McLellin journal finally is located

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • #21
    Jan. 28, 2009 11:25 a.m.

    I 100% agree with Ken.

  • Ken Newman
    Jan. 28, 2009 2:39 a.m.

    From a historical point of view, what a marvelous opportunity to learn more of the time period in which lived Joseph Smith, whether criticisms or accolades be contained therein. Poorly debating his legacy in the few words allowed here serves no purpose whatsover, save to foster a spirit of contention. Shame on all of us for doing that! I for one look forward to hearing more of this notebook, and what may be contained therein. It should prove interesting, after all.

  • What?
    Jan. 26, 2009 10:28 p.m.

    What is going on? On here?

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 26, 2009 5:21 p.m.

    "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

    Because they have absolute power and authority for life, and are not accountable to the membership, I believe Prophets are the MOST IMPORTANT PEOPLE TO SECOND-GUESS!

  • squirming salamander
    Jan. 26, 2009 10:35 a.m.

    None of you make much sense to me. What a lot of know it all's-- who really know nothing at all.

  • To: observer
    Jan. 26, 2009 10:28 a.m.

    Your position makes no sense, so what you are saying is people or authorities should not be chanllenged or questioned. Following your lodgic then we should not second guess Satan since he is the Prince of this world at this time. We are given a brain to think with, use it, the world will be a better place for it.

  • observer517
    Jan. 25, 2009 5:45 p.m.

    Whe President Kimball purchased Hoffman's frauds years ago, he never said they were true. He simply made the purchase. And maybe he knew that that's what it would take to prove Hoffman the fraud that he was. Don't second guess a prophet.

  • Reality
    Jan. 25, 2009 2:25 p.m.

    As Eric Hoffer explained in his book, The True Believer, fanatics have vested interest in their believe and the more evidence contrary to their believe the more they will struggle to defend it. This is the case with most staunch mormons, if Jesus himself were to return to earth to tell them they are not the only true church and they themselves are not so different from all others, they would still not believe it because it is not what they want. The fanatic like the insane can not be reasoned with, ie the taliban.

  • My Lizard Journal
    Jan. 25, 2009 1:34 p.m.


  • #21
    Jan. 25, 2009 1:00 p.m.

    Arguing gets us no where. The truth is the truth and that is that Jesus is the Christ. The Son of the Living God. He taught AND continues to teach of peace, joy, and happiness even in this dispensation of the fullness of times. I'm sure if he was here now he wouldn't agree with us arguing against each other. 'Love on another as I have loved you'. This goes hand in hand with the greatest commandment in loving God. I know for myself personally that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God. You can listen to everything that I believe but it wont do a thing. You'll have to find out for yourself and ACT according to your faith through sincere prayer to He who holds all the answers.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 24, 2009 6:25 p.m.


    Hold on, I thought that's exactly what Prophets were - mind readers, clairvoyants, seers of hidden things, supernatural abilities to translate what nobody else can translate, to see what nobody else can see, to look into the future that nobody else can look into, and to discern the hearts and minds of men???

    Heck, if "they're normal human beings" then I can get "normal human beings" to give me good advice on how to live my life, subject to some mistakes, from pretty much anywhere! Who needs imperfect normal human beings to be given the special label as "prophets"? What a waste of a good word!

  • Winnie
    Jan. 24, 2009 2:30 p.m.

    Let's not overstate this thing! Prophets are not mind readers! They're normal human beings that God has called to lead and guide his Church. They do a great job at that, which is what their calling is all about. They can make mistakes in other areas of their lives, just as we do. There was only one perfect man! The rest of us are fallible.

  • Mutated
    Jan. 24, 2009 2:06 p.m.

    re---12:24--- You certainly have that right. After the Mark Hofman deal 25 years ago, anything is possible. TELL ME, What records throughout time haven't been tampered with or rewritten to benefit someone personally, including the bible. What to believe?

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 24, 2009 12:24 p.m.

    Long-bodied animal?

    What? A Salamander? A white one?

    How appropriate!

  • to anonymous
    Jan. 24, 2009 12:18 p.m.

    Good point anonymous. Oh wait, it was the church who published the Joseph Smith Papyri before anybody else. Hmm, that one would have been easy to keep under wraps because the media wasn't aware until the church publicized it. Same with the Joseph Smith III blessing. Your argument is baseless.

    If marketing and PR is really running the church, do you recommend that we throw in a free cookie or something so that you'll join? What will it take to get you in? Maybe some comic books or other fiction, since you seem really into that?

    I wonder why nobody does marketing and PR better than the church. Do you think MicroSoft does better? What about Apple? For sure Apple has to be better right, with all the iStuff? Maybe they should come to the church PR and marketing committees to learn about this stuff?

  • Stephen Douglas
    Jan. 24, 2009 12:08 p.m.

