Difference between revisions of "Kinderhook Plates"

Revision as of 22:18, 2 April 2012

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

This page is based on an answer to a question submitted to the FAIR web site, or a frequently asked question.

Questions

== Given the evidence that the Kinderhook plates were fraudulent, how can one explain the following things?

• Why did William Clayton claim that Joseph Smith had translated a portion of the plates?
• Where did the translation described by Clayton come from if the plates were actually fake?
• By what means did Joseph attempt to translate the plates?

Image of front and back of four of the six Kinderhook plates are shown in these facsimiles (rough copies of even earlier published facsimiles), which appeared in 1909 in History of the Church, 5:374–375. Volume 5 link

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]

Answer

==

The conclusion is that Clayton's account appears to be accurate, that Joseph did attempt to translate "a portion" of them by non-revelatory means, and the translation provided matches a corresponding symbol and explanation in the GAEL. Joseph did not attempt to translate the plates by revelation, and in fact demonstrated no interest in the plates after they left Nauvoo. Had Joseph attempted further translation of the plates using the "Egyptian Alphabet," he would likely have gotten no further than the first, easily identifiable character that he did "translate."

A trap was laid for Joseph, but he did not step into it. Decades later, with Joseph safely dead, the conspirators came forward and announced they had 'tricked' the prophet. But, if they wanted to show Joseph up, why wait for decades to do it? Why didn't they crow their success from the rooftops in Nauvoo and Illinois? Quite simply, Joseph didn't fall for their trap, and so there was nothing to announce.

Detailed Analysis

Background

A set of small plates, engraved with characters of ancient appearance, were purported to have been unearthed in Kinderhook, Illinois, in April 1843. The so-called "Kinderhook plates" have been something of an enigma within the Mormon community since they first appeared. While there are faithful LDS who take a number of different positions on the topic of these artifacts, most have concluded that they were fakes.

Joseph Smith appears to have had the plates in his possession for about five days.

Did Joseph Smith attempt to translate the Kinderhook Plates?

Don Bradley presented compelling evidence during his 2011 FAIR Conference presentation that Joseph Smith did indeed attempt to translate a character on the Kinderhook Plates. ^[1] Bradley noted that William Clayton's account is likely representing personal and specific knowledge acquired from Joseph Smith, since evidence indicates that he made his journal entries that day while he was at the Prophet's home. Clayton's account states that

Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.

Bradley noted that one of the most prominent characters on the Kinderhook Plates (a symbol shaped like a boat), when broken down into its individual elements matched a symbol found on page 4 of the GAEL (the second page of characters) of the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL), often referred to as the "Egyptian Alphabet. The GAEL provides meanings for the individual symbols, and the meaning assigned to the particular symbol found on the plates supports the translation reported to have been provided by Joseph.

The conclusion is that Clayton's account appears to be accurate, that Joseph did attempt to translate "a portion" of them by non-revelatory means, and the translation provided matches a corresponding symbol and explanation in the GAEL.

Accounts

There exist several accounts that describe the plates. Not all of the account agree on the details.

Clayton's account details the following:

I have seen 6 brass plates which were found in Adams County by some persons who were digging in a mound. They found a skeleton about 6 feet from the surface of the earth which was 9 foot high. [At this point there is a tracing of a plate in the journal.] The plates were on the breast of the skeleton. This diagram shows the size of the plates being drawn on the edge of one of them. They are covered with ancient characters of language containing from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates. Prest J. has translated a portion and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharoah king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.^[2]

There are other accounts as well, although some of the details are not consistent with Clayton's description.

