Welcome to Episode 73 in our LDS Discussions series!
In this episode, we explore the long history of fraud, forgery, and “discernment” within Mormon history –from Joseph Smith’s treasure digging and the Kinderhook Plates to the Salamander Letter, Paul Dunn, Tim Ballard, and Jodi Hildebrandt.
We discuss why people believe extraordinary claims, the role of critical thinking and skepticism, and whether church leaders who claim divine guidance have actually demonstrated the “Gift of Discernment” they preach about. Along the way, we examine the Book of Abraham, the Kinderhook Plates controversy, Mark Hofmann’s forged documents, hidden church history, and modern scandals that continue to raise difficult questions for believers and critics alike.
The episode also looks at how faith can remain resilient even after exposure to false claims, and why many argue that institutional dishonesty –rather than belief itself –is the deeper issue.
Topics include: Joseph Smith’s treasure digging, the Book of Abraham facsimiles, how Elder Oaks defended the Salamander Letter, and the hiding of early Mormon documents. This discussion asks a central question: If church leaders claim special spiritual discernment, why were so many frauds, forgeries, and harmful figures embraced or defended for so long?
If you enjoy long-form Mormon history and analysis, consider subscribing and supporting the channel.
If you have thoughts on other topics you wish for us to cover, please leave them in the comments!
2 Responses
I think that a part of this fraud problem is the old “prosperity gospel” syndrome. This, for the uninitiated is an old Calvinist notion that some are “chosen” by God and that proof of this may be demonstrated by the measure of wealth that a person has. This idea seems to provide an impetus for some to seek more and more wealth. As the old adage says. “God helps them that help themselves.
The neely trial was most likely a de novo proceeding. A common way of trying minor cases in new England in that day and today it still exists (at least is was when I was an administrator to those courts) in Massachusetts. A de novo court means that you get a trial and a finding but if you don’t like it you can take your case to a higher court. But not on appeal. It’s a whole new trial. So when Neally finds Smith guilty it’s an actual conviction and not a preliminary hearing.