    I was a rooky cop in San Diego when Hoffman took his deal and I was an apostate from the LDS Church. In 1990, I interviewed the BATF agent pseudonymed in The Mormon Murders. I later contacted the 1st Presidency about the lack of inspiration on Hoffman's fraud and was sent Turley's, Victims:LDS Church/Mark Hoffman Case, so I don't do blind faith. But I am honest enough to admit what would stand up in court, credibility of witness testimony that shows no agenda. Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, & David Whitmer never denied their witness, though all fell away over disaffection with Joseph Smith. And Cowdery and Harris returned, giving "Death-Bed" confessions of their witness, as did Whitmer. Taking issue with God not revealing all things to his prophets is a slippery slope and you may think it a good excuse to leave, but NOWHERE in the Bible does it say prophets are entitled to know everything we think and do in secret. That is why the Law of Witnesses was given to Moses.

  • B. Mulletaner
    Jan. 24, 2009 11:58 a.m.

    I write to you from Africa and the preaching and acceptance of the gospel here has found and touched sensitive, inquiring souls and made huge differences in their lives. A testimony cannot be bought or given to anyone - it must truly be something one comes to truly know after study and prayer. Each to his own, but the gospel answers all my queries and I know it is true.

  • Long-bodied animal
    Jan. 24, 2009 10:22 a.m.

    Look here, you guys are making a bunch of uncalled for judgments about this journal. Lets all just calm down, and wait calmly, and see what the letters say. Maybe there are more of them who knows.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 24, 2009 10:10 a.m.

    The Mormon bias will ALWAYS discount anything contrary to the "Church is true" party line, and try to publicize anything that can be remotely twisted into a "faith-promoting" story!

    It is public relations and marketing at its best. Nobody does it better than the LDS Church!

    But if you want truth? Forget about it.

  • Re Ted et al.
    Jan. 24, 2009 9:45 a.m.

    Yeah -- something fishy! I'll bet aliens are involved!

    I look forward to the day the real diary will be released, so we can finally find out who killed Kennedy and the Lindberg baby.

  • Re:TED
    Jan. 23, 2009 7:22 p.m.

    Hummmmm? maybe they destroyed the real document so they wouldn't have to worry about it in the future. It's very odd that it suddenly appears after 25 years. I smell something very fishy about this.

  • Ted
    Jan. 23, 2009 7:10 p.m.

    This document is fake and altered to protect the church the real document is still in hiding.

  • YTf9
    Jan. 23, 2009 5:44 p.m.

    Good article. I'm looking forward to learning more about the journal.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 23, 2009 5:10 p.m.


    (I just wanted to type that. It makes me feel morally superior somehow)

  • Tim
    Jan. 23, 2009 4:46 p.m.

    All of this banter is annoying, and unrelated to the article. There are plenty of other places to argue (join a discussion group).

    I'm anxious to read McLellin's journal and learn how Ashworth discovered the journal. Certainly the journal will add more perspective to early Latter-day Saint history as well as more about McLellin himself.

    Hopefully, as somebody may have implied, the journal leads to many more findings!

    Does anybody know where he obtained the journal? Deseret News could have least mentioned that the source of the find is being kept private for the time being as opposed to remaining completely silent on the subject.

  • Baptists RULE!
    Jan. 23, 2009 2:09 p.m.

    yep, Some whining going on here.

    Jan. 23, 2009 2:07 p.m.

    Using your logic, all mankind would still be alive today. I'm sure you can answer your own confusion. To so many other posters who are making a big deal of the narrow conclusion that many of the original 12 apostles never returned, I would say that there were many that did not return in this life, but I must point out that they all know more today than they did before, and chances are pretty good that they all have returned by now. And if they did not, that was their choice and their right. I choose to believe that the increased knowledge possessed by these good men has served them well in making choices beyond the veil. And knowing the Savior as I do, they are welcomed back with tears and open arms. And, as Joseph Smith demonstrated on more than one occasion, he welcomes them back with the same love that our Savior has for them and there are no bitter feelings for their mortal choices.

  • re: Why?
    Jan. 23, 2009 1:58 p.m.

    Here's your answer: Because we believe that it is our responsiblity to testify of these things to the world.

    The Baptists have a similar belief and, to their credit, are more open about sharing beleifs.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 23, 2009 1:51 p.m.


    Read the rest of the comments. All three witnesses left the Church, two later came back. But Frederick G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon, William McLellin and over half the original quorum of 12 all left the Church and most never came back!


    Jan. 23, 2009 12:59 p.m.

    Hoffmen, too bad Hinckley never received divine inspiration during the four, 4, 3+1, years of forgery, then maybe two people who DIED would still be alive today...Oh well ..God makes mistakes.....

  • Why?
    Jan. 23, 2009 12:02 p.m.

    For all of you who prayed and were told by God that the LDS church is not true, great! Do what you need to do in your live to become closer to him? But why the need to convince people that have recieved an answer that it is true, otherwise. You know it doesn't really matter, true or not, as long as long as we are all living our lives in a way that brings us closer to God. And by spreading bitternes, contention, and accusations about each others religion does not help bring us closer to God. Can't we take a hint and learn something from the many different Muslim factions in the middle east, and stop fighting before we have religious wars worse than we already have had, here in the United States? One of the great things this country was founded on was the right to choose whatever religion we feel would bring us closer to God. The fact of the matter is there is hypocrites in every religion. Get over it! Stop putting other people down for their beliefs, and this is to Mormons and non-mormons alike.

