Church History

Joseph Smith: Sexual Opportunist or Reluctant Polygamist?

Introduction of Brian C. Hales

Some questions in church history require not only careful, full scholarship, but also compassion and honesty.

Our next presenter has spent decades studying one of the most challenging subjects in the Restoration. Doctor Brian Hales is a retired physician and one of the foremost researchers on Joseph Smith and plural marriage. His extensive work with primary historical resources has helped thousands better understand this difficult chapter of church history with greater clarity and perspective. Today, he’ll examine Joseph Smith’s practice of plural marriage through the historical record and help us better understand the Prophet’s experience during one of the most demanding periods of his life.

Please welcome Doctor Brian Hales.

Brian C. Hales — 2026 FAIR Conference

Joseph Smith: Sexual Opportunist or Reluctant Polygamist?

Good morning, brothers and sisters. It’s a pleasure to be with you and to talk about the topic of plural marriage and Joseph Smith. There’s a popular secular narrative out there that describes Joseph Smith—there we go—as a sexual opportunist. I think a better documented story is that he was, in fact, a reluctant polygamist.

We will first look at five primary assumptions upon which it is based.

One is that he lied about polygamy.¹ I believe that what he said were not lies.
Number two, that he used coercion with women. But I believe he respected agency and exercised empathy.
Three, he had conjugal relations with legally married women in polyandry, ² where I believe that the sealings to legally married women were all eternity only and non-sexual. ³
They say that he deceived Emma. I believe he exercised great patience and compassion with her.
And then lastly, that he was a pedophile or a sexual predator. I believe that his sealings to the youngest wives were not consummated and were more like betrothal.

Did Joseph Smith Lie About Polygamy?

And so let’s talk about the first of these secular narratives, and that is that he lied about polygamy. However, I believe documented history shows that his statements were not lies and that he was, in fact, a truthful person. It has become very fashionable in some circles today to call Joseph Smith a liar. Yet I believe that such accusations themselves, these depictions, are themselves lies, as I see it.

The question, “Did Joseph Smith lie about polygamy?” has the same answer as “Did Abraham lie to Pharaoh or King Abimelech?” These incidents illustrate a principle that God does not require his followers to disclose their weaknesses to their enemies. Joseph and Abraham did not do that.

Now, with respect to polygamy, it is true that he denied and condemned:

a community of wives,
spiritual wifery⁴,
free and unauthorized polygamy,
and he publicly acknowledged that polygamy was never an official church practice.

Perhaps the most popular so-called denial occurred on May 26th, 1844, when Joseph Smith said, “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery and having seven wives when I can only find one.” The statement may have been technically true, but not a full disclosure to the audience, which included some of his enemies.

What I see is Joseph using language of someone trying desperately not to lie, but also not disclosing the practice that the church was generally not yet positioned to accept. Joseph Smith had no reputation as a liar, according to multiple testimonies about his character, and I wrote an article about this in 2018, if anyone is interested. Please join with me in rejecting this notion that Joseph Smith was a liar.

Did Joseph Smith Use Coercion or Abuse His Authority?

Now, the second secular narrative is that he used coercion and abused authority. However, I believe documented history shows that he respected agency and exercised empathy.

And I did a study of Joseph Smith’s plural wives, and to see how they discuss their marriages to him in the years after his death, many of them remarried and had families, and I apologize. This is a very busy slide, but just notice that none of these women, including the half dozen or so who left the church, left a complaint against Joseph Smith or about the practice of polygamy.

Women Who Declined Joseph Smith’s Proposals

Sarah Granger Kimball. But we know that he was turned down by five women. Did he threaten them or publicly reprimand them? No. We know this only because the women or their families later related it.

Sarah Granger Kimball told Joseph to teach the plural marriage doctrine to other—to somebody else. He responded, “Will you tell me who to teach it to? I will not cease to pray for you.”

Emily Partridge mentioned another example of Joseph Smith’s character when asked if, during the period after he had proposed, but she had not yet accepted, did Joseph Smith ever lay his hand on your shoulder or put your arm around you, or offered to take your hand?

Then she testified, “He never did, for he was not that kind of man. He was a gentleman in every way and did not indulge in liberties like that.”

Elmira Knight told of the day that she defied Joseph’s wishes. “One day, mother and I were in the front room and Joseph Smith came walking down the street and turned into our gate. I had a hunch.”

See, plural marriage wasn’t that secret in Nauvoo.

“And as he entered the front door, I went out the back and remained until he left. When I returned, my mother told me that Joseph had come, at the request of his brother Hyrum, to ask me to be his wife, and also asked mother to ask me. Seen I wasn’t in. So when my mother said, ‘Elmira, what do you say about it?’ I said, ‘No.'”

There were no repercussions. Joseph and Hyrum respected their choices.

Phoebe Woodruff remembered in 1878 that “it had been upwards of 40 years since my first acquaintance with these doctrines, this people in the prophet Joseph. I knew him to be an honorable, virtuous, and pure man.”

Joseph has been accused of abusing authority. I believe he exercised empathy and respected agency.

Did Joseph Smith Practice Polyandry?

A third secular narrative is that Joseph Smith had conjugal ⁵ relations with legally married women in polyandry. Documented history shows these sealings were linked to legally married women, were eternity only ⁶ and non-sexual.

And here’s a slide of mine from a presentation in 2008. When I first started researching Joseph Smith’s plural marriages, I discovered that among the authors who had written on this topic, I seem to be the only voice saying that he did not practice polyandry or a plurality of husbands.

I realized that virtually all of the authors who had published on Joseph Smith in plural marriage portrayed him as a libido-driven fraud, even if they didn’t say it, who, after introducing a plurality of wives, simply added a plurality of husbands to expand his sexual opportunities. As I reviewed the evidence that they cited to support the theory, I was not impressed.

Evaluating the Historical Research

Can I suggest that their research was at best incomplete, if not deeply flawed? Let me explain.

Standard research methodology begins with a question like, “What about Joseph Smith and polygamy?” And then we learn that some of—then we gather sources and learn that some of the marriage ceremonies were to legally married women. We evaluate and analyze these sources, and if we do it through the lens that marriage ceremonies create families with sexuality, then we form a hypothesis that Joseph Smith practiced polyandry, and then we test the theory.

The problem is, none of the scholars tested it, or if they did, they did not mention their findings as they defended their theory without testing it. They did not completely follow standard research protocols.

And this is important because if they had tested their theory, they would have learned that polyandry is very controversial and difficult to implement in any society.

Historical Attitudes Toward Polyandry

Even in the 19th century, it was an explosive practice. In 1891, an article in Popular Science Monthly on polyandry declared, “It is inconceivable that men should have voluntarily initiated.” The Oxford English Dictionary notes in 1887 that polyandry was a euphemism for a prostitute.

If the scholars who describe Joseph Smith practicing polyandry had tested their theory, they would have asked, “Where are the reactions from the critics, the public outrage, the public published accusations, and the gossip?”

They would have noticed that John C. Bennett had a laundry list of complaints against the Saints, but he did not include polyandry. Neither did William Law in his Nauvoo Expositor articles.

Testing the theory would have brought these scholars face to face with the reality that Latter-day Saints in the 1840s believed polyandry was adultery due to Romans—due to Romans 7:2 and 3 and verses in section 132.

Joseph was also emphasizing the importance of the law of chastity in secret temple ceremonies at that time. Scholars would have sought reactions from Latter-day Saints like incredulity, apostasy, private references, and accounts of the participants who struggled. They would have looked for reports of Joseph Smith’s efforts to make polyandry acceptable.

None of these have been located. And brothers and sisters, it isn’t because these were so secret. There were dozens of men and women who were involved. There were family members who knew about these sealings to legally married women.

Likewise, in his 1842 book, John C. Bennett identified several of Joseph Smith’s spiritual wives as having legal husbands. Polyandry would have generated a fiery reaction that would probably still live in the collective memories of church members today had it occurred.

Joseph Smith’s Sealings to Married Women

But without exception, secular historians who report Joseph Smith engaged in polyandry have failed to explain the reactive silence that followed, and the complete lack of social reactions to what would have been considered an explosive practice for most who learned of it.

But as eternity only nonsexual sealings, these ceremonies generated little private or public concern, which is the expected reaction.

Now, before leaving this topic, I want to briefly address the case of Josephine Leon Fisher, which critics continue to misrepresent.

Josephine Lyon and the Question of Biological Paternity

Josephine Lyon was the daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, who is legally married to Windsor Lyon, but eternally sealed to Joseph Smith. A question regarding her biological father existed until 2016, when Ugo Parego’s DNA research showed Windsor to be her biological father. And this isn’t what I expected, but it is what I had hoped.

In 1915, Josephine signed an affidavit stating that in 1882, her mother, Sylvia, told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Now, critics routinely stop quoting at this point, but in their presentism ⁷, they conclude that Josephine could only have been Joseph Smith’s daughter in one way: biologically.

Presentism, Contextualism, and Eternal Sealings

The opposite of presentism is contextualism⁸, which places events in context if it reveals it. Joseph Smith taught that father daughter relationships could also be formed through priesthood sealing ordinances between biologically unrelated individuals.

The rest of the sentence in Josephine’s 1915 affidavit seems to make this clear. At least it does to me. It reads, “she (Sylvia) having been sealed to the prophet at the time that her husband, Mr. Lyon, was out of fellowship with the church.”

Since Windsor had been excommunicated, Sylvia could not be sealed to him for eternity. So she was sealed to Joseph and all of her biological children were Joseph’s in eternity.

This seems straightforward to me. The secularist interpretation would be that when Windsor was disciplined by the church, Sylvia marched off to marry a second husband and start a second family while maintaining her previous family.

And that behavior would have been adultery. In 1843, in 1882 or in 1915. I have an article on this if you are interested in more details.

Joseph Smith, Emma Smith, and the Restoration of Plural Marriage

I believe Joseph Smith’s sealings to legally married women were all eternity only nonsexual unions. A forced secular narrative is that Joseph Smith deceived Emma. I think documented history shows that he exercised compassion and patience with her.

To understand interactions with Emma, we must start with Fanny Alger. She arrived in Kirtland in 1832 or 33, and soon served as a domestic in the Smith’s small home.

Joseph related an angel appeared to him in July of 1834, commanding the restoration of the practice of polygamy. He later told Julia Hills Johnson, who had three unmarried daughters in their 20s at the time, that his first thought was to come to her and ask to marry one of them.

Fanny Alger and the Kirtland Years

Joseph was most likely sealed to Fanny in early 1836. If the ceremony was after April 3rd, it would have been this dispensation’s first eternal marriage.

Emma discovered the union in June and sent Fanny to live with the Webb family. She later left the area with her family on their trek to Missouri.

The interesting thing is that those who learned about the relationship from family, from Fanny, considered it a plural marriage, including her own family, her relatives, the Hancock’s, the Webb family with whom she stayed, and Eliza R. Snow, who was there and was well acquainted with Fanny.

Fanny, in contrast, Emma and Oliver and others declared that it was adultery. At that time, Emma rejected polygamy, and Joseph’s reports that God wanted the practice restored.

Plural Marriage in Nauvoo

Moving now five years ahead to Nauvoo, where Joseph Smith started to be sealed to additional women, almost all of his initial sealings were eternity only and nonsexual.

The dating of the Louisa Beaman sealing is controversial, but it fits better in 1842. Regardless, there is a strange pattern that changes in early 1842, when Joseph pivoted to proposals and sealings with unmarried women.

Joseph reported, and the angel came a third time in February, commanding him to engage in full plural marriages like those of Old Testament patriarchs Abraham and Jacob. This time the angel apparently brandished a sword for emphasis.

Yet Joseph’s previous pattern is unmistakable, and I believe it was designed unsuccessfully to appease the angel on one hand and not hurt Emma’s feelings on the other.

Emma Smith and the Temple Endowment

Joseph was patient with Emma as he introduced the temple endowment ceremony to men in April of 1842, but waited over a year for Emma to accept eternal and plural marriage, and thus became the first woman to perform temple matron duties.

We also notice God encouraged Emma to forgive Joseph his trespasses as we review their relationship. Apparently, he could have done some things better.

