Talk:Gordon B. Hinckley/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Mark Hoffman controversy

I don't see any mention of the Mark Hoffman controversy here - this article is a bit incomplete without it don't you think? --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to see the archived resolved discussion on this topic that is herein contained as the 3rd subject on this talk page. The issue was hashed and rehashed, searched and researched, and the compromise as outlined in that discussion resolved the issue. I cannot speak for my fellow editors, but I personally feel that enough has been said about the issue. What good does it do to flesh out a treatment of a topic relating to the life of a now deceased man? Since Hinckley is dead, we should have enough respect for his memory that we can let this issue alone. At least, that's my opinion. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not even a matter of respect. There is no significant connection between Hoffman and Hinkley. There was a lot of speculation, but the church's dealings with Hoffman were no different than any other historical document dealer. Bytebear (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"the church's dealings with Hoffman were no different than any other historical document dealer" is an overstatement. Not all of the church's dealings with document dealers were for the intent of hiding its history. Your opinion that an institution's leader trying to hide the institution's history is not significant is very much a minority opinion.--Fmatmi (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The only misstatement I see is yours in assuming that there was any "history" in those documents to hide. The documents in question were proven counterfeits and were therefore slander, not history. Every person, organization, etc. labors to prevent, suppress or refute slander; therefore, only rather infamous instances are actually notable. While it may have been a misstep to purchase the documents in order to suppress them, it is only because it has given them a counterfeit sense of legitimacy that is wholly undeserved. In any case the link between Hinckley and Hoffman is tenuous at best and the incident in question is covered in detail in a separate article. No legitimate reason has been provided for its inclusion in this article. Your opinion is the one in the minority (as Jgstokes has already pointed out,) since you contend that a minor incident of suppressing slander should be included on a only peripherally related page. F-451 (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The only misstatement I see is yours in assuming that Hinckley knew the documents were counterfeits. If he knew the documents were frauds all he had to do was pick up the phone and call the police. There were fraudulent documents which shed a positive light and those were enthusiastically publicized. If he knew those were frauds, then Hickley would have been an accomplice to fraud. You see, you are caught in a contradiction. If it is such a non-issue as you and Jgstokes insist, then you would not be responding so viscerally (see cognitive dissonance). --Fmatmi (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

First, this issue was already discussed and settled, in a debate that you were a part of. There is nothing vehement about stating that there is inadequate evidence or reason to depart from the current status quo. Judging by your user page and edit history you seem to have a noted anti-mormon bias, which brings in POV issues, and is probably why you keep on insisting on including a negative incedent on the page of a man who if anything, was the victim. In any case I don't see this contradiction of yours. The positive documents were consistent with the church's history as he knew it so there would have been no reason to question their authenticity. The negative ones were inconsistent, and even if he did not know they were frauds it would still have been prudent of him to investigate further before garnering any publicity. In any case, it is fruitless to speculate on what Hinckley should or should not have done or his motivations far what he did do. What is important is verifiability. Unless someone can produce some verifiable new information tying Hinckley to the Hoffman scandal, then there is no reason to re-hash this issue yet again . Without new information to change the status quo, it is nothing but POV pushing. F-451 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you are resorting to Ad hominem arguments which further weakens your position. The assessment that the negative documents were inconsistent is nonsense. Authenticate documents verifing the Bainbridge, NY examination occurred more than a decade before the Stowell forgery. The contradiction and cognitive dissonance I was referring to was NOT Hinckley's but YOURS. That is not a criticism, but a simple statement of fact. You are responding in a very reactionary way to solid facts in the article. Your position is that the facts are non-issues worth mentioning in the article with extremely pro-Mormon reasoning. The contradiction is: If the facts are such non-issues then why such the excited response? This issue was settled long ago, but you and Bytebear insisted on bring it up again. I am merely responding to your responses. I have no problem doing that.--Fmatmi (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