  • SCJ
    Jan. 23, 2009 11:21 a.m.

    To Anonymous @10:57

    Yes all three left the church, however two came back and the third later admitted his pride wouldn't let him.


  • SCJ
    Jan. 23, 2009 11:11 a.m.

    From all the studying I have done, and continue to do in an attempt to find the answers, I have come to the conclusion that all that matters is if we beleive this is His church or not. If you know, as I do, that this is The Lords church, than you need to have faith that what ever answers you cannot find in this life will be revealed in the next life. If you do not beleive, than what does it matter anyway?

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 23, 2009 10:57 a.m.

    to from Texas

    And yet they all left the Church. Hmmmm.

  • Debra
    Jan. 23, 2009 10:45 a.m.

    We each have our own trials and challenges- some we overcome and others we succumb to. I enjoy journaling and know through my words my posterity can read about mine. I know I'm not perfect, and I know no one living on this earth now is perfect. That knowledge gives me comfort, for I don't waste time focusing on criticisms in others when I have plenty for myself that need to be dealt with as my priority and task in life.

    When taken as a historical work in context that allows insight into the author's thoughts and actions, the McLellin journal can provide some benefit for the social sciences. Nothing more than a case study can truly be gleamed, for we all have our own biases and the challenge that we are not William E. McLellin. The Omnipotent Lord seeth a man's heart.

  • Daniel
    Jan. 23, 2009 9:57 a.m.

    Re: Carol,
    What in the TAR-NATION are you talking about-WOMAN?

    I think this is about some lost journal written by one of the first apostles of the Mormon church.

  • from Texas
    Jan. 23, 2009 9:43 a.m.

    To Anonymous at 4:50 p.m. Jan. 22, 2009

    Try doing some real research. This is how you try to dismiss the Book of Mormon testimonies of Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris:

    ...religious fanatics are easily fooled into believing many things, and they find it hard to keep it all straight in their superstitious minds.

    If you were to really look at the historical records of the lives of those men, you will readily see that superstitious minds, easily fooled, and religious fanatics are terms that do not apply. In fact, with any intellectual integrity, you will likely find their testimonies to be quite unimpeachable by any standards.

  • Carol
    Jan. 23, 2009 9:39 a.m.

    How does an article about a notebook get so personal? I much prefer to read the relevant threads than those people who prefer to argue about why they live their lives how they do.

  • WELL?
    Jan. 23, 2009 9:27 a.m.

    I'd like to know more about what this is all about before I start jumping up and down about it. What do the the letters supposedly contain or what are they about? Could someone please elaborate on the this subject?

  • eye wool
    Jan. 23, 2009 9:11 a.m.

    What a lot of self righteous people on here. Please get over yourselves folks!

    I truly doubt the McClellan journals are even authentic--and Not too much is nowadays.

  • KC
    Jan. 23, 2009 9:00 a.m.

    This is a great find, interesting story! Read the article in the Daily Herald, it does talk about how Ashworth acquired the journal.

  • Informed
    Jan. 23, 2009 8:34 a.m.

    It doesn't matter to me whether you left the LDS Church because of some member's bad example or said a prayer and got an answer that the Church was not true. Good for you. My faith stands on its own merits. I know what I know and nothing anyone else says will change it. When I see information about the restored gospel, whether positive or negative, the spirit within sorts it in a manner that always confirms my faith. The bottom line is this, all our commments have absolutely no affect on those that are already convinced of the opposing view. Each of us must stand on our own.
    However, let me say this. Negativity, whatever the source, is not the spirit of the Lord. True faith is power to do good. The 13th Article of Faith "if there is anything virtuous, lovely, good report, or praise worthy, we seek of these things." should be our guide to lead us to a more fullfilled, enlightened, wholesome, and happy life.

  • mamamarlene
    Jan. 23, 2009 7:55 a.m.

    As to Prophets being perfect, they aren't. As to them knowing more about Hoffman's frauds, I suspect it wasn't important enough for a revelation. Even prophets have to walk by faith. I have been given answers to personal questions I've had and one is that you have to be "seeking for something to be able to find it"...meaning if the Church is true or not. I suspect anyone who does not get a positve answer are not really seeking the truth. I can only say I am glad to have it in my life. Even if my faith is not always perfect, I know it is the best way to live and let Heavenly Father be the judge of the imperfect. I can't wait to read the book.

  • S.Faux
    Jan. 23, 2009 7:37 a.m.

    What is the provenance of this notebook? It looks authentic, but what analysis has been done to support that assertion?

  • @ Tattletails
    Jan. 23, 2009 6:39 a.m.

