Kinderhook Plates

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 present LDS belief that the Kinderhook plates were fraudulent, how can one explain the following things?

• Why would Joseph Smith have allowed the Times and Seasons to focus so much on the plates? (The publication dedicated seven whole pages to the topic during the time the plates were in Nauvoo.)
• William Clayton was with Joseph Smith the day he gave his assessment of the Kinderhook plates (William Clayton and George D. Smith (editor), An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1995), 100.).
• In a letter written from that city, dated 2 May 1843, Charlotte Haven said that when Joshua Moore "showed them to Joseph, the latter said that the figures or writing on them was similar to that in which the Book of Mormon was written, and if Mr. Moore could leave them, he thought that by the help of revelation he would be able to translate them." (Overland Monthly (December 1890): 630). This provides evidence that others based the assumption Smith translated the plates did not come from William Clayton.
• William Clayton's diary account says that he dined with the Prophet the night he gave his opinion on the plates.
• Brigham Young approved the history of Joseph Smith. Moreover, he was at Joseph Smith's house and saw the plates there.

Image^[1] 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

See also: Stanley B. Kimball, “Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax,” Ensign, Aug 1981, 66 off-site

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.

This article summarizes some key information that critics often exclude from their discussion of the Kinderhook plates, and the extent of Joseph Smith's involvement.

First, Joseph Smith was no longer the editor of the Times and Seasons in April of 1843. He had resigned from that position in November 1842. His ability to control the content of that paper (or his desire to do so to the extent suggested by the critics) is doubtful. At the same time, seven pages probably should not be considered as significant as some suggest. Among the content of those seven pages were woodcuts of the plates, a series of affidavits from those who "discovered" them, and, a reproduction of an editorial from the Quincy Whig. This was of interest not just to the Mormons in Nauvoo, but also to the surrounding region.

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

Conflicting accounts

Third, William Clayton's account is problematic. We can either take it as representing personal and specific knowledge acquired from Joseph Smith, or not, or something between being entirely accurate or entirely false. The reason for this is that only two contemporary accounts exist (Clayton's is one of them) which attempt to detail the alleged contents of the plates. These accounts are not in agreement on several points. In addition, Clayton's account has significant points of error with regard to the discovery as related both in the series of affidavits, and by those perpetrating the hoax. Could Joseph Smith have been the source of these errors?

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]

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

Story Element	Clayton Account	Clayton Correct?	Pratt Account	Pratt Correct?
Skeleton	Yes	Incorrect	Yes	Incorrect
Size skeleton	9 feet	Incorrect	Normal size	Incorrect
Depth buried	6 feet	Incorrect	15 feet	Incorrect
Location plates	On breast of skeleton	Incorrect	No mention	N/A
Dig site	Adams county	Incorrect	Pike county	Correct
Cement vase	No mention	Correct	Mention	Incorrect

Since no actual translation was ever forthcoming, and since there is no actual evidence for a translation being made, most believing LDS conclude that it is safe to assume that no translation actually occurred.

Evidence from William Clayton's journal

The Kinderhook plates were first brought to Nauvoo on 29 April 1843. Clayton's journal entry is for 1 May 1843 and Charlotte Haven's letter is dated 2 May 1843. On Wednesday (3 May) or Thursday (4 May) the Times and Seasons noted: "Mr. Smith has had those plates, what his opinion concerning them is, we have not yet ascertained. The gentleman that owns them has taken them away, or we should have given a fac simile of the plates and characters in this number. We are informed however, that he purposes returning them for translation; if so, we may be able yet to furnish our readers with it" The indication here is that no translation had yet occurred. It seems reasonable that what we get in Clayton's journal is largely the product of the rumor mill; hearsay, and not what actually transpired. (Actually, we know that his description of the plates discovery is entirely erroneous, leaving us to speculate on the issue of translation).

Clayton was certainly with Joseph much of the day on 1 May, but, not "all day," and certainly there were other things occurring. Among other things, Joseph's marriage to Lucy Walker at which Clayton officiated.

William Clayton's journal entry becomes Joseph's first-person account

Some critics have tried to show that Joseph did actually attempt to translate the Kinderhook Plates, based on a passage in the History of the Church that was supposedly written by Joseph himself:

I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook... I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and that he received his Kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.^[6]

However, this account of Joseph translating the plates was not written by Joseph, but is the work of an editor who, following Joseph's death, reworked William Clayton's journal entry and wrote it as if Joseph Smith had spoken it. Stanley Kimball explains:

Although this account appears to be the writing of Joseph Smith, it is actually an excerpt from a journal of William Clayton. It has been well known that the serialized "History of Joseph Smith" consists largely of items from other persons' personal journals and other sources, collected during Joseph Smith's lifetime and continued after the Saints were in Utah, then edited and pieced together to form a history of the Prophet's life "in his own words." It was not uncommon in the nineteenth century for biographers to put the narrative in the first person when compiling a biographical work, even though the subject of the biography did not actually say or write all the words attributed to him; thus the narrative would represent a faithful report of what others felt would be helpful to print. The Clayton journal excerpt was one item used in this way. For example, the words "I have translated a portion" originally read "President J. has translated a portion...."

Where the ideas written by William Clayton originated is unknown. However...speculation about the plates and their possible content was apparently quite unrestrained in Nauvoo when the plates first appeared. In any case, this altered version of the extract from William Clayton’s journal was reprinted in the Millennial Star of 15 January 1859, and, unfortunately, was finally carried over into official Church history when the "History of Joseph Smith" was edited into book form as the History of the Church in 1909.^[7]

==

Answer

==

The best argument against Joseph's attempt to translate the Kinderhook plates is most likely that no one said anything about it at the time. 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.

All we can conclude from the Clayton account is that there was considerable interest in the plates, a variety of stories concerning them, and anticipation that Joseph might translate, as the conspirators claimed they hoped he would.

== Notes ==

1. [note] Stanley B. Kimball, "Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax," Ensign 11/8 (August 1981): 66.off-site
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 1842, 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]  Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 5:372. Volume 5 link
7. [note]  See discussion in Stanley B. Kimball, "Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax," Ensign 11/8 (August 1981): 66.off-site

Further reading

FairMormon web site

• FairMormon Topical Guide: Kinderhook plates FairMormon link
  
• Ask the Apologist: How do we explain the early comments about the Kinderhook Plates? FAIR link

External links

• Wade Englund, "Kinderhook Plates: Putting an End to the Hoax," off-site
• Stanley B. Kimball, "Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax," Ensign 11/8 (August 1981): 66.off-site (Key source)

Printed material

Pending