{"id":781,"date":"2024-05-01T09:39:55","date_gmt":"2024-05-01T16:39:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/?p=781"},"modified":"2024-05-01T09:39:55","modified_gmt":"2024-05-01T16:39:55","slug":"unveiling-the-controversies-joseph-smith-and-the-enigmatic-kinderhook-plates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/novus2.com\/righteouscause\/2024\/05\/01\/unveiling-the-controversies-joseph-smith-and-the-enigmatic-kinderhook-plates\/","title":{"rendered":"Unveiling the Controversies: Joseph Smith and the Enigmatic Kinderhook Plates."},"content":{"rendered":"
\r\n
\r\n \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Illustration of the Kinderhook plates and the Nauvoo Neighbor broadside. Image via Book of Mormon Central<\/p>\n

\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\n

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) centers its history on the revelations received by Joseph Smith, particularly his translation of the golden plates that became the Book of Mormon. However, lesser-known episodes challenge the narrative of Smith’s consistent prophetic abilities. One such case involves the Kinderhook Plates, a set of allegedly ancient artifacts presented to Smith in 1843. Let’s examine some historical evidence suggesting Smith may have attempted, and ultimately abandoned, the translation of these plates.<\/p>\n

In response to the criticisms and scrutiny directed at Mormonism, both from within and outside the faith community, LDS apologists often adopt a defensive stance to safeguard their beliefs from what they perceive as attacks or misinterpretations. This defensive posture may occasionally result in what some might view as linguistic contortions or mental gymnastics1<\/a><\/sup>A complex thought process or argument that is used to bend reality to suit something, such as a particular viewpoint.<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The story is summarized in Wikipedia.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

In the late 1830s, followers of the nascent Latter Day Saint movement had been expelled from Missouri and were settling in and around modern-day Nauvoo, Illinois. By 1842, there was a congregation of around one hundred Latter Day Saints located several miles south of the village of Kinderhook. Two residents of Kinderhook, a farmer named Wilburn Fugate and a merchant named Robert Wiley, were proselytized by missionaries using the Parley Pratt tract A Voice of Warning, which used the phrase, “Truth would spring up out of the earth.” Fugate and Wiley decided to “prove the prophecy by way of a joke” and enlisted the help of Bridge Whitton, the village’s postmaster and blacksmith, to create a set of six small plates of brass. In an 1879 letter to James T. Cobb, Fugate wrote of their creation:<\/p>\n

Bridge Whitton cut them (the plates) out of some pieces of copper; Wiley and I made the hieroglyphics by making impressions on beeswax and filling them with acid and putting it on the plates. When they were finished we put them together with rust made of nitric acid, old iron and lead, and bound them with a piece of hoop iron, covering them completely with rust.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The purpose in creating the hoax has been debated. It is frequently presented as being a trap for Joseph Smith, to expose his translating abilities or lack thereof. Local recollections indicate that the creators of the hoax never intended for the plates to be delivered to Smith for translation, but as more of a community prank.<\/strong> Fugate himself stated the purpose was “simply for a joke” on the Latter Day Saint congregants, and one of his sons said that rather than being an elaborate trap for Smith it was “a little plan by which to startle the natives.”<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Presented: Exhibit “A” for the Official Church view.<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Official LDS version<\/strong><\/a>, via Book of Mormon Central: A Non-Profit Organization.<\/p>\n

In the first week of May 1843, six bell-shaped brass plates, engraved on both sides, were brought to Nauvoo by people wanting to see if Joseph Smith would translate them. These odd plates had supposedly been dug up a week or so earlier in Kinderhook, Illinois, about 60 miles to the south. Local news spread rapidly of their arrival, along with great anticipation for the presumed, forthcoming translation from Joseph. The Times and Seasons, then under the editorship of John Taylor, proclaimed confidently, \u201cWe have no doubt, however, but Mr. Smith will be able to translate.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Charlotte Haven, a non-Mormon in Nauvoo at the time, claimed to have heard from an unidentified friend that Joseph \u201csaid that the figures or writing on them was similar to that in which the Book of Mormon was written\u201d<\/strong> and \u201cthought that by the help of revelation he would be able to translate them. So a sequel to that holy book may soon be expected.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a letter to John Van Cott, Parley P. Pratt gave a brief report of the plates and ambiguously said, \u201cyou will hear more soon on this subject.\u201d<\/strong> Another non-Mormon, who was there when Joseph Smith looked at the six plates, got the impression that Joseph believed he would \u201cbe able to decipher them,\u201d<\/strong> and went on to tell the editor of the New York Herald, \u201cYou may expect something very remarkable pretty soon.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Decades later, however, one of the men involved in digging them up confessed that the plates were a forgery, perpetrated with the intent of fooling Joseph Smith. Modern scientific testing of the one remaining plate confirms they were created using 19th century methods. So did Joseph fall for the hoax? Not quite. He briefly gave these artifacts due consideration, but did not try to acquire them, retain them, or ultimately find them of any value.<\/p>\n

