed claim that the other Witnesses were reluctant to endorse their published testimony is, on the basis of evidence to which we’ve already alluded, extremely suspect.

Martin Harris’s Final Testimony

In a notarized statement dated 29 October 1921, George Godfrey, who prepared Martin Harris’s grave in Clarkston, Utah, summarized his lengthy acquaintance with the Witness. Then he offered this interesting statement:

Prior to his death and in his last sickness I sat up nights with him upon many an occasion, in connection with my Brothers, John E. Godfrey and Thomas Godfrey, both of whom now reside at Clarkston, aforesaid, and who can make affidavit to the things I am herein stating: that many times I have heard the said Martin Harris bear witness to the truthfulness and genuineness of the Book of Mormon, at times when he was enjoying good health and spirits and when he was on his deathbed; that his testimony never varied;

that I have seen others and that I myself have tried to entrap him relative to the testimony which he bore, by cros [sic] questioning him relative to the scenes and events which are Church History in connection with the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon; that upon all of these questions his mind was clear as it is possible for the human mind to be, and that his testimonies have left no tract [sic] in my mind that he actually converse with an angel who bore testimony to him of the truthfulness of the records contained in the Book of Mormon;

that he saw and handled the gold plates from which the said records were taken; that a few hours before his death, and when he was so weak and enfeebled that he was unable to recognize me or anyone, and knew not to whom he was speaking, I asked him if he did not feel that there was an element, at least, of fraudulence and deception in the things that were written and told of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and he replied as he had always done, and many, many times in my hearing, and with the same spirit that he always manifested when enjoying health and vigor:

“The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen, and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen and handled the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon is written. An angel appeared to me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record, and had I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the testimony I now bear, I could have been a rich man, but I could not have testified other than I have done and am now doing, for these things are true.”

Martin Harris’s Testimony

Martin Harris was buried with a copy of the Book of Mormon in his right hand, and a copy of the Doctrine and Covenants in his left.

In a patriarchal blessing given to him by Joseph Smith, Sr., Harris was promised that

thy testimony shall yet convince its thousands and its tens of thousands; yea it shall shine like the sun, and though the wicked seek to overthrow it, it shall be in vain, for the Lord God shall bear it off victorious.

Oliver Cowdery’s Testimony

In 1848, the year before he died, Oliver Cowdery received rebaptism into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at Kanesville, Iowa.

Before an audience of approximately two thousand, including non-members of the Church, Cowdery bore witness of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, and the divine calling of Joseph Smith.

“I beheld with my eye and handled with my hands the gold plates from which it was translated. I also beheld the Interpreters. That book is true.”

Cowdery was bedridden for most of 1849, probably as a result of chronic pulmonary tuberculosis, and died at Richmond, Missouri, on 3 March 1850.

“It Was No Dream”

A few months before his death, Cowdery was visited by Jacob Gates, a Latter-day Saint traveling eastward on a mission to England who had been a friend since before Cowdery’s 1838 excommunication.

In the course of conversation, Gates asked him about his experience as one of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Had it been a dream? Was it imagination, or illusion, or mere mythology?

Cowdery rose from the place where he was resting, retrieved a first edition copy of the Book of Mormon, and read aloud the Testimony of the Three Witnesses. Then, turning to face Gates, he said,

Jacob, I want you to remember what I say to you. I am a dying man, and what would it profit me to tell you a lie? I know . . . that this Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. My eyes saw, my ears heard, and my understanding was touched, and I know that whereof I testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mind—it was real.

David Whitmer’s Testimony

David Whitmer lived until 1888, the last of the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Consequently, he was the most interviewed of all of them.

“Each witness of the Book of Mormon,” Richard Lloyd Anderson justly observes,

was an individualist. In David Whitmer, this quality verged on the stubborn. Whether in Mormon society or not, he stood like a rock for his principles. This outspoken and utterly honest personality would have been the first to detect fraud and expose it.