    Why do so many people try forcing LDS into the corner to begin with?

  • ajarizona
    Jan. 23, 2009 6:24 a.m.

    I know a gal who double dated with Hoffman while he was at Utah State. He was very clear even back then that he was going to re-write history and bring down the LDS Church. His motivation initially was to bring down the Church. Later on greed set in but he had an ax to grind with the Church. Returned RM or not.
    He made two mistakes, wearing his Olympus High Letter jacket while planting the Christensen bomb and then turning to murder. It worked for a bit until the moron blew himself up. Interesting lesson with Hoffmans life. He did not set out to kill, it happened line upon line, when, while in high school he succesfully created and sold a forged stamp or coin. His dishonesty grew to the point of murder.
    A lesson for us all,

    "nip your vices in the bud"...Barney Fife


  • G Child
    Jan. 23, 2009 6:12 a.m.

    Being a member of the church i must say its good that the journal was found. However for objectivity's sake it would have been perfect if a neutral person had found the journal, not a pro-mormon nor an anti-mormon. Inasmuch as we may excuse the bretheren for being fallable human beings, the Hoffman events continued over a long period of time and repeatedly with some leading brethren like GBH and Kimball. Hoffman took our inspired church leaders for a ride over many years and over a large number of transactons.
    Objectively; do you mean to tell me that non of the prophets and apostles who did business with this man ever thought to inquire of the Lord about these amazing discoveries.

    Final Word:
    My issue with this is not that prophets are prone to mistakes, the issue is that evidence points to that they didnt think to ask the Lord for direction in this matter or the Lord chose to suffer them to be humiliated and the church's intergrity to be questioned. What HE did with the 116 lost pages, HE surely didnt do with the Kinderhook Plates, Greek Psalter, Salamender Letter and the Maclellin Collection.

  • Howard
    Jan. 23, 2009 5:20 a.m.

    For Benjamin:

    I came over from Methodism. All I can say is that the LDS Church works. The blessings are real and I don't do it perfectly (who can?) The LDS church can run rings around the others (low overhead). And now that you have found out it is not true, you don't have to row the boat. I find many that don't like to row the boat, but it is in the rowing that the blessings and testimony come. Praying with a sincere heart and acting on the principles brings the blessings.In Methodism, I could let Rev. George row the boat. Wherever you are, make sure Rev. George has a strong back.

  • Prayer vs. Empirical evidence
    Jan. 22, 2009 10:54 p.m.

    To: "Benjamin,"

    "OK, here is my argument: I prayed and asked God. God told me the LDS Church is not true."

    Good for you so what exactly is your point. People receive different answers to their prayers. That's how God works. In fact, God inspired Joseph Smith, Muhammad, Buddha and many others to walk their own path to him. He works with each individual differently because he knows them. He has chosen to make known to many of us his true Church while others are unwilling, unable and some unprepared to receive the fullness of the gospel but that doesn't make it any less true.

    Your answer to your prayer carries no more weight then our answer to our prayers. It is either by empirical evidence or prayer that people receive an answer therefore it's incumbent upon you to demonstrate by empirical evidence that your answer to your prayer is universal or to let people test it for themselves and pray and receive their own answer. We have received our answer that the Church is true, you have received yours. If you want us to believe as you convince us empirically.

  • wow
    Jan. 22, 2009 10:09 p.m.

    Wow: what a surprises !

    With all the back and forth banter on this subject, it is quite depressing that everyone (ok, almost everyone) writes with an indignant view towards another's beliefs.

    These indignant views are always expressed by those who feel their view is superior to others, be they members of this church or disbelievers.

    It appears we still can't respect other's beliefs and practices unless they are congruent with our own.

  • AZ
    Jan. 22, 2009 8:57 p.m.

    Who Cares????

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2009 8:01 p.m.

    The name is Brent F. Ashworth.

  • Jimmy
    Jan. 22, 2009 7:50 p.m.

    Now, I have heard everything!

  • Bickertonite Historian (Mich.)
    Jan. 22, 2009 7:37 p.m.

    I also strongly second the motion for provenance, including verifiable scientific testing, before publication.


    Try fasting and praying about:
    The Church of Jesus Christ
    (whq: Monongahela, Pennsylvania)

  • Baura Kale
    Jan. 22, 2009 6:55 p.m.

    Benjamin here's how it works. If you pray to God and get a feeling it's true then that is God, Himself witnessing the truth to you.

    If you pray and get a feeling it's not true then there is something wrong with you: sin, lack of sincerity, under Satan's dominion etc.

    It's nothing if not consistent.

  • I Did my homework
    Jan. 22, 2009 6:53 p.m.

    All three witnesses left the Church, two later came back. Frederick G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon, William McLellin and over half the original quorum of 12 all left the Church and most never came back.

    The question that should really be asked is why all these prominent men, leaders all, left? What gives? They were all supposedly witnesses of great things and yet they left. That's an indisputable fact.

    Think. If you saw God (Rigdon, section 76), saw angels (3 witnesses) and had other manifestations would you leave? Really?