While some critics try to use this story as evidence<\/strong><\/span> that everything about Joseph Smith was a fraud, the historical evidence suggests that Joseph ultimately did not fall for the hoax<\/strong><\/span>\u2014he never tried to purchase the plates, hire scribes, and go into translation mode, like he did with the ancient Egyptian papyri he had purchased in Ohio. He never produced a \u201cBook of Kinderhook.\u201d Whatever Joseph Smith may have thought of the Kinderhook plates, the Lord could not be fooled. God would not and did not reveal a translation of these bogus artifacts.<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

LDS apologists present their version of events, arguing that Joseph Smith never took the Kinderhook Plates seriously as authentic artifacts. According to their narrative, Smith’s translation efforts were seen as speculative at best, or even as a form of jest, rather than a genuine attempt to interpret ancient writings.<\/p>\n

One of the primary arguments offered is the absence of any formal or official translation of the Kinderhook Plates by Joseph Smith. They point to the lack of documentation within official Mormon records detailing a comprehensive translation effort or the inclusion of the Kinderhook Plates in the canonized scriptures of the Latter-day Saints.<\/p>\n

There are two sides to this “Evidence” coin.<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

While LDS apologists may assert that Joseph Smith never took the Kinderhook Plates seriously, their argument fails to address key historical facts. Firstly, the absence of a formal translation does not necessarily imply that Smith dismissed the plates as fraudulent.<\/p>\n

Additionally, the lack of inclusion in official Mormon records or canonized scriptures does not inherently discredit the authenticity of the plates. It’s plausible that Smith’s translation efforts were inconclusive or that the plates were deemed non-canonical for reasons unrelated to their authenticity. Therefore, the absence of a formal translation or inclusion in official records does not conclusively support the argument that Smith never considered the Kinderhook Plates as authentic artifacts.<\/p>\n

\r\n
\r\n Confirmation Bias And the Power of Disconfirming Evidence<\/strong><\/a>.
\nConfirmation bias is our tendency to cherry-pick information that confirms our existing beliefs or ideas. Confirmation bias explains why two people with opposing views on a topic can see the same evidence and come away feeling validated by it. This cognitive bias is most pronounced in the case of ingrained, ideological, or emotionally charged views.\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\n

In fact, the historical record indicates that Smith initially showed interest in the plates and even attempted to translate them. William Clayton, Smith’s private secretary, recorded in his journal on May 1, 1843, that Smith examined the plates and began translating a portion of them. Then there is the letter from Apostle Parley P. Pratt dated May 7, 1843, mentioning the discovery of the plates and their supposed contents.<\/p>\n

It wasn’t until 1980<\/strong><\/a> that the plates were conclusively determined to be a hoax, based on scientific analysis of the etchings and metal composition. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Smith or other church leaders were aware of the fraudulent nature of the plates during Smith’s lifetime.<\/p>\n

Overall, while speculation exists regarding whether Smith may have eventually realized the plates were fabricated, there is no concrete evidence to support this hypothesis.<\/p>\n

Examining the counter-narratives.<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Despite LDS arguments, the Kinderhook Plates episode presents a significant challenge to the narrative of Joseph Smith’s unerring prophetic abilities. Here, we see Smith attempting translation, but the project fizzles out.<\/strong> <\/em>Notably, the Kinderhook Plates were later revealed to be a hoax. However, the historical record demonstrates Smith’s initial acceptance and even promotion of their legitimacy. This episode, along with the demonstrably false Book of Abraham translation<\/strong><\/a>, raises questions about the consistency of Smith’s revelations and the historical accuracy of the Church’s narrative.<\/p>\n