Whitmer was excommunicated from the Church on 13 April 1838 after a period of doctrinal disagreement, financial stress, persecution, and upheaval.

Yet when, in 1886, the Omaha Herald asked him whether he “still believed that Joseph Smith was a divinely inspired prophet,” David Whitmer replied, “I know he was, it is not a matter of belief.”

James Henry Moyle Cross-Examines David Whitmer

The young James Henry Moyle, who had just received his law degree from the University of Michigan and was returning home to Utah, took a detour to Richmond, Missouri, for the sole purpose of interviewing David Whitmer.

When he saw the Witness, he implored him to tell the truth. He told Whitmer of the sacrifices that his family had made for the gospel’s sake, driven from state to state and finally pulling a handcart all the way to the arid desert of the Great Basin.

I said to him: “I was born and reared in the Church and I do pray of you to let me know if there is any possibility of your having been deceived. I am just commencing life as you are preparing to lay it down, and I beg of you to tell me if there is anything connected with the testimony which you have borne to the world that could possibly have been deceptive or misunderstood.”

I further said, in an earnest youthful appeal, that I didn’t want to go through life believing in a falsehood, that it was in his power to make known the truth to me.

His answer was unequivocal. There was no question about its truthfulness.

The angel had stood in a little clear place in the woods with nothing between them but a fallen log—the angel on one side and the witnesses on the other. It had all occurred in broad, clear daylight. He saw the plates and heard the angel with unmistakable clearness.

“He was the first witness I ever attempted to cross examine,” Moyle wrote many years later, “and I did so with all the intensity of my impelling desire to know the truth. The interview lasted two and one-half hours.”

The young lawyer, who subsequently served as assistant secretary of the treasury in two federal administrations, came away utterly convinced of David Whitmer’s sincerity.

“I Saw With These Eyes”

Throughout his life, Whitmer insisted that the experience was literal, and physical, not merely imaginary or “spiritual.”

Joseph Smith III, for example, recalled an 1884 exchange between the Witness and a non-Mormon identified as Colonel Giles:

Rather suggestively he asked if it might not have been possible that he, Mr. Whitmer, had been mistaken and had simply been moved upon by some mental disturbance, or hallucination, which had deceived them into thinking he saw the Personage, the Angel, the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the sword of Laban.

How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height — a little over six feet — and said, in solemn and impressive tones: “No, sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!’”

“Everything Was as Natural to Us”

In a letter to Anthony Metcalf dated 2 April 1887, Whitmer again insisted on the literal reality of what he had seen:

“Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time.”

To Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, nearly a decade earlier, he testified:

I saw [the plates, the Sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, and other artifacts] just as plain as I see this bed (striking his hand upon the bed beside him), and I heard the voice of the Lord, as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life, declaring that the records of the plates of the Book of Mormon were translated by the gift and power of God.”

“I saw them as plain as I see you now,” he told a reporter from the Kansas City Journal in 1881.

He frequently emphasized that the angel and the table on which the plates and other objects rested was very close to him and the other Witnesses, within about three to six feet.

“Mr. Whitmer describes every detail of the ‘vision’ with great precision,” reported the Omaha Herald in 1886, “and much fervency.”

  1. Wilhelm Poulson interviewed David Whitmer in 1878. When Poulson asked him if the Eight Witnesses did not “handle the plates,” Whitmer replied, **“We did not, but they did.”**¹⁹

David Whitmer’s Dying Testimony

The 26 January 1888 issue of the Richmond Conservator reported on the last days of David Whitmer in memorable detail:

On Sunday evening before his death he called the family and his attending physician, Dr. George W. Buchanan, to his bedside, and said “Doctor do you consider that I am in my right mind?” to which the Doctor replied, “Yes, you are in your right mind, I have just had a conversation with you.”

He then addressed himself to all present and said: “I want to give my dying testimony. You must be faithful in Christ. I want to say to you all that the Bible and the record of the Nephites, (The Book of Mormon) are true, so you can say that you have heard me bear my testimony on my death bed. All be faithful in Christ and your reward will be according to your works. God bless you all. My trust is in Christ forever, worlds without end. Amen.”

