A lot of to do about a lot of nonsense... chuckle.
Alleged Suppression of Documents
I will comment first on the charge of suppression.
One week after the bombings, in an effort to answer public questions, the Church made known that it had acquired forty-some documents from Hofmann by purchase, donation, or trade. (Gordon B. Hinckley, remarks at 23 Oct. 1985 press conference.) The Church operates under a divine mandate to acquire and preserve the documents and artifacts that show its history, and these acquisitions were part of that effort. In succeeding weeks, an exhaustive inventory of the Churchs huge collections revealed the extent of Hofmanns transactions with the Church. These follow-up details were immediately disclosed to the authorities making this criminal investigation.
In the midst of these efforts to inform its members and to aid in the pending investigation, the Churchs openness on its dealings with Hofmann was used against it. For example, the New York Times Magazine of 12 January 1986 states:
Hinckley said at a press conference that, starting in 1980, he had purchased about 40 documents from Hofmann. Only a few of them have been made public; others are in a church vault. Whether they cast any new light on the churchs past is not known. (Pp. 43, 46.)
What President Hinckley said was that he had purchased twodocuments, and Church History Department personnel had acquired the rest. Furthermore, the unknown documents were mostly innocuous, unknown not because they were hidden in a vaultthey were notbut unknown because they were unimportant.
During this same month of January 1986, the Church turned all of its Hofmann-acquired documents over to the prosecutors, at their request. As a result, the Church could not make its Hofmann documents public to answer these innuendos of suppression without seeming to try to influence or impede the criminal investigation.