One more comment from me, and that's all I'm going to say on the issue. I agree with F-451's comment wholeheartedly and add this thought for Fmatmi: Hinckley only knew the documents were forgeries AFTER the purchase was complete. All the sources WP lists for this issue say so. If you have any sources to the contrary, post them for the study of all WP editors. If not, then trying to justify your viewpoint with accusations of so-called cognitive dissonance just serve to prolong the resolution of this issue, which has already been resolved BEFORE any of this was brought out, and was done so to the satisfaction of at least 5 WP editors, as evidenced by the previous discussion. The sources cited plainly state that Hinckley only knew the documents were forgeries after the fact, and that he had no knowledge of what was said about them until the remarks of a Church spokesman about the issue were brought to his attention. When that happened, the Church spokesman in question was dealt with. But all that was covered in the previous discussion. You can read it there. In the meantime, let the record show that I never said Hinckley knew the documents were forgeries. What I said was, "I invite you to see the archived resolved discussion on this topic that is herein contained as the 3rd subject on this talk page. The issue was hashed and rehashed, searched and researched, and the compromise as outlined in that discussion resolved the issue. I cannot speak for my fellow editors, but I personally feel that enough has been said about the issue. What good does it do to flesh out a treatment of a topic relating to the life of a now deceased man? Since Hinckley is dead, we should have enough respect for his memory that we can let this issue alone. At least, that's my opinion." You will note that NOWHERE did I state that Hinckley knew the documents were forgeries. If you find my comments cognitively dissonant because of their so-called viscerality, then I guess I'm guilty as charged. However, when comments are taken out-of-context, particularly after the issue the comments are about has been resolved long ago, then perhaps such viscerality is justified. If you have any new sources substantiating what has newly been claimed, state them. If not, we are only prolonging an already-resolved discussion unnecessarily, and throwing about accusations that are not only untrue but are unfounded (and I speak of those both raised against Hinckley and against F-451 and myself, which is not profitable to the issue at hand or to WP. I leave this with you to reflect upon and consider, and hold no ill-will against you for your unfounded slander of me and the editor who agreed with me. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. F-451 (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree. Unfortunately, Bytebear and F-451 chose to revive the issue. This new thread is the consequences of THEIR decisions. --Fmatmi (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to your edit and what I saw as your attacks against bytebears argument. In the end our personal opinions and attacks against one another are irrelavent to the issue. Unless someone has something new to contribute to this discussion that has not already been brought up either here or in the archived discussion, then we should let this issue drop. I will agree to bury the hatchet if everyone else will. F-451 (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

During cognitive dissonance the facts crash with an individual’s paradigm so violently that the path of least resistance is to reinterpret the facts in order to resolve the conflict. This is exactly what occurred when this statement was made “The positive documents were consistent with the church's history as he knew it so there would have been no reason to question their authenticity. The negative ones were inconsistent, and even if he did not know they were frauds it would still have been prudent of him to investigate further before garnering any publicity.” VERIFABLE FACT – The Bainbridge, NY examination (long denied to have ever occurred by apologist) was proven to have occurred by an authentic document over a decade before the Stowell Forgery. VERIFABLE FACT – Both Hinckley and Hoffman were very much aware of this. The implications of gold digging in the Stowell Forgery were consistent with the Bainbridge, NY examination. VERIFABLE FACT – No one in the institution’s leadership seem to known of the Stowell Forgery’s existence resulting in Jerry Cahill denying its existence. VERIFABLE FACT – After two years of possession Hinckley did not do the “prudent” thing and commission someone to “to investigate further” (that is no one is known to have been commissioned). VERIFIABLE FACT – It was not until after Hofmann leaked the forgery’s existence that it was release to scholars for study.

Accusation of bias resulting in a lack of objectivity on my part greatly concerns me. That is why since this discussion first began months ago I presented the facts to acquaintances that have little familiarity with Mormonism. To quote one, “it doesn’t pass the smell test”. To paraphrase another, if it looks a like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it must be a duck. That is attempts at suppression are so obvious one has to go out of their way to pretend there was no attempted suppression. The Wikipedia pro-Mormon cabal is unable to see what is obvious due to a phenomenon known as cognitive blindness (some would say even self-deception). This obviousness is why I am perfectly content at leaving the article the way it is and allow the disgeneous Wikipedia pro-Mormon cabal censor blanant truth. Furthermore, the attempted suppression is consistent with the institution’s behavior, from Joseph F. Smith institutionally losing the McLellin collection, to the September six, to Wikipedia editors in the pro-Mormon cabal suppression of the truth.