David Whitmer’s Unwavering Testimony

“I have been visited by thousands of people,” David Whitmer told James H. Hart in 1883,

believers and unbelievers, men and ladies of all degrees, sometimes as many as 15 in one day, and have never failed in my testimony. And they will know some day that my testimony is true.

As Richard Anderson points out, ten of the forty-two surviving testimonies from the Eight Witnesses mention handling the plates.

Lucy Mack Smith, who knew the Witnesses well and was there that day, says that they “looked upon the plates and handled them.”²⁰

William Smith, son and brother to several of the Eight, said that all of them testified “that they not only Saw with their eyes but handled with their hands the said record.”²¹

Hyrum Smith: “Seen the Plates With His Eyes”

Perhaps already responding to suggestions that the experience of the Eight Witnesses was merely “spiritual” and visionary, Hyrum Smith insisted during an 1838 speech that it was entirely real.

“He said that he had but two hands and two eyes,” Sally Parker remembered in a letter written in August of that year. “He said he had seen the plates with his eyes and handled them with his hands.”

The year previously, Hyrum married Mary Fielding. Shortly thereafter, her brother, Joseph Fielding, wrote, “My sister bears testimony that her husband has seen and handled the plates.”²²

And Hyrum himself wrote, in December 1839, of his sufferings in Missouri, where he had been arrested in the fall of 1838 and then imprisoned in the ironically named Liberty Jail from the beginning of December to the beginning of April:

I had been abused and thrust into a dungeon, and confined for months on account of my faith, and the “testimony of Jesus Christ.” However I thank God that I felt a determination to die rather than deny the things which my eyes had seen, which my hands had handled, and which I had borne testimony to, wherever my lot had been cast.

And I can assure my beloved brethren that I was enabled to bear as strong a testimony, when nothing but death presented itself, as ever I did in my life.

Samuel Smith’s Testimony

Samuel Smith, Hyrum’s brother and another of the Eight Witnesses, bore his testimony in the presence of fifteen-year-old Daniel Tyler, who summarized it as simply “He knew his brother Joseph had the plates, for the prophet had shown them to him, and he had handled them and seen the engravings thereon.”²³

In an 1836 editorial in the Church newspaper, John Whitmer bore strong testimony of his experience as one of the Witnesses:

I desire to testify to all that will come to the knowledge of this address, that I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the Book of Mormon is translated, and that I have handled these plates, and know of a surety that Joseph Smith, Jr., has translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. . .

Therefore, know ye, O ye inhabitants of the earth, wherever this address may come, that I have in this thing freed my garments of your blood, whether you believe or disbelieve.

John Whitmer After His Excommunication

But John Whitmer was excommunicated on 10 March 1838, one month before his brother David, and never returned to the Church.

For a brief period, it even appears that John’s spiritual confidence in the Book of Mormon had been shaken by his separation from his former associates and by his bitterness over economic and other issues raised by the Church’s sojourn in Missouri. He was sorrowful and dejected about his excommunication, but also, for at least a time, quite angry at the Church in general and Joseph Smith in particular.

Of all the Witnesses, he comes the closest, in a sense, to denying his testimony.

During the 1839 exchange with Theodore Turley that we’ve already mentioned, Whitmer confessed to doubts about whether the Book of Mormon was true. Speaking of the original text on the plates, he said, “I cannot read it, and I do not know whether it is true or not.”

Nonetheless, he insisted, “I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them.”

What John Whitmer Could Not Deny

This is highly impressive. Unlike the Three Witnesses, who heard a divine voice testify to the truth of the translation of the plates, the Eight Witnesses simply saw the plates under quite matter-of-fact conditions.

Yet, even in the depths of his alienation and bitterness, even when he was most inclined to doubt what he could not see for himself, even living, as he did, in the area of the worst anti-Mormon persecutions, John Whitmer could not deny that he had “lifted and handled a metal object of substantial weight.”

