Talk:Salamander letter

More info on Hoffman stuff

My memory is that one of the current members of the presidency of the seventy David E. Sorenson was instrumental in exposing the fraud. He was planning on purchasing some of the letters and donating them to the church; however, he had hired investigators and experts to verify the authenticity before laying down the cash, and the findings of these professionals are what began the downturn. I have been trying to find some references but only these: [1] [2]. Trödel|talk 18:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why the controversal part of the salamander letter is left out of this page: The letter was beleved by church leaders and was suppressed. unsigned by User:71.108.192.117

(anon 16:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)) I will second that concern. I came to the article to find out what it was about the letter that made church leaders believe it. Were there oral legends of a white salamander? unsigned by User:205.155.71.178

Good question, IP addresses. It was believed by church leaders because the handwriting was accurate, and it was deemed a "real" copy of an early letter [3]. Hoffman was a master forger, and experts believed his work was authentic. In addition, as stated in the article, the document discussed a "magical world view." [4] At the time in Mormon studies, scholars were showing parallels between Mormonism and astrology, freemasonry and more. So it was timely to surface. The idea that Smith recieved the plates on the equinox was combined by Hoffman with other ideas, such as a notice in a local paper by the Smith family stating that Alvin's grave had not been disturbed, contrary to popular belief, (the notice had no other context in any avaialable writings), with a Magick belief about fire-resistent salamanders [5], so hoffman tied the three of these together. No Mormon legends of Salamanders nor mentions in other historical documents. It was generally believed the same as other strange ideas he introduced into culture ranging from his forgery of "Oath of a Freeman" written on the Mayflower, to oddities he introduced into the lives of Emily Dickinson, Mark Twain and Abraham Lincoln, by forging things in their names. Each time, he tried to make the authors or topics appear in negative light. He always seemed to have an axe to grind. So that's the end of the story. A good read is Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders by Allen Dale Roberts and Linda Sillitoe.

Incidentally, other forgeries of his including the Josesph Smith III succession letter, and the Anthon transcript are still believed by many both within and without the church today. He was a skillful forger, seeking to discredit the LDS Church, by his own admission. -Visorstuff 17:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that church leaders covered this up. Sure, if you completely ignore the fact that they published the letter in Church News, and President Hinckley himself addressed it in the Ensign magazine (see references section), you might have a case. From his tone, I would disagree that he even believed in it. RTA, it's very informative. Anyway, to say that it was "believed by church leaders and ... suppressed" is not true at all. If anything, the Church handled this directly and with remarkable objectivity and straightforwardness for something that could have otherwise been detrimental. If anything, it confirms my belief in the the Brethren's right and very real ability to have inspiration in directing the affairs of the Kingdom. --Bruce 22:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my comment was a bit emotive, but my opinions stand, and my facts (sourced facts, mind you) have accumulated. Unless some reasonable objections (with credible sources) are presented soon, I will happily rewrite that section from scratch. President Hinckley did not necessarily believe the letter was genuine, as evidenced by a talk of his that I added at the bottom of the page. He in fact questioned it openly (Ibid.). The current tone is totally misleading. That he planned to purchase it himself is also dubious (read: unsourced). Nor is FARMS a part of the Church. It's been a year and a half now. None of the more disputed items are sourced at all, and I have found enough evidence that contradicts its current language to justify the change. Bruce 05:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

The final paragraph of the "Lasting effects" section seems a little, well, POV-ish. (It's a vast improvement on what was here before, however.) I realize that the folk-magic of western New York in the 1820's is still part-and-parcel of the non-supernatural explanations of the origins of the BoM, but the long-term effect of the Salamander letter is more that it made people think along those lines than anything else. It is well supported from documents not forged by Hoffman. I note that a pro-Smith source such as Bushman (p. 50) has no trouble in seeing magical folklore as part of Smith's background. John Jenkins 02:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Several people killed themselves after it was revealed the letter was forged and Hinckley, supposedly a profit, had been fooled by it. Why isn't this mentioned in the article? A History Channel TV special mentions it, so does the book "One Nation Under Gods". --Ragemanchoo (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• As if the History Channel is an actual authority? All you have to do is watch one episode of Ancient Aliens to see how they manipulate minor details and sensationalize anything they can for ratings all the while using "experts" who actually have no formal training in the fields they are representing. Onto the book mentioned, written by Richard Abanes, who just happens to be highly tied in with Rick Warren (both known anti-mormons) - of whom I would consider dubious sources for use in this article. While the claims of suicide may be true, it would seem that neutral sources should be used to explain the events. 68.108.135.15 (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

