Page 1 of 1
An amusing bit of Mopologetics from Blake Ostler about the Hoffman forgeries
Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2026 11:22 pm
by sgtpeanut
From his Facebook page:
This has to be one of the most banal arguments ever made. This was posted by Danielle Black. But I actually heard this argument from a person with a Ph.D who once taught at BYU who left the church in part because of it!
"Remember when these so-called “prophets” laid hands on forged documents and believed they were true? Then they hid them because they were unflattering to the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They would go on to lie about being in possession of them until a journalist exposed them and the so-called "church" finally admitted it.
IMG_1127.jpeg
”
The problem with this argument? First, unless one can read minds based on a mere photo, there is no indication that they had any belief about the Salamander letter. Moreover, they never hid the Salamander letter because it was made public within a week (as the photo shows!). Her argument assumes that prophets are necessarily omniscient (know everything) and are infallible (cannot possibly be wrong). To expect a prophet to immediately detect a forgery after 5 minutes is nonsense. After all, Isaac thought that he was giving his birthright to Esau when it was really Jacob. He didn't detect Rebekah's deception. If a prophet didn't know his own son, it is clear that prophets are neither omniscient nor infallible as Danielle Black assumes. So the assumption that prophets are omniscient and infallible expectation is both contra-scriptural and just plain nuts.
So many things laughable about this response but my favorite thing about this post are the comments by other fellow deluded old guard apologists like this one:
I thought exactly the same, if the Church were trying to hide it, why was the photo released? Second, Im sure when the leaders first encountered the supposed artifact, they had no way of knowing whether it was real. Their first inclination would be to secure it and then figure out if it could possibly be real. Im sure they were beyond skeptical, but needed to investigate before making determinative statement about it. That is what critics call "hiding" I guess.
Finally, I know for myself, if I had seen it and was told it was proven real, it wouldn't effect my testimony of the Prophet one iota. I understand Prophets are not perfect people, and my experience with anti Mormon" historical facts", always without fail are far more complex and nuanced then they pretend when they make the attack. So I would simply reserve judgement until I had all the facts and evidence. Of course, it didn't take long for the evidence to come out that yet another desperate anti mo was up to no good yet again.
And of course, the mindless critics turn the whole affair into an attack on the Church who was the actual victim in all of it. For me, yet more proof that if that the nutty anti mos actually had a solid case to be made, they wouldn't need to resort to any of this nonsense.
Laugh out loud stuff in my opinion
Re: An amusing bit of Mopologetics from Blake Ostler about the Hoffman forgeries
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2026 1:28 am
by The Before
The clearly staged photograph is bizarre. Spencer W. Kimball holding a giant magnifying glass, as if that was some kind of Urim and Thummim. Gordon B. Hinckley pointing at an open book of scripture as if translating from one document to another through divine intervention.
Re: An amusing bit of Mopologetics from Blake Ostler about the Hoffman forgeries
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2026 1:38 am
by I Have Questions
The church started buying the Hoffman documents in 1980. In 1984 two other dupes (Steven F. Christensen and Gary Sheets) purchased The Salamander Letter (subsequently donating it to the church in April 1985). The Tanners got sight of The Salamander Letter in Jan/Feb 1984 and were immediately skeptical. In March 1984 The Salamander Letter was published and the Tanners challenged its authenticity. In April 1985 the church published it and Hinckley said that he accepted its authenticity based upon an experts examination, but also left open the possibility that it might still be of 19th century origin. Later that month Oaks delivered an apologetic for The Salamander Letter as a genuine artifact.
The Tanners spotted the likely forgery of the only document to be published as soon as they saw it. Prophets and Apostles didn’t spot any of the forgeries despite having access to many more documents, for many more years, and despite having direct access to God/Jesus.
What’s the lesson here?
Re: An amusing bit of Mopologetics from Blake Ostler about the Hoffman forgeries
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2026 1:53 am
by drumdude
I Have Questions wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2026 1:38 am
The church started buying the Hoffman documents in 1980. In 1984 two other dupes (Steven F. Christensen and Gary Sheets) purchased The Salamander Letter (subsequently donating it to the church in April 1985). The Tanners got sight of The Salamander Letter in Jan/Feb 1984 and were immediately skeptical. In March 1984 The Salamander Letter was published and the Tanners challenged its authenticity. In April 1985 the church published it and Hinckley said that he accepted its authenticity based upon an experts examination, but also left open the possibility that it might still be of 19th century origin. Later that month Oaks delivered an apologetic for The Salamander Letter as a genuine artifact.
The Tanners spotted the likely forgery of the only document to be published as soon as they saw it. Prophets and Apostles didn’t spot any of the forgeries despite having access to many more documents, for many more years, and despite having direct access to God/Jesus.
What’s the lesson here?
Keep paying your tithing!
Re: An amusing bit of Mopologetics from Blake Ostler about the Hoffman forgeries
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2026 10:01 am
by sgtpeanut
A good question to ask wacko Ostler
Re: An amusing bit of Mopologetics from Blake Ostler about the Hoffman forgeries
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2026 2:26 pm
by Gadianton
Her argument assumes that prophets are necessarily omniscient (know everything) and are infallible (cannot possibly be wrong). To expect a prophet to immediately detect a forgery after 5 minutes is nonsense.
A prophet doesn't know everything, this is true. But a
seer is greater than a prophet and Hinckley was also a seer AND a revelator. He most certainly should have spotted a forgery as it pertains to his stewardship, immediately. The only argument you could make for his ignorance is that he stood there dumbly with a magnifying glass rather than using his seer stone. If the argument was that he would have needed his seer stone to identify it within a few seconds, then this at least makes logical sense. The only problem is also implies he was derelict in his duty.
You can't use the Old Testament to justify incompetence. First of all, if that's permitted, then anybody could be a prophet because the standard is so low. The Book of Mormon fixes this with prophets that never break the stereotype. When the Liahona stopped working, it's not because of Nephi. It's tied to group performance.
He's doing want Dan does, presents a world where we shouldn't expect miracles as the one we should believe in in order to avoid any standards by which to compare their failed leaders.
Re: An amusing bit of Mopologetics from Blake Ostler about the Hoffman forgeries
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2026 4:15 pm
by Everybody Wang Chung
ETA: Sorry, wrong thread!
Re: An amusing bit of Mopologetics from Blake Ostler about the Hoffman forgeries
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2026 5:53 pm
by Rivendale
This has been handled multiple times by believers and apologists. It is similiar to the vending machine god/prayer. The prophets, seers and revelators aren't those things 24-7. Years ago Johnny Carsen had Uri Gueller on the show to demonstrate his mind bending spoon ability. Little did he know James Randi knew how he did it and made sure Uri didn't get his pre-tampered props. When he realized he wasn't going to be able to bend them he claimed the conditions were not right. Same thing with failed dowsing attempts. A similar apologetic is applied to the fraudulent documents and incidently the Kinderhook plates. Prophets , seers and revelator powers only work when conditions are perfect and odds of success are the highest. So, make your prophecies general and vague. Make revelations contingent on immediate reversal and avoid seering if possible.