Shortly before the martyrdom, Emma wrote a blessing, declaring, I desire with all my heart to honor and respect my husband as my head ever to live in his confidence, and by acting in unison with him, retain the place which God has given me by his side.

If Emma, who knew firsthand the details of restored plural marriage, could forgive Joseph and still revere him a prophet, then perhaps we too can be less willing to judge him or her.

Joseph Smith’s Youngest Plural Wives

A fifth secular narrative is that Joseph Smith was a pedophile or sexual predator, but the record shows his sealings to his youngest wives were not consummated and more like betrothal.⁹

Ten of his plural wives were teenagers. We will focus on the youngest three. What we can discern is that Joseph Smith did not specifically seek any of these sealings. Evidence supports that the sealings were not consummated. Months after their plural sealing, Joseph and the 16-year-old Flora Woodworth divorced. They had a sealing cancellation, first of this dispensation, no doubt, as she legally married a nonmember, Carlos Gove.

Brides of this age were eyebrow-raising, but not scandalous. In Utah, the policy was to wait until the women were 17 or 18, a policy I think Joseph Smith started, though I can’t prove it.

Helen Mar Kimball and the Question of Betrothal

Regarding Helen Mar Kimball, the 14-year-old that is most often talked about, Joseph did not seek that sealing. According to her account, there’s no evidence that Joseph and Helen were ever alone together.

After the ceremony, the sealing appears to have been more of a betrothal. As an adult, Helen defended Joseph and plural marriage in Utah in several publications.

Was Joseph Smith a Reluctant Polygamist?

Now there is a sixth narrative that Joseph Smith was a sexual opportunist, but the historical record shows that he was, I believe, a reluctant polygamist.

First, Joseph Smith was a doer and not want to delay, so to require three angel visits, the last one with a sword to convince him to fulfill the command is very uncharacteristic.
Second, Joseph’s sealings show a definite pattern that begins with a series of non-sexual, eternity only sealings. Then the angel visit causes him to shift the practice.

The Timing of Doctrine and Covenants 132

Third, the timing of the revelation on polygamy, now section 132, is puzzling. If Joseph was a sexual opportunist, why would he not have given that revelation early to convince potential wives and others that the practice was from God?

Instead, he waited until Hyrum convinced him to dictate it in 1843.

And fourth, Joseph also convinced several Latter-day Saints that he didn’t want to do it.

Elijah Arsenault described Joseph as afraid to promulgate it. Helen Mark Kimball remembered, Joseph put off the dreaded day as long as he dared.

Lorenzo Snow remembered, Joseph hesitated and deferred from time to time, and Lucy Walker reported that Joseph had his doubts about it, for he debated it in his own mind.

Historical Observations About Joseph Smith’s Motivations

And there are others I could, I could quote multiple observations, support that Joseph was not a sexual opportunist.

Choosing marriages over flings or liaisons created much more, much greater personal responsibility.

Scholar Kathleen Flake, when asked, “do I think Joseph Smith’s revelation on polygamy can be reduced to his sex drive?” She responded, no, I don’t. It’s too simplistic.

There are so many easier ways to satisfy our sex drive than to have many marriages.

Introducing the secret temple endowment¹⁰ with covenants to obey the law of chastity, at the same time that he secretly introduced plural marriage, could have generated cries of hypocrisy, should any impropriety have been detected by the participants, and there is huge overlap between those groups.

Performing eternity only sealings to legally married women serve little purpose if sexuality were the expectation.

And as a sexual opportunist, many of his decisions are simply unexpected and unfocused, ineffective and unorthodox. But they do support that Joseph Smith was in fact a reluctant polygamist.

The Challenge of Restored Plural Marriage

From my perspective, brothers and sisters, the problem with Joseph Smith’s polygamy is not Joseph Smith. It is not his decisions, actions, or motivations.

He was called in 1820 as God’s prophet, and nine years later dictated the 269,000-word Book of Mormon. That book is proof of his prophetic calling.

Secularists and atheists have no rational explanation for the literary expertise Joseph Smith exhibited while dictating the Book of Mormon. I believe that the conversation about the miracle of the Book of Mormon will soon be expanding.

Prophets and Difficult Commandments

The problem is not Joseph Smith because he did what prophets do: they reveal challenging and difficult commandments.

Can you imagine Adam teaching Abel that God wanted them to kill small lambs, or Noah teaching his family? They needed to build an ark when it wasn’t raining?

How about Abraham teaching his followers of the covenant, requiring circumcision, or Moses instructing the children of Israel to not eat pork and everything else in the law of Moses and Lehi convinced his family then others to leave Jerusalem.

Then Joseph Smith restores the Old Testament practice of polygamy. Issuing tough commandments is what prophets do in their day.

What If Plural Marriage Had Never Been Restored?

Have you ever wondered how the church might have progressed over the past two centuries if the Latter-day Saints had not practiced polygamy between 1840 and 1904?

There is no authorized polygamy in the Book of Mormon. Theologically, there’s no obvious reason to restore it. Just as animal sacrifice and circumcision have not been restored.

What if monogamy had been the only accepted marital practice since 1830?

In late 1843, William Law learned of the restoration of plural marriage. He resisted and personally orchestrated the events that led to the martyrdom. But William Law apostatized.

William Law’s Appeal to Joseph Smith

Before he did, he spoke emotionally with Joseph Smith. He placed his arms around Joseph’s neck and pleaded with him to withdraw the teachings of polygamy.

William predicted that if Joseph abandoned the practice, and in 50 or 100 years, Mormonism would dominate the Christian world.

Both William and Joseph had tears running down their faces, according to William’s son, who later recalled the event.

But Joseph informed William that God had commanded him.

Why Was Plural Marriage Commanded?

So why did God command Joseph? We don’t know.

Section 132 gives several reasons. Plural marriage might be allowed, but none explain why an angel with a sword demanded it.

What we can say is that the legacy of polygamy impacts the church today in two significant ways.

The Legacy of Polygamy and Latter-day Saint Faith

First, the church’s polygamy legacy is shifting the current generation of Latter-day Saints.

In his book Torn, Jeff Strong lists polygamy as an important factor for many members who leave the church, and today, there are other voices who teach that Joseph Smith never practiced polygamy.

It is a false narrative that ultimately destroys faith in the restoration. Please do not follow it.

My late wife, Laura Harris Hales, observed, 19th century saints struggle to live the commandment of polygamy. 21st century saints struggle to believe polygamy was a commandment.

If polygamy feels like an obstacle to belief, well, it may have been designed that way.

The Impact of Polygamy on Missionary Work

The church is adversely affected in a second way in missionary work, often upon learning that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, people today immediately associate him with other charismatic males who sexually abuse their followers, and they dismiss the possibility that he was a true prophet.

Did God know that this would happen? Well, of course he did. His ways are higher than ours.

Mortality is a time to be tried and proven.

A Testimony of Joseph Smith’s Prophetic Calling

Brothers and sisters, we do not need a testimony of polygamy to have a strong testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

We can still believe that he saw the father and the son, that he was visited by angels, that he restored ordinances, that he translated the Book of Mormon, that he restored the sealing authority.

He gave revelation and taught inspired doctrines.

And did I mention he was a reluctant polygamist?

Thank you.

Elder Thomas Hengst

Religious Freedom • Leadership • East German Church History

Elder Thomas Hengst serves as an Area Seventy in the Seventh Quorum of the Seventy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He lives in Hohenstein-Ernstthal, Saxony, Germany, where he grew up as a fourth-generation member of the Church.

Born in 1964, Elder Hengst spent his childhood and youth in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), where religious believers faced significant political and social challenges. His family’s faith and the strength of local Church communities helped shape his testimony of Jesus Christ and his commitment to religious service.

One of the defining experiences of his life was the construction and dedication of the Freiberg Germany Temple in 1985, four years before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Elder Hengst and his wife, Esther, were among the first couples married in the temple shortly after its dedication. He has written about the extraordinary significance of this event for Latter-day Saints living behind the Iron Curtain and the faith of Church members who persevered through decades of political oppression.

Throughout his life, Elder Hengst has served in numerous Church callings, including bishop, high councilor, and president of the Leipzig Germany Stake. Beginning as a teenager, he also served extensively as a Church teacher and spent many years as an organist. His Church service has reflected his interests in music, religious education, and strengthening individuals and families.

Professionally, Elder Hengst trained in engineering and developed a career in international business, including management responsibilities and extensive work with customers throughout the world. His experiences have given him opportunities to engage with people from many different cultures and backgrounds.

Elder Hengst has a particular interest in Church history, especially the experiences of Latter-day Saints in East Germany. Through personal writing and public speaking, he has reflected on the relationship between faith, freedom, history, and discipleship.

He and his wife, Esther, have three children. His experiences as a Church member in East Germany and his subsequent service have strengthened his conviction that faith in Jesus Christ can sustain individuals and communities through difficult circumstances.

Bio last reviewed:

Contributions at FAIR

Statement of Faith

Statement of faith coming soon.

Date of Statement of Faith

Matthew S. McBride

Church Historian • Author • FAIR Speaker

Matthew S. McBride is director of the Publications Division of the Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He earned a master’s degree in American history from the University of Utah.

Matt is the author of A House for the Most High: The Story of the Original Nauvoo Temple and co-editor of Revelations in Context: The Stories behind the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. He also co-edited The Joseph Smith Papers: Documents, Volume 13 and contributed to Saints: The Story of the Church of Jesus Christ in the Latter Days.

His scholarship includes research on the history of women’s missionary service. His article on the origins of the Church’s women’s missionary program received the Mormon History Association’s Best Article Award for 2018.

Before becoming director of publications, Matt worked in digital content management for the Church History Department and held leadership positions in web development and digital publishing at Deseret Book Company.

Matt and his wife, Mary, have four children.

Bio last reviewed:

Contributions at FAIR

Statement of Faith

Statement of faith coming soon.

Date of Statement of Faith

Matthew Roper

Book of Mormon Scholar · Historian · Researcher

Matthew Roper is a Book of Mormon scholar and historian whose research focuses on the historical setting, interpretation, and reception of the Book of Mormon. His work has addressed questions of Book of Mormon geography, warfare, material culture, authorship, and the historical interpretation of Latter-day Saint scripture.

Roper earned a BA in history and an MA in sociology from Brigham Young University. He has been associated with Book of Mormon research at BYU’s Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship and the Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies.

His scholarship has explored subjects including Lehite social structure, pre-Columbian populations, Mesoamerican weapons and warfare, Book of Mormon geography, ancient names and cultural practices, and the relationship between archaeological evidence and claims about the Book of Mormon. He has also researched historical approaches to Book of Mormon geography and the ways early Latter-day Saints—including Joseph Smith and his contemporaries—understood the book’s ancient setting.

Roper compiled the Harold B. Lee Library’s electronic collection of nineteenth-century publications about the Book of Mormon from 1829 to 1844. His research has also examined questions of Book of Mormon authorship, historical and contemporary interpretations of the text, and the intellectual history of Latter-day Saint scripture.

A longtime contributor to FAIR, Roper has presented at FAIR conferences on Book of Mormon evidence, archaeology, geography, ancient populations, and warfare. His work combines close attention to the Book of Mormon text with historical and comparative research into the ancient cultures and settings that may illuminate it.

Bio last reviewed:

Contributions at FAIR

Statement of Faith

I grew up in a Latter-day Saint home in southern California, where at an early age with the help of kind parents I cultivated love for Jesus Christ and for the Scriptures. I read the Bible as a child and through prayer I came to an understanding of God as a loving Heavenly Father, whom I could trust and go to in times and fear and difficulty and find peace. I felt then and I am now certain that God heard me and comforted me. Those early experiences were a touchstone against which I have subsequently measured experiences. My faith in God has provided meaning and direction to me life. My faith, or what I today call my testimony, did not arise from any one experience alone, but has grown out of and been nurtured by a series of personally significant “recognitions” or “realizations” of that same influence in my life which early in my life brought me joy and peace. These have brought me greater understanding and thereby strengthened my faith in Jesus Christ. One of these came to me when I first read the Book of Mormon through and asked God if it was true. While spending two years serving as a missionary in Argentina, I found among my most joyous experiences were those instances when others were able to recognize that same divine influence for themselves.

