So if recent revelations are true:
1. Luke Ashworth's father(?) Brent sold a group of LDS historical documents to Mark Hofmann.
2. Mark Hofmann took this group of docs, added to it a forged affidavit from a 15 year-old boy testifying that he was involved in the MMM.
3. Hofmann sells the group to the Utah State Historical Society, who makes it available to the public in their archives.
4. The document serves as source material for various books on the MMM, including the recent Innocent Blood by Bagley and Bigler.
5. Polly Aird reviews Innocent Blood in Spring 2010 in the Journal of Mormon History, and mentions that this affidavit was purchased from Hofmann.
6. Brant Ashworth notices that the group of documents all passed through his hands except for this one. (None of the other docs were about MMM.)
7. Two church historians start researching and claim:
a. The font used in the affidavit was not invented until 12 years after the date of the letter.
b. The signature appeared to be forged, including the fact that the only known signature of the signee is an exact overlay of the MMM affidavit sig.
c. The ink appears to be chemically aged.
If proven false, it changes nothing about the events of the MMM. What is interesting is speculation about why Hofmann did it.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...gery.html?pg=1
1. Luke Ashworth's father(?) Brent sold a group of LDS historical documents to Mark Hofmann.
2. Mark Hofmann took this group of docs, added to it a forged affidavit from a 15 year-old boy testifying that he was involved in the MMM.
3. Hofmann sells the group to the Utah State Historical Society, who makes it available to the public in their archives.
4. The document serves as source material for various books on the MMM, including the recent Innocent Blood by Bagley and Bigler.
5. Polly Aird reviews Innocent Blood in Spring 2010 in the Journal of Mormon History, and mentions that this affidavit was purchased from Hofmann.
6. Brant Ashworth notices that the group of documents all passed through his hands except for this one. (None of the other docs were about MMM.)
7. Two church historians start researching and claim:
a. The font used in the affidavit was not invented until 12 years after the date of the letter.
b. The signature appeared to be forged, including the fact that the only known signature of the signee is an exact overlay of the MMM affidavit sig.
c. The ink appears to be chemically aged.
If proven false, it changes nothing about the events of the MMM. What is interesting is speculation about why Hofmann did it.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...gery.html?pg=1
Comment