    I don't know but it begs the question and a simple accusation to me that I should ask (I have) or that I should study (read the BOM dozens of times) is not good enough.

    I've come across facts about early Church history that need answering. I have asked--believe me, I went right to the top on this. And there were no good answers and that is not good enough. We, who have sacrificed (I served a mission, many callings, married in temple, raised a family in Church, paid lots of tithing) deserve some real deal answers to these questions--the leaders know what I'm talking about.

  • any
    Jan. 22, 2009 5:42 p.m.


  • cavey
    Jan. 22, 2009 5:31 p.m.

    Re: Benjamin,
    Ditto on that.

  • Benjamin
    Jan. 22, 2009 5:19 p.m.

    To For:

    OK, here is my argument: I prayed and asked God. God told me the LDS Church is not true.

  • Tattletails......
    Jan. 22, 2009 5:01 p.m.

    To# 4:19

    I don't see anyone other religion on this blog pardoning their religions mishaps within the religious world. Why do you LDS people insist on whenever you are backed into a corner, with many discrepancy, all seem to start throwing dirt and rocks towards other religions. It sounds like a bunch crybaby tattle tails.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2009 4:50 p.m.

    to For:

    Here is your answer: For the same reason all those thousands of FLDS and other cult polygamists still believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God! Because religious fanatics are easily fooled into believing many things, and they find it hard to keep it all straight in their supersitious minds.

  • For: Think (2 of 2)
    Jan. 22, 2009 4:40 p.m.

    And, not only did none of the Three Witnesses never deny their claim to their confidence in the divinity of the Book of Mormon, 2 of the 3 later joined the Church again; Oliver Cowdery was re-baptized of his own free will and Martin Harris emigrated to Utah. He's actually buried near Smithfield, UT, just north of Logan.

    For every logical argument you have as to why the claims of the LDS church are false, I can show you another logical argument for why it is true.

    So what lesson can we learn from this?


    The REAL source of truth is God. Why don't you go ask Him?

    I already did.

    Good luck.

  • redhat
    Jan. 22, 2009 4:37 p.m.

    It is sad the article does not mention that the LDS church had in its files the extant McLellin collection at the same time Hoffman was trying to get money for a false version. Had LDS leaders known, the scam and murders would have never occurred.

  • For: "Think" (1 of 2)
    Jan. 22, 2009 4:35 p.m.

    Think | 9:28 a.m. Jan. 22, 2009 - ..(cut down for space) .I've read Lyndon Cook's book on Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer. Whitmer, like McLellin, had problems with some of the later doctrinal developments such as polygamy. Same for many other early influential Mormon leaders like Oliver Cowdery and others (William Law, William Marks, etc.). So the question that should be asked is this: Why were so many of the leading elders (3 witnesses, many of the original apostles, etc.) turned away?

    Fair enough question, "Think".

    However, here's on for you.

    Of the Three Witnesses, ALL 3 either left the Church (David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery) or failed to go with them to Utah (Martin Harris).

    HOWEVER.....ALL 3 NEVER denied their claim that they had heard a voice from heaven declare to them that the Book of Mormon was from God and that they had also seen an angel descend from the sky and they held the gold plates Joseph Smith testified of.

    Why is that? They NEVER denied it even though they, for a time, did not like Joseph.


  • Tired of the Dribble
    Jan. 22, 2009 4:20 p.m.

    Why are any of us, including me, wasting our time talking to ourselves, instead of waiting for Ashcrot's defense that the document is accurate, and legitimate forensic scientists validate or deny his claim that the document is authentic.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2009 4:19 p.m.

    To Honesty,

    By your forgiving standards, we should recognize that all the Popes from Peter onward were also just imperfect men doing the best they could in the original, true, one and only Holy Catholic Church! There really was NO Great Apostasy and, therefore, no need for a Restoration!

    Sounds accurate to me!

  • Where is the man?
    Jan. 22, 2009 3:56 p.m.

    Well, lucky for us all, Mr Lambert has found his way to this blog yet. I'm however, waiting.

  • Bill
    Jan. 22, 2009 3:40 p.m.

    Yes, we'd all like to know how Ashcroft came into possession of this journal. Obviously, Ashcroft is not revealing that yet, because the source may lead to other valuable finds.

    If an old miner finds a few gold nuggets in a stream, does he go and reveal this to everyone? Not unless there is a law in place for establishing rights to the mining claim, like the US Mining Law of 1878. There is no such law respecting finding historical documents of value, so Ashcroft is keeping mum. It's his right.

  • Re: Clifton
    Jan. 22, 2009 3:39 p.m.

    You are something else. Where do you come off thinking you have the right to make judgments on everyone else's beliefs?? You need to find a life!

    Also, who really knows if the McLellin letters are even real, or if they as well have been tampered with or not? None of us know the truth of the matter. Even you if you get down on your knees and pray-- I really doubt you are going to get an answer. The only answer you will get is whatever your mixed up brain wants you to accept.