I have subsequently studied the life of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the history of the Church of Jesus Christ all of my adult life. As I have done so I have developed a deep appreciation for what Joseph did and what it cost him and those who followed him. I believe he was a mighty Prophet of God. I do not believe he was perfect person, but I am confident that he was what exactly what he claimed to be. More than Joseph, I am profoundly impressed by the revelations he brought forth, including especially the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith’s account of its remarkable origin is, in my view, much more plausible and consonant with the historical data than any of the several counter-explanations that have been offered by his critics. On an intellectual level I cannot explain it away. On another and more fundamental level, Joseph Smith’s story simply rings true to me.

I have made and continue to make the Book of Mormon an object of lifelong study and have found this to be tremendously fulfilling. It has been a useful guide to me in my life and has given me comfort in challenging times. Its teachings, when followed, have always brought me hope and light. I have found the Lord’s promise true that those who genuinely “believeth these things which I have spoken, him will I visit with the manifestations of my Spirit, and he shall know and bear record. For because of my Spirit he shall know that these things are true; for it persuadeth men to do good” (Ether 4:11).

June 2011

Christopher James Blythe

Historian · Folklorist · Latter-day Saint Literature Scholar

Christopher James Blythe is a historian, folklorist, and scholar of Latter-day Saint literature whose work explores the history, beliefs, stories, and religious culture of the Latter Day Saint tradition. He is an assistant professor at Brigham Young University, where he teaches folklore and Latter-day Saint literature.

Blythe earned a PhD in American Religious History from Florida State University, an MA in history and a BA in religious studies from Utah State University, and a BA in anthropology from Texas A&M University. His scholarship brings together the methods of history, folklore, religious studies, and literary studies to examine how religious communities understand scripture, prophecy, supernatural experience, and sacred history.

Before joining the BYU faculty, Blythe worked as a historian and documentary editor for the Joseph Smith Papers and as a research associate at BYU’s Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. He co-edited three volumes of the Joseph Smith Papers Documents series and has served as an editor of the Journal of Mormon History.

Blythe is the author of Terrible Revolution: Latter Day Saints and the American Apocalypse, a study of Latter-day Saint apocalyptic thought and its relationship to American history. He is also a co-editor of Open Canon: Scriptures of the Latter Day Saint Tradition. His research has appeared in numerous academic publications and addresses subjects including prophecy, scripture, folklore, visionary experience, Latter-day Saint history, and religious belief.

His work for FAIR brings historical and folkloric context to subjects that can seem unusual to modern readers, examining how Latter-day Saint scripture and tradition developed within broader biblical, religious, and cultural worlds.

Bio last reviewed:

Contributions at FAIR

Statement of Faith

Statement of faith coming soon.

Date of Statement of Faith

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw

Senior Researcher • Latter-day Saint Apologist • Writer & Podcaster

Read Jeffrey M. Bradshaw's Statement of Faith ↓

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw is a Senior Research Scientist at the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC) in Pensacola, Florida. He graduated from the University of Utah and earned a PhD in Cognitive Science from the University of Washington. His professional writings have explored a wide range of topics in human and machine intelligence, and his career has included research leadership at The Boeing Company and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Jeff has been the recipient of several awards and patents and has been an adviser for initiatives in science, defense, space, industry, and academia worldwide. ¹ ²

Jeff has written extensively on the Book of Moses, Genesis, and temple themes in the scriptures. His publications include In God’s Image and Likeness, a detailed scholarly commentary on the Book of Moses, and his work has appeared in BYU Studies and other publications. He has presented at FAIR conferences and meetings in the United States and Europe. ³

Jeff was a missionary in France and Belgium from 1975 to 1977, and his family has returned twice to live in France. He and his wife, Kathleen, are the parents of four children and sixteen grandchildren.

From July 2016–September 2019, Jeff and Kathleen served missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo Kinshasa Mission office and the DR Congo Kinshasa Temple. They currently live in Nampa, Idaho.

As a church service missionary for the Church History Department, Jeff is writing histories of temples in the DR Congo and the Republic of the Congo. For The Interpreter Foundation he is working to document the history of the Church in Africa on film. ⁴

Bio last reviewed:

Contributions at FAIR

Statement of Faith

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw’s statement of faith

I grew up in a loving Mormon home in Salt Lake City, with faithful parents and a close relationship to my brothers and sisters. Books were always important to me. I have loved the scriptures since I was a child, and continued study over the years has given me additional “reason[s] for the hope that is within [me].” ⁵

In retrospect, I have realized that the relationship between scripture and personal experience operates in both forward and backward directions: not only do the stories of scripture guide daily life but, in addition, what we have lived conditions our understanding of scriptural accounts. This has been especially true for me: it has been through direct participation in repeated experiences of God’s power and help from my childhood that the scriptures have become both intelligible and credible. I like what the Catholic scholar Timothy Luke Johnson ⁶ says about the immediate nature of the sources for one’s personal conviction of the historical authenticity of New Testament scripture:

For those living in a community where “signs and wonders” done in the name of Jesus are a regular occurrence, hearing of such deeds attributed to Jesus in the Gospel narratives is no surprise or scandal…
For those living in a community where the “Word of the Lord” [is] proclaimed through [men and women of God],… it is no surprise or scandal to hear… words [spoken in the same spirit] attributed to Jesus in the Gospels, for it is the same Jesus who speaks in both places…
For a community that lives in the presence of the resurrected [Christ], it is beside the point to debate whether Jesus “back then” predicted His death and resurrection, for His death and above all His resurrection are confirmed as real precisely by this community that lives by His power [today]. It is equally silly, in this context, to debate whether Jesus “back then” predicted His return, for that return is predicated on His being the living and powerful Lord, and it is in the light of that truth that we await God’s final triumph through Him.

To me, Johnson’s statement rings with authenticity. I know the scriptures are true because I have lived things that mirror, in their own small way, what I read there.

One of the delights of reading is to learn that others before us have felt, thought, and experienced what we ourselves are going through. In Sir Richard Attenborough’s moving semi-biographical film about C. S. Lewis, the Oxford professor meets up with a troubled student whom he had seen stealing a book. The student freely admits that his personal library is filled with pilfered volumes and then adds, defensively, “At least I read them… which is more than most people do”: ⁷

Lewis: So you read differently to the rest of us, do you?
Whistler: Yes, I do. I read at night. It’s the only thing breaks my concentration. All night sometimes. When I start a new book my hands are shaking. My eyes are jumping ahead . . . Does he feel the way I felt? Does he see what I’ve seen? You know, my father used to say . . . He was a teacher like you. Well, not like you. He was only the village schoolmaster.
Lewis: What was it your father used to say?
Whistler: “We read to know we’re not alone.”

To read the words of God in scripture and then, at times, to hear that same voice within my own soul is a supreme joy. Likewise, the spiritual power I sense in the speech and writings of godly men and women eradicates the isolating barriers of time, culture, and distance, and stirs precious feelings of high communion. Because of what I have read, seen, heard, and experienced over a lifetime, I can say with conviction that the moorings of my faith are as deeply grounded in reality as is my knowledge of the quotidian.

The little study of French I had during elementary and junior high school had put a fear of foreign languages into me, so when it was time to serve a mission, I fervently hoped that I would go to an English-speaking mission. I wanted to share the deepest convictions of my mind and heart with no impediment of expression. Instead, I was called to the Belgium Brussels Mission. I served in three cities in France (Arras, Reims, and Calais) before finishing up in Brussels. Although I didn’t realize my hope of overcoming my American accent, I did learn the language much more quickly than I expected. This reinforced my conviction that the Holy Ghost can enhance every learning experience: guiding us in our search for knowledge, helping us to see and recognize the truth, and bringing all things to our remembrance. ⁸

There is nothing like being a full-time missionary. I enjoyed immersion in full-time service to a people I learned to love, and was rewarded with wonderful life-long friendships and a strengthened testimony. I have enjoyed frequent visits to France and Belgium in the years since my mission. Our family has lived there twice, all of our children have attended school there, and two of my sons have served French missions. My wife Kathleen valiantly began a lifelong study of the language, in preparation for a future mission together.

After graduating from the University of Utah, and prior to my going to the University of Washington for doctoral studies, my wife and I spent a year at Brigham Young University. I was fortunate to have taken courses from Arthur Henry King that changed the way I read the scriptures. ⁹ As a research assistant to both Bruce L. Brown and Allen Bergin during that year, I also learned much about how to combine faith and scholarship. Both of these professors were important friends and mentors and, along with others from whom I took courses, provided perspectives I would need for the years of graduate school ahead.

Our family grew to four children during the most intense years of my graduate study. Our small children were a great source of joy to Kathleen and me, and helped me keep my balance and perspective during this time. I was the only married student in my class, and eventually also took on full-time employment, so my situation was very different from that of my peers. In addition, it seemed that every time I found myself poised to take a leap forward on my dissertation research, my church responsibilities would increase. However, in retrospect, I believe that this church service was exactly what I needed to keep my testimony strong and vibrant.

Moreover, had I graduated earlier, the professional opportunities that eventually opened up for me would not have been available. I have learned to appreciate what Elder Neal A. Maxwell once said: “Since faith in the timing of the Lord may be tried, let us learn to say not only, ‘Thy will be done,’ but patiently also, ‘Thy timing be done.’” ¹⁰ Sixteen years after we moved to Seattle for graduate study, I finally received my Ph.D in Cognitive Science.

My patriarchal blessing is structured in an unusually linear fashion, which has been a help to me as I have looked to it for guidance. Receiving that blessing was a beautiful and intense experience—it seemed as if a window opened up into eternity as I not only heard, but also, in a way that is difficult to describe, saw and sensed the import of the words that were spoken.

I review my blessing the first Sunday of each month, and it is always obvious which paragraph is most relevant to my current situation. I have tried not only to avoid things that would be inconsistent with the path it marks out, but also to actively seek ways I could help transform its promises into reality. For example, the blessing has helped motivate our efforts to maintain close ties to France and Belgium throughout the years; and has recently made writing on gospel topics a daily priority.

Prayer and priesthood blessings have also been an essential part of the choices Kathleen and I have made at critical junctures in our life. For example, the decision to change the focus of my graduate studies from clinical psychology to cognitive science was confirmed in a blessing from a choice friend, and I received needed reassurance about our first family move to France in a blessing from my father.

Major moves have been undertaken and minor crises have been averted because of spiritual impressions received in the course of prayerful discussions with trusted friends and family. The disaster of losing our home in Hurricane Ivan was transformed into a blessing because of guidance received through unexpected spiritual promptings.

During my daily work at the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, I’m caught up in creating new science and technology ideas to complement human physical, cognitive, and social capabilities. It’s a dream job, and I wouldn’t want to trade places with anyone I know. However, it’s a challenge in the sense that I can’t stand still. Although it’s true that every innovation builds to a degree on the past, the pace of change is so rapid that I am constantly occupied with throwing away the results of recent efforts to accommodate new and better ones.

In addition to the obvious spiritual enrichment that I find in the study of the scriptures, it is wonderful and satisfying to work on something where knowledge is much more cumulative than in my daily work. Though, of course, there are exciting new findings that appear every day in scholarship on ancient scripture studies, I can have the sense over time of continually building up a deeper understanding of God’s outlook on the human situation. Complementing the keys that come from study are those that come from faith, as I relate the spiritual experiences of the past to divine guidance and teachings in the immediate context of my own life.

I like what Donald Knuth, a well-known computer scientist when I was younger, wrote in the preface to his book of Bible commentary: “I can’t say that my scientific background makes me a better Bible student, but I don’t think it’s a handicap either.” ¹¹ The apostle Paul advocated a very empirical approach to spiritual things: “Prove [i.e., examine, put to the test] all things; hold fast that which is good.” ¹² I feel greatly blessed to have been raised in a Church that values truth and goodness, and that, because of its unique status in being led by modern revelation, does not have any reason to fear the bright light of close examination.