Agreeing to bury the hatchet, agreeing to disagree, etc are all cop-outs. That is, they are admitting one is wrong without admitting it. The reason I so soundly won the debate above is because the VERIFIABLE facts are on the side of TRUTH. I have no desire to add to the article, but when bogus arguments are presented here, I WILL respond.--Fmatmi (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How did I "revive" anything? I was the third to comment on an issue. and it was a simple minor comment. It seems you give me far too much credit. It almost seems like you have a personal grudge against me, even though I have never directly commented on anything (to my knowledge) that you have ever said on this or any other Wikipedia article. Bytebear (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who Descartes1979, but Descartes1979 is yet another INDEPENDENT editor to notice that the article’s treatment of the Hoffman controversy is lacking. Jgstokes appropriately pointed out that the issue has already been discussed in the archives. That should have been the end of it, but Bytebear chose to re-phrase a bogus position already discussed in the archives thereby reviving the issue. Then F-451 kept it going with extreme POV pushing on F-451’s part. In the 02:43, 4 June 2008 post we see a classic hit and run tactic. It consisted of further bogus arguments sandwiched between –this has already been discussed—statements. As if to say let me make the last statement and you shut up. I call this a hit and run. F-451 and Jgstokes complained that the issue has already being discussed. However, the complaint was wrongfully directed at me and should have been directed at Bytebear. I hold no grudge against against Bytebear, I was merely pointing out who should be responsible for reviving the issue. In my opinion reviving the issue my have been an innocent mistake on the part of Bytebear.--Fmatmi (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It is completely obvious that many of the editors on this page have an ax to grind and do not even grasp for a scholarly view of the deceased. Nathanbrisk (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

ax to grind = selfish aim or motive

My selfish motive was to bring to truth to light. Is that not scholarly? I had hoped for a more in depth analysis, unfortunately, disingenuous tedious bickering and attempts at suppression prevented it. Is attempting to suppress truth scholarly?--Fmatmi (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Suppression? The Church has nothing to hide. You on the other hand want misleading slander against President Hinckley, and therefore is not light, but darkness. Quit this now. 66.7.115.132 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

66.7.115.132 – Your response above was in reference to what appears to be an observation about Wikipedia editors and their behavior. Ironically your behavior seems to validate the original statement. You might consider coming out the darkness by creating a username. Something like MisledCougar, CougarAdrift, etc would appropriately describe a BYU Freshman experiencing cognitive dissonance from abundant unsupervised internet access.Mormography (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

@Mormography - Fmatmi clearly had motive to portray Hinckley the most negative way possible. That's not scholarship but that's having an ax to grind. How you defend that is beyond me, and your insults are rude, and has no place on Wikipedia. 70.102.89.182 (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL. The user who refuses to get a username believes he/she is a qualified assessor of Wikipedia etiquette. What unscholarly ax is he/she hoping to grind? Mormography (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

format . . .

changes fit MOS (number, the/The, etc.) and take out poor grammar and weak writing; change it back if you prefer - just trying to improve 66.61.92.158 (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The official name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. MOS or no MOS, that's the way it is. As for the other changes, they were worded much better before you did your thing. The only change I can see worth keeping is the change from fifteenth to 15th, and I thank you for that. With the paragraph that begins with "In the early 1950's..." you changed a grammatically correct "there would be a need" to "they would be a need" which doesn't make sense. Under the "President of the Church" section, you changed a file name of an image rather than a sentence, which makes the image unable to be viewed. I don't think you wanted to do that. You further altered the end of the image text so it wouldn't be viewed properly anyways. You also apparently felt the need to remove some necessary wikilinks. I can understand your not wanting to overlink, which is fine, but make sure you don't take out links that are necessary. I am therefore reverting all your edits except the change from fifteenth to 15th, which was a needed one. And may I suggest that in future you follow an often recommended practice here on Wikipedia? Rather than making many changes to the page all at once so that they may all have to be reverted, try doing it in smaller steps, explaining things as you go. Doing so will let other editors know what your intentions are with each edit and will lessen the likelihood of your edits needing to be reverted. Finally, I would like to advocate that you get an official user account. As long as you edit from an anonymous IP address, your edits may be called into question. Your edits are much more likely to be accepted and not questioned if you have a regular user account. In the meantime, I would chalk this up as a learning experience. --Jgstokes (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oldest living prophet.

