How many of you would have apostatized over the White Salamander Letter?
 

Had this happened in 2008 instead of 1980-something-or-other?

Stage IVs are the least likely to apostasize over something like this, if the issue is "how could an Apostle be duped by a future murderer?"

On the other hand, if the angle is "why is the church hidling and covering up and limiting access to historical materials?" that bothers Mormon liberals the most.

Hard to say. Now in my old age, an apostle being lied to and falling for the lie is just an acknowledgement of human nature and the failure of discernment even among the very best.

The church's hiding of historical materials bothers me, but it's been bothering me for a long time now, so more hiding is hardly a revelation.

The apologetics that came out trying to smooth over the events described in the salamander letter were amusing to say the least.

Yeah, I'll drink to that.

Since I am well past the point where I expect perfection from the church, its leaders or the gospel as it is articulated through the church and its leaders, I really don't see that as bothering me if it happened now. Coming out of high school and early in college my world view was still that the church was true based on undeniable logical and empirical evidence and that the words and actions of at least the 12 and first presidency were the unerring will of the Lord, who was revealing it to them (probably in person) on an ongoing basis.

A significant life experience damaged the foundations of that world view and prompted me at that point to re-examine what I had formerly assumed about everything, really for the first time. This was sort of my "white salamander" experience. I spent years with one foot in stage four with periodic retreats to stage three through rigorous compartmentalization. I think (hope) that in the last 4-5 years I have taken a new turn into what I see as being a stage five approach that allows me to have my belief system remain intact through faith and through completely discarding the expectation that I can build a foundation on reason and evidences (other than those which are completely internal). With my own choices, hopes and faith as the foundation, I have not set up a spiritual house of cards that collapses when one gets yanked from the bottom. It is not as clean and simple and pure as it was when I was teenager, but that's okay.

A couple of things Fowler suggests that are true to me: (1) once the stage three scales fall off, there really is no getting re-inserted into the Matrix so to speak (2) these transitions take place over years (probably a 15 year or so journey for me) (3) the journey need not end in stage three or stage four. A sublime synthesis is possible.

I don't think most people cared about the presence of the letter nearly as much as the Church's efforts to purchase and then conceal it. I'm not terribly excited about my tithing money being used this way.

I guess I didn't follow it that closely. I remember The Church purchasing a number of docs, but the purchases were all very public. Then came the discussion of salamanders and heavenly messengers. If that was an effort to conceal, then not a very good one. Then Hoffman started bombing people.

Is the effort to conceal the letter revisionist history, or was it real?

I was young at the time, but my understanding is that they became public only after the bombings and as they became part of the investigation.

EDIT: I guess I shouldn't say "public" as the contents were public from the outset. But I think there were many who were concerned that the Church's motive in purchasing the document was to "bury" it; the contents then became widely known with the bombings and subsequent investigation. I have no idea if this is a fair accusation, but there are some smart people ( and active members of the church) who feel that there is at least some validity to it. If it's true, I don't really like it, and that's all I meant by the original post.

Sometimes, UD, it's like you're reading my mind.

History of the letter:

-Lyn Jacobs initially offered it to Don Schmidt of the LDS Church Historical Department on January 3, 1984, in exchange for a $10 Mormon gold piece. The offer was declined.

-Jacobs then met with Gordon B. Hinckley, who said; "I don't really know if we [the LDS Church] want it."

-Jacobs then offered to trade it for a copy of the Book of Commandments, which was also rejected.

-Jacobs asked Brent Ashworth if he had interest, but he had already seen a transcript from Hoffman and declared it to be fake.

-Then the church's Historical Department found the contents of the letter to seem too similar to Howe's Mormonism Unvailed (an anti publication), casting further doubt on its authenticity.

-Then Gordon B. Hinckley recommended to the First Presidency that the Church NOT purchase it.

-Then it was offered to other parties including Jerrald and Sandra Tanner, but they too expressed doubts in its authenticity.

-Finally, after all of those rejections, Steven F. Christensen purchased it and found an examiner who disagreed with the previous examiners and declared it to be authentic.

-In April 1985, with that ONE examiner claiming it authentic amidst the SEVERAL who expressed doubt (including the Tanners), President Hinckley objectively addressed both sides of the issue by stating, "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."

That is the comment that the antis feast upon. What they intentionally fail to include is the history of the letter being rejected over and over. Instead, they twist Hinckley's objective report as "being duped" and "unable to discern evil intentions."

Those whose testimonies were shaken were most likely not given the full story.

Hinckley later acknowledged his critics by offering the following: "I accepted [Jacobs] to come into my office on a basis of trust.... I frankly admit that Hofmann tricked us. He also tricked experts from New York to Utah, however.... I am not ashamed to admit that we were victimized. It is not the first time the Church has found itself in such a position. Joseph Smith was victimized again and again. The Savior was victimized. I am sorry to say that sometimes it happens."

Sorry Indy but I voted no in your little poll.