![FairMormon Logo](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021_fair_logo_primary.png)
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
This page is based on an answer to a question submitted to the FAIR web site, or a frequently asked question.
Given the present LDS belief that the Kinderhook plates were fraudulent, how can one explain the following things?
To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]
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.
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:
Parley P. Pratt's account reads:
The Quincy Whig's comments read:
And finally, W. Fugate, one of the perpetrators of the hoax, much later wrote:
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.
There is one more observation. The 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.
The History of the Church 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 entry and wrote it as if Joseph Smith had spoken it.[6] This was common historical practice at the time, but does not provide any additional evidence for Joseph's attitude toward the plates.[7]
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.
FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.
Donate Now