  • Clifton
    Jan. 22, 2009 3:05 p.m.

    Amazing the hatred towards the Church, but was wondering how many of you ever read the the gobble-de Gook of the Trinitarians i.e. Protestants, Catholics ect. Try reading their creeds such as the Nicean, especially the version (Anathasian). After that, note their behavior and treatment towards Mormons, especially the group that consider themselves Evangelicals. Top it off with a historical research as to how these Churches treated minorities in their earlier days. So, if some of you consider that vaunted members of the LDS Church are hypocrites, then first look in the mirror, read some choice blogs in the Tribune and and here in the News then if you are still convinced that only Mormons are hypoctites, then come back and tell us. Oh, be the way,only cowards post under the heading of anonymous.

  • Honesty
    Jan. 22, 2009 2:50 p.m.

    TO Anonymous 12:49 and Truthful:

    Your testimony should not be based on people.

    Because people are imperfect not matter what position they held or hold,

    As the scriptures say it is God's Word you should be testing.

    Religious History is replete with imperfect people:

    noah, lot (they got drunk)
    Abraham wrestling with angels,
    joseph's Brothers,
    moses (was not allowed to go to proimse land because the things he did)
    saul (disobedience),
    david (sent someone to his death, to get his wife), solomon (marriages without permission fom god),
    Jonah (disobedience)
    peter( pride, denial of christ),
    paul (attacked the saints before conversion),

    and there are many, many more.

    IT should be no surprise that the prophets Like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and really, all the leaders in the church today are imperfect as well.

    But God is not going throw them out but give them every opportunity to repent and work on perfecting their lives.

    God must allow us do our works because it our works we will be judged on.

    It is truly is a marvelous work and wonder, considering who God has to work with.

  • Hummmmmm????
    Jan. 22, 2009 2:36 p.m.

    Mighty strange that the McLillin journal would suddenly reappear???? Like no one on earth new where they were? OOOOOHHHH PLEEEEASSSSSEEEEE!!!!!!

  • Henry Drummond
    Jan. 22, 2009 1:52 p.m.

    I would have liked to have heard about the provenance of this notebook. Do we know how Ashworth got it?

  • To Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2009 1:45 p.m.

    I hear you anonymous. It get's really tiring when, if you don't believe or agree with someone else on any topic (religion, politics, etc.) then you are branded as unpatriotic, wicked, etc. All because you have an honest difference of opinion. That, more than anything, has led me to the same conclusion that you have reached. No thanks.

  • Truthful
    Jan. 22, 2009 1:14 p.m.

    I certainly agree with poster 12:49pm.

    I have have had similar experiences nd with those who are in high church called positions, who were the most bigoted, hateful people that I have ever known in my life. It was more than I could handle. I cannot support a liars.
    I do not smoke, drink, commit adultery, tell lies about my neighbors, nor pretend to be something I am not. If this is what some of you claim is religion, then I want no part of it.

    I really don't care if the McLellin journals are true or not.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2009 12:49 p.m.

    To For an answer,

    I have gotten on my knees. The resulting testimony to me is that the LDS Church is not true. I have also known very many people who claimed to know the Church is true and were in positions of authority, but who lied, cheated, and defrauded others in business. Most of them are still active in the Church and holding positions of authority. At the same time, I have known a number of people who dropped out of the Church because they learned it was not true. They were "worthy" in every way when this happened. They were just being honest in their pursuit of knowledge. Many of these friends of mine are no longer members of the Church, or are no longer active, but are as "worthy" as ever. They are good people. Hate to burst your delusional bubble as you try to demonize all those who go inactive or leave the Church, but your delusion is not true.

  • Pumpy
    Jan. 22, 2009 12:47 p.m.

    Re: 10:41
    It seems to me that half the members in the early part of LDS church were excommunicated, and then re- baptized later. In the early days you could be excommunicated for voicing your personal and views on any score if they were in the least bit negative.

  • For an answer
    Jan. 22, 2009 12:32 p.m.

    to interesting - get on your knees
    I know people who absolutely know the truthfulness of the church but were not strong in their faithfulness and have dropped out of activity because they knew they were not worthy

  • Re: Anonymous | 10:41
    Jan. 22, 2009 12:01 p.m.

    The testimonies of those who left like McLellin mean no more or less than the testimonies of those who remained in the Church or who left and later returned. What the McLellin journal offers is some fascinating insight into McLellin himself and his relationship with the Church and other Saints. If authentic, it's a wonderful addition to our knowledge and understanding of early LDS history.

  • What about
    Jan. 22, 2009 11:27 a.m.

    the early Church Leaders who, after becoming disaffected, CAME BACK? Isn't that something to be considered also? Putting the emphasis on their disaffection and disregarding their return would suggest an agenda on the part of the writer....

    Things that make ya go HMMMMMMMMMM......

  • Waiting
    Jan. 22, 2009 11:03 a.m.