In the annals of Mormon history, the Kinderhook Plates are contentious, shedding light on the complexities of Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims. Through meticulous research by ex-Mormon scholars like Jerald and Sandra Tanner<\/strong><\/a>, alongside historical documentation, a compelling narrative emerges, affirming Smith’s involvement in a preliminary “translation” of these enigmatic artifacts.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>One crucial piece of evidence<\/strong> surfaces from the diary of William Clayton, Joseph Smith\u2019s trusted confidant and private secretary. Clayton’s entry dated May 1, 1843, provides a firsthand account of Smith’s encounter with the Kinderhook Plates. Clayton writes, “I have seen 6 brass plates… 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 Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth”<\/em> (William Clayton\u2019s Journal, cited in Trials of Discipleship\u2014The Story of William Clayton, a Mormon, page 117).<\/p>\n

This diary entry provides direct evidence that Joseph Smith claimed to have translated a portion of the Kinderhook Plates and made specific comments about their contents, including their association with a descendant of Ham and the king of Egypt. While the authenticity and accuracy of Smith’s translation remain a subject of debate, Clayton’s diary entry is widely regarded as a reliable historical source documenting Smith’s interactions with the Kinderhook Plates.<\/p>\n

Latter-day Saint scholars have extensively written about William Clayton, emphasizing his significance as Joseph Smith’s trusted confidant and private secretary. Clayton’s meticulous record-keeping and firsthand accounts provide valuable insights into the life and teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith. Scholars highlight Clayton’s role in documenting important events, revelations, and interactions within the early LDS Church.<\/p>\n

Clayton’s journals, letters, and other writings offer valuable historical context and details that contribute to our understanding of Joseph Smith’s leadership, character, and spiritual experiences. His records shed light on key doctrinal developments, organizational changes within the church, and the personal challenges faced by early Latter-day Saints.<\/p>\n

In addition to his role as a recorder of historical events, Latter-day Saint scholars also recognize Clayton’s deep personal connection to Joseph Smith. As Smith’s private secretary, Clayton had unique access to the prophet and was privy to many private conversations and moments of insight. His writings reflect not only the public activities of Joseph Smith but also provide glimpses into his personality, thoughts, and spiritual experiences.<\/p>\n

Overall, Latter-day Saint scholars view William Clayton as a crucial figure in accurately recording the life of Joseph Smith and preserving the history of the early LDS Church. His writings continue to be studied and analyzed by scholars and historians interested in understanding the foundations of Mormonism and the legacy of its founding prophet.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Clayton’s account directly contradicts the Church’s sanitized narrative, confirming Smith’s involvement with the plates and his attempt at translation.<\/p>\n

The Church’s historical publications offer further evidence. The Times and Seasons, a contemporary periodical, mentioned the Kinderhook Plates in its May 15th, 1843 issue (“History of the Church,” vol. 5, pp. 372-379). However, later Church publications downplay or omit the Kinderhook episode entirely. This inconsistency raises questions about the Church’s commitment to complete historical transparency.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Adding another layer of evidence, a letter written by Apostle Parley P. Pratt on May 7th, 1843, further supports the Kinderhook Plates’ existence. Pratt wrote, “Six plates having the appearance of Brass have lately been dug out of the 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”<\/em> (Letter of May 7, 1843). Pratt’s account aligns with Clayton’s description and reinforces the notion that Smith, at least initially, believed the plates were authentic.<\/p>\n

These historical sources confirm Joseph Smith’s engagement with the Kinderhook Plates, providing compelling evidence that he provided a preliminary “translation” of these mysterious artifacts. The revelation of Smith’s involvement in this episode adds a fascinating layer to the ongoing discourse surrounding Mormon history, inviting further exploration and contemplation of his prophetic claims.<\/p>\n

Jerald and Sandra Tanner offer insights.<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Excerpt from Answering Mormon Scholars<\/strong><\/a> Vol. 2, pages 118-123.<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>
Ex-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner are American writers and researchers who publish archival and evidential materials about the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). Jerald passed away in 2006.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

If Joseph Smith had not been murdered in June, 1844, it is very possible he might have published a complete \u201ctranslation\u201d of these bogus plates. Just a month before his death, it was reported that he was \u201cbusy in translating them. The new work which Jo. is about to issue as a translation of these plates will be nothing more nor less than a sequel to the Book of Mormon . . .\u201d<\/strong> (Warsaw Signal, May 22, 1844).<\/p>\n