Parley P. Pratt's account reads:

Six plates having the appearance of Brass have lately been dug out of a mound by a gentleman in Pike Co. Illinois. They are small and filled with engravings in Egyptian language and contain the genealogy of one of the ancient Jaredites back to Ham the son of Noah. His bones were found in the same vase (made of Cement). Part of the bones were 15 ft. underground. ... A large number of Citizens have seen them and compared the characters with those on the Egyptian papyrus which is now in this city.^[3]

The Quincy Whig's comments read:

Finally, a company of ten or twelve repaired to the mound, and assisted in digging out the shaft commenced by Wiley. After penetrating the mound about 11 feet, they came to a bed of limestone, that had apparently been subjected to the action of fire, they removed the stone, which were small and easy to handle, to the depth of two feet more, when they found SIX BRASS PLATES, secured and fastened together by two iron wires, but which were so decayed, that they readily crumbled to dust upon being handled. The plates were so completely covered with rust as almost to obliterate the characters inscribed upon them; but after undergoing a chemical process, the inscriptions were brought out plain and distinct...^[4]

And finally, W. Fugate, one of the perpetrators of the hoax, much later wrote:

Our plans worked admirably. A certain Sunday was appointed for the digging. The night before, Wiley went to the Mound where he had previously dug to the depth of about eight feet, there being a flat rock that sounded hollow beneath, and put them under it. On the following morning quite a number of citizens were there to assist in the search, there being two Mormon elders present (Marsh and Sharp). The rock was soon removed but some time elapsed before the plates were discovered. I finally picked them up and exclaimed, 'A piece of pot metal!' Fayette Grubb snatched them from me and struck them against the rock and they fell to pieces. Dr. Harris examined them and said they had hieroglyphics on them. He took acid and removed the rust and they were soon out on exhibition.

Under this rock (which) was dome-like in appearance (and) about three feet in diameter, there were a few bones in the last stage of decomposition, also a few pieces of pottery and charcoal. There was no skeleton found.^[5]

So, the first issue is this "skeleton" which did not exist--there wasn't one with the plates. There was never any mention of a skeleton by those who excavated the plates. Yet, we have both Pratt and Clayton providing related (albeit different) accounts of this skeleton. According to Clayton we have a nine foot tall skeleton, apparently buried six feet from the surface. Pratt indicates there was a skeleton (of presumed normal stature) with parts buried fifteen feet down. Pratt also notes that the skeleton was buried in a cement vase. Clayton claims that the plates were found on the breast of the skeleton. Clayton also claims that it was found in Adams County (incorrect) while Pratt notes that it came from Pike County (correct).

Both Clayton and Pratt claim that the plates reflect the history of the individual they were found with--yet there was no skeleton found! There were found some "human bones that appeared as though they had been burned," but this is the extent of the description in the initial press release, and the affidavits make no mention of them. So, we are left in a bit of a conundrum. Clayton inseparably connects the translation of the plates to the history of an imaginary skeleton nine feet tall (if taken as being interred vertically, this also coincides with Pratt's claim that part of the skeleton was fifteen feet down). Pratt also mentions a cement vase, present in no other account. Both Clayton's and Pratt's accounts contain numerous exaggerations or distortions. Unless Joseph himself had no contact with the original accounts, or with any of those present at the dig (which seems unlikely), it would really appear that Clayton was relying on information which did not come from Joseph Smith when he authored his journal entry.

Comparison of Clayton and Pratt Accounts of Kinderhook Plates

== Notes ==

1. [note] Don Bradley, "President Joseph Has Translated a Portion': Solving the Mystery of the Kinderhook Plates," 2011 FAIR Conference, August 5, 2011.
2. [note]  William Clayton Diary, 1 May 1842. Printed in William Clayton and George D. Smith (editor), An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1995), 100.
3. [note] Parley P. Pratt letter to John Van Cott, Sunday, 7 May 1843, original in John Van Cott correspondence, Church Archives.
4. [note] Quincy Whig Wednesday, 3 May 1842.
5. [note]  W. Fugate to Mr. Cobb, 30 June 1879, Mound Station, Illinois and Fugate affidavit of same date; cited in Welby W. Ricks, "The Kinderhook Plates," reprinted from Improvement Era (September 1962).
6. [note]  See Linda Sillitoe & Allen Roberts, Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders, 213–214.
7. [note]  Linda Sillitoe & Allen Roberts, Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders, 212.
8. [note]  Salt Lake Tribune article on the Dream Mine off-site
9. [note]  Link to Terrill Dalton's Scriptures off-site and also a KSL article off-site

Further reading and additional sources responding to these claims