Moreover, the bitterness, or at least the skepticism, was short-lived.

After 1856, John Whitmer was the last survivor of the Eight Witnesses. In 1861, Jacob Gates spoke with him for more than four hours. Gates then wrote of John Whitmer in his journal: “[H]e still testified that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of the Lord.”

“As Material as Anything Can Be”

Myron Bond reported in 1878 that

old Father John Whitmer told me last winter, with tears in his eyes, that he knew as well as he knew he had an existence that Joseph translated the ancient writing which was upon the plates, which he “saw and handled,” and which, as one of the scribes, he helped to copy, as the words fell from Joseph’s lips, by supernatural or almighty power.

P. Wilhelm Poulson interviewed him that same year:

I said: I am aware that your name is affixed to the testimony in the Book of Mormon, that you saw the plates?

He—It is so, and that testimony is true.

I—Did you handle the plates with your hands?

He—I did so!

I—Then they were a material substance?

He—Yes, as material as anything can be.

I—They were heavy to lift?

He—Yes, and you know gold is a heavy metal, they were very heavy.

I—How big were the leaves?

He—So far as I recollect, 8 by 6 or 7 inches.

I— Were the leaves thick?

He—Yes, just so thick, that characters could be engraven on both sides.

I—How were the leaves joined together?

He—In three rings, each one in the shape of a D with the straight line towards the centre. . . .

I—Did you see them covered with a cloth?

He—No. He handed them uncovered into our hands, and we turned the leaves sufficient to satisfy us.²⁴

John Whitmer’s Final Public Testimony

Finally, six months before his death, John Whitmer spoke at a public Sunday service. His remarks were reported in the Kingston Sentinel, as follows:

Mr. Whitmer is considered a truthful, honest and law abiding citizen by this community, and consequently, his appointment drew out a large audience.

Mr. Whitmer stated that he had often handled the identical golden plates which Mr. Smith received from the hand of the angel. He said it was of pure gold; part of the book was sealed up solid, the other part was open, and it was this part which was translated.”

Were There Real Plates?

Were there real plates? Yes, there were. If anything in early Mormon history is well established, surely the existence of the plates is.

Let’s consider the testimonies of several unofficial witnesses.

The sixteen-year-old William Smith always remembered the night when his older brother, Joseph, outran pursuers and brought the plates into the Smith home. William lifted the plates that night, and estimated their weight at about sixty pounds.²⁵

Joseph Smith’s sister Katharine hefted the covered plates on several different occasions. She too recalled his arrival home with the plates and remembered that they were “wrapped . . . up in his frock”:

When he got to the door he said: “Father, I have been followed; look and see if you can see any one.”

He then threw himself on the bed and fainted, and when he came to he told us the circumstances; he had his thumb put out of place and his arm was very lame.

Katharine Smith’s Experience With the Plates

Her grandson, Herbert Salisbury, remembered Katharine relating that “When [Joseph] came in the house . . . he was completely out of breath. She took the plates from him and laid them on the table temporarily, and helped revive him until he got breathing properly, and also examined his hand, and treated it for the bruises on his knuckles.”

She said he entered the house running and threw himself on a couch, panting from his extraordinary exertion.

She told me Joseph allowed her to “heft” the package but not to see the gold plates, as the angel had forbidden him to show them at that period. She said they were very heavy.

The Weight and Dimensions of the Plates

Martin Harris says that he and his family lifted the plates in a box when they were first looking into Joseph’s claims, and that he held the plates on his knee for a time while he and Joseph were preparing to hide them in the woods. He said that “he had hefted the plates repeatedly.”²⁶

Harris put their weight at between forty and fifty, or forty and sixty, pounds.²⁷ Like his fellow Witness David Whitmer, Harris gave the dimensions of the plates as seven by eight inches.²⁸

William could feel the shape of the plates through the cloth that covered them.