There are many simple things that add to my faith. For example, Kathleen and I never would have discovered on our own the many little things we did on a daily basis that have contributed to the happiness of our family. These things we learned from Church friends and classes, and from spiritual intuitions relevant to our own specific needs. I enjoy rubbing shoulders with people in the Church, and our long involvement with missionary work has repeatedly demonstrated that living the Gospel makes each of us better and happier people. The vehicle of church service affords unparalleled opportunities to extend what we have learned to bless the lives of members and non-members.

Though I don’t want to minimize the many serious problems in the world that seem to be aggravating daily, what I have experienced of the goodness of God over a lifetime has, to my own surprise, given me a feeling of increasing optimism. Richard L. Bushman insightfully observed that for Joseph Smith, knowledge was not only a source of power and salvation ¹³ but also of comfort. ¹⁴

It is the same for me. Said the Prophet on one occasion, “I am glad I have the privilege of communicating to you some things which if grasped closely will be a help to you when the clouds are gathering and the storms are ready to burst upon you like peals of thunder. Lay hold of these things and let not your knees tremble, nor hearts faint.” ¹⁵ The Gospel is the source of my strength, my joy, and my hope for a better life here and hereafter.

— September 2010

Defending Zion: George Q. Cannon and the California Mormon Newspaper Wars of 1856–1857

Roger Ekins, a fifth-generation member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was born in Salt Lake City, Utah. After serving a mission in Argentina and a four-year hitch in the U. S. Army Reserves, he graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of Utah in 1970 with an Honors Baccalaureate of Arts in English and in 1972 with a Master’s in Creative Writing. In 1976 he earned his Ph.D. in Higher Education from the Union Graduate School (Union Institute and University). Dr. Ekins has served in a series of administrative and teaching positions. These include Director of the Open Community Learning Center and Assistant Professor of English at Staten Island Community College, City University of New York; Dean of Student life and Faculty Fellow in English and Education at Johnston College, University of Redlands; Dean of Student Development and Director of the Honors Program at the University of Maine at Augusta; and Dean of Instruction at Butte College in Oroville, California, where he is currently chair of the Honors Program and teaches literature, writing and the history of ideas. Ecclesiastical responsibilities in the Church have included callings as bishop, gospel doctrine teacher and stake seminary supervisor. He is currently serving as a member of the Chico California Stake high council.

A President Emeritus of the California Humanities Association, which awarded him the Charles D. Perlee Award, Ekins serves on the National Honors Advisory Committee of the University of Utah and on the editorial board of his local newspaper, the Paradise Post. His previous publications include poetry, fiction, and essays. Defending Zion: George Q. Cannon and the California Mormon Newspaper Wars of 1856- 1857 marks his first book-length venture as well as his first publication in Mormon Studies, long a topic of deep interest. He lives and fly-fishes in Paradise, California, with his wife, the former Helen Kaye Leonard, also a graduate of the University of Utah. (She will be assisting him in his presentation.) They are the parents of three children: Sarah, Adam, and Rachael.

ROGER EKINS: Following years of secret practice and public denial the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints finally admitted to the practice of polygamy in 1852. Following that public acknowledgement increasingly vehement criticism of the Utah Mormons became a significant preoccupation of the national press.

In an effort to defend the Church against such criticism, while also helping to provide additional organs for proselyting the Gentile world, Brigham Young established four new periodicals. Apostle Orson Pratt was sent to Washington, D.C., to publish The Seer, a journal specifically designed to advocate and defend polygamy. Apostle and future president of the Church John Taylor was selected as the publisher-editor of The Mormon based in New York City. Apostle Erastus Snow was assigned to the St. Louis Luminary and George Q. Cannon, destined to serve as First Counselor to four Church presidents and the man who arguably would become the most powerful voice for 19^th century Mormonism after Joseph

Smith and Brigham Young, was assigned at the tender age of 28 to edit and publish a newspaper in San Francisco, California.

By the way I can’t prove it but I suspect that George Q. Cannon may have been the first person to coin the phrase ‘the Sodom of the Pacific’ for San Francisco— he used that phrase a lot.

Of these four periodicals The Western Standard was clearly the most interesting. Cannon pulled no punches as he played the role of LDS apologist taking on one journalistic enemy after another. Perhaps it was the courage and even recklessness that comes with youth that made Cannon so bold in his attacks. Perhaps it was because he had not yet been saddled with the sober responsibilities of the apostleship that made him more feisty than Pratt, Snow or even his uncle John Taylor.

Whatever the reason George Q. Cannon successfully started and more often than not ended a number of newspaper wars that are still fascinating to read or hear today.

This presentation is extracted from my book Defending Zion: George Q. Cannon and the California Mormon Newspaper Wars of 1856-1857. It was published about six months ago by the Arthur H. Clark Company as vol. 5 in its “Kingdom in the West” series.

Actually Scott suggested I not do this but I’m going to go into it anyway because I know what’s going to happen; some of you are going to pick this book up and you’re going to see a certain name connected with this book and it will have basically the same effect as garlic to vampires—that name of course is none other than Will Bagley.

Will is the general editor of this series and certainly Will and I disagree on a lot of things, most emphatically some of the conclusions he drew in his recent book on the [Mountain Meadows] Massacre. But I want to just say this on behalf of Will, that throughout this editorial process he continually reminded me that this was my book not his and that the final editorial decisions were mine, the final interpretations were mine. And I want to thank Will for that approach that he took to this book and I must acknowledge that it’s a much more interesting book than it would have been without his contributions so don’t let his association with this series scare you away.

This paper will focus on some especially engaging exchanges between Cannon’s Western Standard and two other California newspapers. The first will be The Pacific—a self-proclaimed weekly journal devoted to religion, education and

useful intelligence. The second combatant will be The Daily California American, the precursor to today’s very prominent Sacrament Bee.

As the presentation proceeds I’ll be reading the righteously indignant editorials written by Cannon as my wife Helen, without whom this book would never have been possible, gives morally superior voice to the editors of The Pacific and The Daily California American both of which so often found themselves under unrelenting fire by the young Cannon.

“Hang ’em up – like pirates: the Mormons, saints or sinners?”

Though they call themselves Saints, the Mormons never thought of themselves as perfect. Many of Joseph Smith’s revelations reminded them of their individual and collective shortcomings. Nonetheless they considered themselves God’s chosen people and firmly believed it would be through their efforts that the Lord’s Second Coming would soon become reality.

Their enemies old as well as new accused the Latter-day Saints of every foul deed imaginable. There was nothing new about the crimes attributed to the Mormons by the California newspapers. Witness the following list compiled by the infamous John C. Bennett, formerly mayor of Nauvoo, major general of the Nauvoo Legion and assistant president of the Church in his 1842 attack on his erstwhile brethren:

HELEN EKINS (Narrator):

John C. Bennett, History of the Saints: “It appears from the mass of evidence in this Exposé, that the Mormon Hierarchy are guilty of infidelity, deism, atheism; lying, deception, blasphemy; debauchery, lasciviousness, bestiality; madness, fraud, plunder; larceny, burglary, robbery, perjury; fornication, adultery, rape, incest; arson, treason, and murder; and they have out-heroded Herod, and out-deviled the devil.”

ROGER EKINS: Given his own questionable character, Bennett’s charges are highly suspect. Whether a fallen believer or a conniving opportunist, Bennett had been excommunicated for many of the moral lapses he denounced and his objections to Joseph Smith’s polygamous relations were less the result of moral outrage than of personal jealousy.

Still the depredations allegedly committed by Joseph Smith’s Danites and Brigham Young’s Destroying Angels provided plenty of smoke if not fire to blacken the name of early Mormonism.

By 1856, there was no lack of controversial topics useful in attacking the young religion as the voice of the LDS Church in California, Cannon had to fend off charges involving the character of Joseph Smith; Utah theocracy under Brigham Young; the Willie and Martin handcart disaster; and of course scandalous tales of young women abducted into sexual slavery by the crafty elders of Salt Lake.

When the San Francisco Pacific reprinted the richly imaginative story about the crimes of moral degeneracy reigning in Utah Territory, George Q. Cannon immediately responded launching a lengthy newspaper battle that eventually drew in The Daily California American. The episode affords a glimpse into the psyche of Americans in general and Californians in particular at they tried to make sense of the theocratic, communalistic and polygamic system known as Mormonism.

Westerners, especially those living on the borders of Utah Territory, perceived this encounter with the “other” as a clear and present danger as is obvious from the unrelenting editorial (inaudible) California newspapers hurled at the Saints.

Whether Cannon truly believed he could deflect such criticism by pointing out the logical fallacies of his opponents while often returning their vituperation is an open question but he did not shrink from his mission as a Church apologist to portray his people as more sinned against than sinning.

HELEN EKINS:

“Mormonism”

The Pacific. 6 November 1856.

Among a party of 900 Mormons who recently left comfortable homes in England to surrender to the sway of Brigham Young and his hopeful associates came two girls whose transfer to the Utah land of abominations has very much the character of a kidnapping. The story of their flight as related in the English papers is as follows:

Their father was a man in middle life well to do and industrious. His labors had placed his family, consisting of a wife and several children, in a state of decent competence and happiness. Satan came among them in the guise of a Mormon emissary and beguiled the eldest son who made a pilgrimage to the land of rogues. True to their instinct the crafty elders of Salt Lake made Mormonism so delightful to the neophyte and advanced him so very rapidly in their fraternity that he returned to England as a preacher of the delusion. The father, whose employment took him away from his family for periods of a week at a time, returned to the house one

Saturday from a business excursion to find it deserted. His whole family had disappeared with whatever portables they could lay their hands upon and his wife had stolen his money to no inconsiderable amount, all that she collect or pilfer. He traced the fugitives to Liverpool and reached that place to discover that they had embarked under the persuasions of his Mormon son in an immigrant ship the “Enoch Train.” The distracted father chartered a steam tug and taking with him a police officer overtook the vessel. After an infinite deal of persuasion aided by the Master of the Ship and opposed by the Mormon leaders, he succeeded in inducing his wife to go back with him. He also, as a matter of great favor, obtained the surrender of his infant children but his two eldest daughters refused to return with their parents and the heartbroken father went without them.

Their fate going thus unprotected to Utah may well cause a shudder.

A community thus replenished is maturing measures to apply for admission as one of the states of this Confederacy. We were never among those who calculated the value of the union or who dreamed that the possibility of its being sundered was among contingencies to be considered in any case. But the possibility that our fathers may have fought to establish a shield for a community of adulterers and bigamists and their progeny makes us pause; that all which we hold sacred in religion or virtuous in social and family relations may be trampled under foot by a state represented on equal terms with those founded by pen and the pilgrims, by Oglethorpe and the cavaliers that the old Dominion and the land of the Puritans may be allied with a fraternity of licentious and debauched rogues. These possibilities, should they become facts, will leave no value to the Union for anybody to calculate. Nothing has cast so great a doubt over the future of this country as the Mormon plague spot and if the state of Utah is to be admitted into our constellation the sign will lose its present proud significance and stand as stars sometimes do in equivoque the representatives of something too foul to be spoken or written and all this evil, if it be consummated, will be fairly chargeable upon the absurdity of squatter sovereignty, a demagogue’s figment to serve a party purpose carried to its legitimate deductions by knaves operating through the instrumentality of zealots, fanatics, fools and lechers. We have no patience with the Mormons and as little with temporizers who leave the evil to increase until at last literal and bloody war may be forced upon us to crush what common sense and a just idea of the power of the general government might have averted. The contact with the Mormons of such settlers of the West as have just ideas of purity and decency will be terrible whenever the tide of immigration reaches

them and if the descendants of the wretches now wallowing in Mormonism, modern vermin perpetuating their kind in a disgusting ratio of other loathsome creatures, if we say these children of such paternity do not form a pariah race in our country it will be because this bad leaven taints the whole moral mass.

Extremes meet. We have enjoyed a high order of social virtue in this Republican country because no corrupt royalty and nobility have made illegitimacy tolerable and recommended the Bend Sinister as a badge of honor provided that the blood, no matter by what questionable vein it descends, be honorable. But if squatter sovereignty and liberty deteriorating into licentiousness produce the same results we have only FitzYoungs and FitzMormons for Fitzjames’ and Fitzclarence’s and certainly have not gained much by the exchange.