For all who may be interested, I changed the first reference of this article, the one that talks about Hinckley's record as oldest living prophet. The article that was cited just made a passing reference to his record as oldest living prophet. I inserted instead a better reference which gives the actual dates upon which Hinckley tied and broke these records. I believe this makes the article better. However, I am open to discussing it. If any of you have any objections or just want to comment on this issue, please post here. I know it's not a requirement of Wikipedia, but I would ask as a matter of common courtesy that this change not be reverted until it is discussed and the consensus decides whether to keep this reference or go back to the other one. That said, let the discussion begin! Any thoughts? --Jgstokes (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The ref is solid, but I did tweak it just a bit, along with the several other refs on this article. How does the article look now? ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 20:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

AsteriskStarSplat's Claim

"forgery cannot implicate, it can only appear to do so, so this more nuanced wording is better". - AsteriskStarSplat

This needs to be explain. The word implicate has nothing to do with something being a forgery or not. AsteriskStarSplat made revert without the requested discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormography (talk • contribs) 12:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

(→‎AsteriskStarSplat: this is not about me personally, this is about wording in the article, so this is a better section heading)

AsteriskStarSplat - Using edit summarries for discussion which is frowned upon in wikipedia. Are you familar with wikipedia concepts of edit waring? This section is not about the wroding, but rather your editing behavior. If I knew how I would request admin resolution I would. I have google how to, but do not see how. Overall what we have here is refusal to engage in discussion.Mormography (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

AsteriskStarSplat - Section heading. Please see above regarding Mesevy's Claim. The heading is given because it was the user's claim. The heading name here is given likewise because it you personally making a claim via edit summaries wo discussion, like Meservy. Like Meservy you personally have either capitulated or refused to back up your claim. Unlike Meservy you continue to promote edit waring using efit summaries.Mormography (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The sentence as it stands now is the original obtained after considerable debate and consensus, now in archives. The propsed changes makes the sentence akward, muddy, difficult to read. Give the debate history and the intense attention the verifable claims of the sentence brought, this mudding of the sentence is quite probably deliberate. Mormography (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

A simple question. If something is a forgery, how can it 'implicate' something?

"Implicate: to show that someone or something is closely connected to or involved in something (such as a crime)" Merriam Webster dictionary[1]

Clearly a forgery can purport to implicate - to show a connection - but being a forgery, it cannot actually do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Answer:

A forgery can "show that someone or something is closely connected to or involved in something".

A forgery can "show to be also involved, usually in an incriminating manner"

A frogery can "imply as a necessary circumstance, or as something to be inferred or understood"

A forgery can "connect or relate to intimately; affect as a consequence"

A forgery can "indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated"

A forgery can "signify or mean"

A forgery can "involve as a necessary circumstance"

In short, as a native speaker of English, a forgery is noun that can do verb things like to imply, to show, to implicate, to incriminate. Words like incriminate, implicate are not defined as meaning prove beyond reasonable as appears to be the objection here. The ultimate proof that a forgery can do all these things is the fact that Hinckley bought the forgeries. If a forgery could not do these verb things Hinckley would not have bought them.

I repeat, the word implicate has nothing to do with something being a forgery or not. A forgery can even tell the truth, as that is what made this forgery so convincing. Though not well publicized at the time, Joseph Smith was in fact an active participant and principal organizer of an investor's treasure hunting venture. The forgery was designed to bring attention to this known reality (though not well known). Forgery can even be a forgery of a real document, such as Hofmann's Oath of the Freeman forgery. This dispute merely displays a discomfort for the reality of the Stowell Forgery situation.

I have no emotional attachment to the word implicate. Readability is the concern here. I the spirit of good faith I propose moving beyond this by replacing the word implicate with "brought attention to"