The fact that Joseph Smith was actually preparing a translation of the plates is verified by a broadside published by the Mormon newspaper, The Nauvoo Neighbor, in June, 1843. On this broadside, containing facsimiles of the plates, we find the following: \u201cThe contents of the plates, together with a Fac-simile of the same, will be published in the Times and Seasons, as soon as the translation is completed.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

One Mormon scholar has argued that the \u201cbrevity\u201d of Joseph Smith\u2019s translation of the Kinderhook plates \u201cprecludes the possibility\u201d that Joseph Smith\u2019s \u201cabilities as a translator\u201d might be \u201ccalled into question.\u201d We cannot agree with this conclusion. Joseph Smith\u2019s work on these fraudulent plates casts serious doubt upon his ability as a translator of Mormon scriptures like the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This LDS writer on Reddit provides considerable verbosity<\/strong><\/a> to support his opening paragraph:<\/p>\n

The Kinderhook Plates and Joseph\u2019s attempt at translating them is something that the critics love to bring up, but when they do, they\u2019re banking on you not knowing what really happened. Once you do understand the actual circumstances, you\u2019re more likely to shrug and move on than you are to lose your testimony. Not only was this event inconsequential to the history of the Church, but it doesn\u2019t even crack the top ten of supposedly controversial things Joseph said or did.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

If you have the patience to review the entire 5,000+ word entry … please indulge yourself.<\/p>\n

In the above-linked Reddit discussion about the Kinderhook Plates and Joseph Smith’s translation, several counterarguments could be presented to challenge the claims made in the post. Here are some potential counterpoints:<\/p>\n

Lack of Contemporary Documentation:<\/strong> The claim that Joseph Smith didn’t take the Kinderhook Plates seriously relies heavily on the fact that there’s no direct mention of them in official Mormon records from the time. However, it’s essential to recognize that the absence of explicit references in these records doesn’t automatically mean Smith wasn’t involved. Historical documents from that era are frequently incomplete or biased, so the lack of documentation alone doesn’t definitively disprove Smith’s connection to the plates.<\/p>\n

Contextualizing Smith’s Statements:<\/strong> While it’s true that Joseph Smith’s comments about the Kinderhook Plates were made in a casual setting and were not part of a formal translation effort, it’s essential to contextualize these statements within the broader historical and social context. Smith’s playful demeanor and penchant for colorful language are well-documented aspects of his personality, but they do not preclude the possibility of genuine interest or consideration regarding the plates.<\/p>\n

Contemporary Accounts and Testimonies:<\/strong> There are contemporary accounts, such as William Clayton’s diary entry, that provide firsthand evidence of Joseph Smith’s interaction with the Kinderhook Plates. These accounts lend credence to the idea that Smith did, in fact, make a preliminary attempt at translation, as indicated by Clayton’s description of Smith’s interpretation of the plates’ contents.<\/p>\n

Historical Consistency:<\/strong> The argument that Smith’s translation of the Kinderhook Plates was simply a jest or speculative in nature lacks historical consistency with other instances of Smith’s translation efforts. Throughout his life, Smith claimed to have translated numerous ancient texts, including the Book of Mormon, portions of the Bible, and the Book of Abraham<\/strong><\/a>, which were taken seriously by his followers. It seems unlikely that Smith would approach the Kinderhook Plates with a significantly different attitude or methodology.<\/p>\n

In conclusion, while there are undoubtedly valid questions and various interpretations regarding Joseph Smith’s supposed translation of the Kinderhook Plates, it’s crucial to carefully assess the evidence from diverse viewpoints and take into account the wider historical context. This approach ensures that any conclusions drawn are based on a thorough examination of the factual record and are not merely speculative opinions.<\/p>\n

Quotes for consideration \u2013\u2013 from both sides.<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The contents of the plates, together with a Facsimile of the same, will be published in the \u2018Times and Seasons,’ as soon as the translation is completed.
\n– The Nauvoo Neighbor, June 1843<\/strong><\/p>\n