ROGER EKINS: Apparently that editor disliked Mormons almost as much as he disliked the Irish.

Pacific, Post and “Mormonism”

Western Standard. 15 November 1856.

The Pacific of last week and the Pathfinder and Post of the 12^th instant contain an article on “Mormonism” extracted from the Philadelphia American which exceeds in bitterness, vituperation and filthy epithets anything we have seen upon the subject for a long time and which exhibits the deep corruption of the heart and brain of the writer. The language it contains would be much more becoming frequenters of the Five Points in New York or Billingsgate in London than the mouth of an American editor and we are surprised to see any paper in the state disgrace its columns by its insertion. We can only account for its appearance on the supposition that some of the California editorial fraternity, being destitute of the necessary amount of brains to concoct stories about the “Mormons”, have been compelled to have recourse to foreign aid and in order to gratify their malicious propensities towards us. We do not profess to be so expert in the use of slang phrases and low vulgarisms as the editor of the American nor do we wish to degrade ourselves to his level by adopting his course for says the wise man, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.” (Proverbs 26:4)

There is one thing however which we would remind gentlemen of and that is that selecting all the scurrilous and abusive words from a dictionary and arranging them in consecutive order

though it may exhibit a certain degree of smartness is not argument. And though it may pander to and please the passions of the vulgar unthinking crowd it will not only fail to convince but will disgust every sensible and reflecting man and woman. There is not an objection raised in the article to which we allude but what could be easily and satisfactorily answered but we do not consider it worthy of a reply for it carries its own refutation on its face and the only reason we notice it is because it shows the mean, cowardly, underhanded course which certain editors in this city are determined to pursue towards us and our principles and because it is also a tolerably correct criterion of their taste—crows flock to carrion but its very scent is sufficient to drive away birds of cleaner tastes and purer instincts.

Why is it gentlemen that you are compelled to resort to such means to sustain your position? We are here to debate with you the principles of “Mormonism” on their own merits and to answer your objections against them if you have any. We invite discussion. We court inquiry. Bring forth your strong arguments. Show us our errors. Prove “Mormonism” to be false either from the Bible or nature. We are willing to meet you on these grounds. But no. Instead of pursuing this manly, consistent, straightforward course, you sneak away behind the invincible barrier of some absurd story that’s been hatched up by charitable disinterested man as the editor of the American from three to 10,000 miles away and about which neither of us know as much as a monkey does of algebra and then you valiantly stick your heads out of your hiding places and then call upon us to refute these ridiculous offshoots of a diseased brain when you well know that it’s impossible for us to obtain the necessary proof to do so. Shame on such a contemptible subterfuge.

We ask again why is it that you pursue such a course? We are compelled to conclude that it’s either because you have learned by past experience that reason is not a weapon that can be used against “Mormonism”, that no sound argument can be brought to bear against it, or else that you really do not know enough to conduct an argument on the subject. If the latter is the case we advise you not to open your mouths again until you have something to say but to remember the fable of the ass who when attired in the skin of a lion passed very well for that noble animal until he attempted to imitate his roar when his bray betrayed his true nature.

As one of the first propagators of Mormonism on the Sandwich Islands, the term then generally used for Hawaii, it’s hardly surprising that Cannon responded

forcefully when the California press attacked Mormon missionary efforts in that island paradise.

As he often would, Cannon used an eloquent defense of American liberties to decry his opponents’ ill-considered call to “Hang ’em up – like pirates” and to point out the unfortunate effects Protestant missionary efforts had on Polynesian culture and morals.

Taking the bait the editor of the California American tried to defend his somewhat exaggerated language providing Cannon with another opportunity to blast this intemperate burst of indignation.

HELEN EKINS:

“Mormonism” in the Sandwich Islands

Western Standard. 6 December 1856.

“The Mormons are preaching their accursed doctrines in the Sandwich Islands, of all places in the world needing the prevalence of just the opposite principles of social conduct. The great obstacle in the way of civilization in that quarter has always been the strong tendency of the people to licentiousness. It has been in some measure surmounted, and might soon be fully overcome, but for the advent of this new ism into that region. The propagators of such a monstrous evil as Mormonism . . . ought to be hung up, like pirates.”

ROGER EKINS:

The above is an editorial item from the columns of a Sacramento paper, (the California American) of Saturday last, and is strikingly indicative of the spirit of murder and bloodshed which dwells in the breasts of many who hold themselves up as guides of public opinion, and teachers of virtue, good order and peace. Every honest, peaceable and upright man must be disgusted with such sentiments, and cannot but execrate the spirit that would dictate their utterance. Men that will permit themselves to be actuated by such feelings, are unworthy of the society of their fellow-men, and should be shunned as enemies of their race. Had they lived in the days of Christ they would have been in the crowd who cried, “crucify him, crucify him;” or, had they been present at the execution of Stephen, they would doubtless have rubbed their hands in glee, should they have lacked the courage to throw the stones. Such men filled the cells of the Inquisition with victims, and caused the streets of Paris to flow with the blood of those who dared to think differently from

themselves; and, had they the power to-day, they would have another St. Bartholomew and the Latter-day Saints as their victims. If the Latter-day Saints are preaching “accursed doctrines” on the Sandwich Islands, they are preaching “accursed doctrines” in California; for we preach but the one doctrine wherever we go. And as, in the opinion of the editors of the California American, the penalty for propagating “Mormonism” there should be “to be hung up like pirates,” if they would but express their feelings, they would advocate the visitation of the same penalty upon its propagators here; and, as its believers all become propagators the moment they become acquainted with it, the hanging process would have to be extended to every member of the society throughout the earth! Are the editors of the California American prepared for such a consummation?

We had the honor to be one of the first propagators of “Mormonism” on the Sandwich Islands, and we were the first individual who preached, what the editors of the California American are pleased to term, the “accursed doctrines” of “Mormonism” to those Islanders in their own language; before they go, therefore, to those lands to execute the sanguinary vengeance they have decreed against the “Mormons,” they had better commence with us, as we have not only been “guilty” of propagating “Mormonism” there, but are also engaged in the same delightful occupation here, and, the Lord being our helper, intend to follow the business for the remainder of our life and throughout the endless ages of eternity. Before they commence, however, they had better weigh well the consequences of such a movement, and be prepared to meet them, as the shedding of the blood of one Latter-day Saint will be the seed from which such an abundant harvest will be raised that the extirpation of their system would be impossible. We know that the doctrines taught, both on the Islands and here, and, in fact, throughout the world by the “Mormons,” are not “accursed,” only in the estimation of Satan and his agents; neither is their system “a monstrous evil.” As we have been a propagator of these doctrines there, it is but reasonable to suppose that we have a little knowledge on this subject. The people were, and are now, being taught to believe on Jesus Christ, the Son of God, with all their hearts; do the editors of the California American think this an accursed doctrine?

They have been taught to repent of their sins and forsake them; do they imagine this to be an accursed doctrine? They have been shown that baptism for the remission of sins was necessary; is this what they would phrase an accursed doctrine? They have also been exhorted to walk uprightly, to deal justly and to forsake and abhor

everything licentious or corrupt; do they term these doctrines accursed? These are the doctrines taught by the Latter-day Saints to the Sandwich Islanders, Californians and people of every land for their obedience, and every doctrine antagonistic to these is not “Mormonism.”

It is a poor plan, and a very great evidence of weakness for men to recommend the hangman’s rope as an argument to arrest the progress of “Mormonism.” Though very potent in its way, it is not very apt to show men their errors, or to cause men of firmness to abjure them. Such an argument in the hands of tyrants and despots may be a terror to slaves and sycophants; but when used by an American editor towards freemen, the only feelings it gives rise to, are those of pity and contempt for the man who would so far forget himself as to use them.

HELEN EKINS:

“Mormonism”

Daily California American. 9 December 1856.

The idea of hanging the Mormons up like pirates appeared in the editorial columns of this paper a week or 10 days ago and was the result of a momentary burst of indignation upon reading, as an item of news from the Sandwich Islands, that the monstrosity of Mormonism was gaining a foothold in that region. The language is somewhat exaggerated it is true for we could hardly be supposed to be literally in favor of publicly executing Mormon preachers— detestable as they all undoubtedly are, and however well deserving the fate of common felons, for however beneficial it might be to the intentions of humanity to extirpate by law so monstrous an evil as Mormonism from the face of the earth yet it would be dangerous to the rights of man and the greater doctrine of liberty of conscience to establish in this government or any other such a precedent. A departure from the great Republican principle of free toleration of religious opinions in a solitary instance would endanger the principle itself and tend to revive in its full force a policy, which the past experience of civilized nations has shown, had better be allowed to slumber among the things that were.

For the Mormons themselves we have no respect—we mean the leaders of the sect—but we do respect the great principle under which they seek shelter, which like the rain from heaven that falls upon the just as well as the unjust, is for them as well as for any other class of men. Had we the power to control our national

legislation we would restrain the hand of destruction aimed at the Mormons, odious as they are and repugnant to every sentiment of decency within us, not for their sake but for the sake of the country. We would not strike them down for the same reasons that we would not tear down a splendid monument to the genius of architecture whose massive pillars and sky-reaching dome the labor of a century had reared for the purpose of extracting or putting to death a miserable reptile that had hid within its walls. No. Rather let it live on though it should issue forth at times to hiss and stink and strike at all it met. So much we would not do and so far do we qualify the language of the paragraph above quoted. But we do not hesitate to say that could it be done, with safety to the principle of which we have spoken, the propagators of a general system of licentiousness like that of Mormonism—so open, shameless, indecent in its everyday workings, so destructive of every quality that most ennobles man and distinguishes him from the brutes ought to be hung up, every one of them, as the common enemies of mankind.

We have thus taken the pains to explain our precise meaning in the paragraph in question because it has been taken up as a text by the Mormon Standard at San Francisco of Saturday’s issue upon which to write a long article denouncing us for the expression of such a sentiment. The editor of that sheet affects to suppose that we are literally in favor of hanging up Mormons or of making it the policy of the country to do so and intimates that if such a course is to be pursued we had better begin with him as he has preached Mormonism both in the Sandwich Islands and in California. Now we do not deny that were we engaged in such a business we should consider the editor a standard fit subject for our attention and we take occasion to say to him, since he seems to desire our notice, that while we pity a poor miserable fanatic who knows no better than to be led by the nose into the filthy slough of the most foul and monstrous superstition we scorn with every feeling of manhood that is in us, the lying hypocrite who knows what he preaches is false and not only false but destructive of the very best interest of society as it is the deadliest blight upon virtue and morality.

We know well enough that the Mormons’ leaders expect to thrive upon what they call persecution and that they would delight in getting into controversies with respectable newspapers but we will nevertheless so far humor them on this occasion as to tell them in plain terms what they are at any rate how they are seen by decent people. They are considered hypocrites and imposters, a foul blot upon humanity which ought at once to be wiped out and that they are tolerated at all is owing not to any regard for them but for the

principles of religious tolerance under which, with all their loathsome vileness, they have enough sense to know they can be protected. The sledgehammer, which is to knockout their brains, is not legislation but public opinion and we are satisfied to let it do its work.

ROGER EKINS:

California American on “Mormonism”

Western Standard. 20 December 1856.

The editor of the American, in another article on this subject [of hanging up Mormons like pirates] in last week’s paper, states that the item in question was the result of a momentary burst of indignation, and that he would not wish to be understood as being literally in favor of publicly executing Mormon preachers. He then delivers his opinion on the benefits of free toleration of religious opinions etc., and what he would do for the “Mormons” had he the power to control “our national legislation”—that he would restrain the hand of destruction aimed at the Latter-day Saints, not for their sake, but for the sake of the country. So far he attempts to qualify the language of the paragraph in question. But he has no sooner finished his qualifying remarks than he says that, could it be done with safety to the principle of free toleration, the propagators of a system like that of “Mormonism,” “ought to be hung up, every one of them, as the common enemies of mankind.” And again, he says that they are “a foul blot upon humanity which ought at once to be wiped out.” Was it another “burst of indignation” that called forth these last sentiments? We suppose that we must set it down as such, and consider the “language somewhat exaggerated,” as there is so little difference between these sentiments and the sentiments of the paragraph which he has attempted to qualify, and which he says was the result of a momentary burst of indignation and contained language somewhat exaggerated, that we can scarcely detect any difference. We are pleased that the editor has informed us that he is subject to such fits when he reads anything about the progress of “Mormonism,” as we shall be able, hereafter, to overlook any “exaggerated language” that he may indulge in when treating upon this subject.