Given the inherent controversy of this topic, I'd have hoped to see a more careful job of footnoting. It's not clear exactly what sources back up what statements in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 18:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. Not only is the footnoting unclear in some spots, there's also missing footnotes. It says that the documents were later proven to be frauds and mentions new FBI techniques, but does not give any support to this. Not a bit of backup. While it may not be the intent, it makes it seem like the author is slanting the point of view and just saying that the document was a forgery without proof because that's they want the story to end. The only information he footnotes on the document are either opinions or state that they can't prove it's a forgery. I shouldn't have to go to another site to find the proof and information on this (which I haven't done, yet, so I'm not yet sure it exists...if it does, it should be footnoted here, if not, there should be no forgery conclusion, just speculation based on other evidence). (Kelly) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.188.209.78 (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

The sentence beginning "Variously accepted and rejected ... " doesn't read right. It seems to suggest that Rendell did both. Perhaps it should read "Accepted by some document experts and rejected by others (including....)" Myrvin (talk) 08:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Fully automatic machine guns

Machine guns in the United States are sold in semi-automatic mode. They can only fire one shot for each trigger pull. They do have to be converted to fully-automatic mode to be true machine guns. The sentence describing this is accurate. Padillah (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Text removed

Removed the following from the "Purchase and publicity" section:

In a Church News release on April 28, 1985, he stated, "No one, of course, can be certain that Martin Harris
wrote the document. However, at this point we accept the judgment of the examiner that there is no indication
that it is a forgery. This does not preclude the possibility that it may have been forged at a time when the
Church had many enemies."

According to Turley, this is attributable to Hinckley, not Christensen. Richigi (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Misleading opening line

Lupin VII, just reversed my 17:43, 20 September 2019‎ edit. I know we don't always have time to read the articles, every time we encounter a suspected bad influence on an article. I was just bringing the opening line "The salamander letter is a document about the history of the Latter-day Saint movement" into agreement with existing content (below) in the article, so readers wouldn't think that the forgery was authentic (a common problem with such well known documents later proven to be forged, even many decades later)...I don't relish a battle of reversions ... if everyone's OK with it I will re-store my 17:43, 20 September 2019‎ edit to "The salamander letter is a document forgery purported to be about the history of the Latter-day Saint movement"?

I agree. This article would be a lot better if it clearly indicated that the document was a forgery. This isn’t disputed, so one has to wonder about the motives of those who keep removing this key aspect from the introduction. If the nature of the document was disputed today “controversial” would be a key aspect of its nature. As it is, the document is fairly non-controversial today (except as it relates to the ongoing embarrassment of those who acted on a belief that if was/might be real). Laconist (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Subject of Forgery and Netflix

With the release of a new Netflix series on this subject, this article will be receiving a lot of interest and scrutiny from Wiki users. It is important that all sourcing in the article is accurate and integrity driven. I've removed the text from the first sentence of the introduction which stated the letters are a forgery citing an uncorroborated source. It is my opinion that until a definitive source(s) can verify the claims of a forgery, the Wiki article should not make a claim one way or another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.155.222 (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears this entire Wikipedia article has been edited by the Mormon church to discredit this knowing the Netflix documentary was coming out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.205.12 (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 1860 Utah $10 gold piece.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Why was the cited line removed from lead?

Is anyone aware of a reason to discredit the Western Forensic Document Examiner? There was a reference to a paper they published declaring the letter to be a forgery but the reference and the citation were removed. Can anyone shed light on why this publication is not citable? Padillah (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)