  • Anonymous
    Jan. 22, 2009 10:41 a.m.

    The "faith promoting" message of this story seems to be that McLellin retained his testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon even though he lost his testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet.

    On further consideration, that is really not faith promoting at all. FLDS members have testimonies of the Book of Mormon, too. There are a lot of people who have testimonies of the BOM but who don't believe the current Salt Lake City LDS Church is true, right, or authoritative, let alone infallible!

    The fact that McLellin (and many other early apostles and Church leaders) left the Church even while Joseph Smith was alive, shows that many very intelligent men "testified" that Joseph was an adulterer and a "fallen" prophet, at best.

  • Polygamy
    Jan. 22, 2009 10:39 a.m.

    Examining the Witness

    McLellin insisted that Emma Smith confirmed these tales in 1847. Yet this is a strange occurrencethere is virtually no other record of Emma admitting, following Josephs death, that he even taught plural marriage. Emma and Joseph Smith III would go to their graves denying that Joseph had anything to do with the practice.

  • Interesting?
    Jan. 22, 2009 10:29 a.m.

    All anyone of us want is the solid truth.

  • Provenance
    Jan. 22, 2009 10:12 a.m.

    I second the call for provenance. Ashworth is clearly convinced of the notebook's authenticity. Given his connection to the Hofmann murders (many think Ashworth may have been the target of Hofmann's third bomb) and the automatic suspicion of any document related to the forgeries, he must have a strong reason to think this is the real deal - perhaps the D-News could flesh out the details of its discovery?

    It's ironic and interesting that this thing would come full circle after 25 years.

  • LDS Prophets
    Jan. 22, 2009 10:11 a.m.

    I have seen so many struggle with their testimony because of the long standing belief that if the prophet or other leader says it then it inevitably must be from the Lord. And yet much that has been said tends to be hard to understand or accept. The reality is that MUCH of what has been said and written over time was simply a matter of good men doing the best they could in the time and situation they found themselves in. I have personally felt the spirit confirm in my heart that it is okay and accepted if I find a leader's opinion does not fit for me or my family.

    There is a huge tension between two competing ideas (paraphrased) -

    1. "When the leaders speak the thinking has been done."
    2. "We teach them correct principles and they govern themselves."

    I think that where particular members come out on this depends on their own personality and make-up. Some truly NEED church direction in most of their daily decisions. Some do not and having to rely on leader's opinion or direction in such a way would actually hurt their testimony and ability to be strong members.

  • How was it discovered?
    Jan. 22, 2009 10:04 a.m.

    I agree with an earlier was it discovered? I would think with the nature of the Hoffman events, it would be more interesting to hear about how it was found, where it was, and why no one else found it (like Hoffman). Was it stuck in some attic? Passed down through family? Behind a false door? To me the discovery of something lost is a more interesting story... (don't we all love a good Indiana Jones story?)

  • Great find!
    Jan. 22, 2009 10:00 a.m.

    This is a great find. I'm always excited to hear about new discoveries about this period of time. My ancestors were friends of the Smiths in Vermont and in New York and my 4th great grandfather and his seven surviving adult children with families joined the church in 1830 in Kirtland. They knew all of these people very well. None of mine left the church in those turbulent days. I remember my 4th greatgrandfather being asked about Joseph, and he replied that he is a prophet. I suspect that Brother McLellin felt like many that Joseph had fallen as a prophet. But God helped people discover the scope of their strength and breadth of the testimonies. So much good was accomplished. And I'm sure that all of them know much more today than they did at that time and are all engaged in the great work on the other side. I hope and trust this is so.

  • BobP
    Jan. 22, 2009 9:40 a.m.


    If Hoffman had been killed by the bomb the LDS church would be suspect for having done it. This way was perfect. It got the murderer put away. His victims will not lose their reward.

  • Think
    Jan. 22, 2009 9:28 a.m.

    I've read Lyndon Cook's book on Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer. That's a good read. He (Whitmer) was adamant in his "testimony" of the Book of Mormon even though he thought Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. Whitmer, like McLellin, had problems with some of the later doctrinal developments such as polygamy. Both of these men were attracted to Mormonism's simple restorationist message in 1830 but were turned off by things like Polygamy. Same for many other early influential Mormon leaders like Oliver Cowdery and others (William Law, William Marks, etc.).

    So the question that should be asked is this: Why were so many of the leading elders (3 witnesses, many of the original apostles, etc.) turned away?

    Could there have been some good reasons for the large number of disaffections? Have you read what they had to say?

    Oliver Cowdery, for instance, was excommunicated in 1838 and the minutes of his "trial" are available on line. He was accused of charging Joseph Smith with adultery in the Fanny Alger affair. But here's the rub, there really was a Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith either had an affair with her or married her. True.

  • kathyn
    Jan. 22, 2009 9:20 a.m.

    Prophets are not people who see all and know all. In fact, most of the time when they receive revelation on something, it's after long sessions of prayer on a certain question they have that pertains to the whole church. They receive line upon line and precept upon precept. That's how it's always been with the prophets.