Now, AndyTheGrump, simple question: How long should the original plaintiffs (ChristensenMJ and AteriskStarSplat) be given to engage in dialogue? It has been over a month and they have refused dialogue.Mormography (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Mormography, There are no 'plaintiffs' here. This is a Wikipedia talk page, not a court of law. As for your arguments regarding what you think a forgery can show, they are of no relevance to article content whatsoever. We base article content on published sources, and not on contributors' personal opinions. Since I haven't read the relevant sources, I will not comment further at this stage beyond suggesting that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and original research, and then find a source which actually asserts that this forged document 'incriminated' or 'implicated' anyone in anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I would suggest that it might also be wise for User:AsteriskStarSplat and User:ChristensenMJ to also participate in this discussion - merely reverting without discussion is rarely seen as helpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I am taken aback by how an edit I made on 5 January 2015‎ is being misrepresented - a single edit, where I disagreed with oversimplifying a sentence, and where I put it back to the most recent stable version. This could hardly be called edit warring on my part. If one looks at the edit summary, I clearly and properly explained my revert, and in no way was I using the edit summary as a place for debating of this issue. This was just a normal part of the wp:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The next thing that should have happened if anyone wanted that change to be put back into the article was to come to this talk page and discuss the edit, not the editors, and do so in a clear, concise, and calm manner. That hypothetical editor should have explained why they felt the edit was justified, and a collegial discussion should have taken place over a period of days (or even weeks/months, if needed). It's not up to me to open that discussion, especially when: (1) I made a single revert; (2) the revert was to a long-term relatively recent stable version of the sentence; (3) my reasoning was properly described in the edit summary (I did not just revert out of hand).

Also by what possible mathemagical process can I have delayed responding to this by over a month? This section was created initially on Friday, 16 January 2015, and today is Monday, 19 January 2015. I could have responded on the 16th, as I was well aware of the post and attempted to depersonalize the discussion; however I wanted to take the time to consider my response, and to not react in an immediate (more emotionally tinged) manner, as I was feeling personally attacked. To my great surprise, when I came back today, this discussion has been conflated into something completely out of proportion, discolored as of some sort of Battle Royale. Somehow I am now being described using wording implying that what I did was criminal, and I am some sort plaintiff in an legal case. To needlessly personalize this simple content dispute is completely uncalled for, and I find Mormography's actions on this talk page grossly antagonistic and inappropriate. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 16:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

After spending time with the difs, I see that the words "appeared to implicate" first appear in the article on 19 November 2014‎, so I was mistaken in using the descriptor "long-term" above. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 22:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If they are of no relevance then why did you ask the simple question? Anyways this was already hashed out in 2007 with broad consensus and ample references.Mormography (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As I understand the current difficulties a secondary source is requested to describe the Stowell letter forgery contents vice wikipedia editors.

Both Turley's Victims (page 100) and Tracking the White Salamander (Chapter 6 part B) quote Dawn Tracy's 29 April 1985 Salt Lake Tribune article. ""A letter reportedly written by Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith describing money-digging pursuits and treasure guarded by a clever spirit". Ergo in this case Dawn Tracy would be the secondary source.

The book Salamander " Dated in 1825, when Joseph Smith was only nineteen years of age, the Joseph Smith to Josiah Stowell letter replaced the Anthon transcript as the earliest Smith holograph. More importantly, the letter described an occult means of finding buried treasure and portrayed Smith as a treasure digger" http://signaturebooks.com/2010/09/excerpt-salamander/

So quoted descriptions would be "reportedly written by Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith describing money-digging pursuits and treasure guarded by a clever spirit" or "described an occult means of finding buried treasure and portrayed Smith as a treasure digger" making the new sentence one of these. Take your pick, I find B to be more readable.

A. For example, the Stowell forgery "reportedly written by Mormon Church founder Joseph Smith describing money-digging pursuits and treasure guarded by a clever spirit" was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality.

or

B. For example, the Stowell forgery describing "an occult means of finding buried treasure and portrayed Smith as a treasure digger" was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mormography (talk • contribs) 10:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally I don't really want to get involved here, as I think this is much to do about nothing, even boarding on Lamest edit wars territory. However, as I am an uninvolved editor of Latter Day Saint pages, perhaps a compromised solution can be had. It seems to me this Edit war over the words "appeared to implicate" and "implicating". To me the rest of the changes appear to be personal grammar choices, and irreverent.

The two sides appear to be between:

1. Original wording - For example, the Stowell forgery—which appeared to implicate Joseph Smith in gold digging—was purchased by the church from Hofmann for $15,000 under Hinckley's direction; the sale was accompanied by a promise of confidentiality.
2. New wording - For example, the Stowell forgery implicating Joseph Smith in gold digging was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality.

So some possible solutions (I am not advocating any of them, just suggesting ideas). Personally, I don't like the use of ";", so I would go with the new wording when it comes to the removal of ";", but using them or not is fine. However, I would suggest the following types of changes.