“They were not quite as large as this Bible,” he said. “Could tell whether they were round or square. Could raise the leaves this way (raising a few leaves of the Bible before him). One could easily tell that they were not stone, hewn out to deceive, or even a block of wood. Being a mixture of gold and copper, they were much heavier than stone, and very much heavier than wood.”²⁹

“I could tell,” said William Smith, “they were plates of some kind and that they were fastened together by rings running through the back.”³⁰

The Rings That Fastened the Plates

The rings are a striking feature. We’ve already heard John Whitmer’s testimony that there were three of them, shaped like a capital D.

Based on his interviews with two of the Three Witnesses and especially with Hyrum Smith, William McClellin also knew of connecting “rings in the shape of the letter D, which,” he says, “facilitated the opening and shutting of the book” (in the manner of modern three-ring binders).³¹

David Whitmer also described the three D-shaped rings. It’s difficult to imagine this degree of consensus regarding such an unusual detail if the plates were only imaginary or never uncovered.

A brief article by Warren Aston, forthcoming in the FARMS Insights newsletter, will examine the significance of these rings and (this is still under discussion) may point out a striking ancient parallel to them.

Emma Smith and the Physical Plates

Emma Smith, two months before her death, told her eldest son that

The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape.

They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one sometimes thumb the edges of a book. [I] moved them from place to place on the table as it was necessary on doing my housework.”

The Other Objects Seen by the Three Witnesses

One striking and often unnoticed aspect of the experience of the Three Witnesses is the fact that they did not see only the golden plates. The vision was considerably more complex than that, making deception (via the fabrication of fake ancient artifacts) an even more remote possibility.

According to repeated testimony, besides the plates of the Book of Mormon and the angel, both the sealed and the unsealed portion, they saw

  • the Urim and Thummim and
  • the accompanying breastplate,
  • the “Ball” or “Director” (called the “Liahona” in the Book of Mormon),
  • the Sword of Laban,
  • the brass plates, and
  • “many other plates.”

“The Urim and Thummim were two white stones,” David Whitmer told P. Wilhelm Poulson in 1878.

“Each of them cased in as spectacles are, in a kind of silver casing, but the bow between the stones was more heavy, and longer apart between the stones, than we usually find it in spectacles.”

Lucy Mack Smith “examined” the Urim and Thummim and

“found that it consisted of two smooth three-cornered diamonds set in glass, and the glasses were set in silver bows, which were connected with each other in much the same way as old fashioned spectacles.”

Lucy Mack Smith on the Breastplate

It was wrapped in a thin muslin handkerchief, so thin that I could see the glistening metal, and ascertain its proportions without any difficulty.

It was concave on one side and convex on the other, and extended from the neck downwards, as far as the centre of the stomach of a man of extraordinary size.

It had four straps of the same material, for the purpose of fastening it to the breast, two of which ran back to go over the shoulders, and the other two were designed to fasten to the hips. They were just the width of two of my fingers, (for I measured them,) and they had holes in the ends of them, to be convenient in fastening.

The Stone Box at the Hill Cumorah

David Whitmer, saw the receptacle in which the plates had lain in the Hill Cumorah.

“It was a stone box,” he told P. Wilhelm Poulson in 1878, “and the stones looked to me as if they were cemented together. That was on the side of the hill, and a little down from the top.”

According to a reporter for the Chicago Times, who interviewed Whitmer in August 1875,

“Three times has he been at the hill Cumorah and seen the casket that contained the tablets, and the seer-stone. Eventually the casket had been washed down to the foot of the hill, but it was to be seen when he last visited the historic place.”

Both the Chicago Tribune in December 1885 and the Chicago Times in January 1888 reported his testimony. That he and Oliver Cowdery had been guided to the Hill Cumorah by Joseph Smith on one occasion, during which they had seen the receptacle together.

The Problem of Explaining the Physical Evidence Away

Accordingly, in order to save his unbelief, Vogel must invent elaborate metallurgical fraud as well as invoke complex collective hallucination.

