Wyatt opens up

[Doctor Scratch]

This episode sounds like the way a geeky frat house would defend itself. It’s a pretty low road for a Church of Jesus Christ.

You are quite right, Physics Guy. Years ago I had lunch with the legendary LDS historian D. Michael Quinn and we got to talking about the Mopologists and their behavior and he said, “It’s a game to them.” He specifically adduced the “Metcalfe is Butthead” incident as proof. His remark has always stuck with me. The Mopologists seem to engage in this variety of petty crap because they think it’s fun.

[Philo Sofee]

This episode sounds like the way a geeky frat house would defend itself. It’s a pretty low road for a Church of Jesus Christ.

You are quite right, Physics Guy. Years ago I had lunch with the legendary LDS historian D. Michael Quinn and we got to talking about the Mopologists and their behavior and he said, “It’s a game to them.” He specifically adduced the “Metcalfe is Butthead” incident as proof. His remark has always stuck with me. The Mopologists seem to engage in this variety of petty crap because they think it’s fun.

Of course they do. They have to endure boring church meetings, this is the only excitement they get. Elders quorum and high priests meetings can't possibly be intellectually stimulating so here is where they make up for it.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Over on the comment section, Allen Wyatt is now making the claim that the Tanners profited from the Hofmann forgeries. Does Allen mean people bought the Tanner's newsletters because they contained articles about Hofmann?

If that's the case, how many people bought articles from FARMS during their mad rush to defend the Salamander Letter?

Mark Hansen on November 21, 2023 at 8:10 pm said:

Kudos where kudos are due. Mr. Tanner was the first person to publicly declare the Salamander Letter was a forgery. If only the Church had listened to him.

Reply ↓

Allen Wyatt
on November 22, 2023 at 5:38 am said:
I suspect you have read neither the book at point or my review.

Fact is, both Jerald and the Church listened to the same experts, at first. (That point is made by Huggins in the biography.) In other words, people fault the Church for listening to the same people to whom the Tanners listened at first.

Plus, the Tanners were the second people to profit from Hofmann’s forgeries. (Mark being the first, of course.) And nobody EVER faults the Tanners for profiting from the forgeries.

Granted, when Jerald became convinced that Hofmann was a forger, he changed his tune. But, quite honestly, so did the Church’s experts. The difference was when the convincing occurred.

I’m willing to grant kudos to the Tanners for changing their stance relative to the forgeries first. Should we also grant them kudos for being the first ones, beside Hofmann himself, to profit from the earlier forgeries?

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... /?id=70689

[Marcus]

Granted, when Jerald became convinced that Hofmann was a forger, he changed his tune. But, quite honestly, so did the Church’s experts. The difference was when the convincing occurred.

I’m willing to grant kudos to the Tanners for changing their stance relative to the forgeries first. Should we also grant them kudos for being the first ones, beside Hofmann himself, to profit from the earlier forgeries?

"The difference was when the convincing occurred."

Unbelievable. I think more than kudos are due for recognizing something the self-defined prophets, revelators and seers missed.

Also, a more interesting question to me is how much tithing money the lds church wasted on forgeries.

I'd also like to see Wyatt's evidence on the Tanners, not only 'cashing in' on forgeries, but also "being the first ones, beside Hofmann himself, to profit from the earlier forgeries"...

From the review:

After cashing in on Hofmann’s forgeries for years, the Tanners silently removed the forgery-based pamphlets from their catalog,21

...footnote 21:

21. This conclusion was reached by reading all issues of the Salt Lake City Messenger published between 1981 and 1984 when Jerald publicly had his change of heart regarding Hofmann’s many finds.

Oh. So, his statement is based on unverified, personal, anecdotal evidence.

As for his claim being mentioned in the book:

Huggins mentions a couple of the Tanners’s pamphlets based on the Hofmann forgeries, but charitably exonerates Jerald from any responsibility for having “cashed in” on those forgeries — it was, after all, the fault of “the experts.”23

Footnote 23

23. The Tanners have, in many venues, indicated that the issue isn’t necessarily that Jerald beat the “Church’s experts” to the punch, but that the Church, led by a prophet, should never have been fooled by Hofmann at all. See, for instance, the discussion in Jerald and Sandra Tanner, interview by Stan Larson and George D. Smith, Everett L. Cooley Oral History Project, April 2, 1997, 73–75, https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=788232. Such discussions, while facile, are dismissive and show a lack of subtly and nuance when it comes to understanding the purpose of prophets. They demand a level of infallibility from prophets that those prophets have never claimed nor has the Lord ever required.

So just like other footnote quoted, this one also doesn't verify Wyatt's statement. You'd think an editor would have taken a look at this, or at least assigned a factchecker to check whether the footnotes supported Wyatt's statements of (at the moment, unverified) facts.

[Marcus]

Over on the comment section, Allen Wyatt is now making the claim that the Tanners profited from the Hofmann forgeries. Does Allen mean people bought the Tanner's newsletters because they contained articles about Hofmann?

If that's the case, how many people bought articles from FARMS during their mad rush to defend the Salamander Letter?

Interesting point. He must have evidence, then, to show that fewer people supported FARMS than supported the Tanners during this time period, at least financially. Was FARMS really that unsuccessful at communicating with their audience?

[Tom]

Yes, the July 1985 issue of FARMS’ Insights newsletter offered the infamous Salamander paper for sale ($1.50): https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org ... -july-1985 (see pp. 1, 3).

https://archive.interpreterfoundation.o ... mander.pdf

[Res Ipsa]

Alan Wyatt, the gift to anti-Mormons that keeps on giving.

[Marcus]

Allen Wyatt
on November 22, 2023 at 5:38 am said:
I suspect you have read neither the book at point or my review.

Fact is, both Jerald and the Church listened to the same experts, at first. (That point is made by Huggins in the biography.) In other words, people fault the Church for listening to the same people to whom the Tanners listened at first.

Plus, the Tanners were the second people to profit from Hofmann’s forgeries. (Mark being the first, of course.) And nobody EVER faults the Tanners for profiting from the forgeries.

Granted, when Jerald became convinced that Hofmann was a forger, he changed his tune. But, quite honestly, so did the Church’s experts. The difference was when the convincing occurred.

I’m willing to grant kudos to the Tanners for changing their stance relative to the forgeries first. Should we also grant them kudos for being the first ones, beside Hofmann himself, to profit from the earlier forgeries?

Does this sound to anyone else like Cartman losing his mind because no one respects his 'authoritah'???

[Marcus]

[Everybody Wang Chung]