1. Remove the offending wording all together. After all the "criticisms" from the sources that are directed towards Hinckley, the focus of this page, are that Hinckley didn't know it was a fake and tried to hide it, not the substance of the Stowell forgery. It seems like a bit of way to include an POVish statement on Joseph Smith. It would read, "For example, the Stowell forgery was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality."
2. Remove "implicate"/"implicating", use "accusing". Joseph Smith has been "accused" alot of "gold digging". It is a fact that he has been "accused" of it. However, "accusing" seems to be a more NPOV term then "implicating". Therefore, it would read, "For example, the Stowell forgery, accusing Joseph Smith of gold digging, was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church on the promise of confidentiality."
3. Remove the "Stowell forgery" from the mix. Again the focus of this page is Hinckley's actions, not Smiths. Hinckley was criticized for not knowing that everything Hofmann did was fake and attempting to hide documents damaging to the LDS Church. It would read, "Hinckley purchasing several documents critical of Joseph Smith from Hofmann with a promise of confidentiality."

Again, I am not advocating any of them, or am advocating the removal of the ";". I's just suggesting alternatives that may allow for a compromise.

However, to be clear, if I was forced to choose between the different wordings, the original seems to be more NPOV to me. AsteriskStarSplat and AndyTheGrump are correct. Forgeries cannot implicate anything, only appear to do so. Therefore leaving it as is seems to be the better choice between the two, as the original inclusion of the word "appeared" seems appropriate to me. --- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 17:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I am all for comments made by Mormography, but editing my comments as done here is against Talk page guidelines. While it seems to have been done in good faith (i.e. addressing my suggestions), it made my comments completely unreadable and changed it's meaning. I suggest that comments made should continue below instead.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Here are the comments below as requested:

As for original and new, 1 and 2 are reversed. There is the main disconnect. I agree regarding the semicolon etc Option 1: If the focus is that Hicnkley tried to hide, then the substance is useful to explain why someone might try to hide it. AndyTheGrump has already ruled sticking to the secondary sources makes all this irrelevant. Option 2: The fact that accused comes to mind as a n acceptable alternative proves there was nothing wrong with implicate in the first. It was only the power of suggest that made people think there was anything wrong with it. After considerable discussion in 2007 no one had a problem with implicate and no had a problem for over half a decade. If implicate is a problem, "accused" probably has more. Accusing sounds like a third party. The Stowell letter I believe is suppose to be one of the Smiths writing. Accusing also makes him sound innocent. The historical record now shows they never denied the gold digging and the Smiths were principal organizers (has suggested by the forgery - see Bainbridge), which is why the forgery was so convincing Option 3: Apparently consensus already addressed this 2007. Many documents were published with fanfare. Others were hidden. The example explains Oaks words such as "interest was global" and "epic proportions". As for whether or not a forgery can implicate see the retort above. Regardless, AndyTheGrump has already ruled wording nuances are irrelevant, secondary sources only matter now. Two have been offered, anyone have have another. Mormography (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

ARTEST4ECHO, as you know I did not edit your words, but rather responded to each of your items. Mormography (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I got it. Here in wikipedia editing your words meant something more specific than outside wikipedia, ergo, my statement "as you know" would not apply here. Got it. I will say with my experience now on wikipedia, I understand the thought behind the existence of edit summaries, but they appear to do more harm than good. So is the diff you link good enough for now, or does everyone need me to rehash my responses?Mormography (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately the issue at hand is which is more correct, since, as I suspected, a compromise seems to be imposable.

1. For example, the Stowell forgery—which appeared to implicate Joseph Smith in gold digging—was purchased by the church from Hofmann for $15,000 under Hinckley's direction; the sale was accompanied by a promise of confidentiality.
2. For example, the Stowell forgery implicating Joseph Smith in gold digging was purchased for $15,000 by Hinckley on behalf of the church from Hofmann on the promise of confidentiality.

Number 1, the current version, seems to be more NPOV to me. Forgeries cannot implicate anything, so inclusion of the word "appeared" seems appropriate to me to keep a NPOV view. Personally, after thinking about it I think that the whole "which appeared to implicate Joseph Smith in gold digging" should be gone. All that sentence is is way to sneak a POV statement on Joseph Smith onto a page about Gordon B. Hinckley, the actual focus of this page. However, I'm not going to argue about it.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 12:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)