  • What a Crock
    Jan. 22, 2009 9:19 a.m.

    It is all nonsense.

  • essay
    Jan. 22, 2009 9:06 a.m.

    Wow - how many times in the scriptures are prophets fooled/deceived by other men? No where in the scriptures is there a definition of a prophet that includes "shall not be deceived by men".

  • Carbon Date It
    Jan. 22, 2009 9:00 a.m.

    Carbon date it. It's just takes a small piece. Have an expert confirm the binding process is reflective of the times in which it was written.

  • Svoboda
    Jan. 22, 2009 8:56 a.m.

    How nice that this was found. Interesting that McLellin had a testimony of the Book of Mormon, but yet, couldn't hold it together and left the Church. He couldn't see the bigger picture and only accepted parts.

  • Interventionist God
    Jan. 22, 2009 8:50 a.m.

    BobP says:
    "Hoffman's schemes went down when he became too greedy. Some here asked why the Prophet didn't see through his scheme. When one of his bombs webt of and injured him, I rather feel that God took care of that detail himself."

    Be careful with your logic, BobP. If God were to intervene in this matter, wouldn't it have made more sense to let one of those bombs go off on Mr. Hoffman before a mother and father lost their lives?

    Tracy Anderson:
    If God doesn't want us to interfere with events as they unfold, then why did he give us free agency?

    Also, the author of this article clearly cherry picked excerpts of the notebook in favor of the BofM and Joseph Smith's veracity. What is glaringly missing are McLellin's reasons for leaving Joseph and the church. Like any seeker of truth, I want all the information. When a 'news' source carefully picks and chooses information to share, then it ceases to be news and morphs into propoganda, and no longer can be trusted for news.

  • Observer from afar
    Jan. 22, 2009 8:26 a.m.

    Well, Crathes, you continue to perpetuate the unlearned and uninformed type of queery often cited. So, how come the prophets didn't see the coming forth of things like the Internet and cell phones, etc., and do something about preventing them from ever happening? It doesn't work that way, does it? Agency is the key factor.

    Seems to me Brent Ashworth has shown his dedication to finding the missing pieces of a puzzle. Good on ya, Brent!

  • BobP
    Jan. 22, 2009 8:15 a.m.

    Hoffman's schemes went down when he became too greedy. Some here asked why the Prophet didn't see through his scheme. When one of his bombs webt of and injured him, I rather feel that God took care of that detail himself.

  • DONT think about it
    Jan. 22, 2009 7:48 a.m.

    If you want to know all the answers ask a MORMON BISHOP!!!!!! thank you for reading this LOL

  • Good Point
    Jan. 22, 2009 7:44 a.m.

    Just wanted to weigh in on the "Prophets vs. Hoffman" issue.

    Even if the President of the Church announced that he had receieved divine communication that Mark Hoffman was a forger, it would not have made any difference. The Hoffman documents would still be around somewhere, and he may have even committed greater frauds. (I've heard that some of his forged documents are still circulating).

    The bottom line is, an official Church pronouncement would not make any bit of difference to people like you, Crathes.

  • Tracy Y. Andersen
    Jan. 22, 2009 7:26 a.m.

    Ah, the "if...then" argument.
    "If" the Brethren had been "directed" by the Father to "do something" about Mark Hofmann, "then" they would have been interfering with his agency to do what he had set out to do.
    Our agency is one of the, if not the greatest, things that Father allows us, and He will not interfere with that, do what we may, willy-nilly. That's our responsibility. Not Father's, to "interfere."

  • PaulW
    Jan. 22, 2009 7:15 a.m.


    "Prophets" are yet just human. They make mistakes. This is part of the problem a man like McLellin ended up having with Joseph Smith and the Church. Our claim of living prophets isn't a claim of infallibility.

  • To Crathes
    Jan. 22, 2009 7:04 a.m.

    Why were the original 12 Apostles of Christ not able to see through the betrayal of Judas? It appears not a one of them was inspired even a little on this issue. Hmmm... There's a confidence builder!

  • Interested
    Jan. 22, 2009 6:53 a.m.

    I wish that the article would have mentioned where the notebook was found. Where has it been all these years, and how did Ashworth uncover it? What is the provenance of the notebook?

  • C.Terry
    Jan. 22, 2009 6:38 a.m.

    What a great service Brent Ashworth has performed for all of us in locating this journal. Despite all the disagreements with the church by William McLellin, the important point is that he could not refute the account of the witnesses to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Thank you, Brent. I'll buy a copy as soon as it is available.

  • Crathes
    Jan. 22, 2009 6:20 a.m.

    If the Mormon church actually has prophets (15 as they claim), why were none able to see through Hoffman's claims, lies, etc? It appears not a one of them was inspired even a little on this issue. Hmmm... There's a confidence builder!

  • just thinking II
    Jan. 22, 2009 5:53 a.m.

    very good article thank you. I was impressed with Oliver and David's testimoney