Still under the influence of this “burst of indignation,” however, he goes on indulging in some very vulgar and ungentlemanly language towards ourself, giving us his opinion of “Mormons” in general and ourself in particular, informing us what

he would do with us were he hangman—that if that were his business, he would consider us a fit subject for his attention—all of which, after the explanation he has given, we conclude to be the unmeaning, exaggerated ravings of a man who has a strange habit, whenever the progress of “Mormonism” is alluded to, of writing about hanging men up like pirates, when in reality he does not wish to be so understood! Not being subject to “momentary bursts of indignation,” nor being in the habit of dealing in “exaggeration,” we confess that we cannot compete with the editor of the American in the use of low, abusive and ungentlemanly epithets. In this he excels us. His past education and experience have given him such ready command of ribaldry that we must for ever despair of being able to emulate him. Our sense of self-respect and neighborly courtesy, if nothing else, would forbid the attempt. But as the editor of the American is probably not aware of the fact, that slang and abuse do not pass among sensible and well bred people for argument and ability, we take the pains to enlighten him, and to inform him, also, that the use of such terms as lying hypocrite—miserable fanatic— impostor—filthy monstrosity—foul superstition, etc., only betrays a mean and ignoble spirit that, by its proficiency in vulgarity, would endeavor to hide its lack of sense. He is of the opinion that the Latter-day Saints expect to thrive on persecution, and that they would delight in getting into controversies with respectable newspapers; insinuating, of course, that he is respectable! and that we ought to submit quietly and resignedly to any insults or abuse to which he may give vent whenever he is seized with one of his “bursts of indignation.” That is the idea conveyed throughout his whole article. He has said the “Mormons ought to be hung up like pirates.” We have had the temerity to condemn the sentiment,

though uttered by the editor of the California American! and because we have done this we must be bespattered by the filthy emanations of the brain and pen of a man who calls himself respectable. Now, we wish the editor of the American to distinctly understand that, whenever he shall so far forget himself as to give utterance to a sentiment similar to that with which we found fault, and which he attempted to qualify, we shall unhesitatingly condemn and expose it. We do not seek either persecution or controversy; but if they are to be the consequences of our condemning odious, tyrannical and unrighteous sentiments, let them come, and we will do our best to prepare for them. We have been educated to believe that we have an equal right, with every other citizen of this Republic, to express our dissent to everything arbitrary and intolerant, and the fact that we are a Latter-day Saint will never hinder us from exercising it. The

religious tolerance of which he speaks, and under which he says we have sought protection, is not a privilege granted unto us, neither is it anything for which we should be thankful to him or any other man; it is our inalienable right—our birthright—bestowed upon us by the Deity himself, and though we may be deprived of it by despots, it is still a right for which we shall ever contend.

HELEN EKINS:

“Mormons” Again

Daily California American. 22 December 1856.

The editor of the Standard accuses us of using “low, abusive and ungentlemanly epithets” and says something about our “past education and experience” fitting us for ribaldry. Those who know us and not strangers are the best judges of our past education and experience and they will at least bear us out when we say that our past education and experience never led us into any such vile and shameless conduct as is the everyday practice of Mormonism whatever may have been our past education and experience and of that as we have just intimated we will leave to those who know to speak for us.

In regard to our using “abusive and ungentlemanly epithets” we can only say that we generally call things by their right names. We consider the Mormon leaders lying hypocrites and can find no fitter words to convey our meaning. We look upon the actual believers in Mormonism as the dupes of imposters and regard their faith as a foul and monstrous superstition and must so express ourselves. If there is a more elegant and gentlemanly way of signifying the same thing we have no objection to adopting it but a skunk is a skunk and it could not change the nature of the animal were we call it an odoriferous digitigrade carnivorous mammal.

ROGER EKINS:

The “California American” Again

Western Standard. 3 January 1857.

Our article headed the “California American on Mormonism,” published in the Western Standard of the 20th ultimo, has called forth a rejoinder from the editor of that paper, which we feel disposed to notice, though at the risk of being again charged by him with a desire to covet his attention. We have an aversion to

newspaper warfare, but when assailed in the manner we have been by the American we should be, in our opinion, recreant to the cause with which we are identified and to every duty incumbent upon us, were we to allow it to pass unnoticed.

Gentlemanly courtesy will never prompt a man to call another a liar, and publish it abroad, unsupported by anything but assertion; much less will it influence him to denounce a whole community as lying hypocrites, impostors and dupes without advancing the slightest shadow of proof, other than his bare opinion, to support the charge. What would the editor of the American think were we to call him a driveler, a political trickster, a man who would advocate any measure or support any candidate, if he should only be paid enough? Were we to make such statements and publish them upon no other evidence than our mere say so, the mildest terms men could use to us would be that we were low, abusive and ungentlemanly, and the plea, that we “generally called things by their right names,” would avail us but little. Yet this would be equally as consistent and honorable a course as the one he has taken towards us in his articles. We have, for nearly a year past, been disseminating and advocating “Mormonism” through the columns of this paper; this is the only object we had in view in publishing it. It may be presumed, therefore, that a tolerably correct idea of our doctrines can be gathered from its contents. Now, we defy the editor of the American to bring forward a single instance from it, or indeed from any of our publications or teachings, where licentiousness or immorality is taught and sanctioned. If “Mormonism” be such a system as he represents it to be, so vile and shameless in its everyday workings, he surely will have no difficulty in proving it be such from our writings; but we wish him to bear in mind that his idea of what is vile, shameless and fanatical will not be the standard by which we must be measured—that standard must be God’s word and not man’s opinion. We hope our cotemporary will not run away this time with the idea, because we have noticed him again, that we covet his attention; we want him to be undeceived on this point. We have lived thus far without the attention of so “respectable” a paper as the California American, and we are not yet quite so low as to be under the necessity of resorting to it. The editor of that paper may rest assured, however, that whenever he gives vent to such sentiments as he has lately advanced regarding “Mormonism” and the “Mormons,” we shall never hesitate, by the assistance of that Being to whom “Mormonism” owes its origin, to expose and condemn them.

There were no more rejoinders! Cannon wore him down on that one. Well were the Mormons of mid-nineteenth century America saints or sinners? The answer would have to be an unqualified “both”. Like any people the Mormons had plenty of the good and the bad among them but to judge the entire religion either for good or for bad on the basis of a single individual or on the basis of a single tenet of the religion such as the little understood principle of polygamy would be completely unjust. Nonetheless that’s exactly what happened in the frontier west. Far too often those who did the judging did so on the basis of second or third-hand information often from those who had once been members of the Church but who had left with hurt feelings and personal grudges.

For a number of reasons there is probably no need for polemical apologists such as the young George Q. Cannon in today’s Church nor is he likely to be remembered by many for his early years as the editor of the Western Standard overshadowed as they were by a subsequent career as a business executive, political catalyst and Church leader. But Cannon’s fiery editorials of 1856 and 1857 are worthy of historical memory. If nothing else we must acknowledge the value of good writing and sound reasoning. Cannon, one of Mormonism’s most effective defenders of the faith, was not without error but the worst of his writing was infinitely superior to much of what passes for reasoned argument today.

Perhaps just as importantly he wrote with a flair and faithful sense of purpose rarely encountered at the beginning of the 21^st century. The power and mastery of the early writings of George Q. Cannon reveal that something quite extraordinary was lost with the passing of the editor of the Western Standard and the feisty little San Francisco newspaper through which he took on his role(?).

Time has only permitted us a brief glance at the many inflammatory editorials that made up the California Mormon newspaper wars of 1856-7 but to give you an idea of the various issues that fed those wars all of which contributed to the general question of whether the Mormons were saints or sinners the following are the titles of the other chapters in my book:

Two wrongs never will make a right: Sam Brannan and the vigilantes
The pusillanimous railings of an apostate Mormon: the strange case of Elder Cannon and Mr. Hyde
The bandits of the plains: red Indians, white Indians, Lamanites, and Danites
The grossest form of human depravity: polygamy and the relics of barbarism
The best news from this place is the reformation: the reality of rhetoric
The kingdom that Daniel saw: autocracy, theocracy, and theo-democracy in Deseret
The villainous, wholesale calumniator: Judge Drummond and the friends of the Court
The hoary-headed Reverend seducer: the assassination of Parley P. Pratt
The Mormons must be crushed out: War and rumors of war
A horrible massacre of emigrants: vengeance at Mountain Meadows
Faithfully warning the people: Cannon’s parting shots

All appearing now at a bookstore near you! Thank you very much.

SCOTT GORDON (President, FAIR): Are there questions for this gentleman?

Q: This interchange ended in January of 1857. That summer Johnson’s Army arrived in Utah, what’s the relationship?

ROGER EKINS: That’s why it ended. George Q. was called back along with everybody else and that’s what brought an end to it all.

*****

Mythmaking and The Mark Hofmann Case

Start Here

Question

Did the LDS Church hide Mark Hofmann documents?

Short Answer

According to Steve Mayfield and document examiner George Throckmorton, many popular claims surrounding the Mark Hofmann case have become legends that are not supported by the historical record. The speakers argue that many alleged “cover-up” narratives arose from misunderstandings, incomplete information, or repeated retellings rather than documented evidence.

Key Takeaways

Many widely repeated stories about the Hofmann case originated from secondhand information.
Several claims about the Church purchasing documents to suppress them are challenged with documented ownership histories.
George Throckmorton explains that forensic document examination is complex and often cannot be reduced to simple tests like “cracked ink.”
The speakers encourage readers to evaluate sources carefully and distinguish documented evidence from speculation.

Summary

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

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

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

TL;DR

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

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

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:

It went from Cosmic Airplane,
Was used and examined by George as part of the investigation,
Then returned to Cosmic Airplane, at which time the owner, Bruce Roberts, sold it to Ken Sanders in 2000.
I bought it from Ken Sanders in August of 2000.
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…

First of all, consider the source. Consider the source of the person writing these things.
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.

August 2026 FAIR Conference

FAIR CONFERENCE ARCHIVE · 2026

2026 FAIR Conference

Back to Basics · August 5–7, 2026 · Lehi, Utah

The 2026 FAIR Conference, themed Back to Basics, brought together scholars, historians, educators, and faithful voices to explore foundational questions about Latter-day Saint history, scripture, and doctrine. Presentations addressed Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, Church history, temple worship, and navigating questions of faith. Browse the conference presentations below, with available transcripts, speaker information, and related resources.

Conference Presentations

Published presentations · Alphabetized by speaker

Unmasking the Strategies of the Enemy

Scott Gordon

Scott Gordon examines how the adversary seeks to undermine faith in Jesus Christ through distrust, criticism, and division. Drawing on scripture and decades of experience in Latter-day Saint apologetics, he explores how believers can recognize these strategies, strengthen their faith, and respond to challenges with knowledge, discernment, and Christlike charity.

Read & Watch Presentation →

Joseph Smith: Sexual Opportunist or Reluctant Polygamist?

Brian C. Hales

Was Joseph Smith a sexual opportunist or a reluctant polygamist? At the 2026 FAIR Conference, Brian C. Hales examines historical evidence concerning plural marriage, Emma Smith, polyandry, and Joseph Smith’s motivations, arguing that the record supports a reluctant prophet rather than a sexual opportunist.

Read & Watch Presentation →

Understanding the Faith Crisis Industry - How Doubt is Monetized

Ron C. Rhodes

Ron Rhodes examines what he calls the “faith crisis industry,” focusing on the financial structures, social media strategies, and community-building efforts of organizations critical of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Using publicly available financial filings and social media metrics, he argues that financial incentives can shape the production and distribution of critical content while urging Latter-day Saints to respond to those experiencing faith crises with clarity, charity, and compassion.