The point with regards to the Kinderhook Plates is that I find it quite possible that Joseph Smith was not eager to translate them because he did not control their origin. The Book of Abraham took seven years to be completed, and that was with papyri that Joseph Smith purchased and knew were at least authentic. With the Kinderhook Plates, it is possible that the unknown origins made Joseph Smith cautious about diving in, knowing that he was not in control of the story of their origins.
\n\u2013 LDS Discussions<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Joseph Smith “translated” a portion of those plates, not by claiming inspiration, but by comparing characters on the plates to those on his “Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language” (GAEL). We know that Joseph was interested in languages. He studied Greek, Hebrew, and German in a secular manner. Therefore, we can easily believe that he attempted to translate the Kinderhook plates without assuming prophetic powers, which powers consequently remain credible.
\n\u2013 FAIR: Faithful Answers, Informed Response.<\/strong> FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief and practice.<\/p>\n

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.
\n– Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr.,<\/strong> History of the Church, v. 5, p. 3<\/p>\n

Why does the circumstance of the plates recently found in a mound in Pike County, Ill., by Mr. Wiley, together with the ethnology and a thousand other things, go to prove the Book of Mormon true? \u2013 Ans. [Answer] Because it is true!
\n\u2013 Times and Seasons,<\/strong> v. 5, p. 406<\/p>\n

The new work which Jo. Is about to issue as a translation of these [Kinderhook] plates will be nothing more nor less than a sequel to the Book of Mormon\u2026
\n\u2013 Warsaw Signal,<\/strong> May 22, 1844<\/p>\n

An examination of the available sources shows a lively interest in the Kinderhook discovery on the part of Church members and of Joseph Smith himself. Eyewitnesses later confessed the whole affair was a hoax, though they made nothing of it during Joseph\u2019s life. The fact that Joseph did not treat the Kinderhook Plates as a sacred project suggests that he may have had only a scholarly interest in the plates. Or perhaps Joseph sincerely believed that the Lord had led him to another sacred record that could be translated to provide the Saints with additional scripture, but when no inspiration came he quickly abandoned the Kinderhook Plates. It may also be that both Joseph the scholar and Joseph the prophet tried to do something with the plates, but nothing really came of either approach. Although William Clayton gives fairly strong evidence that Joseph attempted to translate at least some of the plates, apparently Joseph did not go far enough for the conspirators to spring the trap.
\n\u2013 Brian M. Hauglid,<\/strong> BYU Religious Studies Center<\/p>\n

Whether Joseph suspected the forgery, thought of attempting a revelatory translation but experienced a \u201cstupor of thought,\u201d*<\/strong> or merely took a scholarly interest in the purported ancient writings (like other amateur linguists of the time) remains unconfirmed by historical accounts. Whatever he thought of the plates, he quickly lost interest in them.<\/p>\n

*stupor of thought:<\/strong> Doctrine and Covenants 9:9 “But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.”
\n\u2013 LDS Church<\/strong> History Topics<\/p>\n

I’m surprised this old argument continues to be used. If you have access to LDS periodicals, an excellent and thorough article on the Kinderhook plates was written by Dr. Stanley B. Kimball in the Ensign of August, 1981, pp. 66-74. The bottom line is that there is no proof that Joseph Smith fell for the apparent fraud of the Kinderhook plates. He apparently showed no interest in them after his initial exposure – if he even personally saw them at all.<\/strong>
\n\u2013 Jeff Lindsay,<\/strong> Vice President for The Interpreter Foundation and co-editor of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship.<\/p>\n

A recent rediscovery of one of the Kinderhook Plates which was examined by Joseph Smith, Jun., reaffirms his prophetic calling and reveals the false statements made by one of the finders … Joseph Smith, Jun., pronounced them genuine and translated a part of them … This much remains. Joseph Smith, Jun., stands as a true prophet and translator of ancient records by divine means and all the world is invited to investigate the truth which has sprung out of the earth not only of the Kinderhook Plates, but of the Book of Mormon as well.
\n\u2013 IMPROVEMENT ERA<\/a>,<\/strong> SEPT, 1962<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Mormon Stories Podcast is the longest-running and most successful podcast on Mormonism – hosted by Dr. John Dehlin. They explore, celebrate, and challenge Mormon culture through in-depth stories told by members and former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.<\/p>\n

The Kinderhook Plates<\/strong> – A Complete History, 2 hours 15 minutes, worth the time.
\nEp. 1716 | LDS Discussions Ep. 33
\n

\r\n
\r\n <\/p>\n