He suddenly suggests, without even a trace of supporting evidence, that Joseph Smith might perhaps, conceivably, have faked a set of tin plates in order to deceive his friends.

This unevidenced and rather implausible pseudofact is, however, a topic for another occasion. Then we will also need to consider how the poor farmboy Joseph Smith also managed, it seems:

  • to create a forged sword of Laban,
  • a bogus Liahona,
  • a fake breastplate, and
  • a stage-prop Urim and Thummim,

and then somehow lost them without a trace.

“True to the Basic Sources”

“Secular historians are . . . more inclined than Mormons to suppress source material from Joseph’s closest associates,” remarks the distinguished Columbia University historian Richard L. Bushman.

Since, he says, quoting extensively from the reminiscences of those closest to the events would tend to suffuse a modern narrative with their own faith, and would turn readers’ attention to Joseph’s transparently sincere desire to obey God, “believing historians are more inclined to be true to the basic sources than unbelieving ones.”

Conclusion

Those who wish to redefine the experiences of the Witnesses clearly illustrate Professor Bushman’s point. They

  • quarrel with,
  • disbelieve, and
  • seek to explain away the principal sources for the very story they claim to illuminate,

without compelling evidentiary reason to do so.

It’s an exceedingly odd approach to history.

Thank you.

 

Claudia L. Bushman

Claudia L. Bushman

Historian • Latter-day Saint Women’s History Scholar • FAIR Conference Speaker

Historian Claudia Bushman, scholar of Latter-day Saint women’s history

Claudia Lauper Bushman is an American historian and scholar whose work focuses on American social history, women’s history, and the experiences of Latter-day Saint women. She is professor emerita of American Studies at Columbia University and earned her Ph.D. in New England and American Studies from Boston University after completing her undergraduate studies at Wellesley College and an M.A. in American Literature at Brigham Young University.

Bushman has been an influential contributor to the study and preservation of Latter-day Saint women’s history. In the 1970s, she was among the founders of Exponent II and served as its first editor. She also helped develop research and courses on early Latter-day Saint women that became Mormon Sisters: Women in Early Utah, an important early collection devoted to recovering women’s experiences in Latter-day Saint history.

Her scholarship extends well beyond Latter-day Saint studies. Her books include “A Good Poor Man’s Wife”: Being a Chronicle of Harriet Hanson Robinson and Her Family in Nineteenth-Century New England, America Discovers Columbus, Mormons in America, Building the Kingdom: A History of Mormons in America, and Contemporary Mormonism: Latter-day Saints in Modern America. Her historical work is particularly interested in the everyday lives and experiences of ordinary people, especially women.

While teaching at Claremont Graduate University, Bushman established the Mormon Women’s Oral History Project, which collected first-person accounts of Latter-day Saint women and created new primary-source material for scholars and students. Some of those histories were subsequently published in Mormon Women Have Their Say: Essays from the Claremont Oral History Collection.

A lifelong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Bushman has combined scholarship with active Church and community participation throughout her life. She is married to historian Richard Lyman Bushman, and they are the parents of six children.

The Lives of Mormon Women
View Resource →
"FAIR Conversations," Episode 11: Claudia Bushman
View Resource →
Best of FAIR 9: The Lives of Mormon Women
View Resource →

Ministering— “That Ye Love One Another; as I Have Loved You”

August 23, 2026 by FAIR Staff Leave a Comment

In her April 2026 General Conference address, Sister Kristin M. Yee teaches that ministering is not simply something disciples of Jesus Christ do—it is part of who they are becoming. Through the Savior’s Atonement and our sacred covenants, we are invited to participate in God’s work of loving and caring for His children one by one. [Read more…] about Ministering— “That Ye Love One Another; as I Have Loved You”