Read & Watch Presentation →

Additional Conference Presentations

Transcripts and presentation resources will be added as they become available.

Thomas Alexander — The 1844 to 1847 Succession Crisis in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Michael R. Ash — Shaken Faith Syndrome
Kendall Buchmiller — What is (and is not) Doctrine
Josh Coates — Black Saints and the Priesthood and Temple Restriction: Statistics on Three Positions
Gerrit Dirkmaat — Joseph Smith’s Miraculous Translation of the Book of Mormon
Brett Dowdle — “Here is Brigham”: The Private Character of Brigham Young
Keith Erekson — Which Sources Should I Trust?
Paul Fields — Authorship Attribute Analysis of D&C 132
Brant Gardner — Can I Trust the Book of Mormon? My Half Century Quest to Answer that Question
John Gee — The Book of Abraham: A Status Report
Casey Griffiths — Approaching Hard Questions in Church History and Doctrine
Matt Grow — “A Record Shall Be Kept”: The Mission of the Church History Department
Brian Hales — Joseph Smith: A Reluctant Polygamist
Janiece Johnson — Unravelling the Story of the Mountain Meadows Massacre
Meagan Kohler — Why God is Getting in the Way of Your Happiness
Jennifer Roach Lees — Doctrinal Differences and “Heretical” Teachings
Mark Ashurst-McGee — Joseph Smith and Treasure Digging
James Perry — Historical and Contemporary Patterns: European Latter-day Saints, 1837-present day
Daniel C. Peterson — Why Apologetics? The Case for Defending the Faith
Jasmin Rappleye — Sacred, Secret, or “Cultish”? Demystifying the Latter-day Saint Temple
Neal Rappleye — A Beginners Guide to Book of Mormon Apologetics
Matt Roper — Accidental Evidence for the Book of Mormon
Robert Stephenson— Representations of the Church in Media
Anthony Sweat — The Restoration Continues: Let us Continue in it!
Jeffrey Thayne — By What Measure? Why the Same Doctrine Looks Different to Different Saints
John Thompson — Framing the Facsimiles: The Book of Abraham’s Relationship to the Egyptian Vignettes
Wendy Ulrich — When Loved Ones Leave: Maintaining Faith and Relationships
Walker Wright — Nourishing the Roots: How Temple Recommend Questions Can Reground Faith

Original 2026 FAIR Conference Schedule & Information

FAIR Conference 2026

August 5–7, 2026
Thanksgiving Point Showbarn | Lehi, Utah

This archive preserves the original conference schedule, program, and sponsors for historical reference.

Download the original PDF program

Conference Schedule

Day 1 – Wednesday, August 5, 2026

7:10 PM – Scott Gordon: Unmasking the Strategies of the Enemy
7:40 PM – Anthony Sweat: The Restoration Continues: Let us Continue in it!

Day 2 – Thursday, August 6, 2026

9:10 AM – Mark Ashurst-McGee: Joseph Smith and Treasure Digging
9:40 AM – Brian Hales: Joseph Smith: A Reluctant Polygamist
10:10 AM – Brett Dowdle: “Here is Brigham”: The Private Character of Brigham Young
10:45 AM – Gerrit Dirkmaat: Joseph Smith’s Miraculous Translation of the Book of Mormon
11:15 AM – John Thompson: Framing the Facsimiles: The Book of Abraham’s Relationship to the Egyptian Vignettes
11:45 AM – John Gee: The Book of Abraham: A Status Report
1:15 PM – Casey Griffiths: Approaching Hard Questions in Church History and Doctrine
1:45 PM – Thomas Alexander: The 1844–1847 Succession Crisis
2:15 PM – Josh Coates: Black Saints and the Priesthood and Temple Restriction: Statistics on Three Positions
2:45 PM – Janiece Johnson: Unravelling the Story of the Mountain Meadows Massacre
3:25 PM – Jasmin Rappleye: Sacred, Secret, or “Cultish”? Demystifying the Latter-day Saint Temple
3:55 PM – Keith Erekson: Which Sources Should I Trust?
4:25 PM – Ron Rhodes: Understanding the Faith Crisis Industry - How Doubt is Monetized
4:55 PM – Robert Stephenson: Representations of the Church in Media

Day 3 – Friday, August 7, 2026

9:10 AM – Meagan Kohler: Why God is Getting in the Way of Your Happiness
9:40 AM – Walker Wright: Nourishing the Roots: How Temple Recommend Questions Can Reground Faith
10:10 AM – Wendy Ulrich: When Loved Ones Leave: Maintaining Faith and Relationships
10:45 AM – Matt Roper: Accidental Evidence for the Book of Mormon
Paul Fields: Authorship Attribute Analysis of D&C 132
11:45 AM – Michael R. Ash: Shaken Faith Syndrome
1:15 PM – Matt Grow: “A Record Shall Be Kept”: The Mission of the Church History Department
1:45 PM – Jennifer Roach Lees: Doctrinal Differences and “Heretical” Teachings
2:15 PM – Kendall Buchmiller: What is (and is not) Doctrine
2:45 PM – Jeffrey Thayne: By What Measure? Why the Same Doctrine Looks Different to Different Saints
3:25 PM – Brant Gardner: Can I Trust the Book of Mormon? My Half-Century Quest to Answer that Question
3:55 PM – Neal Rappleye: A Beginner’s Guide to Book of Mormon Apologetics
4:25 PM – James Perry: Historical and Contemporary Patterns: European Latter-day Saints, 1837–Present
4:55 PM – Daniel C. Peterson: Why Apologetics? The Case for Defending the Faith

How to Reach African-Americans

TL:DR

This talk teaches that to effectively address concerns about race and priesthood in the Church, members must be honest about history, understand African-American perspectives, and rely on scripture rather than speculation.

It emphasizes that past priesthood restrictions were policy—not doctrine—clarified through the 1978 revelation and later scriptural updates. Passages about “skin” and “darkness” should be understood spiritually, not physically.

By teaching these principles clearly and compassionately, members can strengthen faith, improve missionary efforts, and help more people feel welcome in the Church.

Summary

The speaker begins by explaining that questions surrounding race and priesthood nearly prevented him from joining the Church, motivating years of personal study. He outlines a missionary-focused approach: understanding the language and culture of African-Americans, particularly the perception that the Church has a racist past.

He stresses the importance of acknowledging historical realities rather than denying them. Using statements from leaders such as David O. McKay, Dallin H. Oaks, and Bruce R. McConkie, he distinguishes between policy and doctrine and cautions against relying on speculative explanations for past restrictions.

The talk centers on the 1978 priesthood revelation as a turning point, accompanied by a “flood of light and knowledge” that reshaped understanding. The speaker points to 1981 scriptural updates—especially footnotes and wording changes—as key tools in clarifying previously misunderstood passages.

Focusing on scriptures such as 2 Nephi 5:21, 2 Nephi 30:6, and Jacob 3:8, he explains that references to “skin” and “darkness” should be understood spiritually rather than physically. This interpretation is reinforced through scriptural cross-references and teachings like 1 Samuel 16:7, emphasizing that God judges the heart, not outward appearance.

The talk concludes with practical outcomes: improved missionary efforts, increased retention, strengthened members, and greater inclusivity. The speaker testifies that teaching from scripture, combined with honesty and cultural understanding, can help bring more people—especially African-Americans—into and back to the Church.

Introduction

Scott Gordon:

As a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Marvin came to the Church after searching every religion he could find for over five years for what he called “the real Church.” Born and raised in Niagara Falls, New York, just 90 miles west of Palmyra, he had never heard of the Church or Mormons.

When one of his business associates wanted to see him perform, that desire set off the missionary experience that would lead to his baptism into the Church three months later.

Marvin, an MJM Records recording artist, has been singing professionally for over 18 years. He started as a studio vocalist, background and weather artist.

While doing a small showcase in Los Angeles in 1996, he launched his debut album, I’m So Glad. After many concerts, firesides, and conferences sharing the gospel, he slowed down long enough to put together a second musical project in 1997 entitled Hymns to Him, which was recently released.

As Director of African-American Relations on the Southern California Public Affairs Council, Marvin works closely with other religious leaders to bring service and support to those in need.

He was just recently called to serve as co-chair for Genesis Public Affairs, his responsibilities very similar to the calling of Director of African-American Relations on the national level. The Genesis Group is the branch of the Church designed to meet the unique needs of African-Americans.

He has also served as Gospel Doctrine and Seminary instructor and is well versed in the scriptures.

And we’re very, very pleased to have Marvin Perkins come and speak to us.

Opening Remarks

Good morning. (faint “good morning” echoed back from the audience) You guys learned a little bit from yesterday, President Darius’ talk. Good morning! (Good morning echoed back stronger.) There you go! I want to make sure you’re awake here. Aloha. Buenos dias and all that other stuff. O genkidesu-ka, for anybody Japanese.

I am grateful to be here today, especially to speak on this topic. This topic is one that actually almost kept me from joining the church. And I wanted to make sure that no one else left the church, would not join the church, or struggled in the church as a result of not having the information that I was seeking.

And so I thought, let me study this thing. So, I’ve been studying this subject for 17 years now. I am not by any means an expert on it. I just know what I know and what the Lord has guided me and directed me.

Purpose of the Study

I found that if we keep this talk to the scriptures, you get less people trying to refute what you’re saying. But the biggest reason that I study this is to help others into the gospel. There are many who won’t take the time to learn this information, and that’s all right for them.

But I want to help those who do want to have some of this information, and the church has given us plenty of guidance. So again, I’m no expert: I’m no scholar, I’m no scriptorian. I’m just a man who loves the Lord and will do anything he wants me to do.

And sometimes that finds me in trouble. But I’m willing to take it.

So, how do we reach African-Americans in and outside of the church? You have the formula down already, and you’re already doing it.

Understanding Culture and Language

You just have to apply it to this group of people. See, because when you go into the MTC, what do you do? You learn the language and the culture of the people you are going to serve. You learn Spanish. You learn a little bit about the Spanish culture.

You learn Japanese, a little bit about the Japanese culture. You go to an American or English-speaking mission, no language to learn, but you learn a little bit about the communication skills so that you don’t offend and turn people off from the church.

Well, that’s the exact same way that you would actually reach African-Americans. You need to learn and understand the language and the culture of the people. So, what is the language of African-Americans in regards to Latter-day Saints? Okay.

The Reality to Address

Now, the language—this is reality. This is what African-Americans feel and know. Most African-Americans believe:

that Mormons are racist
that they have a long history of racism
that they even have it built in the doctrine.

That’s what African-Americans feel.

If you want to reach them, you have to deal with that reality. You’ve got to get to the point where you can hear that. That’s what we feel.

What is the culture? Well, the culture is every African-American, regardless, is going to have to deal with this issue at some point.

Some of us deal with it before discussions,
some during the discussions, and
some after baptism,
sometimes many years after baptism.

But we do have to deal with it.

Real-Life Impact

I’m just working with a brother now who has been a member of the church for seven years and is just now dealing with it. He’s been inactive for the last year over this issue. And now since we’ve shared with him what I’m going to share with you today, he is back in the church.

So the fruits—by the fruits you shall know them. First of all, be honest. We know the first thing we can do with this issue is admit—we try to deny the history that we have.

We have a history in this country of inequality, of racism, of prejudice – and that includes the church members as well. Church members, church leaders—we have that.

Being Honest About the Past

Until 1964 and The Civil Rights Act, the law of the land was discrimination. So, we only varied in our degree of it. So, be honest.

No one is going to believe you have the truth if you can’t be honest about the past or your involvement.

Scriptural Parallel

It reminds me of the children of Israel. They were in bondage for 400 years.

And when they got out of bondage – when Moses and Aaron freed them, the instruments of the Lord to free them out of bondage – the Lord wanted them to get to know Him. To start serving Him more.

And it was so difficult for them to do that. So they had this law of Moses given to them, this simple law to help them to be able to abide the entire law.

And it would take them many years to be able to do it before Christ would come and fulfill and give them a new way of doing things.

The Great Commission

Also, we see this with the resurrected Savior, with the last command recorded in Matthew. The resurrected Savior stood before them. Ate with them, met with them, and said, “Take the gospel to all the world.” Okay.

Early Priesthood History

So, let’s talk a bit about priesthood. Many don’t know that when the church was first restored that anybody could hold the priesthood. And there were Black men holding the priesthood.

Joseph Smith gave it to Elijah Abel in 1836. Walker Lewis was ordained in 1844. William McCary. (Some people don’t like to mention William McCary because he didn’t do good things, but I’ll mention him.) William McCary got it in 1846.

William McCary might be the reason why Blacks didn’t hold the priesthood—and if you want to know about that, you go study it. William McCary or Black Pete. Enoch Abel received it in 1900. And that’s something.

And Elijah Abel, grandson of the first Elijah Abel, received it in 1934.

When Did the Issue Begin?

As a matter of fact, until about 1954, many people didn’t know there was an official policy on priesthood. I mean, many Blacks didn’t mix with the church, and it just wasn’t that much of an issue.

If Blacks are holding the priesthood, why was that? There wasn’t an issue. When did the issue begin? Well, let’s hear a few statements on priesthood that we have from our church leaders.

Statements from Church Leaders

David McKay. In 1954, David McKay is quoted as saying:

“There is not now and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse.There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro.”

I’m going to repeat that. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro.

“We believe that we have a scriptural precedence for withholding the priesthood from the negroes. It is a practice, not a doctrine. And the practice will someday be changed. And that’s all there is to it.”

President George Albert Smith is also quoted as having said the same thing.

On Reasons and Revelation

Elder Dallin H. Oaks said in an interview,

“It is not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to the commandments.”
“When we do, we are on our own. Some people put reasons to the ban and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that… I am referring to reasons given by general authorities and elaborated on by others.”
“The whole set of reasons seem to be unnecessary risk taking… Let’s not make the mistake that’s been made in the past …here and in other areas trying to put reasons to revelations. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent.”

A New Day — 1978 Revelation

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, one of my favorite statements here:

“Forget everything that I’ve said or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in the days past that is contrary to today’s revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that is now coming to the world. We get our light and truth line upon line, precept upon precept. And we have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all of the darkness and all of the views and all of the thoughts of the past. They just don’t matter anymore.”

So if you’re going to study this issue, you’ve got to forget everything you’ve heard and start from scratch. And where is the best place to start? Forget the philosophies of men and go straight to the scriptures.

Scripture Updates and Understanding

There’s enough guidance in the scriptures for you to understand this—for us to understand this.

“It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody has ever said about the negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978). It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given revelation to shed light into the world on this particular subject.”

Now, we’re going to talk a great deal more about that light. Because with that light and that knowledge – that flood – it wasn’t just a revelation that reversed the priesthood. But it was a flood of intelligence that came, as Elder McConkie said, that helped correct the views and the thoughts of the past.

Continuing Revelation in Scripture

And the brethren actually did something with that flood. They actually updated our scriptures in 1981.

So if you look at an older version of your scriptures and then go to 1981, you’ve got a newer version with footnotes and word changes to help us to understand the issues that were misunderstood before, give us new guidance.

And every single scripture that I could find in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that we misunderstood regarding this issue, has a footnote. Giving clarification and new understanding.

Scriptural Foundation

Let’s consider D&C 36:4-5.

“And now this calling and commandment give I unto you…”

Concerning who?

“concerning all men (emphasis added) that as many as shall come before my servants Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith Jr. embracing this calling and commandment shall be ordained and sent forth to preach the everlasting gospel among the nations.”

D&C 36:7

“And this commandment shall be given unto the elders of my church, that every man which will embrace it with singleness of heart may be ordained and sent forth, even as I have spoken.”

D&C 63:57

“And again, verily I say unto you, those who desire in their hearts in meekness to warn sinners to repentance, let them be ordained unto this power.”

The Inclusive Nature of Priesthood

D&C 84:33–35

“And whoso is faithful unto obtaining these two priesthoods…

I mean, the Lord has plenty of time to give us a restriction, a division, but he doesn’t do it. He’s—it’s all inclusive. All right.

“And whoso is faithful unto obtaining these two priesthoods of which I’ve spoken and the magnifying their calling are sanctified by the spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.
“They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, with rights to the priesthood and the church and the kingdom and the elect of God.
“And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me.

Accountability and Scripture Concerns

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgressions.

2 Nephi 5:21 is a big one because that’s when most blacks, African-Americans, and a lot of other cultures stop reading the Book of Mormon. Like, “okay, what? You can’t believe this.” Because it looks like it’s right in the doctrine.

Understanding “Skin” and “Darkness”

And again, we’ll go back to Elder McConkie’s statement—that flow of light and intelligence on the subject. It’s going to help us to understand. They put new footnotes in here to help us to get past that.

Second Nephi 5:21.

“And he had caused a cursing to come upon them…”

Now, we understand the cursing—a separation from God because they were sinners, they wouldn’t live the law of God—

“…to come upon them, yeah, even a sore cursing, because their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint. Wherefore, as they were white and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Now, before 1981, there was no footnote on the word skin. The brethren put one in there. What do they want us to understand about skin? They directed us to 2 Nephi 30:6.

Clarifying Through Footnotes

2 Nephi 30:6 reads,

“And then shall they rejoice, for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God, and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes, and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they be a pure and a delightsome people.”

And so what do they want us to know from skin? Well, some of us can get an impression that they’re talking about more of a spiritual darkness. But if you follow the footnote—you don’t even have to guess at it. They made it crystal clear.

If you follow the footnote for “scales” down to the bottom of the page, it says clearly “topical guide darkness—spiritual, spiritual blindness.”

Changes in Language and Meaning

So this is the direction that they are giving us. And notice the word pure. Before 1981, that word read white. And they changed it to pure, saying that it actually closer fit the meaning of the phrase.

All right. So, let’s get a little more scriptural support. Now, every scripture in the Book of Mormon that made you think that the Lamanites had a darker skin than the Nephites, it actually has a new footnote on it.

Now, I don’t know anything about the DNA and what color they were when they got here. I don’t know anything about that. Okay.

Judging by the Heart

All I know—and this is all I preach when we’re helping people in the church stay in the church—I just point to what the brethren have given us.

And in Jacob 3:8, you’ve got,

“O my brethren, I fear that unless you repent of your sins, that their skins,”

speaking of the Lamanites,

“will be whiter than yours when ye are brought before the throne of God.”

Brought before the throne of God to be judged. Here I am. What is he going to judge me on? Is he going to judge me on my physical appearance, my outer skin? Does that represent my righteousness? No. You know better than that.

The Lord Looks on the Heart

The Lord gave us, in 1 Samuel 16:7, direction on that.

“But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not unto his countenance, or the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for the man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.”

So if the Lord is going to judge us based on whiter and darker skins, it must be something other than a physical or literal skin.

And the guidance that the brethren have given us clearly in the scriptures is that they’re talking about a spiritual darkness.

Applying the Teaching

How do we reach African-Americans? We’ve got to understand the language and the culture of African-Americans regarding our LDS culture.

Number two, we need to understand that this is a culture of highly highly persecuted people that have plenty of written documentation that we need to explain somehow. We just can’t wish it away.

Teaching with Honesty and Scripture

We need to be honest and stop denying what everybody knows to be true. It’s like walking in with a milk mustache. “I didn’t have milk. I didn’t have any milk.”

Learn to teach what the Lord and the brethren have given us. You don’t need the philosophies of men on this issue.

You can go to the scriptures, study them out. I recommend that you don’t take my word for anything, but that you actually go to the scriptures and get on your knees for everything that you don’t understand. He’ll give it to us. He really will.

The Results of This Approach

And as a result of learning this information, what happens? Well, this is what we’ve seen when we’ve taught from the scriptures this new direction that the brethren have given us.

The discussions continue resulting in baptism.

Brothers and sisters of color—of all colors—come back into the church as a result of now feeling more comfortable.

Strengthening the Church

Members are strengthened and more active participants in their stakes and their wards.

Missionaries are armed and members are armed. They go out with knowledge on how to deal with these issues, and now they can actually help someone.

And finally, you are able to keep your covenant to feed the Lord’s sheep.

Final Warning and Testimony

Woe unto the shepherds who feed not the sheep. How do you think the Lord would feel if we as a church ignored these people?

Especially when we have the pattern—we have the pattern of studying the language and the culture of people before we go out to try to reach them—but yet putting no effort forth for this group of people, I think that he would be very displeased with us.

But I know that if we do this, if we study these things and just only study the language and the culture of the people and what the brethren have given us, that we will see a flood of African-Americans come in the church.

And I leave these things with you in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Search topics

Race; Priesthood; African Americans; Race and the Priesthood; Priesthood restriction; 1978 Revelation; Continuing revelation; Elijah Abel; David O. McKay; Dallin H. Oaks; Bruce R. McConkie; LDS doctrine vs policy; Scripture interpretation; Book of Mormon skin of blackness; 2 Nephi 5:21; 2 Nephi 30:6; Jacob 3:8; 1 Samuel 16:7; Spiritual vs physical skin; Church history race; Inclusion; Missionary work; Cultural understanding CES Letter; Mormon racism; Mormon Church racism; LDS racism history; Black members LDS Church; Priesthood ban controversy; Race criticism LDS; Faith crisis race issues; Church reputation race; LDS Church criticism race

Church History

Introduction of Brian C. Hales

Brian C. Hales — 2026 FAIR Conference

Joseph Smith: Sexual Opportunist or Reluctant Polygamist?

Did Joseph Smith Lie About Polygamy?

Did Joseph Smith Use Coercion or Abuse His Authority?

Women Who Declined Joseph Smith’s Proposals

Did Joseph Smith Practice Polyandry?

Evaluating the Historical Research

Historical Attitudes Toward Polyandry

Joseph Smith’s Sealings to Married Women

Josephine Lyon and the Question of Biological Paternity

Presentism, Contextualism, and Eternal Sealings

Joseph Smith, Emma Smith, and the Restoration of Plural Marriage

Fanny Alger and the Kirtland Years

Plural Marriage in Nauvoo

Emma Smith and the Temple Endowment

Joseph Smith’s Youngest Plural Wives

Helen Mar Kimball and the Question of Betrothal

Was Joseph Smith a Reluctant Polygamist?

The Timing of Doctrine and Covenants 132

Historical Observations About Joseph Smith’s Motivations

The Challenge of Restored Plural Marriage

Prophets and Difficult Commandments

What If Plural Marriage Had Never Been Restored?

William Law’s Appeal to Joseph Smith

Why Was Plural Marriage Commanded?

The Legacy of Polygamy and Latter-day Saint Faith

The Impact of Polygamy on Missionary Work

A Testimony of Joseph Smith’s Prophetic Calling

Religious Freedom • Leadership • East German Church History

Bio last reviewed:

Contributions at FAIR

Statement of Faith

Date of Statement of Faith

Church Historian • Author • FAIR Speaker

Bio last reviewed:

Contributions at FAIR

Statement of Faith

Date of Statement of Faith

Book of Mormon Scholar · Historian · Researcher

Bio last reviewed:

Contributions at FAIR

Statement of Faith

June 2011

Historian · Folklorist · Latter-day Saint Literature Scholar

Bio last reviewed:

Contributions at FAIR

Statement of Faith

Date of Statement of Faith

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw

Senior Researcher • Latter-day Saint Apologist • Writer & Podcaster

Bio last reviewed:

Contributions at FAIR

Statement of Faith

Jeffrey M. Bradshaw’s statement of faith

— September 2010

“Hang ’em up – like pirates: the Mormons, saints or sinners?”

HELEN EKINS:

Pacific, Post and “Mormonism”

HELEN EKINS:

ROGER EKINS:

HELEN EKINS:

ROGER EKINS:

HELEN EKINS:

ROGER EKINS:

Start Here

Question

Did the LDS Church hide Mark Hofmann documents?

Short Answer

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

TL;DR

TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Read)

Note About the Slides in this Presentation