Filed Under: Apologetics, Consider Conference, General Conference, Jesus Christ

Michael R. Ash

Michael R. Ash

Latter-day Saint Apologist • Author • FAIR Conference Speaker

Michael R. Ash, Latter-day Saint apologist, author, and FAIR Conference speaker

Michael R. Ash is a longtime Latter-day Saint apologist, author, and frequent FAIR Conference speaker. A member of FAIR since 2000, Mike has spent decades writing and speaking about questions, criticisms, and evidences relating to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Mike’s interest in apologetics began in the 1980s after encountering critical literature about the Church. He became active in online Latter-day Saint apologetics in 1990 and has since produced an extensive body of work. He has been featured in nearly 90 podcasts and 30 videos and has written more than 160 online articles. He previously wrote a weekly column for the Mormon Times, published by the Deseret News, and his articles have appeared in the Ensign, Sunstone, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute’s FARMS Review, and Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. He has also presented at numerous FAIR Conferences and at Sunstone Symposiums.

Mike is the author of four books: Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, which has also been published in German and Italian; Of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith; Bamboozled by the CES Letter: An Honest Response to the .pdf Pamphlet Entitled “Letter to a CES Director”; and Rethinking Revelation and the Human Element in Scripture: The Prophet’s Role as Creative Co-Author.

His other published contributions include the chapter “I Think, Therefore I Defend” in Perspectives on Mormon Theology: Apologetics. With Ugo Perego, he co-authored “The Apparent Genetic Discrepancy between Mormon’s Narrative and the Origin of Native Americans,” published in Steadfast in Defense of Faith: Essays in Honor of Daniel C. Peterson.

A lifelong member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mike has served in elders quorum presidencies and has taught priests, elders quorum, young single adult Gospel Doctrine, and general Gospel Doctrine classes. He is the father of three daughters and grandfather of three.

Bio last reviewed:

Contributions at FAIR

Best Days and Worst Days

August 16, 2026 by FAIR Staff Leave a Comment

In her April 2026 General Conference address, President Emily Belle Freeman reminds us that spiritual growth rarely happens in a single defining moment. Using the Apostle Peter’s life as her guide, she shows that discipleship is built through repeated experiences with Jesus Christ—moments of revelation, courage, weakness, repentance, and ultimately enduring faith. Even our hardest days can become part of God’s work of shaping us. [Read more…] about Best Days and Worst Days

Filed Under: Apologetics, Consider Conference, General Conference

The Joy of a Covenant Relationship with God

August 9, 2026 by FAIR Staff 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

Filed Under: Apologetics, Consider Conference, General Conference, Jesus Christ

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

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

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 About the Slides in this Presentation

Note on Visuals:

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

Download the Paper

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

June 14, 2026 by FAIR Staff

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

Filed Under: Apologetics, Consider Conference, General Conference, Jesus Christ

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 50
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Faithful Study Resources for Come, Follow Me

Subscribe to Blog

Enter your email address:

Subscribe to Podcast

Podcast icon
Subscribe to podcast in iTunes
Subscribe to podcast elsewhere
Listen with FAIR app
Android app on Google Play Download on the App Store

Pages

  • Blog Guidelines

FAIR Latest

  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Psalms 102–103; 110; 116–119; 127–128; 135–139; 146–150 – Jennifer Roach Lees
  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Psalms 102–103; 110; 116–119; 127–128; 135–139; 146–150 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson
  • All Who Have Endured Valiantly
  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Psalms 49–51; 61–66; 69–72; 77–78; 85–86 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson
  • Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Psalms 49–51; 61–66; 69–72; 77–78; 85–86 – Jennifer Roach Lees

Blog Categories

Recent Comments

  • Katrina on In memory of Chandler “Chuck” Hendry
  • Nancy Farmer on Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Psalms 49–51; 61–66; 69–72; 77–78; 85–86 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson
  • Nicko De Leon on In memory of Chandler “Chuck” Hendry
  • Becky Matson on In memory of Chandler “Chuck” Hendry
  • Dianna Powell on No One Walks Alone 

Archives

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • iTunes
  • YouTube
Android app on Google Play Download on the App Store

Footer

FairMormon Logo

FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Donate to FAIR

We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.

Donate Now

Site Footer